[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  EXAMINING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 STATE
                 DEPARTMENT DIVERSITY EQUITY INCLUSION,
                        AND ACCESSIBILITY BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 13, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-30

                               __________

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


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-737                      WASHINGTON : 2024                    
              
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                     
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey        GREGORY MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 AMI BERA, California
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              TED LIEU, California
MARK GREEN, Tennessee                SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 COLIN ALLRED, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California                ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               SARA JACOBS, California
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa      SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                    Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MIKE WALTZ, Florida                  JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, New Jersey              JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas
                Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
              Sophia A. Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability

                     BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chairman
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            JASON CROW, Colorado, Ranking 
DARRELL ISSA, California                 Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              DINA TITUS, Nevada
FRENCH HILL, Arizona                 COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MIKE WALTZ, Florida                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CORY MILLS, Florida                  SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas                   Florida
                                     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
                 Ari Wisch, Subcommittee Staff Director
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               WITNESSES

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Chief Diversity and 
  Inclusion Officer, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, U.S. 
  Department of State............................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    45
Hearing Minutes..................................................    46
Hearing Attendance...............................................    47

 
                  EXAMINING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 STATE
                 DEPARTMENT DIVERSITY EQUITY INCLUSION,
                        AND ACCESSIBILITY BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 
210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Brian Mast [chairman of the 
subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. Mast. All right. The Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order. The purpose of this hearing 
is to examine the fiscal year 2024 State Department Diversity, 
Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Budget, and I now 
recognize myself for an opening statement.
    What we are discussing is the budget of the office that is 
essentially the filter for all hiring and retention at the 
State Department, the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, 
and Accessibility. I believe that this office has a clever name 
that uses strong emotional words, diversity, equity, inclusion, 
but, functionally, does the opposite of what America has always 
stood for, which is very simply the best man, the best woman, 
for the job. And I believe that because of what I have heard 
from this office, what I have read from this office, and what I 
hear about this office from employees at the State Department 
that, instead of simply looking for the best man or woman for 
the job, this office is giving people the impression or giving 
many people outside of the State Department the sense that it 
is looking for a preferred race or, at minimum, not white, that 
it is looking for a preferred religion or, at minimum, not 
Christian, or that it is looked for a preferred sexual 
orientation or identity or, at minimum, not straight male.
    This office tries to justify what I have literally heard 
people call bigotry by saying the State Department needs to 
look more like America. Let me be clear in my beliefs: no part 
of our government, including the State Department, should look 
any certain way. It should reflect hard work, loyalty to 
America, patience, willingness to sacrifice, a sense of duty, 
consistency, honor, discipline, confidence. Those are the 
traits that all hiring should be based on. To hire or not hire, 
to promote or not promote, based in any part upon appearance is 
wrong and un-American.
    Before Joe Biden was sworn into office, before he was even 
elected, he made the decision that he would hire based on race, 
gender, and sexual orientation. He said I'll appoint the first 
black woman to the Supreme Court. He pledged I commit that I 
will pick a woman to be vice president. There's nothing wrong 
with appointing a black woman to the Supreme Court or as a 
candidate for vice president, but there's something 
fundamentally wrong by saying if you look Latino, if you look 
Asian, if you look Native American, if you look white or male, 
then you need not apply.
    My life has been heavily influenced by my time in combat. 
Thank God that we did not have a DEIA officer in my platoon. 
The only requirement everyday was to be the best, and, if you 
weren't, then you go back to the needs of the Army; it was that 
simple. And we ranked among the United States Army's most 
effective, committed, and lethal forces, and I could say that 
about my colleague to my left, as well.
    Today, we have before us Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-
Winstanley, the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for the 
State Department. Ma'am, I believe that your office is 
mandating division within the State Department. I could spend 
the next two hours sharing the statements that you have made or 
that your office has made, but I am going to give just a couple 
of the highlights. ``Diversity includes everything. The purpose 
is not simply to put another group at the top of the pyramid, 
but visible diversity is necessary but insufficient.''
    Another quote, ``This is a European-American burden to get 
rid of this poison.'' Another quote, ``We have to call spades 
spades. Primarily, European American men, that is who have the 
vast majority of senior positions, and that does not come about 
through merit.'' Another quote, ``When you are putting together 
panels of officers to consider for positions, that list better 
be diverse.''
    You said that we need to try to level the playing field to 
get more candidates from a wider variety of backgrounds. State 
Department, as a result, has decided to do away with the 
requirement to pass the Foreign Service Officer Test. You 
literally do not have to pass the FSO Test to become an FSO. I 
would ask somebody to name to me another profession where you 
can fail the qualifying exam and still get the job. By the way, 
I have read practice FSO tests and the information question 
given in there is not unimportant information.
    In my opinion, you have made diversity or, as I will call 
it, identity a core precept for Foreign Service officers that 
is equal to their ability to demonstrate leadership, so 
leadership is as important how you identify. You have decided 
that a key factor for promotion at the State Department is how 
well an individual falls in line with that agenda. If an 
employee uses the wrong pronouns, good luck getting promoted. 
Instead, you're going to get a mark on your record.
    The supporting information of this is stated in the DEIA 
Strategic Plan saying this: Establishing the advancement of 
DEIA as an element for all employees as a part of their job 
performance criteria, their career advancement opportunities, 
and senior performance pay. That's DEIA as an element for all 
employees.
    Ma'am, I know that you want good people working for the 
State Department, but, to require that those good people first 
look a certain way, it is not what I fought for, it is 
certainly not what I have friends of any color that have died 
for. And in that, I look forward to hearing your comments in 
response to what I brought up and what other members of this 
Committee will bring up.
    In that, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Crow for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman Mast. Well, I have some 
prepared remarks here, but I am not going to read those 
because, frankly, I was so appalled by the Chairman's opening 
remarks, I need to address it.
    Those who want to talk about merit also want to ignore 
history of this country. They want to ignore the fact that the 
playing field is not level for vast swaths of our country 
because that is not a convenient fact for them. They want to 
talk about merit as if our history and the institutional 
barriers that exist for vast swaths of our country don't exist. 
But they do.
    We need to have an honest conversation here about the value 
of diversity, about the barriers that exist for vast swaths of 
our country, and how we can realize our full potential in every 
respect. And that is the conversation that I look forward to 
and am anxious to have.
    None of this is a box-checking exercise. I don't view the 
Office of Diversity and Inclusion, I don't view the role of the 
first-ever Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer and certainly 
not your very long and important and incredible career, 
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, as anything tantamount to 
how it was characterized by the Chairman just now.
    I, too, served in combat. I led a platoon of paratroopers 
in the invasion of Iraq, and it was a platoon that represented 
this country: black, white, Asian, Hispanic, straight, gay, 
rich, poor, rural kids, urban kids, farmers, ranchers. We came 
from everywhere. And when we came together and tapped into the 
full strength of that diversity, we were greater than the sum 
of our parts. We were a team that trusted each other, that 
fought together, that survived together, that represented 
America, and as an illustration that when we do tap into our 
full strength and potential as a nation we are at our best.
    So, no, this is not a box-checking exercise. Whether we are 
talking about our national security, whether we are talking 
about our foreign policy, or we are talking about our 
diplomacy, we do not serve the American people unless we reduce 
institutional barriers, whether we recognize them, and whether 
we tap into the full talent of our nation. That is what this is 
about.
    The rest of the world sees it, too. Since this is a Foreign 
Affairs Committee that has oversight of the State Department, 
let's talk about that. The way we represent ourselves to the 
world, the way we present ourselves to the world, and the 
people that we send out to represent our nation also matters 
because the world sees themselves in so many ways in America. 
And we have to ask ourselves are we presenting ourselves as we 
are? Are we presenting all of America to the world? And if we 
are not, we also are not realizing our full potential, we also 
are not putting our best foot forward. That is what this is 
about, and I will not allow this to be pulled into the weeds to 
try to become a game of gotcha. There is a broader conversation 
that can and must be had today and everyday about the important 
role of this office, about the important work that you do, and 
I am ready and willing to have that.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Other members of the Committee are reminded that 
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
    We are pleased to have the distinguished witness before us 
today on this important topic. The Honorable Gina Abercrombie-
Winstanley is the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for the 
Office of Diversity and Inclusion at the U.S. Department of 
State. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley has served as a 
diplomat for 30 years and, prior to her current role, she was 
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Malta, Foreign Policy 
Advisor to the Commander of the U.S. Cyber Forces, and Deputy 
Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
    Thank you for being here today. Your full statement will be 
made part of the record, and I will ask that you keep your 
spoken remarks to five minutes.
    I now recognize Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley for her 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY, CHIEF DIVERSITY AND 
             INCLUSION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you, Chairman Mast, 
Ranking Member Crow, and esteemed members of the Subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the work 
of my office and the Department of State's proposed fiscal year 
2024 budget for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and 
Accessibility, or DEIA.
    As the State Department's first Chief Diversity and 
Inclusion Officer, I believe our nation's values of inclusion, 
equity, and our diversity contribute to our national strength. 
They are a comparative advantage for our engagement and 
leadership throughout the world. I am proud of what my team and 
I have been able to accomplish so far. As I prepare to 
transition, I am optimistic about the future, and I anticipate 
that my successor, yet to be named, will build on our 
achievements.
    As you know, Secretary Blinken has an agenda to modernize 
the State Department to address our national security 
challenges with maximum effectiveness. Our modernization 
efforts intend to build capacity and expertise in critical 
mission areas; encourage innovation; modernize technology and 
data usage; reinvigorate our relationship with risk; and 
recruit, retain, and empower a diverse workforce. The Biden-
Harris Administration believes diversity of thought, 
background, perspective, and lived experience must be at the 
policy-making table.
    As we work to achieve our modernization goals, I focused on 
transparency, inclusion, and accountability. So let me start 
with transparency. We cannot achieve merit-based advancement 
without data. I have worked to create a quantitative and 
qualitative baseline for the Department against which to 
measure future progress. We must make evidence-informed 
decisions. My office has now published a demographic baseline 
report that provides an unprecedented look at our bureaus 
broken down by race, ethnicity, gender, status of disability, 
grade, rank, and job series skill code. We plan to release an 
updated report annually to show trend lines.
    Now that we have a better sense of who we are, we can 
better ensure that we tap the best and brightest among all 
Americans to represent this great nation. We intend to attract, 
hire, promote, and retain talent, and remove barriers that 
might keep some from rising as far as their abilities can take 
them. This goal is widely shared by our workforce. And, 
Congress, I thank you for your leadership and support in 
improving DEIA and note that our goal is to fully implement 
congressional intent.
    My office sponsored a survey last year in which almost 
9,000 employees participated, a full third of our direct hires. 
Their top recommendation was to focus on removing barriers to 
merit-based advancement. We are now conducting three barrier 
analyses to inform possible procedural changes.
    Second, let me address inclusion. To create a more 
effective work environment, our Civil and Foreign Service 
personnel are now evaluated, in part, by how their work helps 
advanced transparency, inclusion, or accountability. We also 
developed a policy to counter discriminatory treatment of our 
U.S. employees abroad. For example, when employees experience 
discrimination abroad by foreign customs and immigration 
officials, our missions must now report it to the Department 
and protest it to the host nation government.
    Thanks to the work of this Committee, we have also 
successfully converted select internship programs to paid 
internships. This is another big win for inclusion. There are 
many young Americans across the country who cannot afford to 
offer free labor to the Department. To support greater 
accessibility, we changed the typeface used by the Department 
to one that is more accessible to those who are visually 
impaired.
    And, finally, accountability. In the survey I referenced, 
too many of our employees reported discrimination, harassment, 
or bullying, and little confidence the Department would address 
it. We intend to fix that. We intend to take on toxic conduct, 
and we have eliminated the confidentiality clause in settlement 
cases where many employees felt it was akin to a gag order that 
served to protect those who they allege had harassed or 
discriminated against them.
    Finally, let me turn to the budget that supports our 
efforts. Until recently, the Department did not track DEIA 
spending and only established a budget code for DEIA in 2023. 
The Department has a comprehensive DEIA budget request for 
fiscal year 2024 of just over $76 million. Ninety percent of 
the request is spread across other bureaus. My office closely 
coordinates with the entire Department to successfully 
implement the initiatives and ensure that there is no 
duplication of effort.
    A little under ten percent of that funding will go to my 
office. With that budget, we will fund our barrier analyses, 
travel, demographic baseline reports, and special reports on 
thematic issues. It also includes our small project initiatives 
which fund projects that advance DEIA domestically or abroad 
and would allow me to also increase my staff from 12 to 14 
positions.
    I want to express my thanks in advance for your broad 
support for the Department's workforce and our mission, as well 
as my work to advance transparency, inclusion, and 
accountability. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 
you today and respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley. I 
now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
    I am just going to start by responding to my colleague, who 
is somebody that I thank. I thank you for your service, if I 
can speak to you directly. I thank you for your service. I am 
very proud to call you a brother in arms.
    But as I observe our units, we both served in diverse units 
in the military, but it was never by demand, and that is the 
argument that I am bringing up here as we talk about service in 
the State Department or the military or anywhere else. There 
are no quotas over qualification. We didn't need an African 
American or an Asian or a white sniper or bomb tech or K-9 
handler. It was just simply who raised their hand, volunteered, 
proved that they had what they needed to make it and be 
effective in that role, and pursued it and reached their goal. 
That is what it was all about. And to give the appearance at 
any time that it is anything other than that, that is un-
American and that is the problem I have with the appearance 
that this office is giving.
    I will ask a couple of questions here. Is baldness, 
somebody that looks like me, does that make you a better 
diplomat, ma'am? I think I know the answer but----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Mast. It doesn't. If somebody is 5,8" like me or 6,3" 
like somebody else, does that make them a better diplomat?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, I do not believe so.
    Mr. Mast. Likewise, does being white make somebody a better 
diplomat?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, I do not believe so.
    Mr. Mast. African American?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, I do not believe so.
    Mr. Mast. Asian or Islander?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Any specific group.
    Mr. Mast. Native American? It doesn't. I would ask this: 
can you tell me, am I white?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would allow you to tell me 
how you characterize yourself.
    Mr. Mast. That's exactly right. I would have to tell you 
not just how I characterize myself but what I am. But I am 
asking do you know if I am white?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do not know.
    Mr. Mast. Half black?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do not know.
    Mr. Mast. Asian, Islander?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Do not know.
    Mr. Mast. Brown, Latino?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do not know.
    Mr. Mast. You can't know. You can't know without asking, 
without asking somebody to disclose what they are. And we can't 
ask what somebody is, and it shouldn't matter. It shouldn't 
matter that I am half Mexican. It shouldn't matter whether I am 
able-bodied or ambulatory or not ambulatory. That doesn't have 
anything to do with what my background is that I served in 
these operations in the military, that I gained these skills, 
that I studied this in school, that I proved that I could pass 
whatever tests under stress and duress and be effective in the 
field under situations that Foreign Service officers might 
encounter, like the withdrawal of Afghanistan, the enemy at the 
gates, people being targeted, trying to deal with countless 
number of SIVs coming in. That has nothing to do with how 
somebody looks. It has to do with did they volunteer to do 
this? Do they have the skills to do this? Did we test them to 
make sure they had the skills to do this? Do we hire hard and 
have the ability to manage a little bit easier? And that's the 
problem with what I see with what is taking place here.
    I'd ask you another question. Can you tell me what best 
looks like?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I am not sure I am fully 
understanding what you are getting at----
    Mr. Mast. What does the best candidate look like? The best 
FSO officer, we'll use that, the best Foreign Service officer, 
what does the best look like?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would say the best for the 
particular job can look like any one of us, and that is the 
American way. That is what we support.
    Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. So in that, we can't have it be that 
first we look for a diverse basket of candidates, as is your 
quote. And then, after we look for the diverse basket, then we 
check the merit of that. The diversity can't be the number one. 
I want a diverse workforce. I am glad that I served with a 
diverse force in the military, diverse colleagues as members of 
Congress, but that can't be the number one filter because it 
does create an inherent bias, an inherent quota system where 
people look at it and say, well, I wasn't this, I didn't have 
the right religion or color or what they were looking for, so I 
didn't make that diverse basket number one, as you said, that 
it has to be that, they better bring you a diverse panel.
    My time is expired. In that, I now recognize Ranking Member 
Crow for five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. I agree with the Chairman 
that it shouldn't matter what you look like, that it shouldn't 
matter if you are bald or 5,8" or 5,9" or black or white. It 
shouldn't. But in the United States of America, too often it 
does. That's just the reality, right? And our history doesn't 
really have a big history of systematic discrimination against 
bald people or people that are 5,8", but it does against people 
of color. That is just the truth.
    All of this is about reducing those barriers. It is not 
about favoring one side or the other. It is about recognizing 
our history, recognizing that all things have not been equal, 
recognizing, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that we do not 
exist in a perfect situation where what you outlined is true 
because it is not in that not everybody has access. And if we 
are going to be our best, then we have to have a level playing 
field and we have to provide everybody with access. And then if 
that level playing field exists and everybody has access, then 
we can find the best. But we can't do that right now, and that 
is the charge of these efforts.
    So in that vein, Ambassador, I would like you to just 
explain very briefly some of the changes that I believe have 
been unfairly characterized to the change in the Foreign 
Service Officer Test and the hiring process because some people 
will say that it used to be the case that applicants just had 
to go through the Foreign Service Officer Test, and then they 
would pass that gate, and then look at other criteria. But now 
we have actually broadened the aperture is my understanding. We 
look at more factors which actually increases the pool of 
applicants, which seems like a good thing to me.
    Is that accurate? And can you describe that for us, please?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely. Thank you for the 
question, and if I may respond to the Chairman's comments, as 
well. That is exactly what has happened. We have broadened the 
aperture to allow more Americans to have access to the ability 
to serve, which is really what we want.
    I think it is really important that we keep in mind that 
how one gets into the Foreign Service has changed multiple 
times over years. This is not the first change. Throughout all 
of these changes, we need to keep in mind the reality is that 
there are many people already in the Department of State before 
this latest change who never took the written exam, never took 
it, but are not questioned about it because people assume that 
they have.
    We have a number of fellowship programs, including 
Presidential Management Fellows, Boren Fellows, AAAS Fellows 
mid-level program that allows people to come into the Foreign 
Service over time. No one touched the written exam to become a 
Foreign Service officer, and these people have had successful 
careers as Foreign Service Officers. So the written test has 
never been the be-all end-all of who is going to be a 
successful diplomat.
    A former boss of mine contacted me last week and talked 
about his incoming class and how he had to take the Foreign 
Service written exam a few times before coming in, and his 
roommate passed it on the first try but mustered out within two 
years of joining the Department of State. One of the barrier 
analyses we may need to do is who comes in which way and what 
their careers look like. Some of the barrier analyses that we 
are doing are going to follow career paths over time to see are 
there barriers to success in the Foreign Service based on 
demographics. But how you come in may be something we should 
look at so that we can answer the question for those who have 
concerns that the change in the Foreign Service written test 
may lower our standards.
    But, again, already many people have come in without taking 
that test. I have heard no questions about them. Thank you.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you for that. My time is expiring, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Crow. I now recognize 
Mr. Issa for five minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Good morning, Ambassador.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Good morning.
    Mr. Issa. I want to follow up right where we left off 
there. Who made the decision to essentially jettison the 
requirement for the Foreign Service exam?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Jettison is----
    Mr. Issa. Okay. Did you participate the decision that led 
to this change?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It is not something I 
participated in at all but fully support. And it's good to see 
you, sir.
    Mr. Issa. Good to see you. It has been a long time since--
--
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Since Malta.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. Malta. On my way to Libya.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. But I want to ask because this is one of the 
things that bothers me sometimes about government 
bureaucracies. One, it is a big decision. There should be 
transparency, I am sure you agree, as to who made the decision 
and why. But following up on a couple of the last statements 
you made, you said we probably should, we probably should, we 
probably should, and, Ambassador, I couldn't agree more.
    So the question is why did either your department with 
small funding and so on or the State Department with its many 
billions, why is it that you are not coming to us with a 
comprehensive study showing the scores on these tests 
historically and whether it shows better performance? Does 
somebody who gets a minimum just as likely to succeed as 
somebody who maxes it?
    Additionally, as you know and I am proud to say it is a 
good policy of the State Department, people enter the State 
Department from all walks of life at all ages, sometimes even 
having fully retired from a first career. Do you have facts on 
how well they do?
    Lastly, I am sure you have done a study and you know the 
ratio of men and women, minorities of each category who serve 
in the State Department; is that correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, we have a Department 
baseline----
    Mr. Issa. Okay. And does it relatively, in most cases, 
particularly as to African Americans and others, reflect 
America with some accuracy, particularly when you consider 
college graduation rates?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Does the number of African 
Americans in the State Department reflect the percentage of----
    Mr. Issa. If you look at the number of African Americans 
who graduate from college and the number of white people who 
graduate from college and consider them the base of all 
applicants, is the ratio relatively similar or not?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would say probably not, but I 
am going to take that question back because I don't want to----
    Mr. Issa. I would appreciate----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. Yes, and I specifically asked from 
the qualified pool of graduates because I think it is extremely 
important that we are looking at the qualified pools, those who 
can pass and get a security clearance, those who have met the 
minimum requirements in other areas.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Although, Congressman, I have 
to add, of course, that you do not need a college degree to 
join the Foreign Service.
    Mr. Issa. It sure as hell helps.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, it is not a requirement. 
I just want to be clear on that.
    Mr. Issa. Touche.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay.
    Mr. Issa. Lastly, and there is always one zinger, 
Ambassador, and we have known each other along time, so I hope 
you will forgive this. In 2018, the New York Times did quote 
you using terms like you knew you were among the reviled, 
referring to yourself relative to President Trump's 
administration. You were pretty harsh on him. My question to 
you is does your organization now or is it in your future to 
balance, essentially, those who would vote for President Trump 
or President George W. Bush or President George H. W. Bush or 
any other relatively conservative with those who would, and I 
am not saying did, it is none of our business how somebody 
voted per se, but do you feel you have a balance between people 
of a more conservative view and of people of more liberal view 
and is that part of your diversity and inclusion?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So as you know, there is no way 
to know who people vote for because----
    Mr. Issa. Except, of course, we do know based on records 
that show over 90 percent of State Department Foreign Service 
people do vote in the Democrat primary, do vote for Democrats. 
I mean, the press has reported pretty widely that it is not 50/
50 or even 60/40.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, that is not part of the 
purview of my office. We are not----
    Mr. Issa. Okay. But I ask you because the purview of your 
office can and will expand with time. I ask you to beg the 
question of do you already have an inherent bias toward 
liberals, Democrats, overwhelmingly? And if so, is that, in 
fact, part of balancing, if you will, America? And if not, 
should it be? And you can answer for the record. I apologize 
for running over.
    But, Ambassador, it is good to see you again. I wish you 
well in your future endeavors.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. I now recognize 
Ms. Titus for five minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I hardly know where to 
begin, but let me start by saying, as I look at your resume, it 
is so impressive. We are so honored and pleased to have you 
here and appreciate what all you have done at the State 
department and worry that, if you step down, who will continue 
this good work within this division and in the Department 
overall. So thank you for that. You said that the person hasn't 
been appointed, but do you know who will be following in your 
footsteps? How are you leaving a record for them to know, kind 
of an exit memo perhaps?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I cannot say names to keep me 
out of trouble. However, I am leaving behind two incredible 
things: a fantastic staff who are informed, dedicated, and have 
helped bring us this far, a superb deputy who will stand in 
until my successor is named, and I am leaving behind the entire 
workforce. Chairman Mast asked me the other day about what I 
was proud of, and it is that this conversation about what 
American stands for, about our need to level that playing field 
so that everyone who wants to serve our country can to the best 
of their abilities. That conversation is happening in offices 
and missions around the world, and people are thinking about 
how to further it, how to ensure that their colleagues can give 
their best, do their best. And that I leave behind. So it is 
not a one-woman job.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much for that. They must be 
very proud to continue that work and to have worked with you.
    You know, today's questions are directed to the State 
Department's Office of Diversity, but this isn't new. You are 
seeing around the country offices of diversity and inclusion 
being attacked. You see them in Florida, for example, where 
universities that have such offices are now going to be denied 
state funding. This is something that is part of the whole new 
anti-woke or anti, I don't know, anti-everything agenda of some 
of those on the other side.
    We worked very hard last session to be sure that people 
with disabilities were included, not only included within the 
workforce of the State Department but also in the policy of the 
State Department, so we could lead by example when we are 
dealing with other countries. Now the emphasis has shifted to 
LGBTQ issues. I have the Globe Act which is another attempt to 
say the State Department needs to be like the people it 
represents, and it needs to set an example when people look to 
us. It is not do as I say, it is do as I do, and I think that 
is a big improvement.
    You also said part of modernization was recruitment. I 
wanted to ask you what your ambassadors and residents are doing 
or how your recruitment has expanded to include Historical 
Black Colleges and minority-serving colleges. UNLV, where I 
taught for 35 years, that is one of the most diverse campuses 
in the country. We would like to have an ambassador in 
residence. We would like to see the State Department there to 
do recruiting. Could you address that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you for the question. I 
know that we have expanded the program a bit. Obviously, it all 
comes down to funding. I have had the privilege of doing some 
recruiting myself, every senior officer, everybody from the 
Department, should be doing it whenever we are home--and going 
down to a community college in Texas and doing it with the 
Diplomat in Residence who is from our Diplomatic Security 
Bureau, and it was fantastic to see her in action and the 
excitement of the young people. Because you don't need a four-
year degree to join the Department or even a two-year degree.
    So we are doing it. I will also say that there are people 
like me. When I left the Department in 2017, I set up my own 
Diplomat in Residence program because I wanted to make sure 
that we were recruiting to support the organization and to do 
it in the middle of the country, so I did it in Ohio. So we are 
figuring out how we can expand that program, but it is very 
active, very robust, and we are using technology to get to 
places that we don't have enough people to get to in person.
    Ms. Titus. I think that is great. You know, part of the 
Globe Act that I mentioned is to make the special envoy for 
human rights and LGBT rights a legislatively-declared and 
established position. Do you think that would help the State 
Department both internally and with policy with other countries 
and help our own diplomats abroad who have maybe same-sex wives 
who are feeling discrimination from host countries because of 
their own policies, and we have seen that certainly even 
recently with discrimination. Would that be helpful?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. I would certainly bow to 
the wisdom of Congress on that. I will say that our special 
representative, the current one, is doing an amazing job. I 
have done some programs with her and heard her speak and 
advocate for what we know in this nation, which is that 
everybody should have the same rights and privileges and 
responsibilities. And I have worked with prior ones. So it is 
an important role.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you so much. And I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentlewoman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Waltz for five minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, like my 
colleague, I don't even know where to begin from a different 
perspective here. Ma'am, I represent one of the poorest 
counties in Florida. It is predominantly white. There are whole 
swaths that are rural, little access to internet, little access 
to broadband, the only county that actually declined in terms 
of its median income over time, and much like other counties in 
middle America that have been gutted by the loss of 
manufacturing, that have been overrun with fentanyl, that have 
an opioid crisis.
    Are these constituents of mine privileged? It's a primarily 
Caucasian, I guess, county. Are they privileged systemically?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I can't speak to individuals in 
your----
    Mr. Waltz. Because I have to tell you, I think where you 
see the pushback coming here is that people being told that 
they're privileged because of their skin color or because of, I 
guess, their ancestry from hundreds of years ago came from 
Europe, they don't even know, I don't even know where my 
ancestors came from, but am I white, as the Chairman asked? You 
don't know, right? We have to self identify.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. You have to self identify.
    Mr. Waltz. So I think the issue is multifold. One, we're 
historically a country of merit; and, to hold people or to 
provide additional resources to one group based on a skin color 
because of things that have happened in the past and not to 
another, it's a zero sum in terms of resources. So are we 
excluding others because of their skin color or sexual 
orientation or what have you and providing those resources to 
other as just an underlying philosophy in your office?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you for the question. No. 
I will absolutely agree that we are a country where our ideal 
has been merit. But we have many, many examples of where that's 
not been the case, that is not the case.
    Mr. Waltz. Are we systemically a racist country? Is there 
systemic racism in the State Department? We'll just keep it 
within your purview.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We certainly have policies, 
processes, and procedures that we have to take a hard look at 
to ensure that that is not the case. I will give you an 
example----
    Mr. Waltz. No, but--sure. Quickly, though, please.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. We have changed how we do 
our selection of one of the most important senior positions in 
the Department, deputy assistant secretary, which is senior. An 
ambassador comes back to that position, someone goes from that 
position to be an ambassador.
    Until the creation of our office where we could have a look 
at and review the processes, those positions were not 
advertised. They were not competed. You had to be in the know 
or known and liked by someone to have even the knowledge the 
position was----
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. So we're going to compete the position. 
Got it.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Right. But I'm just----
    Mr. Waltz. Right. What does that have to do with diversity, 
equity, and inclusion?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Because the people who 
traditionally have been in the know are largely from a single 
group. It's knowledge----
    Mr. Waltz. What group?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. According to the numbers from 
GAO and our own demographic baseline, the majority of senior 
positions in the Department of State, over 80 percent, are held 
by European Americans, over 50 percent are held by men.
    Mr. Waltz. Am I a European American?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Is your heritage from Europe?
    Mr. Waltz. I actually don't know.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay. Then I can't answer 
that----
    Mr. Waltz. I actually don't know. I can tell you that I 
married into a Middle Eastern family. My son is half Arab. What 
box does he check for your office?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So we have expanded the 
opportunities for self-identifying in the Department of State. 
There are now 16 options that include a Middle East North 
African option, so if your son comes to work for the Department 
of State----
    Mr. Waltz. I got you.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley [continuing]. He can identify 
that way.
    Mr. Waltz. So I think we are going to continue to 
proliferate boxes, right, as we continue to have an interracial 
country. I mean, we are the melting pot.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. As you know, identifying 
Americans has been done from almost the very beginning of our 
nation, since 1790.
    Mr. Waltz. I know. At some point, at some point, I don't 
know when it stops. When are we there?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, I think when we get our 
level playing field. When people are not making decisions on 
what----
    Mr. Waltz. I don't know that we'll----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley [continuing]. Background is, 
we'll be fine.
    Mr. Waltz. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Kim for five minutes.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ambassador, for 
coming out here. I was going to ask you a bunch of questions 
about the challenges of recruitment, but I have to say, you 
know, I have really struggled through this conversation so far 
in this hearing.
    I believe I am the only person in Congress that served in a 
career capacity at the State Department, and it was a great 
experience. I really enjoyed it. I had great opportunities to 
do assignments both domestically and abroad. I had the chance 
to go out to Afghanistan and serve as a civilian out there. And 
I remember when I returned back from my tour in Afghanistan, I 
was serving at the main State Department, and I showed up to 
work one day and there was this white envelope on my keyboard 
and I opened it up, and it was a letter that was now informing 
me that I have now been banned from working on issues related 
to the Korean Peninsula because I am Korean American and 
because of my family's, you know, ties still there and things 
like that.
    And it kind of struck, I was quite shocked by it. I wasn't 
even trying to work on anything related to Korea. I was very 
happy continuing to work on the Middle East. And, you know, it 
was something that really made me wonder whether or not I had a 
future here at the State Department, whether or not I could 
continue on if my employer, the United States government, was 
questioning whether or not I would be able to adequately 
represent and loyally represent the United States. It made me 
feel like they were saying that, when it came to the issues of 
Korea, that they didn't know what I would do. And that 
questioning of my loyalty honestly made me feel like they 
didn't see me as 100-percent American, and I remember I talked 
to some of my colleagues and others and they just told me, hey, 
look, if you are not trying to work on Korea, just ignore it.
    And I tried to figure out where I could go to remedy the 
situation. There was really no place at the time that I felt 
like I could be heard, and it made me wonder whether or not I 
could, you know, I was thinking about maybe applying for a job 
on the seventh floor to work for the secretary or the deputy 
secretary, but could I even be competitive for a job if I am 
not allowed to work on the issues of the Korean Peninsula, 
which is obviously a huge issue but also, again, my question of 
my loyalty was at stake there.
    So I guess my question to you is I didn't feel like I had a 
place to go at that time. Is your office a place that, had it 
been in existence at that time, a place I could have gone and 
sought counsel, as well as try to find ways to remedy the 
situation?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It may well have been. 
Certainly, we hear from a number of colleagues from around the 
building on a number of issues. We do not resolve individual 
problems. We look after systemic issues but----
    Mr. Kim. But it is a place where, if I raised these types 
of issues, you would be able to look into it and see how we can 
make the State Department a place better attuned to these 
different challenges and also understand the perspectives that 
people bring; is that correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely, that is correct.
    Mr. Kim. There was another experience that I had when I 
worked abroad. You know, I was, on occasion, kind of ridiculed 
or teased by foreign officials in foreign governments and 
foreign organizations that didn't think I was American, didn't 
think I could properly represent America, and then kind of 
would tease me and say, oh, maybe he can just represent the 
Chinatowns of America. Is that a place where I could have gone 
and potentially talked to somebody about how I was being 
treated and how we could try to work to better remedy these 
situations and make people feel more comfortable?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Congressman, absolutely. I am 
extremely proud that we led the change of policy in the 
Department about how missions treat this sort of behavior that 
many of our diplomats come across for one reason or another, 
because of their ethnic background, their racial background, 
their sexual orientation, their gender, disability, where 
people question their role as a U.S. diplomat. And now----
    Mr. Kim. Even domestically, you know, I had people in the 
United States government both at State Department and 
elsewhere, when I talked about I worked on Middle East issues, 
they were confused that I worked on Middle East issues and some 
said to me, oh, I didn't know your people would be interested 
in the Middle East, I assumed you would want to work on Asia 
issues.
    Is that something that I could have potentially raised to 
an office like yours to be able to remedy and try to find ways 
that we can address these issues, make people more aware of 
that kind of challenge and what kind of hurtfulness that would 
be driven from that kind of word?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, if it was something short 
of an EEO complaint, because if it was, depending on the 
circumstances, you might better go to the Office of Civil 
Rights. But, certainly, that is one of the inclusion, 
microaggression is what it is called and educating ourselves 
that, you know, we are all on a journey, we can all 
microaggress against someone else. Yes, we do try and help----
    Mr. Kim. I just want to end here by just saying I was very 
proud of my time at the State Department, but there is a lot 
more work we need to do to try to fix these problems going 
forward.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Moran for five minutes.
    Mr. Moran. Madam Ambassador, in your role as the Chief 
Diversity and Inclusion Officer within the State Department, 
who do you directly report to?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I report to the Secretary of 
State.
    Mr. Moran. Do you have an executive team or a set of key 
leaders that you rely on to fulfill your duties on a day-to-day 
basis?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. My team in my office, yes.
    Mr. Moran. How many would you say that is?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Oh, everybody in the office, so 
all 12 and as many volunteers I can find.
    Mr. Moran. Do you agree that strict adherence to federal 
employment law is imperative to effectively performing your 
duties in the role as Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Moran. This is simply because you want to lead by 
example, correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Moran. I presume that the Office of Diversity, Equity, 
and Inclusion has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to 
discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment. Is 
that true?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That is true.
    Mr. Moran. Has anyone in the Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion or any of its key leaders, these 12 individuals you 
referenced, been the subject of any EEO complaints?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would not be able to comment 
on that.
    Mr. Moran. Tell me why you would not be able to comment on 
that.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. From knowledge. So when it is 
in that process, then that is in that process and----
    Mr. Moran. Aren't you notified when there's an EEO 
complaint with respect to any of the 12 individuals you 
mentioned?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. As a responsible officer, 
yes.
    Mr. Moran. So have you been notified of any EEO complaints 
of those 12 individuals or yourself with respect to their 
performance of duties in the State Department?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. Okay. Who was that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I am not at liberty to say 
that.
    Mr. Moran. Well, that is interesting because you said in 
your commentary earlier, I wrote this quote down, ``I focused 
on transparency, inclusion, and accountability,'' and you said 
also, quote, ``We have eliminated confidentiality clauses.''
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That is correct.
    Mr. Moran. Did I understand you correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. And if you continue with that 
quote, it says in the settlement, what the outcome was. I have 
not been informed of outcomes.
    Mr. Moran. I didn't ask about the outcome.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay. Right. But I am saying 
that is where the removing the confidentiality provision, that 
is where that obtains----
    Mr. Moran. Okay. So of those complaints that were filed, 
what were the outcomes of those complaints?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I have no idea. I have not been 
informed.
    Mr. Moran. You didn't take it upon yourself to understand 
how those complaints of EEO problems within your office were 
actually resolved?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So let me say this: my 
responsibility and desire is to maintain a workforce and an 
office that is absolutely free of any sort of discrimination, 
harassment, bullying, all of those things.
    Mr. Moran. And I agree with that. I want to do the same 
thing----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Right. So I am saying that----
    Mr. Moran. As a person that would oversee only 12 
individuals in their office, if I was running that office, I 
would want to know how those things were resolved.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. And I am saying to you that, by 
law, by law, first I have to follow the law, that I have not 
been informed of where the matter stands. The Office of Civil 
Rights has the lead.
    Mr. Moran. Were you the subject of any of those EEO 
complaints?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Not that I know of, no.
    Mr. Moran. But you would know about that, wouldn't you?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. So I'm just, I'm----
    Mr. Moran. So are you 100-percent certain that you were not 
the subject of----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, I am----
    Mr. Moran [continuing]. Any of those EEO complaints?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley [continuing]. 100-percent 
certain.
    Mr. Moran. Has any of your supervisors in the State 
Department ever talked to you about changing your speech or 
conduct with respect to those that you supervise so that you do 
not get into a situation where you are in violation of the laws 
with respect to discrimination, harassment, or hostile work 
environment?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. Have you ever been counseled to change your 
speech with respect to the way you perform your duties at all?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. Have you ever been counseled to change your 
conduct at all?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. Have any allegations with respect to any EEO 
complaints or problems or allegations led to your departure 
later this month?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. Are you having any internal issues with any of 
those 12 individuals that led to your departure later this 
month?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. You mentioned earlier that you talked about the 
confidentiality clauses. Have you been a party to any 
confidentiality agreements or settlement agreements with 
respect to your speech or conduct while employed at the State 
Department?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Moran. With respect to the budget, how much money is 
budgeted to settle any claims internally with respect to 
harassment, discrimination, or hostile work environment claims?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Within my office?
    Mr. Moran. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely none.
    Mr. Moran. Was any money expended last year with respect to 
that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Moran. All right. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your 
time.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Of course.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick for five minutes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 
Thank you so much, Ambassador, for being here. It is truly an 
honor to have you here, and thank you so much for your service. 
I wanted to start off with talking about the pipeline and 
recruitment. Congress and the Department has placed significant 
focus on recruiting individuals from a variety of backgrounds 
from across the United States with recruitment events all over 
the country, fellowships that are designed to better attract 
individuals in historically excluded groups, and, thanks to the 
provisions passed into law by Congress, offering a large number 
of paid internships at the Department to create more 
opportunities for individuals from different socioeconomic 
backgrounds. Data studies conducted by GAO and the Department 
suggest that these efforts have a positive impact on diversity 
at the entry level.
    It seems like there's an underlying assumption by our 
Republican counterparts that assumes that diversity and 
inclusion somehow diminishes or undermines excellence and 
merit. Could you please speak to the positive attributes, and 
does it, in fact, undermine excellence and merit when it comes 
to recruitment?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, I look at this Committee 
as a wonderful example of a range of diversity, of backgrounds, 
of views, experiences, and how much richer the discussion has 
been because of it. The Department of State is exactly the 
same.
    In order to bring the widest array of recommendations, 
proposals, possibilities for solutions to the many, many 
challenges that our nation currently faces, we need a wide 
array of perspectives and views and lived experience and 
background to help us engage and serve the American people and 
our national security interest. That is just fact.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So then it is a fallacy that 
diversity and inclusion undermines merit and excellence?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Also, I wanted to talk about the 
promotion and retention. Promotion and retention of lower-level 
staff has repeatedly been identified as significant challenges 
for the Department, including as contributing factors for the 
lack of diversity at the mid and senior levels, challenges 
posed by the diplomatic career on family and personnel, 
insufficient opportunities for skills development and career 
advancement, accountability for bullying and harassment, and 
efforts by the previous administration to crack down on 
employees perceived to have differing political views have all 
contributed to this challenge.
    In response, the Department set up a retention unit 
specifically tasked with looking at the obstacles to retaining 
talent and the Department's investment in significant resources 
and developing the purpose-appropriate reforms. Promotion rates 
have repeatedly been identified with the GAO and various think 
tanks, and former diplomats as shortcomings that have hamstrung 
the Department's ability to retain a more diverse workforce and 
ensure that there are ample opportunities to access.
    Can you explain some of your work that the office is doing 
for retention?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So our office absolutely 
supports the Retention Unit, which is housed in Global Talent 
Management. It is in our HR department, as opposed to ours, but 
we partner. Our climate survey certainly helped inform some of 
the questions that the Retention Unit is working from and on. 
We started a review of those who had already left the 
Department that was funded by my office to help set that 
baseline, what questions need to be asked, where are the 
challenges that people leaving prematurely, what are they 
finding, because the reality is, if people leave before we are 
getting our full muster from them, we are not using taxpayer 
money that it takes to train them, to house them, to send them 
around, to have them be excellent representatives of the United 
States. So are working hard to fix our retention problem.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. You started to speak a little bit 
about how it is difficult to be promoted, especially through 
the relationships. And as I have been traveling on different 
codels and spoke to different people, specifically the women 
have spoken about how difficult it is to be promoted. Now, 
these women were of all different backgrounds, all different 
colors. Could you please speak to why it is so difficult for 
them?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I can't speak to individual 
cases. We all have our own experiences and challenges. All of 
us, male, female, et cetera. You know, it may be that women 
traditionally take on that burden of managing family, as well 
as profession, and in the Department of State and particularly 
when you are traveling around the world, it is hard. We are 
looking into that specifically and in cooperation with one of 
our employee organizations, as well.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, the women specifically 
talked about the ability to know about opportunities, how to 
execute jobs, just having the relationship with senior staff 
members.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. So this is one of the ways 
that, as a senior manager, when we talk about DEIA and what you 
can do about it, it is ensuring that you are connecting and 
supporting, developing your more junior staff, not because they 
remind you of you or that you went to the same school or come 
from the same state but that you are being equitable in your 
counseling, in your mentoring, in your sponsoring, helping 
people get jobs, helping people get the training that will set 
them up for career progression.
    So these are things that we are looking for from our 
leaders and our mid-level managers.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Burchett for five minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, I was looking 
at your name and I just couldn't help but ask you, when you 
have to fill out those little forms, you have to put your 
initials in the bubbles, do you run out of bubbles----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. What do you do? Do you just around to the 
end----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. You know, I've stopped at 
Abercrombie-Winstanle, Abercrombie with just B-I, et cetera, 
yes.
    Mr. Burchett. My best friend in high school or junior high 
school, his name was Christopher, and they ran out of names and 
they would always call him out as Christ and we always got a 
big kick out of that.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, that is not bad.
    Mr. Burchett. Being Baptist, we could laugh about that. 
Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for being here. I will go straight 
to my questioning. I wonder, would you agree that, if this was 
true, that this would be illegal discrimination if people were 
not being hired at the State Department because they were told 
they were the wrong religion, they were disabled, or they were 
straight, white, men, that that would constitute illegal 
discrimination?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. Well, Chairman Mast actually wrote a 
letter to, he was then the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs--that is almost like 
Congress, we give everybody these long titles, and I never 
understand why--to the bureau's workforce regarding new 
assignments, and he reported that certain candidates could not 
be hired because they had a disability, they were white men, 
they were straight white men, or they were not of the right 
religion.
    None of that is legal and none of it seems to comport to 
what the Department regulations are. Would you care to comment 
on that at all?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would say that that was taken 
out of context. That is not what it says, in fact. And the 
email, I did have the ability to see the letter, does say that 
those were things he had heard, not that those were things that 
were happening.
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. Would you mind----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. And he corrected----
    Mr. Burchett [continuing]. Corresponding with my office to 
correct that issue, please? I would really--or somebody in your 
group could do that.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We will take it back.
    Mr. Burchett. How much money does the State Department 
spend on DEIA advisors annually?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would have to take that 
question back to get you an exact figure.
    Mr. Burchett. Because this is a budget hearing and I was--
--
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Understood. But the advisors 
are often funded out of bureaus, not out of the central DEIA 
funding, so they don't come out of my budget. And some advisors 
have full-time positions and some advisors have 50 percent so--
--
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. If somebody could get that to me, that 
would be great. I would really appreciate it because this is a 
budget hearing I was told.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. You have requested $2.9 million for 
unconscious bias training. Can you explain to me what that 
would involve?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. That funding is being 
requested by Global Talent Management. Again, it is not my 
office's funding. It is out of--I am sorry. That would be--
sorry. The Foreign Service Institute, our training institute. 
And so that would be for the development of training, and they 
are doing a hard wash of everything that we are offering in the 
DEIA space.
    I can take it back and get from them specifically how that 
breaks down----
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. That would be fine. I would appreciate 
you getting back to me again. Do the State Department employees 
earn more money if they engage in unconscious bias training?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. Is merit or race more important to 
consider when hiring for a State Department leadership 
position?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We hire for merit. We hire for 
merit.
    Mr. Burchett. I have a saying, put the best player in, 
coach.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. There you go.
    Mr. Burchett. Does your office help counter some of the 
diplomatic efforts of our enemies?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Oh, I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. Would you say it is a goal of your 
office to ensure State Department employees have access to 
gender transitioning surgery?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Your question is is it a goal 
of my office?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Burchett. Okay. But it is occurring, I assume.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do not believe so, but I will 
take that back for our medical unit to specifically respond.
    Mr. Burchett. If you could, please.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I believe I am just about out 
of time, and I will yield back the 32 seconds that you have so 
earned so graciously.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Burchett, for yielding that 30 
seconds back to the Chair.
    Mr. Burchett. It is a precious 30 seconds.
    Mr. Mast. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Dean for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, it is a 
delight to have you here and to be talking about this important 
topic and the important work that you are doing. I have to say 
that, for decades, my husband is in the bicycle industry, and 
for decades he has talked about what diversity has done for his 
industry. Back in the day, when he first started out, it was a 
mostly men's club. But through his own hiring over the course 
of the last 25 years, he has said how his diverse workforce, 
more women, people of all different backgrounds, faiths, 
experiences, riding a bike or not, has improved what they do 
and has improved what they sell, frankly.
    The corporate world has been learning this over time. I 
have to say diversity in my own office has made my work better. 
I am confident of it. The more diverse people and experiences 
are around me, it just offers me such insights and such smarts, 
and I am lucky to have a very diverse team. So you might 
imagine that I am a little puzzled by some of the lines of 
questions that you are receiving.
    Let's start with budget. You have asked for, I think, the 
budget line item is just over $76 million, and, as you say, I 
think most goes to the bureaus, ten percent would go to your 
office directly. What would that budget look like and what will 
it enable you to do, in addition to the two hires you talk 
about? Specifically, what would that enable you to do?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So, our projected spending 
would include $3.8 million on data projects. Some of the things 
that we have heard today we might be taking a look at with that 
money. We also have had about 24 requests from Congress on 
various aspects of data, so we have got to put that together 
and we want to be as responsive as possible.
    About $200,000 will be used to conduct a follow-up climate 
survey to see whether we have made improvements. I feel certain 
we have, but we want to document that we have made improvements 
from the first climate survey that we did.
    We will be purchasing a position for a staff assistant in 
the office. And $900,000 will cover additional data analysts so 
that we can do the barrier analysis. At this time, we are at 
the mercy of where the data analysts sit in other parts of the 
building so in order to be as efficient and as effective as 
possible.
    It is about $200,000 we have for travel. As you know, most 
of our workforce is overseas. We do as much as possible town 
halls via video but answering questions, making sure people 
understand what this is about, that we are not trying to put 
one group or a different group at the top of the pyramid, that 
inclusion is for everyone. As we talk about the changes that we 
have made, the travel is necessary.
    We also fund a project called the CDIO's Small Project 
Initiative, which is available to offices, to bureaus, to 
missions around the world for innovative projects that support 
DEIA. We have had things around the world like bystander 
intervention training, something I am very enthusiastic about 
because it can be used in many different ways and gives people 
the tools in the moment to make a situation better.
    And then about $2 million for a national ad campaign. My 
deputy and I both were former, are former Peace Corps 
volunteers. And I think she made the decision when she was 10, 
I made the decision to join the Peace Corps when I was 11, and 
I made that decision from a commercial I saw. They called it 
the hardest job you will ever love and held that in my head 
until I graduated from college and could join. We know the 
importance of communicating the privilege to serve and how best 
to do it.
    Ms. Dean. I will have to show that commercial to my 11-
year-old granddaughter to inspire her. You talked about, with 
the remaining time I have, the interviews of nearly 9,000 
employees. What are some of the greatest takeaways in terms of 
the barriers you are examining there?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, transparency and 
accountability are huge barriers for us that we are getting 
after. We have made the change with the senior assignments. We 
are changing, as best practice, how we do that hiring, that, 
again, it is not because you know somebody or you worked with 
somebody that you get the job, that they are advertised and 
fairly competed, that we are clear and transparent about what 
we are looking for in the individual positions so that people 
know the playing field is level and that they can advocate for 
themselves.
    And I do want to say very quickly the first person to 
benefit from the change in the senior assignments was a white 
male who came to me and said I may not be your demographic, but 
I benefitted. I said you are. That ``I'' is inclusion, and it 
means everybody.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for your service to our country at so 
many different times in your career, and I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Mills for five minutes.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador. 
Do you feel that, in the role that you are in right now, do you 
support self identification?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, yes, I do.
    Mr. Mills. And in understanding that, if you were to have a 
group of males of Caucasian or any skin color who identified as 
a woman of color, would you describe that room as being a 
diverse room?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I can't even wrap my mind 
around that . . . I don't have an answer for that.
    Mr. Mills. But that is actually what your department is 
about is understanding diversity and equity and inclusion, 
correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Mills. So, again, I ask my question. You believe in 
self identification. If a group of males, Caucasian or any skin 
color, identifies as a woman of color, do you see that as a 
diverse room?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do not believe that they 
would have to identify as a woman of color for it to be a 
diverse room. They could have an invisible disability, yes.
    Mr. Mills. So then to go follow up on that, is diversity 
defined by race and gender or by experience and ideology?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It is defined by many, many 
things. The executive order is a much broader definition than 
simply the classes that are protected under U.S. law. So we 
would start with the law, but it is much broader than that.
    Mr. Mills. You see, you said that the Foreign Service 
Officers Test, one of the things that our process does not do 
is test for racists or sexists or homophobes, or ableists. 
Those are things that we need to be screening for. But let me 
be clear. I agree there shouldn't be any hateful in the ranks 
of our State Department, our diplomatic services, or in 
government as a whole. I would strive to say that our endeavor 
would be to not have that anywhere in America. But what I would 
say, however, and critically, is I think I speak for many 
Americans who have a good reason to believe that the State 
Department has a deeply-misguided belief that hate is labeled 
and applied to anyone who has a disagreement in their ideology 
or their political affiliations. And, see, just to be clear on 
that point, the differences in opinion or belief is not racist 
or sexist or ableist or any other type of labeling. And what 
you see is is that, when an individual disagrees, whether it be 
on his political opinions or things like this, he is 
immediately labeled based on his skin color that he is to have, 
as my colleague was pointing out, white privilege, right, and 
that is the immediate assumption.
    So I want to know, because you talked about the fact, and 
this is your quote, that we hire based on merit. If it is hired 
on merit, then why would we even need an office to focus on 
diversity, equity, and inclusion if we are hiring by those who 
are most qualified?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The issue is access and 
inclusion and----
    Mr. Mills. But access is granted by merit, correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Access? No, no.
    Mr. Mills. You submit your application and, if you are the 
most qualified----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, sir.
    Mr. Mills [continuing]. Then you should have it basically. 
But that is what we are looking towards, right? The idea of 
merit being the defining factor.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. When I say access, for 
instance, one of the things that Congress has helped us do is 
pay our interns. I could not afford to be an intern at the 
Department of State. I come from Ohio. I had to work. So 
access----
    Mr. Mills. I completely get that, as well, ma'am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay. So let's talk----
    Mr. Mills. I came from a broken family who----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay.
    Mr. Mills [continuing]. My mother and father, my dad spent 
30 years in prison, my mom spent seven years in prison. I 
bounced house to house until I was raised and finally adopted 
by grandparents after sleeping on couches of house neighbors 
and things like this. And he was a welder. My grandmother did 
hair as a beautician. We came from a below-the-average line of 
economics, which guess what? I sit here as United States 
congressman of which 11,500, on average, has done in our entire 
history, not based on diversity, equity, and inclusion but on 
the ideas that equal opportunity exists thanks to America and 
the things that we fight for.
    I want to ask what is the definition and difference between 
equity and equality?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. There are many wonderful 
examples of how to describe the difference between the two. 
Equality is that you each are in a place and you get a ball 
with a target ahead of you. Equity is, if you are smaller, 
weaker, you might be placed closer to the target.
    Mr. Mills. See, I can answer that really quickly. My 
opinion of equity and equality is equity is about equal 
outcome----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Mills [continuing]. And equality is about equal 
opportunity and that the bottom line is is that I would love to 
find out, in my last few seconds, how DEIA helps us win 
strategic competition when it comes to China or push back on 
Russia's illegal war in Ukraine or prevents nuclear Iran. You 
know, can you name one meaningful contribution that DEI efforts 
would make towards those priorities?
    And with that, I will yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. May I answer?
    Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am, you may.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay, all right. To have a 
wider array of experiences at the table as we grapple with 
these problems is going to help us come up with a wider array 
of options to address them. If you have the same people sitting 
at the table with similar backgrounds, similar experiences, you 
are going to have a very narrow range of options. That is why 
we are trying to broaden the aperture in that fashion. That is 
our belief, and, as I said, I think this rich discussion today 
makes my point very, very well. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lieu for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ambassador 
Abercrombie-Winstanley, for your public service. The State 
Department has had and continues to have certain policies that 
disproportionately and negatively impact minorities, and one of 
those policies were assignment restrictions that Representative 
Kim so eloquently talked about where a State Department 
employee would suddenly be given a notice they could not work 
on certain countries and, as far as Representative Kim could 
tell, it was just based on his race. And when we looked at the 
data, it did appear that certain groups, such as Asian 
Americans, were negatively impacted.
    I commend Secretary Blinken for eliminating all assignment 
restrictions on an ongoing forward basis. I commend Secretary 
Blinken for eliminating half, actually more than half of the 
existing assignment restrictions.
    So my first question to you is I assume you agree with 
Secretary Blinken's policy changes?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Lieu. And you would agree that having these policies 
then would have a negative impact on the State Department to 
attract the best and brightest because, if you believe that you 
were hampered from being able to work on a certain area of the 
world, you are never going to make it to the upper levels of 
management, correct?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I don't believe we have or 
should have second-class American citizens.
    Mr. Lieu. I appreciate your view and your comment on that. 
So let me ask you this: why not remove all assignment 
restrictions right now? There is still some that exist in the 
State Department.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I can take that question back 
to the Department because my office is not involved in the 
discussions with Diplomatic Security on this particular issue, 
so I would have to take that question back.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. We could do that. And then if you 
could take another question back, which is this: the State 
Department has a separate process called passthroughs, also 
known as assignment reviews, which would also restrict someone 
from working on a certain area or certain country for a 
specific assignment. And I think some other employee groups 
within the State Department are concerned that this is sort of 
a backdoor way to simply implement assignment restrictions. So 
if you could also take back the question of we would like to 
know how these decisions are being made and why is this not 
simply a backdoor way of implementing assignment restrictions. 
And if we could get an answer to that, that would be greatly 
appreciated.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lieu. A question to you about trying to attract the 
best and brightest at the State Department. Does your office 
pay for advertising in media and so on to try to let people 
know about openings, or is that another office that does that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Not my office, no.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. But the State Department does do that, 
correct? They pay for sort of advertisements to try to let 
people know about openings?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I don't know, so I will take 
that question back. I assume everybody wants to come work for 
us. I don't know that we pay for it. I assume we do, but I will 
take the question back.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. And the if you could take another question 
back. If the State Department, in fact, has a policy of 
spending money to try to get the word out, does the State 
Department then also advertise in various ethnic media sources? 
I'm just sort of curious how people know about State Department 
open positions. Like you, I grew up in Ohio, never thought 
about the State Department, had no idea what it was. And I 
don't know how many Americans actually even know what State 
Department means. If you just said those two words, I am not 
sure a lot of folks would even have any understanding. And so 
just curious how the State Department does outreach to try to 
attract the best and brightest to the Department.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I know that we do advertise, I 
mean, I see our advertisements on LinkedIn and other places, 
so, again, it is the funding of it that I am going to question. 
But, yes, I think it is really important that we do, and it is 
important that we get to Americans outside of our East Coast, 
West Coast, that we need people from all 50 states. And so we 
can do that.
    Mr. Lieu. So I am glad you mentioned LinkedIn, which is 
sort of interesting because you also said something that I did 
not know which is you can join the State Department without a 
college degree.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That is right.
    Mr. Lieu. I think LinkedIn has a sort of a certain 
audience, and I am just curious how does the State Department 
reach out to people who don't have college degrees or who may 
not actually use LinkedIn or sort of traditional processes to 
try to find jobs. If you could get that back to us, that would 
be great. And I yield back.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
now recognizes Mr. Perry for five minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In keeping on the same 
line of questioning, Ambassador, I wasn't really thinking of 
it, but with Mr. Lieu's questioning regarding assignment 
restrictions and I think his assertion that we seek the best 
and brightest, and I think you agree with that. Is there a 
potential, is there a potential that someone that came from 
another country and wanted to work in the State Department at 
the highest levels, like probably most people in the State 
Department do aspire to, could potentially jeopardize America's 
national security based on fractured allegiances? Is that a 
possibility?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Sir, sadly, I have to say that 
we have had Americans from every background compromise national 
security----
    Mr. Perry. Yes, so it is a possibility. So there is a 
rationale for assignment restrictions is what I think you are 
saying.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, that is not what I said.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. Can you clarify that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I said there is already a 
history of Americans from every background----
    Mr. Perry. Right.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley [continuing]. Compromising, so 
what I would say about those who are either first-generation 
Americans, second-generation Americans, tenth-generation 
Americans is the same.
    Mr. Perry. So there is a reason for assignment restrictions 
based on the fact that people may compromise themselves in 
allegiance to some other country?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. Yes, I thought so. Ma'am, I am looking at your 
quote here and I am assuming, it says your name on it, 
Ambassador, so I am assuming it is yours. The one in the middle 
there where it says primarily European American men, this is 
who has the vast majority of senior positions, and then the 
last line is that does not come about through merit. Is there 
any empirical data that you can provide to the Committee that 
aligns with your assertion, that proves that assertion?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, as you will see from the 
quote, it is not a full quote.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. That is why I am asking you----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Does not come from merit alone.
    Mr. Perry. Okay.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay.
    Mr. Perry. So you do have any empirical data to buttress 
your assertion?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Just common sense and knowledge 
that women and minorities do not become less intelligent as we 
go up the ladder. That there are, in fact, challenges----
    Mr. Perry. But the assessment that you are making there is 
primarily European American men. That is what you said.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. But I am stating a fact that 
the vast majority of senior positions are held by----
    Mr. Perry. By why is that? It is because they are European 
American men, that is why? Because that is what you said. I am 
just trying to hook cause and effect.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. You are saying that the cause----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That merit alone is not how 
that occurs----
    Mr. Perry. Again, do you have any empirical data whatsoever 
to support that assertion?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The surveys that we have done 
that lay out the challenges----
    Mr. Perry. No, not surveys, ma'am. Numbers. Numbers that 
prove your point. You are very pleasant and you are very 
knowledgeable, but that is a pretty stark statement there which 
essentially advocates for discrimination of certain individuals 
based on their heritage, and I am just asking. I don't think 
you believe in that, but you said that, so I am asking if you 
have any factual basis to make that judgment.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I don't think there's anything 
up there that says I intend to discriminate against anyone.
    Mr. Perry. But that is what that says.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That I intend to discriminate?
    Mr. Perry. That does not come about through merit.
    Mr. Mast. Will the gentleman suspend for one brief moment, 
suspend time? They accidentally reset the clock in the middle, 
so, just so you know, your time will end when the clock hits 
two minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Two minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Be aware that the clock got reset somehow.
    Mr. Perry. I was wondering about that. I thought you were 
making up for the time that the Ranking Member took time from 
me when he was the chairman, but I have let that go along time 
ago----
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman may resume.
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Apparently. All right. Well, thank 
you. Ma'am, I am wondering about the standards. I think you say 
that we want the best and the brightest, and I would agree with 
you. Last year, the State Department announced changes to the 
Foreign Service standard, the test that most, well, everybody 
took prior to that.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. So can you--not everybody took that test?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely not. As I said 
earlier, there are many within the Department of State who come 
through fellowships, who do a lateral transfer into the Foreign 
Service who do not touch the Foreign Service written exam.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. So fine. But for those who take the test, 
for those who take the test, is there any way to take the test, 
fail the test, and still be hired at the State Department once 
you have failed the test?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Absolutely and has been for a 
long time.
    Mr. Perry. It has been for a long time. So did this changes 
to the test seek to ameliorate that situation, to fix that?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. For a detailed answer, I would 
ask you to ask Global Talent Management, which led the changes 
and did the research about why it was appropriate to change the 
weight that the test has in someone proceeding with the process 
of applying to the Department----
    Mr. Perry. I would yield, but I would just state that 
lowering the standard is not going to get us the best and 
brightest. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield. I thank you.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Ranking Member Meeks for five minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to start out 
by recognizing Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley's service to 
our great country. I understand that, after more 30 years of 
working on behalf of the American people, you are retiring. And 
I also want to thank you for you coming back to serve the 
country as the State Department's first ever Chief Diversity 
and Inclusion Officer. So thank you for the work of the Chief 
Diversity and Inclusion Office and the problem it has made 
significant progress in advancing a more inclusive workplace. 
We thank you for that. Your efforts benefit the entire 
workforce and its ability to deliver on behalf of the American 
people by ensuring that people with different experiences and 
histories are at the table, helping to develop more innovative 
public policy solutions to the many challenges that the United 
States faces around the world.
    You know, since your appointment, we have seen renewed 
focus on developing solutions to address longstanding 
institutional barriers to establishing a State Department that 
is more representative of the America it serves, the America 
that I love, the America that I believe is still striving to 
become a more perfect union, and that's the America that we 
want to be represented throughout the world and throughout the 
various continents and all the countries. This has been 
something that has been tremendously important to me. I have 
seen the progress that we have made in America. I can remember 
as a kid going to see, knowing that my father could not get a 
job in certain places just because of the color of his skin. I 
have seen with my own eyes getting off of a train and seeing 
whites only and Negroes only, colored only is what it said, 
when I would travel south. So there has been improvement, but 
there is a lot of work to do.
    The challenges that is faced by our foreign affairs and 
national security agencies in creating a more diverse 
workforce, they are not new. They are not new. They are 
persistent for decades, and progress has happened, but it is 
slow. It is slow. And as you know, one of my key priorities has 
been to address recruitment challenges but also the barriers to 
promotion to the mid and senior levels. These barriers have 
created challenges to retention of a diverse workforce and 
limited the Department from fully leveraging their 
contributions over time. And guess what? In my years in 
Congress, I have worked with many administrations and many 
secretaries of states. Not only has it been Madeleine Albright 
or Hillary Clinton, but I have worked with Condaleezza Rice on 
the same problem. I've worked with Colin Powell on the same 
issues. Democratic administrations. I have worked with their 
Trump administration; they acknowledged it. Congress has played 
an important role in collaborating with the Department of State 
in advancing diversity and equity and inclusion and 
accessibility in various Democratic and Republican 
administrations.
    So the partnership has yielded real results. State now 
offers, as you have indicated, paid internships. It has 
expanded on how and where it offers the Foreign Service exam, 
accessibility. State has begun conducting exit interviews to 
understand why employees and has stood up a retention unit so 
that it is able to retain the talent it has spent so much time 
and money to cultivate.
    Underpinning these changes is the use of comprehensive 
data. And while I am pleased by the progress that has been 
made, we know, you know, the work is not finished. Data 
continues to show that African Americans and Americans of 
Hispanic origin continue to be severely underrepresented at the 
senior levels of the Foreign Service, and I am eager to hear 
more, Ambassador, on how the efforts of the CDIO efforts are 
advancing equity and inclusion at State and how we can address 
that in Congress, but I am running out of time. And what I am 
concerned of is, you know, what is happening throughout the 
country and happening even at this Committee's oversight, 
diversity, equity, inclusion work. What is happening, it is 
becoming wrongfully politicized and increasingly 
mischaracterized as progressive ideology or a contest between 
supposedly woke and anti-woke forces.
    Successive administrations have recognized the importance 
of increasing diversity, as well as fostering a culture of 
equity and inclusion to better enable the State Department to 
deliver on its national security mission. That is what this is 
about. That is making America better, moving better, showing 
the world the example of the United States of America and its 
inclusion and diversity.
    And I thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. I thank the Ranking Member. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Davidson for five minutes.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Chairman. Ambassador, you are here 
today. I will just say, under your leadership, the State 
Department has implemented its DEIA Strategic Plan last 
September announcing that part of its implementation would be 
``establishing the advancement of DEIA as an element for all 
employees as part of their job performance criteria, career 
advancement opportunities, and senior performance pay.'' Why do 
you believe it is appropriate or necessary for every single 
State Department employee to be evaluated on advancing the DEIA 
framework?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Congressman, thank you for the 
question. I do want to acknowledge the truth of what 
Congressman Meeks said, which is that this work started before 
this administration. DEIA, as part of the measure of being 
prepared for promotion, for leadership, in our organization has 
been part of our precepts since 2018. The prior administration 
had it included. It was not a standalone. It was woven in and 
among other aspects of good management----
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I will grant you, I mean, some of the 
ideas probably go back to Rudy Deutsch and a long march through 
the institutions. But why do you believe it is important? I 
don't want a history lesson. I want to know why you think it is 
important that every single employee has this tied to their 
employment at the State Department.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Too many members of our State 
Department family have not felt the full value of their 
contributions, of belonging to our organization. As you know, 
we have a well-earned reputation of exclusivity, and that means 
excluding people. So everyone can----
    Mr. Davidson. I actually don't know that. Frankly, I think 
that the 14th Amendment has applied for a long time. We have 
had non-discrimination policies for a long time. We have merit-
based entrance requirements for a long time. You were talking 
to my colleague, Mr. Perry. Okay. So he pointed out that, since 
1924, there has been a Foreign Service Officer Test; and, 
recently, the Department decided, yes, you don't actually need 
to pass the test. Why do you believe that somebody that knows 
that this is a test that is required, that has all kinds of 
opportunity to prepare for the test, that fails the test, why 
do you believe they are probably still one of the best and 
brightest, maybe the right people to hire for the job, even if 
they can't pass a gateway test? It is supposed to assess merit, 
right? Were they messed up from 1924 until your arrival on your 
scene?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The test has changed several 
times since 1924, number one. Number two, as I mentioned 
earlier, there are many people for many years who have joined 
the Department of State Foreign Service without taking the 
test. It has never been something that every single person in 
the Foreign Service has passed or even taken. We have had a 
variety of ways of joining the Foreign Service.
    So this change allows a more holistic----
    Mr. Davidson. Okay. So you want to give me more history on 
it and the change is holistic. You didn't talk about changing 
the test, you talked about it is okay if you fail the test. You 
didn't say we need a test that actually incorporates things 
that we are somehow missing. We have looked in the field and 
apparently people don't realize that the State Department 
actually needs to be focused on accomplishing the national 
security interest of the United States of America, so we should 
laser focus it. You might use the test to say, hey, maybe you 
shouldn't pay attention to how many rainbow flags and BLM flags 
you can fly on our pole. You might pay attention how that will 
play with the Vatican. Instead, you guys fly these flags at the 
Vatican. Did you coordinate with the Vatican prior to flying 
flags that are hostile to the doctrine of the Catholic Church?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The decision to fly or not fly 
a flag is a Chief-of-Mission decision, but we should remember 
that the written test is part always, it has always been part 
of the exam, not the final.
    Mr. Davidson. Okay. Was the decision to fly the flag 
coordinated with the Vatican?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I will take that question back 
for the record.
    Mr. Davidson. Do you believe it should have been?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We are a sovereign nation, and 
we make our own decisions.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, we have an embassy there that we are 
supposed to build our relationship with countries, and you see 
places like Guatemala or Hungary where the approach for the 
United States is focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, 
every kind of ideology in terms of LGBTQ+ spectrum that is 
hostile to the values of the cultures that we are trying to 
reach. Is that advancing our national security interest?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We adhere to our own values.
    Mr. Davidson. You got your own values, not America's.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. America's values. When I say 
we, I mean America.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. We'll roll into 
a few more questions in a second round here for both sides. I 
will begin by yielding myself five minutes, ma'am.
    I want to ask this: on the State Department website, it 
talks about expanding ways for employees to self identify in 
the talent management system. Can you explain what that is, the 
expanded ways for employees to self identify?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Sure. By law, we have to 
identify certain characteristics of our employees.
    Mr. Mast. Which ones?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Race, certainly. It may be 
disability. I can double check for you for the record 
everything that we have to ask, but race is certainly one of 
them by law. People applying to the Department of State provide 
that information. If they don't, then the agency is required to 
supply the information.
    Mr. Mast. If I don't answer what I am, you are going to say 
what I am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. By law, we are required----
    Mr. Mast. Going back to my previous line of questioning----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That is not my decision. Ask 
Global Talent Management. That is not mine. So we want people 
to be able to say who they are and----
    Mr. Mast. But if we don't, then State will decide what I 
am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. By law, by law.
    Mr. Mast. Certainly something for us to look at, no doubt. 
I want to continue on this line of questioning. Again, going 
off State's website, a core component of the Department's DEI 
plan is establishing the advancement of DEI as an element for 
all employees as a part of their job performance criteria.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Mast. How is DEI job performance criteria, how do you 
evaluate--and let me ask this maybe a little bit more 
specifically. I said it before. If somebody uses the wrong 
pronouns, is that a negative hit on them? If an individual 
believes that a man can't be a woman or a woman can't be a man, 
is that a hit on their DEI job performance criteria? Am I 
missing the mark on that? Tell me a little bit about it.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I believe we either are working 
on or have recently put out, OPM has put out a policy on the 
use of pronouns and does urge that the desired pronoun of the 
individual be used.
    Mr. Mast. But is this a hit----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. There is no----
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. On the establishment of job 
performance criteria, an employee being evaluated, job 
performance criteria, career advancement opportunities?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It may be. I cannot say because 
I would not--it does contribute to, it can contribute to a 
hostile work environment according to OPM, so that is there. It 
might be a performance, it might be a conduct issue, so I 
cannot say definitively that that would have, I cannot say 
definitively what impact that would have.
    Mr. Mast. You used the term previously microaggression.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Mast. Is it microaggression to use a pronoun that 
somebody is not but asks to be called?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That would depend on the 
individual. Some things that I don't get bothered by, other 
people do, so it is an individual----
    Mr. Mast. So this comes down to what somebody reports. If 
somebody reports it as microaggression, I don't know that that 
is a real report, but, okay, that would be----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I urge people bring their best 
selves to work, you know. The things that are going to help 
people stay focused on the job at hand.
    Mr. Mast. Have you made State Department more diverse?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I hope I have made it more 
inclusive. To become more diverse does indeed take time. You 
know, the Civil Service, people don't turn over everyday, every 
week, or every year for that matter.
    Mr. Mast. Good things take time. Have you made it more 
diverse?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I can't say that. I can't say 
that.
    Mr. Mast. You don't know if you have succeeded in making it 
more diverse?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I don't know that the 
Department, the work of the Department, again, it is not just 
me, it is all of us, have made it more diverse. What I do hope 
we have done is communicate clearly to every American who has 
got the ability and desire to serve that we are a good place to 
come and do it.
    Mr. Mast. How will you know if you have made it more 
diverse or how will your replacement know if they have made it 
more diverse according to your metrics? Where will they----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. They will find it from our 
demographic baseline report and our climate surveys, not only 
who is working for us but how they feel about working for us.
    Mr. Mast. Okay. I thank you for answering my questions 
today. My time is nearly expired. I will recognize Ranking 
Member Crow for five minutes.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to pick up on 
the line of question and some of your answers about how a more 
inclusive workplace and how leveling the playing field makes us 
safer and actually furthers the mission of the State Department 
in the best interests of the American people. And one of those, 
there has been a lot of discussion around race and ethnic 
background but also gender as a very important part of the 
mission of your office. And there is a lot, there has been a 
lot of efforts in Congress actually around this, and I will 
give a lot of credit to my friend, Mr. Waltz, who actually is a 
founding co-chair of the Women, Peace, and Security Caucus in 
Congress. There is actually a recognition that getting women 
involved in reducing some of the systematic barriers to getting 
women involved in peace and security actually makes us 
stronger, and I couldn't agree more with that effort and give 
Mr. Waltz a lot of credit for helping lead that and open the 
aperture, if you will, for women and peace and security.
    So I would love to talk a little bit about that and hear 
from you, Ambassador, on some of the efforts of your office on 
gender equity within the Department and some of the successes 
you have had in that regard.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Thank you very much for 
that, and thank you. Certainly, the role of women everywhere is 
important and in the Department of State. So we support the 
work of the Retention Unit because we do anecdotally believe 
that we lose women in higher proportion than men, so we are 
looking at that. We are looking at the drivers of attrition and 
how we can retain women. We have also stayed in very close 
touch with the Executive Women at State who focus on these 
issues, as well.
    A very recent policy, and it may seem small to those who do 
not go and work in classified areas overseas, but we all do 
when we go to missions, to embassies, to consulates, as well as 
in the Department, classified work spaces and lactation 
devices, motherhood, and making it easier to be a mom and take 
care of your child while working, and that is a lactation 
device that is allowed into the classified spaces. This was a 
huge push. It was something that was very clearly stated by the 
women in our organizations as something that either they have 
needed, need now, or may need in future and want to make sure 
that they don't have to make career decisions based on whether 
they are going to be overseas or not. So that is something that 
has been really important.
    One of the things we are looking at, of course, is housing, 
a couple of things, one, to ensure that every mission has a 
house that is accessible depending on what our employees need, 
and my staff has worked really hard on working with other 
bureaus in the Department to put that together; bathrooms that 
are accessible, that are all-gendered, you know, single-use 
all-gendered, and also have water in them for ablution or other 
purposes that can be used for any number of groups within the 
Department that help them do their jobs better with fewer 
distractions, fewer time delays.
    So we will look for what comes out of the Retention Unit to 
take additional steps from there. But absolutely making sure 
that we all can do our jobs without additional burdens and 
distractions is a focus.
    Mr. Crow. I thank you for that. And you have had a career 
that spanned over 30 years at the Department. I would love to 
just hear from you in the final time that we have on how the 
landscape has changed for women at the Department over the last 
three decades.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Oh, my goodness. Well, nobody 
thinks I am their secretary anymore, so that is a wonderful 
change, I must say. You know, one of the challenges still is 
that you can walk into a room and see few women inside, so that 
hasn't changed as much as I would have liked. But I also walk 
into many rooms where half of the room is female, and that 
means that we are really getting the people in place that 
should be there. We have a lot to contribute.
    You know, I am an NEA hand, so NEA has always been forward 
leaning with sending women around the world, trusting our 
capabilities, our language ability, our cultural effectiveness. 
As you know from my bio, I was the first woman to lead a 
diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia. It was an amazing challenge 
and one that the bureau, the Department of State, said you can 
do this, you can represent us. And that privilege is something 
that is unmatched, even by being a U.S. ambassador, the top 
job. But that ability to show who we are as a nation and that 
we say your ability determines your destiny, it doesn't get 
better than that.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. My time is expired.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Waltz for five minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I thank the Ranking 
Member for his words. I have served in countries all over the 
world where woman aren't disadvantaged, they are brutalized. 
And I have seen that where women thrive in societies and 
villages and countries, so does that country. And grew up under 
a single mom who broke barrier after barrier to provide a 
better life for me. At the same time, that same woman who broke 
all of those barriers was quite offended when a classmate of 
mine, who is African American, got a scholarship, I didn't, she 
had a lower score than I did, even though this classmate came 
from a very financially well-off background, and we certainly 
did not. We used to have to sell things to afford grocery 
money.
    So I think what we are going back to and I think the 
disconnect here and that you will find with the thrust of your 
program and in my experience and Representative Mills is what 
we are talking about really is poverty and how we address that.
    So you mentioned 80 percent of the deputy assistant 
secretaries for senior line of management were European 
American. That was a problem, at least in how I characterize 
your words. You now open it up, fully agree with that. What do 
you do, what does your office do systemically then if you 
compete those positions and you are still at 80 percent 
European American?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Well, we will know it is not 
because we were secretive about how we put the position up----
    Mr. Waltz. Sure, yes. Let's move beyond that. Competition, 
good thing.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. But remember the I is 
inclusion, so I am not saying equal outcome. I am not saying 
that we are going to arrive at a specific number of people 
anywhere. We just want to make sure the playing field is level.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. I think one of the issues is Vice 
President Harris, when asked about the difference in equality 
and equity, said, I quote, ``Equitable treatment means we all 
end up in the same place.'' So a lot of people in this space 
are saying equity means equal outcomes, and, if some people 
aren't starting in the same place, then we provide them more 
resources than the others so that we all end up with equal 
outcomes. And in an exclusionary environment and a lead 
environment, whether it is in the military or the State 
Department where we need the best of the best, you can't square 
that circle to end up all in the same place.
    So do you disagree with that characterization? I take it 
that you do from Vice President Harris that said, ``Equitable 
treatment means we all end up in the same place.''
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. That isn't how I would define 
it. But let me tell you something I have learned because I sit 
on the committee----
    Mr. Waltz. But you have the first, I think she, I don't 
know how she identifies actually but first vice president of 
color saying this is her definition of equity as the president 
signing DEI executive orders.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes.
    Mr. Waltz. So let's get that squared away because that is 
my concern is that I don't see how you have everybody end up in 
the same place. Frankly, a lot of the folks in this place also 
have Marxist backgrounds. You can agree or disagree with it. 
They do in terms of equal outcome for all is a key definition 
of communism and Marxism, and that is a concern----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I don't even know what to say 
about the Marxists, but I will point out and something that I 
say often is that everybody doesn't want to end up in the same 
place. Everybody doesn't want to be a U.S. ambassador. I never 
wanted to be secretary of state. So it is never going to be we 
end up in the same place. You will hear me say again and again 
desire plus ability. You need both of those.
    Mr. Waltz. So let's go back to the deputy assistant 
secretaries.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Okay.
    Mr. Waltz. You compete it. You end up with 80 percent. You 
didn't answer----
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. No, no, no, no, 80 percent was 
when it wasn't advertised and competed.
    Mr. Waltz. And what is it now?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So I will check.
    Mr. Waltz. How would you not know? I mean, this was a key 
achievement. I mean, you list it with your office.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The key achievement was 
transparency and leveling the playing field. Now, the results 
of it, I will check and see because we----
    Mr. Waltz. Let me posit this, and this, I think, gets part 
of the crux of our issue. I grew up poor as dirt. He grew up 
bouncing from home to home. Probably most people would describe 
as, in your words, European American, white. But, yet, that was 
an issue, that is an issue if something is overwhelmingly white 
or people of color are underrepresented by ill-defined 
statistics that I don't think we can get from you. And from our 
perspective, we earned it. I mean, we exceeded all kinds of 
odds, but, yet, a lot of people in this space would tell us we 
are privileged because of our skin color. I didn't feel 
privileged growing up. People in the poorest country in Florida 
don't feel privileged at all.
    And so how long do we atone for the sins of the past with 
the current generation is a very key question, and we can't 
fight discrimination from the past or even discrimination today 
with more discrimination. And that is, you will always hear 
from us, is a fundamental issue that we will seek to fight 
against.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Mills for five minutes.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Ambassador, in an 
interview with Foreign Policy magazine, you stated that you are 
going to reward it or you are going to hold people accountable 
for not doing it with regards to DEI. Can you please explain 
what that means and how is it being rewarded and how are people 
being held accountable?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. So it is my strong belief that 
DEIA is an essential element of good management and leadership. 
It means getting the best out of all of your people. It means 
putting in place a level playing field so that those with 
desire and ability can serve and do it well without distraction 
because that is what, whether it is microaggressions or 
discrimination, harassment, bullying, all of these toxic work 
issues, it is distraction from the job at hand.
    Mr. Mills. Now, I noted that you continue to punt towards 
the Office of Global Talent Management, and you list building a 
diverse workforce as a key focus and is demanding the bulk of 
the Department's request. Again, you are asking in fiscal year 
2024 for a $76 million, but you are actually allocating $55 
million, the bulk of that, over to the Office of Global Talent 
Management.
    But my question is why should Congress fund an office that 
many Americans believe is counterproductive to the mission of 
the State Department, which is to protect and promote the U.S. 
security, prosperity, and democratic values through 
international policy?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I would say probably lack of 
understanding of what we do and how well we do it. We are a 
convener. We bring together looking into issues. As I said, we 
don't resolve specific problems, but we bring together the 
different elements within the building, provide--an example, of 
course, is this deputy assistant secretary change where it was 
my office that led the improvement of transparency and 
accountability, leveled the playing field for that. That 
process has been in place presumably for many years. That is 
what we found to be the case when we arrived.
    Global Talent Management has been around forever, other 
bureaus, and so they didn't get after it. We are looking at it. 
This is our job to ensure, to look after where the playing 
field is not level. No one else has that specific focus and 
portfolio.
    Mr. Mills. And I apologize, but lowering the standards on 
test evaluations, for example, isn't getting the best and 
brightest, as has been pointed out. And I will also say that, 
you know, I sit on the House Armed Services Committee, as well 
as this committee here in the Foreign Affairs, and it is very 
clear that the DoD, for example, has seen recruitment 
shortages, and the Biden administration has continued to look 
at their focus on being DEI in our military or in our 
departments or ESJ with regards to corporations or CRT with 
regards to our children. And we are seeing where this is a huge 
deficit as a whole. I can tell you you can't combat racism with 
racism regardless of skin color, gender, or political 
affiliation and ideologies. And I can tell you that, for me, 
the Department of State should be focusing its security on the 
ideas of prosperity, democratic values, international 
diplomacy. And that is why I think that what they are trying to 
do within your department and within the Office of Global 
Talent Management is not only counterproductive and contrary to 
American goals, but I, myself, would never vote in favor to 
allocate a single dollar towards these types of things that I 
find to be divisive.
    I can tell you with my remaining time, which I will be 
handing back over because I don't think there is any further 
discussion to be had, I wish you well in your retirement. But I 
can assure you that not a single American tax dollar will be 
voted on by me to continue to fund diversity, equity, and 
inclusion, as opposed to promoting meritocracy and America's 
equal opportunities.
    With that, I yield my time.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. May I answer?
    Mr. Mast. Yes, please, ma'am.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you. I would ask or ask 
the Congressman to consider that, since, factually, there are 
many people who have come through to senior positions, 
successful, productive careers without taking the written exam, 
if anyone could be identified who knows who took the exam or 
what score they got. It is not a predictor of success. It is 
part of the process.
    I have been an examiner. I led the oral assessment and so 
know the people who got through the written exam, who got 
through the essays, who got through the qualitative evaluation 
paragraphs. I forget what the P stands for. It is a whole 
process, not just a written exam. And I know that you don't 
know who took it and who didn't. You can't judge someone's 
success on that. You can't judge it. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time is expired. I thank you, 
ma'am, for your testimony. I hope you take away from the 
questions that we have asked as much as we take away from the 
answers that you have given. Your testimony was valuable, and 
members, they will have some additional questions for you, I 
have no doubt. And we ask that you respond to those questions 
in writing when you get those or your office.
    I now recognize Mr. Crow for any closing remarks that he 
may have.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman, for calling this really 
important meeting, hearing today. I just want to address a few 
points that were raised, a few themes that were discussed 
today.
    There was a lot of discussion by some of my colleagues 
about their own personal struggles, which are real and I 
understand those. You know, I actually share many of those. I 
also grew up without a lot of money and bounced around from a 
lot of different houses, and that is something that I have had 
to overcome. But there is a lot of things I also have not had 
to overcome that other people have had to that don't have a 
background like me. And there is this notion that I think is 
really important to this debate that we are having as a nation 
right now, a larger national debate, about the nature of 
struggle and rights. And I would just like to say that it is 
just not true that when you recognize somebody else's struggle 
or somebody else's rights, that doesn't detract from yours. 
They are not a fixed pie. We can, as a nation and as a society, 
recognize that other people have struggles and face barriers 
that we don't and that does not detract from our own individual 
struggles. It just doesn't. We can do that. They are not 
mutually exclusive. And I think that's really important as a 
society that we come to a better understanding of that point so 
that we can actualize our full potential.
    The other theme was about what some people have classified 
as, and I'll quote, ``sins of the past.'' I wish they were of 
the past, but they are not. And I know so many people know that 
and, Ambassador, you know that better than I do. But we are 
still dealing with so many of these things. We see it day-in 
and day-out. That struggle is very much a part of our present, 
and we need to have an honest discussion about it.
    So, no, this is not the sins of the past. We have not dealt 
with so much, and we need to. And the work that you have done 
over your career and in your office has been at the forefront 
of that.
    The third is just the national security component here and 
actually the foreign policy component. There were a lot of 
folks who say this is a distraction, this is money that is not 
well spent, it's somehow diverting our ability to deal with 
great power competition or address Iran or China or Russia, and 
I couldn't disagree more with that assertion. And you outlined 
it very well, Ambassador, that the more experience we have at 
the table, the more lived experience, the more people that will 
fully represent the diversity and the power of this country, 
the more options we will have, the more ideas we will have, and 
the better results we will achieve in meeting those threats. 
And I thank you for outlining that in a very compelling way.
    So thank you for your over three decades of service to your 
country. I admire that, I respect that. You have served the 
nation and the Department with dignity, with respect, and have 
advanced our foreign policy, our national security, and the 
lives of people within the Department. And I wish you well in 
your well-deserved retirement.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Pursuant to Committee rules, all members may have 
five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous 
materials for the record, subject to the length limitations. 
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                            [all]