    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        THE FY 2018 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 14, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-61

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    25-840PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          AMI BERA, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    PAUL COOK, California                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             NORMA J. TORRES, California
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
        Wisconsin                        TED LIEU, California
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                    WITNESS

    The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State, U.S.
      Department of State............................................     4

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson: Prepared statement...............     7

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    58
    Hearing minutes..................................................    59
    The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Rhode Island: Material submitted for the record...    61
    The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Hawaii: Material submitted for the record.........    70
    The Honorable Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Illinois: Artical submitted for the record........    79
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    81
    The Honorable Adriano Espaillat, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New York: Prepared statement.................    83
    Written responses from the Honorable Rex W. Tillerson to
      questions submitted for the record by:
      The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on
        Foreign Affairs..............................................    84
      The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New York........................................    85
      The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California.................................   144
      The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of California......................................   145
      The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Ohio............................................   150
      The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of New York...................................   152
      The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Texas...............................................   158
      The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New Jersey......................................   168
      The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of South Carolina..................................   172
      The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly...............................   185
      The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of New York........................................   194
      The Honorable William Keating, a Representative in Congress
        from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.......................   197
      The Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Missouri............................................   204
      The Honorable David Cicilline..................................   207
      The Honorable Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in
        Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...............   226
      The Honorable Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of California..........................................   228
      The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Florida.........................................   233
      The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard....................................   234
      The Honorable Joaquin Castro, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Texas...........................................   237
      The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Nevada..............................................   243
      The Honorable Norma J. Torres, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California.................................   245
      The Honorable Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of Illinois..........................   248
      The Honorable Adriano Espaillat................................   252
      The Honorable Ted Lieu, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of California..........................................   255

                       THE FY 2018 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. Before we say or do anything else today, I
    want to pause to extend our thoughts and our prayers for the
    well-being of Whip Scalise and our colleagues, police, and
    staff who were attacked by a gunman this morning in Virginia.
    Several members of this committee were there. This is a sad day
    for our country. We still don't have all of the details, but we
    do know that there are those who want to use acts of violence
    to create chaos, to disrupt our democracy. The American people
    will not let them win. So after deliberation with the ranking
    member, we have decided to proceed.
        The Secretary has a very challenging schedule. Given these
    circumstances and the delayed start of our hearing, I want to
    appeal to members to attempt to use less than their full 5
    minutes so that more of our colleagues have a chance to
    participate and I will be abbreviating my opening statement.
        Today, Secretary Tillerson will testify on the
    administration's budget and reorganization plans for the
    Department of State.
        First off, Mr. Secretary, let me welcome you to this
    committee. This committee and your Department manage an
    essential responsibility for our Government, set at its
    founding. And that is defending our Nation.
        The committee strives to be bipartisan. We are fortunate to
    have a ranking member, Mr. Engel, who shares this approach. We
    look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary. We wish you
    success in your tenure.
        For generations, America has been the leader of the world.
    This has required great sacrifice. But our commitment to
    stability, to the rule of law, to open markets, and human
    rights, and our work through alliances have all paid off
    greatly. We have made mistake, no doubt, sometimes by
    overreaching in our commitments and sometimes by not reaching
    at all. But our Nation has certainly been a force for good. If
    we do not lead in security and commerce as well as in values
    and in ideas, the vacuum will be filled by others, including
    jihadists and others, wishing us grave harm.
        Leading takes resources. Sufficient resources are needed
    for our military, for sure, but also for our diplomats working
    to end the many conflicts impacting our security. That is what
    the generals say. In today's well-connected age, in which
    threats can come from anywhere, we need a very broad diplomatic
    presence and that takes resources too, especially to keep our
    diplomats safe.
        Resources are also needed to support our humanitarian
    relief and to support development. Their work abroad benefits
    America at home. Consider that a modest emergency investment in
    West Africa's health stopped cold what looked like an emerging
    Ebola panic in our country a few years ago.
        Mr. Secretary, I am confident that you will find new
    efficiencies in your Department. There is waste to attack. But
    many here remain concerned by the hand you were dealt with the
    budget and look forward to strengthening it. Congress also has
    a responsibility not to hamstring the Department with mandates
    and with restrictions. And these have accumulated over years,
    compounding your management challenges.
        For our partnership to succeed, we need to communicate,
    often. Too often, administrations go it alone, as frankly, the
    last administration did. Iran and Cuba policy are examples. Let
    us break that pattern.
        And I will now turn to Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know that
    the shooting in Alexandria this morning is on all our minds. It
    is shocking. We are all hoping for the best for our colleague,
    Steve Scalise, the police officers, and others who were victims
    of the attack. We wish them a speedy recovery and we are
    thinking of their loved ones this morning.
        Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you here. I wish you
    well, but I have to tell you that I am deeply skeptical about
    this budget, which in my view is part of a foreign policy
    strategy that would cripple American diplomacy and development
    efforts around the world. This strategy has been carried out
    first and foremost by an action with an initial purge that
    pushed out some of our most senior and accomplished career
    diplomats. This administration has eliminated years of
    expertise in one fell swoop and, with few exceptions, the
    President simply has not nominated anyone to help you run the
    Department.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask that my graphic be displayed. This is
    an organizational chart of the State Department. The three dark
    green boxes are President Trump's confirmed nominees. The light
    green boxes are officials in place in the last administration.
    Yellow boxes are nominees awaiting Senate action. And all the
    red boxes are positions for which the President hasn't even
    submitted a nomination. That is a lot of red boxes, far behind
    where Presidents Bush and Obama were at this point and that
    doesn't cover the dozens of vacant ambassadorships. We should
    all keep this in mind next time there is talk about obstruction
    in Congress. People have not been confirmed, not because there
    is obstruction, because they haven't been submitted.
        Now career diplomats, keeping the seats warm, are capable
    and devoted public servants, but they aren't able to direct our
    foreign policy. What is the President's approach to Russia
    hacking our election or nonproliferation or human trafficking
    or Africa or the Arctic? When will we have the Under
    Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries and Ambassadors at large
    to put these policies in place?
        The second indication of the administration's view of the
    State Department is this document. This is the budget, The 2018
    State Department Budget, submitted to Congress by the Secretary
    of State. It calls for a 32 percent cut to our international
    affairs budget. I have never seen a budget proposal so reckless
    in all the years I have been here. It is so insulting to our
    personnel and so quick to hit bipartisan opposition.
        Mr. Secretary, when we spoke, you told me that you hoped to
    put the State Department on the glide path to reduce spending
    levels. A one third cut is more like a nose dive. Imagine being
    an American diplomat learning that this is the value the
    administration places on your service. Imagine waking up every
    morning in a dangerous place on the other side of the world
    knowing that the officials responsible for your safety haven't
    even been nominated, and that America's top diplomat, which is
    you, Mr. Secretary, was coming here to ask us for a 32 percent
    budget cut.
        Some consequences of this budget will hit us down the road
    if we fail to invest in diplomacy and development now. The
    conflicts we don't prevent will come back to us as wars we will
    need to fight. Senator Lindsey Graham said it well and I quote
    him, ``If we implemented this budget, we have to retreat from
    the world and put a lot of people at risk.'' He said we would
    have ``a lot of Benghazis in the making if we actually
    implemented the State Department cuts.'' He is right. The
    budget cuts Embassy security by more than $1 billion, 62
    percent--Embassy security cut 62 percent. So fortunately on
    this point, Congress retains the power of the purse, so we will
    have the last word on this issue.
        So I think that we need a lot of clarity on this and I
    think this committee should keep pressing these issues until we
    have the answers we need. I am going to stop now, Mr. Chairman,
    because we have agreed to shorten our statement, but I will
    submit the rest of my statement for the record.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. This
    morning, we are pleased to be joined by Mr. Rex Tillerson. He
    is the 69th Secretary of State. Prior to his appointment, the
    Secretary spent 40 years at ExxonMobil, culminating as the
    chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Secretary Tillerson also
    has long been involved with the Boy Scouts of America, most
    recently serving as the Boy Scouts' National President. Mr.
    Secretary, welcome to our committee.
        Without objection, the witness' full prepared statement
    will be made part of the record. Members are going to have 5
    calendar days to submit any statements or any questions they
    might have of the Secretary or any extraneous material for the
    record.
        Also, we want as many members as possible to have a chance
    to question the Secretary, so to accomplish that, I would just
    ask that everyone respect the time limit and that means leaving
    an adequate amount of time for the Secretary to answer your
    questions. Nothing requires full use of your time. And we will
    begin with Secretary Tillerson's testimony.

       STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE REX W. TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF
                    STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Secretary Tillerson. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking
    Member Engel, and distinguished members of the committee.
        Of course, we were all stunned by the news of the shooting
    involving your colleagues, members of congressional staff, and
    Capitol Police. Congressman Scalise is a friend of mine. He is
    a friend and represents many friends of mine back in Louisiana.
    My prayers and those of my colleagues at the State Department
    are with the injured and with those members of law enforcement
    who responded to this morning's attack.
        Today, I would like to continue the conversation that we
    have started about the administration's State Department and
    USAID budget requests for Fiscal Year 2018.
        Before I begin my testimony on the budget, I would like to
    offer a point of view on the Russian sanctions legislation
    currently being considered by the Congress. I certainly agree
    with the sentiment that has been conveyed by several members
    from both parties that Russia must be held accountable for its
    meddling in U.S. elections. I would urge Congress to ensure any
    legislation allows the President to have the flexibility to
    adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an
    evolving diplomatic situation. Essentially, we would ask for
    the flexibility to turn the heat up when we need to, but also
    to ensure that we have the ability to maintain a constructive
    dialogue.
        As we all know, America's global competitive advantages and
    standing as a leader are under constant challenge. The
    dedicated men and women of the State Department and USAID carry
    out the important and often perilous work of advancing
    America's interests every single day. That mission is
    unchanged. However, the State Department and USAID, like many
    other institutions here and around the world, have not evolved
    in their responsiveness as quickly as new challenges and
    threats to our national security have changed and are changing.
    We are challenged to respond to a post-Cold War world that set
    in motion new global dynamics, and a post-9/11 world
    characterized by historic new threats that present themselves
    in ways never seen before, enabled by technological tools that
    we have been ill-prepared to engage. The 21st century has
    already presented many evolving challenges to U.S. national
    security and economic prosperity. We must develop proactive
    responses to protect and advance the interests of the American
    people.
        With such a broad array of threats facing the United
    States, the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request of $37.6 billion
    dollars aligns with the administration's objective of making
    America's security our top priority. The first responsibility
    of government is the security of its own citizens, and we will
    orient our diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that
    commitment. While our mission will also be focused on advancing
    the economic interests of the American people, the State
    Department's primary focus will be to protect our citizens at
    home and abroad.
        Our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding
    values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human
    dignity. The conviction of our country's Founders is enduring,
    that ``all men are endowed by their Creator with certain
    unalienable rights.'' As a Nation, we hold high the aspiration
    that all will one day experience the freedom we have known. In
    our young administration's foreign policy, we are motivated by
    the conviction that the more we engage with other nations on
    issues of security and prosperity, the more we will have
    opportunities to shape the human rights conditions in those
    nations. History has shown that the United States leaves a
    footprint of freedom wherever it goes.
        Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American people
    and advancing our values has necessitated difficult decisions
    in other areas of our budget. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget
    request includes substantial funding for many foreign
    assistance programs under the auspices of USAID and the State
    Department, but we have made hard choices to reduce funding for
    other initiatives. Even with reductions in funding, we will
    continue to be the leader in international development, global
    health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and
    humanitarian efforts. If natural disasters or epidemics strike
    overseas, America will respond with care and support. I am
    convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of the programs and
    continue to offer America's helping hand to the world.
        This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure
    every tax dollar spent is aligned with the Department and
    USAID's mission critical objectives. The request focuses the
    State Department and USAID efforts on missions which deliver
    the greatest value and opportunity of success for the American
    people. The State Department and USAID budget increased over 60
    percent from Fiscal Year 2007, reaching a record high $55.6
    billion in Fiscal Year 2017. Recognizing that this rate of
    increase in funding is not sustainable, the Fiscal Year 2018
    budget request seeks to align the core missions of the State
    Department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget
    also represents the interests of the American people, including
    responsible stewardship of the public's money.
        I know there is intense interest in prospective State
    Department and USAID redesign efforts. We have just completed
    collecting information on our organizational processes and
    culture through a survey that was made available to every one
    of our State and USAID colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were
    completed, and we had held in-person listening sessions with
    approximately 300 individuals to obtain their perspective on
    what we do and how we do it. I met personally with dozens of
    team members who spoke candidly about their experiences. From
    this feedback we have been able to get a clearer overall view
    of our organization. We have no preconceived outcomes, and our
    discussions of the goals, priorities, and direction of the
    State Department and USAID were not token exercises. The
    principles for our listening sessions and subsequent evaluation
    of our organization are the same as those which I stated in my
    confirmation hearing for our foreign policy: We will see the
    world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the American
    people, follow the facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves
    and others accountable. We are still analyzing the feedback we
    have received, and we expect to release the findings of the
    survey soon. From all of this, one thing is certain: I am
    listening to what my people are telling me are the challenges
    facing them and how we can produce a more efficient and
    effective State Department and USAID. And we will work as a
    team and with the Congress to improve both organizations.
        Throughout my career, I have never believed, nor have I
    ever experienced, that the level of funding devoted to a goal
    is the most important factor in achieving it. Our budget will
    never determine our ability to be effective, our people will.
    My colleagues at the State Department and USAID are a deep
    source of inspiration, and their patriotism, professionalism,
    and willingness to make sacrifices for our country are our
    greatest resource. I am confident that the U.S. State
    Department and USAID will continue to deliver results for the
    American people.
        I thank you for the time, and I am happy to answer your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Tillerson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. This
    committee has worked to make the State Department more
    efficient. In December, as you know, the first State
    Authorities Bill in over a decade was signed into law. That was
    our work product. We stand ready to work with you to reform the
    Department and on reorganization. On this question I just ask
    that you commit to intensified consultation between your staff
    and the committee in terms of plans for reform.
        Secretary Tillerson. We certainly will do that and welcome
    and seek your input as we go about this.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. I only have one question and it
    goes to the issue of North Korea, Secretary Tillerson. This
    situation, we were encouraged yesterday first to hear news that
    Otto Wormbier would be returned to the United States, but then
    we found out about his condition and were horrified to learn
    that he was in a coma. This is outrageous. And on Monday, we
    heard Secretary Mattis call North Korea ``the top security
    threat to the United States.''
        You have been working a strategy, I know, to ratchet up
    pressure on the regime. Last Congress, we passed and signed
    into law a comprehensive North Korea sanctions bill to go after
    those assisting the regime. And then recently we passed out of
    this committee again another piece of legislation, this one to
    attack North Korea's use of overseas labor, indentured
    servitude in which the check goes to the regime and they use it
    for hard currency and they can use it for their nuclear weapons
    program.
        We heard two kind of mixed reports on China's cooperation
    on this. There is a new report out this week and it shows that
    by cracking down on a relatively small number of interlinked
    Chinese companies that deal with North Korea, we could really
    crank things up and reportedly the administration has asked
    China to act on some ten entities. If Beijing doesn't act, are
    we prepared with the sanctions we put on the books now, to act
    unilaterally with third-party sanctions in order to cut off the
    hard currency? This a very expensive program they are running.
    It costs them billions and billions of dollars a year and
    frankly they don't make much of anything, so they need the hard
    currency coming in in order to fund this program. And this is
    what I wanted to ask you.
        Secretary Tillerson. Thank you, Chairman. I am familiar
    with the reports you are referencing. Treasury Department also
    has that report and we will examine the study that was done and
    the results they found.
        The approach we are taking with North Korea, as you are
    aware, is one of eliciting countries all over the world to
    support us in putting pressure on the regime and Pyongyang to
    change and alter their position and their view before we are
    willing to sit down and conduct discussions with them.
        Clearly, China is the capstone to achieving this kind of
    pressure. This was a topic of significant discussion in
    President Xi and President Trump's summit in Mar-a-Lago. The
    communications had been very clear. Our expectations have been
    very clear with the Chinese. Their cooperation, I would say,
    has been notable, but it has been uneven. And we continue that
    dialogue with the Chinese, specifically around their actions
    that support revenue streams to North Korea, but also taking
    action against entities inside of China that may be supporting
    revenue streams as well.
        We will be having another high-level dialogue next week
    when Secretary Mattis and myself meet with our counterparts
    here in Washington, and that will be one of the first topics on
    the agenda. We have made it clear to them and we have provided
    them lists of entities that we believe they need to take action
    against. We have asked that they take the action, but President
    Trump has also been very clear with President Xi that if they
    either don't want to take the action or they do not take the
    action, that we will act on our own.
        Chairman Royce. I concur. We can't have dialogue forever,
    Mr. Secretary. Thank you and I go to Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I just
    want to say that I heard what you said, but I don't find it
    compelling that we can operate the State Department and
    diplomacy with a 33 percent cut, a one-third cut. It just seems
    to me like it is--I know you will do the best with what you
    have, obviously, it is showing where priorities are not and
    priorities don't seem to be with the State Department, with
    diplomacy. I just want to say that.
        Because we are short with time, Mr. Secretary, I would like
    to start by getting you to respond to a series of questions,
    but I would like just a yes or no, if you can.
        As you may know--and we chatted a little bit before--this
    committee under Chairman Royce and myself has a long-standing
    bipartisan tradition and we have worked closely with both
    Republican and Democratic administrations. So I was taken aback
    by the Trump administration's apparent decision to ignore
    oversight requests of Democratic Members of Congress.
        In a letter to the President, Senator Grassley called the
    administration's departure of long-standing practice nonsense,
    and I was pleased that Homeland Security Secretary Kelly
    rejected this guidance by saying and I quote him, ``Regardless
    of who the letter comes from and it doesn't have to just come
    from a ranking member or chairman, we will respond to any
    congressional inquiry.'' That is a quote from him.
        So I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, will you join
    Secretary Kelly in committing to respond to congressional
    inquiries and information requests regardless of the political
    party of the member inquiring?
        Secretary Tillerson. I already have and I will.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Can I have your commitment that you
    will direct the Department to respond to requests for
    information made by the committee staff as the designees of the
    chairman and ranking member?
        Secretary Tillerson. Indeed, through the appropriate
    channels and processes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, a member of your staff
    informed my staff that the reorganization you are planning for
    the State Department will require statutory changes. So I am
    glad to know that that is the State Department's position
    because I agree with that.
        When your reorganization assessment is complete, will you
    commit to coming to this committee, the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, which has oversight and authorizing responsibilities
    for the State Department, with any requests you have for
    organizational changes at the Department?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes, and we would expect to work with
    you on that as we are developing those.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. It was recently reported that within
    the first few weeks of the administration, a top White House
    aide attempted unsuccessfully to lift economic sanctions
    imposed on Russia in response to the illegal occupation of
    Crimea and interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. This
    followed repeated contacts with the Russians by Jared Kushner,
    Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions, and others. So do you accept the
    conclusion, Mr. Secretary, of the Intelligence Committee that
    Russian criminally interfered in last year's election?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes, I do. And I have no knowledge of
    any of those efforts that you mentioned.
        Mr. Engel. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. interest
    to relax sanctions on Russia before she has fully complied with
    the Minsk framework and left Crimea?
        Secretary Tillerson. I think it is important that we be
    given sufficient flexibility to achieve the Minsk objectives.
    It is very possible that the Government of Ukraine and the
    Government of Russia could come to a satisfactory resolution
    through some structure other than Minsk, but would achieve the
    objectives of Minsk, which we are committed to.
        So my caution is I wouldn't want to have ourselves
    handcuffed to Minsk if it turns out the parties decide to
    settle this through a different agreement.
        Mr. Engel. Well, let me say that I hear what you are
    saying, but I disagree, because I believe that the only thing
    that Russia understands is tough talk and if they think that we
    are somehow willing to relax the sanctions on them before they
    have complied with the Minsk framework and left Crimea I think
    it just will encourage Putin to continue his bullying and who
    knows where he will strike next.
        Secretary Tillerson. That is not our intent, nor will we do
    that. I back the objectives of Minsk.
        Mr. Engel. And let me finally ask you, what has the
    administration done to respond to the Russian assault on our
    Presidential Election? Have you spoken with the President about
    how to prevent from ever happening again?
        Secretary Tillerson. I have spoken to the Russians directly
    about it. Their response is pretty much as you have seen in
    their response publicly to be. But we have registered our
    complaint about that and that it is going to be a constant
    obstacle to our ability to improve our relationship if they do
    not address it.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We go now to
    Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
    Mr. Secretary.
        I am strongly against the proposed zeroing out of democracy
    and governance programs, especially in Cuba, Nicaragua, and
    Venezuela, where civil society is facing increasing repression.
    In the last 2 months nearly 3,000 Venezuelans have been jailed.
    Over 1,000 have been injured, and nearly 70 people have been
    killed by Maduro's thugs. So I ask you to please place more
    human rights violators on our sanctions list.
        On a separate topic, in January of this year, your State
    Department determined that the PLO and the Palestinian
    Authority have not complied with their commitments under U.S.
    law, yet all potential sanctions were waived. So I ask how you
    can justify an increase when so many things in the budget are
    cut, but the PA has an increase in your budget request.
        Also, a few days ago, Mr. Secretary, Israel's Prime
    Minister called for UNRWA to be folded into the U.N.
    Commissioner for Refugees after a Hamas tunnel was found
    beneath two UNRWA schools. Is the U.S. going to support our
    ally, Israel, and prohibit funding to UNRWA?
        And finally, on Iran, as a witness told this committee at a
    hearing in February, sir, the International Atomic Energy
    Agency ``has not been able to state that Iran has addressed its
    concerns and questions about past nuclear weapons activities.''
    And it also ``has not stated that it successfully is verifying
    the JCPOA's prohibitions on specific nuclear weapons
    development activities.'' So considering this lack of
    verification, how does the Justice Department justify its
    certification that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA as it
    did in April? And I don't want to take more time, but if you
    could answer adding names to the Venezuela sanctions list,
    UNRWA funding, and Iran and noncompliance.
        Secretary Tillerson. We are working with Treasury to
    develop a very robust list of individuals and most recently you
    saw sanctions imposed on six members of the Venezuelan Supreme
    Court in response to their decision handed down which we felt
    was certainly not in keeping with the Constitution. We are
    going to continue to be very engaged in the situation in
    Venezuela, but as you know, the challenge for the U.S. is to do
    this in a way that is productive and constructive as opposed to
    the U.S. then being used by the Maduro regime as a tool to
    justify their actions. But rest assured, we have active efforts
    underway working with others in OAS, in particular.
        With regard to the Iran compliance, we rely upon the
    process called for under the JCPOA and the IAEA. We do question
    them vigorously. We are in discussions with them to ensure that
    are they meeting all of those obligations to certify compliance
    to us. We are reliant upon them to make the certifications to
    us in order to then make decisions around filing a compliance
    report and then filing the sanctions and waivers that follow on
    with that.
        With respect to the Palestinians, we are in active
    discussion with the Palestinian Authority. As you know, we had
    a meeting here in Washington at the President level and I had
    my own bilateral meetings with President Abbas. We were
    recently in Israel and had meetings with the Authority in
    Bethlehem. These discussions are around issues of how they
    manage terrorism and how they manage violence within the West
    Bank and Gaza, but it is also hopefully setting the stage for a
    re-engagement on the peace process with the Israelis. So all of
    those issues of concern have been discussed with them.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. And I won't take up any
    more time. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
        Mr. Sherman. Our hearts go out to the victims. This is an
    attack on our democracy and the best response is for us to be
    here doing our jobs, so I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being
    here. Most of my questions will be for the record because we
    want to be as brief as possible.
        The discussion about what resources the State Department
    should have and without objection I would like to put into the
    record a letter from 120 Three and Four Star Flag Officers
    urging that you have more resources than you are asking for.
    And of course, Senator Corker made some more comments to you
    yesterday.
        We in Congress decide how much money is going to be spent.
    We have the overall view. We might plug a tax loophole or have
    savings in another part of the budget that would allow us to
    spend more on foreign ops. But we do our best job when we get
    guidance. I would hope that you would submit for the record how
    you would spend a 10 percent, a 20 percent, or a 30 percent
    increment. What your recommendation to us is if we can find the
    money to provide that and I thank you for nodding.
        I am going to move on to the red boxes that the ranking
    member brought up. The Under Secretaries, the Assistant
    Secretaries that haven't been appointed. We talked about this
    and I commend you for your decision to praise the people who
    are filling these positions as Acting Assistant Secretaries,
    Acting Under Secretaries. They are career professionals. They
    are doing a spectacular job except they can't do the job
    because they are temporary. They are not authorized to make
    policy and there are hundreds of decisions that shouldn't reach
    your desk, but need to be made by someone who isn't just there
    holding down the--so I would urge you to submit a list of those
    actings that you would recommend keep their job because they
    are doing a spectacular job and they have already got their
    security clearances and then you hit the ground running and
    whoever holds that position not only has the incredible
    competence that you and I have discussed, but also has the
    authority of saying this is really my desk.
        I would urge you to designate the Islamic Revolutionary
    Guard Corps as a specially designated foreign terrorist
    organization. The Quds force is already so designated. If you
    designate the subsidiary, you should designate the entire
    consolidated group of corporations. If we apply that business
    term to the situation you should certainly designate the IRGC
    given the thousands of people they have killed in Syria.
        We face an ideological threat from radical Islamist
    terrorism. I hope that we would pay to print and provide
    textbooks to parents who otherwise have to pay for them and
    expand our broadcasting, particularly in the regional language
    of Pakistan, especially Sindhi.
        Now a couple of oral questions. I think this is an easy
    one. Is the Trump administration committed to the
    implementation of last year's extension of the U.S.-Israel
    Memorandum of Understanding regarding security assistance?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Sherman. Another one that might be a little tough. They
    are talking about an arms package for Saudi Arabia starting at
    $110 billion, perhaps $350 billion over the next 10 years. Can
    you provide the committee with assurance that the State
    Department will closely scrutinize any proposed sales to ensure
    that they do not adversely impact Israel's qualitative military
    edge and that you would oppose the transfer of F-35 aircraft?
        Secretary Tillerson. We will ensure that all of those sales
    meet all of our obligations both to Israel and to others.
        Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
        Secretary Tillerson. I would like to respond to----
        Mr. Sherman. I yield to the Secretary.
        Secretary Tillerson. I would like to respond to the ranking
    member's chart, all the red boxes since you brought it up.
    First, just so you know, we have named and have names in the
    process at the White House for about 50 percent of the Under
    Secretary and Assistant Secretary positions and we have
    candidate lists that we are narrowing down for the remainder.
        Same on the ambassadorial roles. We have 212 Ambassador or
    representative positions. Over 140 of those are filled. Of the
    remaining 70, about half have already been named and are in
    process. The other half we have evaluations with candidates
    under way.
        One of the real obstacles over in the process is--I
    followed up with people, all these people were named literally
    months ago, asking what is the hold up--and when we call them
    we find out it is getting their paperwork done. The paperwork
    burden to get the clearance and to satisfy the Office of
    Ethics, which is important, is extraordinarily burdensome. I
    know from my own experience, I had to hire eight individuals to
    help me get mine done so that I could get it done as quickly as
    I did. Most people can't afford to do that. So this is an
    extraordinary chore for people to get through the paperwork,
    even former senators who have been nominated for positions are
    struggling to get through the paperwork. Just the point that it
    is not because people haven't been named and they are not in
    the process. They are being processed.
        Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Secretary, welcome to the committee and thank you for your
    leadership.
        On human trafficking, Mr. Secretary, the TIP Report, as we
    all know on the country ratings will soon be released. They are
    under active review right now. Tragically, the Obama
    administration in the last 2 years ignored TIP recommendations
    and artificially inflated, gave passing grades, to countries
    like China, Cuba, Oman, and Malaysia who have egregious records
    when it comes to human trafficking. They ignored the TIP
    professionals and they politicized the outcome. Reuters
    confirmed this. They did an investigative report that was
    incisive and brilliant. I held several hearings on it and the
    focus of the last one was ``Next Time Get it Right,'' because
    they didn't. We sell out the victims of human trafficking when
    we misappropriate a tierage, Tier 3 being the worst and say you
    are okay when they are not. So please, assure the committee
    that this year's TIP Report will be honest, transparent, and
    will follow wherever the human rights abuse goes.
        What you do with sanctions, the part two of all of that, is
    all up to you. Hopefully, all of you are very informed and you
    will make a great decision on that, but at least get the TIP
    Report right. We have to restore the integrity of that report.
        Secondly, on food aid, on October 15th, I held a hearing on
    why everyone it seemed were exiting the Middle East and going
    to Europe. Some wanted to come here, but most flooded into
    Europe. We were told by the UNHCR's Regional Representative
    that the trigger was the 30 percent in the World Food Programme
    provisions and that the UNHCR appeals have been so under
    realized, average 40 percent, 60 percent unrealized, so people
    felt helpless and abandoned in those refugee camps. They
    finally said we are out of here. We are going somewhere,
    Germany, wherever they wanted to go, but it was triggered by a
    lack of food aid and other kind of humanitarian assistance.
        I would appeal to you. Karen Bass and I just returned from
    South Sudan. It was my second trip within the last 9 months. We
    went to refugee camps. One refugee camp, the largest, one of
    the largest in the world, Bidi Bidi, in Uganda, they are
    cutting food rations by 50 percent because it is not there.
        We did go to another camp, Bentiu, which is an IDP camp in
    Unity State and frankly, they had food and a lot of it was
    courtesy of the United States Government, so thank you for
    that. But we have to make sure that that food does not
    diminish. It needs to actually be increased. We are having a
    hearing tomorrow, it was scheduled for today, on the fact that
    some 14 million Africans are at risk of famine and the driver,
    frankly, is conflict. But they have to get that food aid.
        Finally, I will just say this on the issue of the conflict.
    I believe and I think Karen would agree with this that there is
    a window of opportunity with South Sudan and Salva Kiir and his
    leadership to really put pressure on them to end this conflict
    which is a Nuer versus Dinka conflict. He has a new chief of
    staff for the military who seems to be saying all for the right
    things. His previous one was a disaster and the rapes and the
    interruption of convoys on their way to deliver foodstuffs and
    humanitarian assistance were disrupted by the military. So
    please, there needs to be an all-out effort on South Sudan
    right now to act on this window of opportunity, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, as to the human trafficking
    report, as I said in my opening statement, we will see the
    world as it is. We will be honest with ourselves and the
    American people. So let me assure you that report will be
    reflective of what the circumstances actually are.
        On the food aid, you are correct. So much of this is
    complicated by conflict. We appreciate that Congress gave us a
    big plus up on food aid this past year. Some of that money, I
    guess I can say regrettably, is going to carry over to 2018 and
    it has to do with our ability to deliver, particularly in some
    of these conflict areas. We have had difficulty working with
    NGOs getting some of the food delivered because of issues in
    the case of the conflict around Syria, issues with NGOs in
    Turkey that you have read about. We are working with the
    Government of Turkey to facilitate them approving and not
    stopping our ability to get aid into these regions.
        You mentioned parts of Africa. Yemen, there is a serious
    famine crisis in Yemen. Again, we are blocked, the aid workers,
    and we are blocked from being able to deliver to the people
    that need it. We are working, trying to work solutions in all
    of these areas with our first and highest priority create
    conditions that we can at least get the humanitarian aid in
    while we are working on the conflict resolution itself.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
    you for being here. Let me just first say, Mr. Secretary, that
    what we are looking at--I understand the difficulty with the
    paperwork, etcetera, but just noted that the Bush and the Obama
    administration was way ahead at this point as far as hiring the
    number of individuals that we had at various levels at the
    State Department.
        But let me ask you a couple of questions and maybe you can
    clear them up for me. As I travel around, these are questions
    that I am often asked and I have been unclear with some of the
    answers and so maybe you can answer them in the vein of what we
    talked about here in a yes or no answer.
        Are you in favor of America First nationalism?
        Secretary Tillerson. America First, as we said, does not
    mean America alone. We will continue our strong alliances and
    partnerships and maintain the friendships, the relations that
    we have around the world.
        Mr. Meeks. Because of some of the statements that the
    President has made about America First and he has said that a
    lot of the other countries around the world have to give things
    back or we are not going to do this or that, in his words, by
    just using the words, America First in that regard, do you see
    any negative consequences to America's standing internationally
    as a result of the America First, which would seem to indicate
    to the rest of the world that it is about us and only about us
    if you just take that language.
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, that is why the Vice
    President, myself, Secretary of Defense, others have been
    making numerous trips, the President himself with his trip
    abroad. We have to ensure our partners and allies understand
    what that moniker conveys and I think what we have had good
    dialogue with them about is it does not mean America is
    stepping back or that we only worry about our own self
    interests. Rather, as I indicated, we live in some really
    challenging times and a lot of things are changing. We have to
    ask our allies and friends to do more and take more
    responsibility in these great alliances that we have.
        Mr. Meeks. Okay, so let me----
        Secretary Tillerson. And what I am hearing back is they are
    glad we are engaged. I have seen no indication that our
    relationships have been undermined with this very open, frank,
    and honest conversation we are finally having with people.
        Mr. Meeks. Short period of time I have, so let me just ask
    this so that we can be clear. Do we support, because I know
    that the President has said that he doesn't generally agree
    with multi-lateral agreements or multi-lateral organizations.
    He would rather do things on a bilateral basis. So we do
    support the EU?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes. We have been quite clear that we
    do.
        Mr. Meeks. NATO?
        Secretary Tillerson. Without a doubt.
        Mr. Meeks. OAS?
        Secretary Tillerson. Certainly.
        Mr. Meeks. WTO?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes. But WTO needs some reform.
        Mr. Meeks. The U.N.?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes, the U.N. needs a lot of reform.
        Mr. Meeks. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. So we will work and we are going to--silently
    with all of those----
        Secretary Tillerson. We are engaged with every one of those
    organizations you named. And those that are quite effective, we
    want to strengthen them. Some of them need significant reform
    and that is not just the U.S. point of view.
        Mr. Meeks. I am just trying to make it clear because for
    some, quite frankly, Secretary, what has happened is the truth
    of the matter is as you have traveled and General Mattis,
    etcetera, and the Vice President, they have heard one thing and
    it seems to be that people are relieved when they have heard
    you speak. Then the President tweets or says something else. It
    seems to contradict what you say and so then people come to me
    and they don't know what to believe, whether or not it is the
    words of the Secretary of State or the President of the United
    States. That is not your fault. There is nothing you can do. I
    don't want to--in the little bit of time that I have.
        I really want to jump then real quickly into this issue
    that we have, just talking about the budget because 21 percent
    of the diversity in the State Department has come from the
    utilization of the Fellows, either the Pickering or the Rangel
    Fellows. And I understand that there is a freeze that is going
    on and we have already spent $85,000 per person on these
    students. So I am wondering if not these bright, young
    individuals who can help diversify the State Department that
    they can be waived from this freeze. They have finished the
    program. They have been paid. We have invested the money so
    that they can then take their spots in the foreign service. Is
    there any opportunity for them to be----
        Secretary Tillerson. There is no freeze. The structure of
    the program, Rangel-Pickering, which is very important to us
    and we have every intention of continuing it, the obligation in
    the contract that the young people and others engage with us
    when we fund their tuition and for their graduate studies is
    that we confirm that we will offer them a position in consular
    affairs. That is confirmed. And it is a 5-year commitment on
    their part to serve.
        We then say we will put you on the list for consideration
    for the next A-100 foreign service class. We are holding the
    next A-100 foreign service class because quite frankly right
    now on foreign service officer staffing we are actually up
    about 50 people from the beginning of the year. With our
    expected manning which we are looking at probably an 8 percent
    reduction by the end of fiscal 2018, in order for us to have
    time to manage how we want that to occur so that we do not
    diminish the strength of the foreign service corps, we are
    holding the next A-100 class. So nothing has been frozen and we
    want people to continue to apply and they are all offered a
    position in consular affairs and that is no change from the
    past.
        There has never been a guarantee that anyone would have a
    clear offer or pathway to foreign service. They would be
    considered for foreign service, based upon the work they have
    completed, but they always have an offer to go to work in
    consular affairs.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and let us just
    note that right from the very beginning you outlined for us
    that we have been spending more money on our foreign projects
    and foreign goals than we have at historic levels, which have
    actually been lower. Let me just note for the record that this
    increase in spending levels especially in the last 8 years, has
    not resulted in a more peaceful world or a more secure
    situation for the people of the United States of America.
        Let me note also, Mr. Secretary, that I am proud that we
    have a Government now and we have a President who makes no
    apologies for putting America first in his priorities. What is
    important for the well-being, security, and prosperity of the
    United States is our job and for us to try to blur that is not
    doing anyone a service.
        Achieving our goals, however, let us note, and putting
    America first, achieving our goals does not necessarily derive
    from higher budgets, but like you have committed to us today,
    working with other countries and making sure that we reach out
    to make friends and to make sure that we turn enemies into
    friends and get the job done for helping the less fortunate
    people of the world is something that we will work together on
    and not just bear as a burden of the United States taxpayer. So
    I appreciate, number one, what this administration is doing and
    what you are doing, Mr. Secretary, to achieve those goals.
        I have some specific questions for you on specific areas.
    Number one, are we still giving money to Pakistan? Dr. Afridi,
    who fingered Osama bin Laden, the murderer of 3,000 Americans
    in 9/11, is being held in a dungeon there and the Pakistanis
    continue, we know, the ISI continues with a notorious support
    of terrorist elements in Afghanistan. Why are we still giving
    Pakistan any aid at all?
        Secretary Tillerson. We are beginning an inter-agency
    policy review toward Pakistan. This is going to be one of the
    considerations. The President has asked the questions
    specifically about our level of support and funding to
    Pakistan. No decision is to be taken until we complete that
    policy review, as you well can understand and appreciate.
        Pakistan and our relationship with them touches on some
    much broader issues relative to stability in Afghanistan and
    how we achieve that, but also stability in the Indo-Pacific
    region. It is a very complex relationship we have with the
    Government of Pakistan, but your concerns are all well founded.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will trust you and trust this
    administration that we take a realistic view and sometimes that
    means biting the bullet and having when you are dealing with
    someone who is--they have been two-faced with us for so long
    now. Pakistan is acknowledged by most of the people I have
    dealt with as the source of terrorism in that part of the world
    and if we don't succeed in Afghanistan, it will be because of
    the ISI in Pakistan. With that said, Afghanistan looks like it
    is not going in the right direction. And there are some
    creative ways to handle this. We continue to have our troops
    involved there, but some people are calling for more troops. I
    hope that we look for other methods rather than sending
    American troops into Afghanistan.
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, we have an Afghanistan
    policy, as you know, under review as well and I mention that in
    the context of Pakistan because you cannot work one without the
    other.
        In the interim though, we have had inter-agency discussions
    with the President about how to preserve the opportunity for
    our long-term solution in Afghanistan where we never allow
    Afghanistan to become the platform for terrorism to be launched
    against the United States or certainly others. That work we
    expect to complete over the coming weeks, review it with the
    President, make a final policy decision. But it has not been
    going well in Afghanistan. I would refer and defer to Secretary
    Mattis' assessment and he testified to that effect this week.
        And I think there are steps we need to take to at least
    prevent further deterioration while we get our new policies in
    place. What we are following now are the policies of the prior
    administration and we need to take some steps to stem the
    effects of those while we get our policies in place.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Albio Sires of New Jersey.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
    you very much for being here.
        Mr. Secretary, I was not born in this country. I was born
    in Cuba. Growing up as a little boy, what I remember is the
    process of indoctrination where the premise of the
    indoctrination was the destruction of America. Everything that
    was evil was America. We have a situation now where we have a
    White House that seems to ignore the fact that Russia was
    meddling in our democracy. The most important thing in this
    world, I think, is the democracy that we have here. And the
    fact that some of these intelligence agencies have confirmed
    Putin's involvement in this.
        I ask you why are we treating Russia with kid gloves? Why
    are you coming before us and telling us to give you flexibility
    when the premise of Russia is to destroy this country? I think
    the fact that we have a bipartisan effort now with this
    legislation to put some sanctions on Russia and to send a
    strong message that this is something that we will not allow--I
    just cannot understand why this White House seems to treat this
    man with such kid gloves? Why don't we just talk and tell the
    reality, tell the people of America from the White House?
        I know you have spoken about it. Other members have spoken
    about it, but can you tell me, please, so I can rest a little
    better?
        Secretary Tillerson. As I have characterized the
    relationship with Russia and I did this after walking out of
    President Putin's office and went immediately to a press avail
    in Moscow, the relationship between the United States and
    Russia is at an all-time low post-Cold War.
        Mr. Sires. But it is not us. It is their doing.
        Secretary Tillerson. And it is getting worse.
        Mr. Sires. Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt. I don't
    have too much time. But it is their efforts to undermine us.
        Secretary Tillerson. And it is getting worse and the two
    greatest nuclear powers on the planet cannot have this kind of
    a relationship. We have to move it to a different place and
    that is what I have been asked to do, is to determine whether
    we can move the relationship to a different place that doesn't
    present the kind of threats to us and to the world that I am
    concerned the current relationship does and further
    deterioration would.
        And I fully appreciate and share the sentiment of all you
    just said, but the issue is do we want to make the relationship
    worse and where will that leave us? What is next? Or do we want
    to see if we can stabilize it and begin to deal with--there is
    a large number of issues----
        Mr. Sires. But Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Tillerson [continuing]. On the table between us
    including meddling in the elections. And do we want to try to
    deal with those toward some resolution? It may very well be
    that when we have progressed this discussion with them to some
    point where I will be the one to tell you we are getting
    nowhere. We are getting nowhere.
        Mr. Sires. Mr. Secretary, I think you are going to the
    other extreme now.
        Secretary Tillerson. I will be the first to come back to
    you and tell you----
        Mr. Sires. We are going to the extreme where we seem to be
    just giving into a lot. There are messages you can send without
    going to a nuclear war. You know, there are things that we can
    do and send strong messages to this country.
        Secretary Tillerson. Sanctions are very useful tools.
    Unilateral sanctions are not quite as useful as multi-lateral
    sanctions. And we are, as we think about additional sanctions,
    one of my challenges and I take this as my responsibility, is
    how do I bring other allies along with us to say to them you
    must respond in this way as well. In order for these sanctions
    to be the effective pressure that I know we all want and that
    you desperately want, I agree with that. We can take unilateral
    action, but if we take it alone and we get little support from
    others, they will be somewhat hollow and Putin will know they
    are hollow.
        So this is a bit of a tactical discussion you and I are
    having at this point, not a fundamental discussion around
    intent, objectives. Our interests are completely aligned, let
    me assure you. This is really a tactical difference of opinion
    I think.
        Mr. Sires. Well, I do hope that you send this message to
    the President. And tell him that a lot of people are looking at
    how he behaves toward Russia. And quite frankly, I am very
    concerned. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Steve Chabot of Ohio.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
    Tillerson for being with us here today. I have been a member of
    this committee for two decades now. I have chaired the Middle
    East Subcommittee and the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee as
    well. The issue I would like to discuss with you this morning
    is Taiwan.
        As a founding member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus and
    having been to that nation--and I use that term nation
    intentionally--quite a few times, I take the commitments of our
    country that we have made with Taiwan very seriously. I believe
    that you do, too.
        Taiwan is a close ally of ours. It is one that truly
    exercises freedom and democracy and can be a role model to
    other nations facing an aggressive bullying neighbor. Taiwan
    faces an unrelenting threat from China which has nearly 600
    ballistic missiles aimed directly at Taiwan. Although Taiwan
    enjoys de facto independence, China's ultimate goal, as we
    know, is the annexation of the island. Therefore, the Taiwan
    Strait remains a potential hot spot.
        The PRC's aggression toward Taiwan has only grown over the
    years. The PRC more and more is referring to Taiwan as a core
    interest to them. They continue to block Taiwan's participation
    in international gatherings and the world, including the United
    States, embarrassingly, usually yields to China's bullying.
        Further, China continues its long campaign to pressure
    nations around the world to stop their recognition of Taiwan.
    And Panama just this week announced its intention to yield to
    that pressure.
        Fortunately, the 38-year-old Taiwan Relations Act is still
    alive and in place and this historic legislation has thus far
    maintained peace and stability, but we must be clear to the PRC
    that if push comes to shove, the United States will stand with
    Taiwan.
        Now Mr. Secretary, a couple of questions. China would never
    allow us to determine who they can meet with. Yet, because of
    fear of offending China principally, we won't allow high
    Taiwanese officials to set foot in this city, our Nation's
    capital, Washington, DC, right here.
        Some years back, a couple dozen Members of Congress,
    including myself, had to get on a plane and fly to New York
    City one evening after votes to meet with the President of
    Taiwan, President Chen. I know some other members are nodding
    because they were on that same plane with me. Because he wasn't
    allowed to come here at our Nation's capital.
        Now an important bill to remedy this, which I have
    introduced in previous Congresses as well, H.R. 535, the Taiwan
    Travel Act, would allow the President and Vice President,
    Foreign Minister, and Defense Minister to come here. It is
    being marked up tomorrow in the Asian Pacific Subcommittee and
    I would welcome the administration's support for that measure
    and I appreciate your comment, please.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, thank you, Congressman. You have
    summarized it quite well in terms of the situation as we see it
    today between China and Taiwan. As you know, the China-U.S.
    relationship has been defined for the past 50 years by our One
    China policy and our agreement around One China policy. They
    have their interpretation of what that means and we have ours
    and we have agreed that we will accommodate each other's
    interpretation. But that has led to 50 years of stability in
    the region. It has prevented conflict and has allowed for this
    enormous economic growth that has gone on, much of which we
    have benefitted from.
        As we begin our dialogue with Chinese leadership with this
    new administration, as you know, there was some questioning of
    our commitment to One China early on. The President has
    reaffirmed that we are committed to the One China policy. We
    are also completely committed to the Taiwan Relations Act, of
    fulfilling all of our commitments to them under that act. But
    we are also in a discussion with China now about what is our
    relationship going to be for the next 50 years? How do we enter
    another era of stability and absence of conflict? And Taiwan,
    clearly to the Chinese, is a part of that discussion.
        So it is important as we engage with them that we are able
    to fulfill our commitments to Taiwan, which we have every
    intention of doing. And that the question is, is the One China
    policy sustainable for the next 50 years? And those are the
    kind of discussions we are having. They are extremely complex
    in many regards. But this is what we seek as another 50 years
    of stability and no conflict with China in the Pacific region.
    Taiwan is a big element of that. North Korea is a big element
    of that. Their island building and militarization of islands is
    a significant element of that. All of these are in our
    discussion with them about how do we define this relationship
    for the next half century to ensure we have a continued era of
    no conflict and stability.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
    being here today.
        Mr. Secretary, I guess I am wondering what the Trump
    Doctrine means. Because to some of us it looks like making
    America great again in the realm of foreign policy means
    unilateral withdrawal and disruption. We renounced our own
    Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement. We have threatened
    to renegotiate NAFTA with our two largest trading partners and
    have had unfriendly assertions with both.
        We have renounced the Paris Climate Agreement, signed by
    195 countries. We have now joined the happy company of two,
    Nicaragua and Syria. What a proud moment for our country.
        We have threatened the NATO alliance with being
    ``obsolete'' and refused in Europe at the moment it was
    expected to reaffirm Article 5 and our commitment to it.
        We have embraced Russia in a way that is disturbing, I
    think, for most Americans. The President personally championed
    Brexit to the enormous consternation of our closest ally, the
    United Kingdom.
        He has embraced strongmen--Duterte of the Philippines;
    Erdogan of Turkey; Putin of Russia, el-Sisi of Egypt--while
    lecturing our closest allies about their commitments.
        And in your budget, he has proposed a 32 percent cut in the
    Function 150 and Function 300 international affairs functions
    of the budget that would cripple our ability, frankly, to
    engage in serious diplomacy. And of course, there is the U.N.,
    with constant threats of pulling out of specialized agencies
    and even peace-keeping operations.
        Mr. Secretary, how does a reasonable observer of that sorry
    and lamentable litany not conclude otherwise than this
    constitutes a serious unilateral withdrawal from long term
    post-World War II commitments, values, and policies of the
    United States Government?
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, my assessment of all as I
    listened to that entire list of areas, we can go down them. The
    withdrawal from TPP was by and large supported by most people
    in this body and up here on the Hill. There was little
    support----
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary, I know we could pick one or
    two from the litany.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, I am picking your list.
        Mr. Connolly. Are you going to go down the whole list?
    Because we are going to run out of time.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, if you are not interested----
        Mr. Connolly. I am interested, but I am just worried about
    time and my question really wasn't about a particular item on
    the list. It was, does this add up to a radical alteration in
    our foreign policy? You are the Secretary of State.
        Secretary Tillerson. It does not add up to a radical
    alteration of our foreign policy. I think in my statement I
    made a couple of comments that in my view and in my assessment,
    many of our institutions have not--have never responded to the
    post-Cold War era. With the fall of the Soviet Union, a whole
    array of dynamics were unleashed globally. After 9/11, a whole
    new array of threats were unleashed. And we have continued to
    try to address those with the old constructs. Not that the
    constructs are not valid and not that the constructs don't give
    us the frame and the relationships, but we have to begin to
    examine the effectiveness of those.
        And I think what the President is doing is he is examining
    all of these elements and we are questioning whether they are
    as effective as they should be and whether our partners and
    allies have come as far as we have come in commitments. So I
    would call this an elevated level of engagement, not in any way
    withdrawal.
        I think what people are questioning is because we are
    making certain demands of allies and partners and we are having
    this very frank, open, honest conversation with them that needs
    to occur. It needs to occur so that----
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Tillerson [continuing]. If people take a
    difficult as a decision around this as we take, that will
    strengthen our alliances. There will be greater commitment
    toward this, not less.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary, to call this an elevated
    involvement in the world would embarrass even George Orwell. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our
    prayers are with our colleagues who are not here today due to
    the baseball practice shooting: Congressman Jeff Duncan of
    South Carolina, Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama, and
    Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida.
        Mr. Secretary, I especially appreciate your Exxon service.
    My heritage is Exxon. My great grandfather started with
    Standard Oil in Richmond in 1890. My grandfather was a division
    manager of Standard Oil in New Jersey and South Carolina. My
    dad was a sales representative for SO Humble. And my brother
    has been an oil shopper for Exxon. So I know of the integrity
    of the company that you have led.
        Also, I was really pleased to see of your Scout background.
    All credit to my wife, we have four Eagle Scouts in our family.
    So thank you for what you have done.
        With so many global challenges, the rogue nation, North
    Korea, continues to push against international norms, and
    threatens our Nation's security and the security of our allies.
    I am concerned that large cuts in our foreign affairs budget
    will leave us at a disadvantage and the distinct national
    security role played by our diplomats so capably.
        I appreciate your willingness to make significant reforms
    to the Foreign Affairs budget in support your continuing the
    State Department's critical missions around the globe.
        So Secretary Tillerson, on the threat of the unstable and
    dangerous North Korean regime, each week there are reports of
    nuclear developments, missile tests, ridiculous videos showing
    Americans being killed, and Americans being unlawfully
    detained. There is bipartisan support and concern.
        Recently, Congressman Adam Schiff and I introduced H.R.
    2732, the North Korea Travel Control Act, which would prohibit
    travel to North Korea. Given the recent release of Otto
    Wormbier and Dennis Rodman's travel to North Korea, do you
    support the prohibition of U.S. tourist travel to North Korea?
        Secretary Tillerson. We have been evaluating whether we
    should put some type of travel visa restriction to North Korea.
    We have not come to a final conclusion, but we are considering
    it.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And my concern, indeed, that
    tourists go there is simply supporting a dictatorial
    totalitarian regime. And I say this with my colleague,
    Congressman Eliot Engel. He and I are the only two Members of
    Congress who have actually been to Pyongyang. But it was on a
    congressional delegation, not as a tourist.
        Thank you very much for your service.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Ted Deutch of Florida.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And even as we pray
    for the Majority Whip and the others who were injured this
    morning, I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge and
    express our gratitude to the Capitol Police who permit us to do
    our job every day, keeping us safe as well as all who are here
    in this room today. So we are grateful for what you do.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I wanted to first
    add my voice to those who have spoken out against the budget
    and in support of a robust international affairs budget. I
    would just point out that a 32 percent cut to the State
    Department cannot be solely about cost savings to the U.S.
    Government when the defense budget is being increased by 54
    percent. American leadership, as you know, Mr. Secretary, has
    always been and must continue to be about more than just
    military might.
        Next, I wanted to ask you about a hearing yesterday in the
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You were asked about
    payments made to Palestinian prisoners and their families,
    hundreds of millions of dollars per year payments that are made
    to those who stab or ram or shoot Israelis, payments to suicide
    bombers, payments that only incite violence and frankly prevent
    movement toward a two-state solution.
        The issue came up, as you pointed out, in bilateral
    meetings. And yesterday, in response to the question you said
    they have changed that policy. Their intent is to cease
    payments to families who have committed violence and murder
    against others.
        Can you provide clarity on the supposed change of policy,
    since Palestinian officials quickly responded by saying that
    there are no plans to stop these payments to families of
    Palestinians killed or wounded in carrying out these attacks?
        Secretary Tillerson. Those were assurances that were given
    to me in the most recent trip to Bethlehem. We have had
    conversations with them and told them they cannot continue
    these types of payments and expect the U.S. and the American
    people to see any explanation for why they do that. They have
    indicated they would. They indicated to me they were in the
    process of changing that. They did say we have to support
    widows and orphans. I said widows and orphans is one thing.
    Attaching payments as recognition of violence or murder is just
    something the American people could never accept or understand.
    So we will continue this dialogue with them. We have been quite
    clear as to our view.
        Mr. Deutch. I appreciate your making that clear.
    Unfortunately, it appears that that position has not yet
    changed.
        Finally, I want to raise an issue that I have raised every
    single time the Secretary of State has sat before this
    committee in the 7 years that I have served here. And that is
    the case of my constituent, Robert Levinson. Bob went missing
    in 2007. He is, Mr. Secretary, the longest held American
    hostage.
        As you know, Bob was not part of the 2016 deal that saw
    five America citizens released from Iran. But as part of that
    deal, commitments were made by Iran to assist in Bob's case. I
    have no doubt that there are those in Iran that know where Bob
    is or how to locate him. I hope that the administration is
    making every effort to prioritize engaging on Bob's case.
    Unfortunately, the Levinson family has not received much high-
    level communication since January. I would like to acknowledge
    two of Bob's seven children who are here with us today, his
    eldest son, Dan, and his youngest son, Doug.
        So first, Mr. Secretary, I just would like to ask one, will
    you commit to meeting with the Levinson family?
        Secretary Tillerson. We are happy to provide an update on
    anything we know and just to assure you, as you know,
    regrettably, we have a number of American citizens who are
    detained illegally.
        Mr. Deutch. I understand. I understand that. I would ask on
    behalf of----
        Secretary Tillerson. I just wanted to let you know, we have
    our attention on--we treat them as individual cases.
        Mr. Deutch. Will you meet with the family, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Deutch. Will you either designate a senior level
    position in the Department or fill the position of Special
    Envoy for Hostage Negotiations to liaise on a regular basis
    with the Levinson family and others?
        Secretary Tillerson. We are evaluating people to fill that
    position. I would tell you though and I think it is important,
    we do not stop our efforts just because we do not have someone
    in that role and I hope the evidence of our success already
    during this short term of our administration of securing the
    release of people who have been detained, I hope people take
    encouragement from that and I promise you that we have efforts
    underway for every detained person.
        Mr. Deutch. I understand that. Just sadly, it is 10 years
    now. So I am just focused on Bob. I would ask that you raise
    Bob's case at every opportunity that you have.
        Can I ask you, Mr. Secretary, whether you have plans to
    meet with the Iranians?
        Secretary Tillerson. I have no current schedule to meet
    with the Iranians.
        Mr. Deutch. If you don't do it, which I think is a mistake,
    it is imperative that you press our allies to raise Bob's case
    in their communications with the Iranians or any international
    fora. Ten years is simply too long for a family to go without
    their husband, father, and grandfather. Bob, Mr. Secretary, is
    going to become a grandfather for the seventh time in a matter
    of weeks. He should be home celebrating this joyous moment with
    his family. I appreciate your efforts and urge you to do
    everything you can to bring him home.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mike McCaul of Texas.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary for being here. It is good to see a fellow Texan back
    in the Secretary of State position.
        I just got back from Mexico City. I chair the U.S.-Mexico
    Inter-Parliamentary Group. I just want to let you know that it
    was a very productive, civil, and respectful meeting on
    security, energy issues, and NAFTA, in terms of how we could
    put energy under the NAFTA umbrella. I know you know more about
    that topic than I do. I think that would be certainly a win-win
    for both of our countries.
        I want to ask you about transnational criminal
    organizations. I had Secretary Kelly testify before my
    committee, stating it is one of the greatest threats facing the
    United States. He said that the cartels share ties with terror
    networks that we are currently fighting overseas, that they are
    threats to the fabric of American society and have the ability
    to sneak drugs and people, including potential terrorists, and
    dirty bombs into the United States. And finally, he stated the
    nexus between criminal networks and terrorist networks is real
    and I would predict will get more sophisticated. Do you agree
    with Secretary Kelly's comments?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes, I do. That is why we have
    undertaken this joint effort with our counterparts in Mexico
    around trans-criminal organizations, designed around getting at
    the supply chain of how illicit narcotics, but also human
    trafficking and other illicit activities, are carried out
    across our borders. We clearly see the connections of these
    activities with terrorist organizations all the way back to and
    including ISIS. Working with our Treasury counterparts, this is
    part of our global effort to deny terrorist financing as well.
        But this effort really gets at the challenge to our own
    national security, but also the health and well-being of our
    citizens in terms of the number of drug-related opioid deaths.
    So it is a very comprehensive effort that we have had. We are
    advancing with cooperation from our Mexican counterparts. I
    think you are going to see a very different approach to how we
    attack the problem of the cartels.
        Mr. McCaul. That is great to hear. I think we have long
    neglected this. We had a classified briefing with Admiral Tidd
    yesterday, the SOUTHCOM commander, and without getting into the
    details of that, I know that you are aware of that threat and
    it does worry me as the chairman of the Homeland Security
    Committee what is coming from terror ties into the Western
    Hemisphere and potentially across that U.S.-Mexico border which
    I think is why getting security both at the border with Mexico,
    but also Mexico's southern border is so important. Let me just
    thank you for your attention to that and I look forward to
    working with you on that.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Karen Bass of California.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, I
    appreciated the discussion that we had the other day. I wanted
    to talk to you in regard to Africa and what our policy is on
    Africa. I appreciated that you were clear that you understand
    the significance of the continent and the role that we play
    there, but it is still not really clear what our overall policy
    is.
        I am in my fourth term here and for the first time in the
    last couple of months, I have had a number of visits from our
    allies in the AU who have come and expressed a lot of concern
    about what the direction is that our country is taking in
    regard to Africa. They have read the budget. They understand
    the numbers and they understand that a budget really reflects
    your values, your policy, and your direction. And so they have
    come to me asking where is the United States going in regard to
    Africa.
        And when I think of the continent, there are three
    different things that come to mind. And I raise these in
    reference to the cuts in the budget. So from the national
    security perspective, we know that on the continent of Africa,
    there are many fragile democracies that can easily collapse and
    that quickly open the door to terrorism. So I am concerned
    about the cuts to the democracy programs, as well as to the
    cuts to U.N. peacekeeping. And I know that we pay a
    considerable share, but we also don't send our troops and other
    countries do.
        In terms of humanitarian assistance, especially including
    health and cutting food aid, and when we had the crisis with
    Ebola, we certainly know how quickly that could have spread to
    the United States. So our interest is very much at stake.
        And when I think of the economic perspective on Africa, and
    we have discussed the tremendous opportunities for U.S.
    businesses, U.S. jobs, but then I look at the budget cuts
    regarding OPIC and MCC, the African Development Foundation, and
    all of those are key institutions to really lay the basis for
    our businesses to do business on the continent.
        So one of my questions to you is you described a process
    that you are going through with the State Department, a
    listening tour, to look at how to run things more efficiently.
    And usually what happens in processes like this is that you
    have the process first and then you come up with the number
    that you need to actually deliver what the State Department and
    USAID should do.
        So my question is were you involved in determining the 30
    percent cut or was it imposed on you? And is your review
    process designed to fit into the cut?
        Secretary Tillerson. We had an interactive process with the
    OMB director. We gave him a pass-back budget. We were then
    given the budget back that I am here today to present. And so
    my view is if these are the resources that are going to be
    available to us, how do we want to prioritize the areas that we
    can have greatest impact. And I indicated this in my opening
    statement.
        I think in terms of Africa, and I appreciate the discussion
    you and I had the other morning. I thought it was quite useful.
    We share the same list of both concerns and opportunities. I
    would point to the fact that we have a lot of other areas of
    our budget that we can bring resources to bear on these
    particular concerns and issues. We have money in the ISIS
    budget that allows us to address some of the threats of an
    emergence of ISIS on the continent of Africa either in North
    Africa and certainly we are keeping our eye on Libya or through
    the Sahel. And we are working with other multi-national
    partners to defend against and not allow a re-emergence on the
    continent itself.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, I am sorry to
    interrupt, but I am about to run out of time. I wanted to ask
    you about one other area. I had heard that before you were
    confirmed that a message was sent to the State Department to go
    through and identify any program that was focused on women. And
    I want to know, number one, was that true? And there is a
    specific program, the African Women's Entrepreneurial Program
    and I don't know, I can't tell from the budget detail whether
    that is scheduled to be cut. And then just returning from South
    Sudan and knowing that rape is used as a weapon of war, very
    concerned about family planning services. And I mean birth
    control. I am not referring to abortion at all, but whether or
    not we would seek to eliminate birth control, especially in
    countries where we know that rape is used as a regular practice
    of war.
        Secretary Tillerson. I am not aware of any directive that
    was sent before my arriving there. We certainly have not
    carried out any directive of that nature while I have been
    there.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Ted Poe of Texas.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Thank
    you for your long-time service. As a fellow Houstonian, I want
    to congratulate you on your position. I appreciate you being
    here as well. I live in Humble, Texas, so you can assume where
    we got our name from.
        First, I want to thank you for your personal involvement in
    the release of Sandy Phan-Gillis, a Texan who had been
    imprisoned unlawfully by China for over 2 years. She was
    unlawfully in prison there. She was on a mission from Houston
    to work on economic things in China and arrested when she got
    on the plane. But thank you for your personal involvement and
    the President's involvement. Now she is released and she is
    back home in Houston. I want to thank you for that on behalf of
    their family.
        I want to go over several things and I will eventually have
    a question as well. The State Department can lead the effort to
    designate the IRGC as a sponsor of terror. I personally think
    that the State Department should designate them as a sponsor of
    terror under Executive Order 13224 and I would hope that would
    be on your radar to do. They are doing bad things throughout
    the world on behalf of terrorism and destroying the human
    rights of many people.
        I would like to know what the policy is of the U.S. toward
    Iran. Do we support the current regime? Do we support a
    philosophy of peaceful regime change? There are Iranians in
    exile all over the world. Some are here and then there are
    Iranians in Iran who don't support the totalitarian state. So
    is it the U.S. position to leave things as they are or to
    support a peaceful, long-term regime change?
        I want to mention Russia, second issue. I was in Georgia in
    2008 about a week after the Russians invaded and I know
    Congressman Smith was there when the Russians actually did
    invade. Russia took one third of the country. Basically, the
    world said that is not nice and nothing happened.
        And then in 2014, they took Crimea. They are in Eastern
    Ukraine now. And does our policy, U.S. policy state that that
    was unlawful and it is still unlawful and that those
    territories in Georgia must be returned to Georgia and to
    Crimea and as well as Eastern Ukraine be returned to Ukraine or
    are we just going to accept a Russian invasion of those
    territories?
        And the last thing I want to mention is Pakistan. I think
    Pakistan is playing us. We give them money. That money ends up
    in the hands of bad guys in Afghanistan who hurt Americans. I
    personally think that Pakistan should not get any American
    money. They get $500 million a year, not counting the military.
    They should be designated as a state sponsor of terror and they
    also should be removed from the major non-NATO status that they
    have. But I know this has been a discussion for years, to try
    to get Pakistan on board to do the right thing. They don't.
    What are we going to do? I heard your comments earlier. Are any
    of those things that I mentioned options?
        So Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and I will let you comment on
    that.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, our Iranian policy is under
    development. It has not yet been presented to the President.
    But I would tell you that we certainly recognize Iran's
    continued destabilizing presence in the region, their payment
    of foreign fighters, their export of militia forces in Syria
    and Iraq, and in Yemen, their support for Hezbollah. And we are
    taking action to respond to Iran's hegemony. Additional
    sanctions actions have been put in place against individuals
    and others.
        We continually review the merits, both from a diplomatic
    standpoint but also the international consequences of
    designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard in its
    entirety as a terrorist organization. As you know, we have
    designated the Quds.
        Our policy toward Iran is to push back on this hegemony,
    contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and
    to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that
    would lead to a peaceful transition of that Government. Those
    elements are there, certainly as we know.
        Mr. Poe. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, I am out of time and I
    would just expect--I would like a written response to those
    questions. And I have a constituent named Claudia who sent me
    some excellent questions to ask you and I hadn't gotten there.
    I will submit these to the record as well.
        Chairman Royce. Without objection.
        Mr. Poe. And thank you very much for your service and being
    here today. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. William Keating of Massachusetts.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I speak for
    all my colleagues this morning, it has been difficult through
    this hearing not to keep in our minds our colleague, Steve
    Scalise, and our other colleagues, the staff, and Capitol
    Police who were injured, and their families.
        And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
    willingness to serve your country.
        This committee has had a great experience, as long as I
    have been here, working in a bipartisan fashion with the
    administration trying to find the areas of commonality. And I
    mean this sincerely. I am not going down this path. It is just
    a clarification, if I could. For our ability to interact with
    the administration, nothing more than that. But I want to get a
    better idea to clarify the position of Jared Kushner in the
    administration. He has a major foreign policy position. But is
    he coordinating with you? What is your experience? Has he ever
    engaged in foreign policy discussions without prior
    coordination with the State Department? How would you define
    his role?
        Secretary Tillerson. Mr. Kushner is a senior advisor to the
    President, so he does attend our discussions, not all, but
    discussions we have in the West Wing from time to time. And I
    would say there is a clear recognition by him as to where
    foreign policy is conducted. It is in the State Department. It
    is by the Secretary of State. So I would say his role is one of
    any other senior advisor in the West Wing. He has freedom and I
    have invited him, as I have others serving the National
    Security Advisor McMaster and others, to call if there are
    issues that arise in the West Wing, let me know so we have
    visibility so we can begin talking about how we want to address
    those.
        Mr. Keating. Do you have any instances where he hasn't
    coordinated with State or yourself before engaging in
    discussions with foreign nationals or officials?
        Secretary Tillerson. You would have to ask him as to
    whether he has.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You spoke
    earlier about the working relationship with China in terms of
    North Korea. And there have been positive steps. I want to
    congratulate you on your work in that regard. But one of my
    concerns is the fact that as China might move away from trade
    opportunities to try and pressure North Korea, Russia seems to
    be creeping in replacing that vacuum with their own trade
    opportunities and other interactions with North Korea. Have you
    addressed this to Russia? This is a problem, I think we will
    have in dealing with the North Korea situation because if
    Russia just comes in and tries to fill that vacuum, then our
    work with China won't be as effective as it could be.
        Secretary Tillerson. We have seen that occur already as
    China has withdrawn certain support. Russia has backfilled
    that. Yes, North Korea is among our top issues, items that I
    speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov frequently about. I also had
    very extensive discussions directly with President Putin in the
    Kremlin when I saw him. We are asking for their help.
        I think Russia is evolving its own position relative to
    North Korea and we are looking for more support from them. I
    think two indications of late, one was their affirmative vote
    in the U.N. Security Council for the additional sanctions on
    North Korea. Typically, at best the Russians would abstain.
    This time they actually voted for these additional sanctions. I
    think that indicates that they see it differently. They have
    also made their own public statements that they see these
    activities by North Korea as being a threat now to Russia. So
    that is part of our dialogue with the neighborhood is look,
    this is not just a threat to us. This can become a threat to
    you as well.
        Mr. Keating. Well, thank you Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you for yielding back, Mr. Keating.
    Now we go to Mr. Darrell Issa of California.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was delighted when
    you were named and I keep reminding my friends that one of the
    last great Secretaries we had was George Schultz who for 6
    years before, not immediately, but just before had run a global
    enterprise, one that was responsible for building large and
    small cities. And so I am going to kind of segue from that to
    one of the areas you inherited that I want you to be aware has
    been the intention of this committee and of the Oversight
    Committee.
        During the George W. Bush era under General Williams and
    others, the State Department began a standard design/build
    process. This allowed the State Department to go from an aging
    Embassy system that lacked security--and it was falling behind
    where most of the money was being spent just trying to keep
    crumbling Embassies going--to getting new modern facilities
    that were secure and predictable in operation.
        Upon the change of administrations, there was a change
    under Hilary Clinton and she began going back to the old
    practice of New York wine and cheese liberals happily designing
    works of art. And I am trying to be over the top for a reason
    because if you go to Great Britain where you find that glass
    palace on an undersized lot that we can't use that we are
    paying extra, what you find is a return to Embassies that might
    be works of art. They may make great statements about America's
    prowess and place in the world, but you are not being given, as
    you know, enough money to build Embassies just to provide
    security, the likes of which we didn't have at Benghazi. And we
    didn't have in a lot of other places. By the way, I was also
    thrilled when Ambassador Patrick Kennedy abruptly left with the
    team that I am glad to see go.
        So now my question to you is with the President's current
    budget quite frankly reduced in that area, can you by changing
    back to a process of efficient design and build, can you begin
    to get us caught up to where never again will we have people
    die because they have a facility that lacks the basic security
    required by your own regulations?
        Secretary Tillerson. Thank you for the question,
    Congressman. The current budget around security, both security
    services as well as Embassy construction, will allow us to
    maintain our program pretty much through 2018. We will begin to
    have planning difficulties in '19 at this level and we are in
    discussions, certainly we will have discussions with OMB about
    that.
        But I think to your point about our execution against
    Embassy construction, it really is an execution issue and I
    agree we need to get back to standard designs, fewer scope
    changes. We don't need to be unique every place. I am a fit for
    purpose guy and I think we need to build what is needed for us
    to deliver on mission. And there are some execution issues.
        I have been reading reports from OIG of audits they have
    been doing, the various projects and I recognize a lot of the
    deficiencies. I have seen them in the private sector when the
    private sector struggled with major constructions projects. So
    I think we have a lot of opportunity to improve that and get
    back to fit for purpose approach.
        Mr. Issa. I would like to follow up with another area on
    that and very briefly. Because you have OCO funding and because
    if we really look at your facilities around the world, they are
    often facilities in which Title 10 individuals and others
    assigned to you need to operate or at least coordinate in
    dangerous areas. So I might suggest that a very good investment
    of several billion dollars over the next several fiscal years
    would be to springboard ahead to have those facilities able to
    house both the diplomatic mission and coordinate other missions
    in the area. And I am thinking particularly of Africa and some
    of the other hot spots.
        What I would like to do is segue though to two things. One
    is you have 1,000 Marines available to you. This was a post-
    Benghazi decision to plus up. I can tell you that when I hear
    that Papua New Guinea's facility gets stopped and a whole new
    one is getting designed and part of the justification is they
    needed room for Marines, again, Papua New Guinea, that perhaps
    looking where you best would have those 1,000 Marines could
    well be a good investment in moving them around. And of course,
    having them match facilities to the greatest extend possible
    that you plan on having and would otherwise build.
        Lastly, the President's budget did a 50 percent cut in an
    office which was Conflict Stabilization Operations which is
    under State, and the Office of Transition Initiatives which is
    under USAID. We had previously sent your agency under the last
    administration letters asking you to combine those two. And
    with the budget having a 50 percent cut, could you consider 100
    percent cut by combining them, deciding who gets this job
    either State or USAID, but not both?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, again, I think part of our whole
    redesign is to look at exactly the kind of issues you have
    identified of where have duplicative work efforts, overlap of
    work, not just within the State Department, but we find it
    interagency in Ag, Commerce, Defense. And so this is going to
    be examining all of these areas which ultimately I suspect will
    lead certainly to combined efforts. Delivering on mission for
    less cost.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. I appreciate that. This
    committee will recess at 10 minutes before noon to allow us to
    join our colleagues on the House Floor and following the prayer
    and pledge, there will be brief remarks from the Speaker and
    the Democratic leader concerning the shooting incident this
    morning. Then this hearing will resume afterwards at 12:30 or
    so. I would like to thank the Secretary for his flexibility. We
    will adjourn here no later than 1:30. So at this time, let me
    go to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary for being here. I think it is very clear that the
    devastating cuts proposed in this budget would make it nearly
    impossible for America to lead the world and it is why it has
    been decried by virtually every serious diplomat, scholar, and
    development expert. So I want to associate myself with the
    remarks of my colleagues about this budget and what it would
    mean for our diplomatic work.
        I have very specific questions, Mr. Secretary, which I
    would ask you to answer with a yes or no if you can, so I can
    get through as many of them as possible.
        First, Mr. Secretary, I assume you are familiar with the
    First Amendment and the rights that it affords to the American
    people?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. And do you believe that an open and
    unrestricted press is a vital part of a transparent and
    accountable government?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. And in your observations, do China and
    Russia have a free and unfettered press, free from government
    influence?
        Secretary Tillerson. No.
        Mr. Cicilline. And so do you believe that Chinese and
    Russian media sources reliably and accurately report meetings
    or conversations between U.S. Government officials and their
    governments?
        Secretary Tillerson. Not likely.
        Mr. Cicilline. So do you believe that it impacts the
    narrative or sends any type of message to the leaders of
    Russia, China, or other authoritarian-leaning governments when
    American media is excluded from reporting on significant events
    involving yourself, the President, or other senior American
    diplomats?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am not sure I understood that one.
        Mr. Cicilline. Do you believe it impacts the narrative or
    sends a type of message to the leaders of other countries when
    American media is excluded from reporting on significant events
    involving you, the President, or other senior American
    diplomats? You may remember a meeting in which American media
    was excluded and Russia media was permitted in the Oval Office?
        Secretary Tillerson. It is hard for me to say what impact
    that particular limited incident had.
        Mr. Cicilline. Next, Mr. Secretary, you are aware that the
    Chechen Government, which is an arm of Vladimir Putin, has been
    engaged in a concerted campaign of kidnapping, detention,
    torture, and murder of gay men in Chechnya, are you not?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am aware of those reports, yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. And my colleagues and I sent you a letter
    raising this issue on April 7th of 2017 and my question is did
    you discuss the issue of these atrocities being carried out in
    Chechnya when you met with the Foreign Minister Lavrov on May
    10th or any other government officials at any other time?
        Secretary Tillerson. Those are on our pending list.
        Mr. Cicilline. So you have not discussed them at all?
        Secretary Tillerson. We did not make our way through all
    the issues in the meetings we had.
        Mr. Cicilline. Are you aware whether the President has
    raised this issue with President Putin?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am unaware of whether he has or not.
        Mr. Cicilline. But will you here today in this hearing,
    condemn the torture and murder of gay men in Chechnya and state
    that is the policy of the United States Government at the
    highest levels that the Russian Government must protect the
    lives and safety of all of its citizens including the LGBT
    community?
        Secretary Tillerson. That is our position globally.
        Mr. Cicilline. And in Russia as well?
        Secretary Tillerson. Last time I checked, Russia is part of
    the globe.
        Mr. Cicilline. So that is a yes?
        Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Next, Mr. Secretary, I assume you are
    familiar with the events that took place in Washington, DC,
    outside of the Turkish Embassy on May 6th?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am.
        Mr. Cicilline. I assume you do not believe it is
    appropriate for a foreign security force to assault Americans
    on American soil?
        Secretary Tillerson. I do not.
        Mr. Cicilline. Have you or the President had conversations
    with President Erdogan or the Turkish Ambassador about this
    incident?
        Secretary Tillerson. We called the Turkish Ambassador over
    to the State Department immediately and spoke to him. I have
    had face-to-face conversations with the Foreign Minister
    Cavusoglu on the margins of the NATO meeting. The matter is
    under investigation by Washington, DC, police and the court
    system and we are awaiting conclusion of that investigation for
    further action.
        Mr. Cicilline. So once those prosecutions are concluded,
    you will consider actions in response to this egregious
    attacks?
        Secretary Tillerson. We want our action to be consistent
    with what the investigation shows.
        Mr. Cicilline. And do you believe it is the purview of the
    United States Government to sell weapons to the very same
    security forces who committed this attack?
        Secretary Tillerson. It is under evaluation.
        Mr. Cicilline. Next Mr. Secretary, when can Congress expect
    to receive the administration's plan to defeat ISIS and end the
    conflict in Syria?
        Secretary Tillerson. We have an recent update with the
    President on the plan going forward, both militarily,
    diplomatically, and then how to confront ISIS, the D-ISIS
    campaign globally, both in the communications networks and to
    deny them the financing. It is a global approach.
        Mr. Cicilline. When can Congress expect a presentation of
    those plans?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am not aware that there has been a
    request for one.
        Mr. Cicilline. Consider this one, at least from one Member
    of Congress. And finally, Mr. Secretary, would you say that our
    past efforts to counter Russian aggression in Europe and
    Eurasia have been successful?
        Secretary Tillerson. It is a work in progress and it
    requires work every day.
        Mr. Cicilline. But has it been successful?
        Secretary Tillerson. We have had some success. I think if
    you look at how certain countries in East Europe have
    progressed, progress in the Balkans, but challenged.
        Mr. Cicilline. So my question is in light of that, after an
    unprecedented attack against our own elections, evidence of
    Russian attempts to hack and influence elections throughout
    Europe, as well as other mischief, how do you propose to
    adequately counter the Russian threat with the budget that is
    decimated by almost 60 percent in the account for countering
    Russian aggression? We haven't been successful and your budget
    proposes cutting it by 60 percent. How can we be successful in
    countering Russian aggression with those kinds of resource
    reductions?
        Secretary Tillerson. Our engagement is going to continue
    with those nations in East Europe that are most threatened. If
    we had additional funds, we would fan that back out to do more
    than some other countries, but we are going to remain engaged
    with those countries.
        Chairman Royce. We go briefly to----
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent
    that the following three documents be placed in the record?
        Chairman Royce. Without objection.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. We are going to go briefly to Scott Perry
    of Pennsylvania and then we will recess.
        Mr. Perry. Great to see you. I for one, although I might
    take some differences with some of the lines in the budget
    request, am thrilled that we finally have a commander in chief
    that is interested in balancing the budget of the United States
    and I do consider that a national security priority.
        With that, Mr. Deutch asked you about the Palestinian
    Authority and the 10 percent increase. And I will tell you, at
    least one of us and probably more than one that is concerned
    and somewhat tired of continuing to fund the PA and hearing
    somewhat of the same rhetoric where we are going to discuss it.
    We are considering it. We have a commitment to end this stipend
    to murderers and terrorists and I am just wondering if you have
    a glide path and I don't want to get into any discussion that
    would imperil your ability to be effective in this regard, but
    is there some way that you are using to assess how they are
    doing with that and to claw back some of that funds and use it
    for other things if they fail to comply with their commitment,
    whatever that is?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, I think the President has been
    very clear with the Palestinian Authority over actions he
    expects them to take and he has indicated that he has a certain
    window of patience and a certain window under which he is going
    to remain engaged and be interested and at some point he is
    going to become disinterested.
        Mr. Perry. Okay.
        Secretary Tillerson. And if we become disinterested, that
    will certainly alter our level of support.
        Mr. Perry. So we will just note, we will be monitoring and
    we will probably look to follow up to see if that, in fact,
    takes place.
        You also had a conversation regarding the IRGC and
    designating them. I would like to throw the Muslim Brotherhood
    in there as well, two organizations, actors if you will, that
    have the specific interest of the destruction of the West,
    particularly the United States. And while there might be some
    good components, if you want to characterize it that way for
    these organizations, I would like to engage in a little bit of
    a short conversation about designating each one of those
    sponsors of terrorism--what the pitfalls might be of doing so.
    What are the American people missing because they know they are
    bad actors. So what are we missing that we need to know about
    that it is deleterious to designate these obvious sponsors of
    terrorism for what they are?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, as you just noted, the Muslim
    Brotherhood, which I think reportedly would have up to 5
    million members, has become somewhat segregated within its own
    ranks with the number of organizations within the Muslim
    Brotherhood, continuing to commit themselves to violence and
    terrorism. We have designated those organizations.
        At the top of the quality chain--if I can call it that--
    there are elements of Muslim Brotherhood that have now become
    part of governments. There are members of Parliament in Bahrain
    that are parts of government. There are members in Turkey that
    are parts of government. And so in designating the Muslim
    Brotherhood in its totality, as a terrorist organization, I
    think you can appreciate the complexities this enters into our
    relations with then the Government of Bahrain, and other
    governments where the Muslim Brotherhood has matriculated to
    become participants and in those elements they have done so by
    renouncing violence and terrorism. So that is one of the
    complicating issues around just taking a whole designation of
    Muslim Brotherhood. But I will tell you it is on our watch
    screen. We have not taken our eye off of it and we revisit this
    question periodically because it comes up in our foreign
    relations with others as well.
        Mr. Perry. And I certainly appreciate the answer. I just
    hope that we do not allow the more moderate ones, the ones that
    denounce violence, to have the organization use them to be the
    umbrella under which they conduct all these other things, which
    is the specific downfall of the United States and do continue
    vigilance.
        Finally, and the last question, Mr. Chairman, with your
    indulgence, the deal with Saudi Arabia and I couldn't get an
    answer on specifically how we were monitoring their support,
    the continued support of the exportation of Wahhabism,
    Salafism, and the terror that goes along with that
    fundamentalist view of Islam around the globe.
        Do you know of any metrics that the Department is following
    to support their claim that they are working on that? What are
    we gauging that? How are we doing to determine whether they are
    following along with that portion of the agreement?
        Secretary Tillerson. One of the outcomes of the President's
    summit in Riyadh was the creation of the Center to counter
    extreme Muslim messaging with Saudi Arabia. The Center now
    exists. It was inaugurated while we were there. The Center has
    a number of elements to attack extremism around the world. One
    of the elements that we are visiting with them about and they
    have already taken steps, the Saudis, is to publish new
    textbooks that go into the schools that are in the mosques
    around the world. These textbooks are to replace textbooks that
    are out there today that do advocate extreme Wahhabism
    viewpoints around the justification for violence.
        We have asked that they not just publish the new textbooks,
    we have asked that they retrieve the existing textbooks so we
    get those back. That is just one example. This Center is going
    to have a very broad range from social media to broadcast, to
    how young Imams are trained in the theological centers. And we
    are working with them today with the establishment of the new
    center to determine what are the measures that we will hold
    ourselves accountable to. That is one of the charges that the
    State Department is working with the Saudis and others as we
    bring this Center up to an operating level.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My time has expired
    and I yield.
        Chairman Royce. And without objection, the committee stands
    is recess and will return at approximately 12:30.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Royce. We will begin at this time and we will
    begin with questioning from Mr. Ami Bera from California.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for your patience in this reconvening.
        Now this is a tough day today, but it is with thanks to the
    Capitol Police. It is with thanks to the men and women that not
    only protect us, but all across this country, protect not only
    communities across the country, but the men and women that are
    around the world protecting who we are.
        You know, I have stated this previously in committee. A
    world led by American leadership is a better world and we can
    see that if we look back at the second half of the 20th century
    and the post-World War II world order. American leadership--
    leading with our values, with our morals--has created a better
    world and most around the world recognize that. And that has
    really been predicated on a foreign policy plank that has three
    legs, certainly, our defense, but also development and
    diplomacy.
        And my concern with this budget is that it cuts off two of
    those legs on that stool and that stool is going to collapse.
    It devastates the diplomacy and development budget.
        Now I know it is not your budget, Mr. Secretary, but as
    Members of Congress who have a responsibility for setting
    priorities, etcetera, I have grave concerns and can talk about
    a number of areas that I find very troublesome in this budget.
    I am going to focus--I am a physician by training with a public
    health and global health background, and have some real deep
    reservations about some of the cuts to our global health
    development, some of the cuts to USAID, particularly a 15
    percent cut to maternal and child health programs. That is very
    worrisome to me, the impact that those cuts potentially have
    around the world.
        I think America is a great Nation, but a great Nation leads
    by our values and our morals and we don't withdraw from the
    world. So my concern is if those cuts go into effect, the
    number of women that potentially will suffer, the number of
    women that potentially will die. I think some of the cuts with
    regards to a potential billion dollar reduction from PEPFAR,
    the zeroing out of family planning funds, are going to have
    devastating impacts.
        I watched them and read the testimony and the question of
    our colleague across the Capitol, Senator Shaheen, discussing
    the extension of the Mexico City policy. I heard your answer to
    that, that your office would be studying the impact of the
    extension of the global gag rule.
        Can you give us assurances that in that 6-month time frame
    when you get that report back, if we are seeing adverse
    impacts, that you would make recommendations to reverse that
    policy?
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, thank you for the
    attention to that particular matter. I can't commit to you that
    I would seek a reversal of that policy. As I explained to
    Senator Shaheen yesterday, our implementation of the policy was
    structured in a way and engagement with a number of our health
    partners to mitigate any effect on delivery of their
    activities. We said we would do a 6-month check to see if it is
    impacting them and one provision I left out in my response to
    her yesterday is if it is impacting any particular areas of our
    healthcare that we did not intend to impact, then in
    consultation with the Secretary of HHS, I as Secretary of State
    can issue waivers and allow the funding to continue. So the
    reason we want to do the 6-month check is to see what impact
    does it have.
        Mr. Bera. Mr. Secretary, will you commit to providing us
    the results of that report and what you find at that 6-month
    check?
        Secretary Tillerson. We would be happy to share that.
        Mr. Bera. Great. I also have real reservations about the
    impact of PEPFAR. Now PEPFAR was started by a Republican
    President and has been a remarkable program saving thousands,
    if not hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa. I think
    President Bush would suggest that that is his proudest
    accomplishment.
        I would like to hear further commitment as we look at how
    we engage in global health around the world with partnerships--
    and I understand that it is our responsibility to evaluate each
    program, that we have limited resource and limited funds--but I
    would like to have this commitment that we are going to look at
    how we work with nonprofits around the world, how we work with
    allies and other countries around the world to continue
    relieving suffering.
        Secretary Tillerson. That is a fundamental element of our
    approach to how we manage these reductions. Even with these
    cuts, the $1 billion cut to PEPFAR, we will continue to be the
    leader in health issues globally and PEPFAR is clearly
    recognized as a model program that should be replicated
    elsewhere.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We are going now to Mr. Paul
    Cook, vice chairman of the committee, of California.
        Mr. Cook. It is good to see you again, Mr. Secretary. I
    missed some of the testimony and I hope I am not being
    redundant, but I wanted to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood,
    the impact in Qatar, and quite frankly, Turkey, and the
    strained relationship, and how it is so difficult to find out
    one day you have an ally and the next day you might have an
    adversary. And I know that is going to be very, very
    challenging with the Saudis and what has happened in the past
    few weeks, as well as the on-going political situation in
    Turkey which affects the whole Middle East and our policy.
        If you could address that, I would appreciate it. I talked
    to you, I think last week, about the same thing. But Secretary
    Mattis had some input on it Monday night and it is one which
    doesn't necessarily have a military solution, but you are going
    to be right in the eye of the storm.
        Secretary Tillerson. Our relationship with Turkey is
    extremely important to the United States. It is also extremely
    important to NATO, to Europe and clearly we are concerned about
    the evolution of events, particularly since the coup attempt in
    Turkey. I have traveled to Ankara and obviously President
    Erdogan has been here. So our level of engagement with Turkey
    is at a very high level of communication and engagement.
        And where we have issues of concern, we are talking about
    those, discussing them. Clearly, they have some issues with how
    we are executing our military plans in Syria to defeat ISIS. We
    are concerned about their engagements with Russia. The European
    Union is concerned about the relationships. Turkey sits at an
    extremely important place geographically, but also
    geopolitically. So it is an important relationship. It is quite
    complex right now and our objective is not to worsen that
    relationship, but find ways to re-engage and strengthen it so
    that we can have some influence over the choices that they are
    making, particularly with respect to freedoms within the
    country, continuing their role and their construct as a
    democracy.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cook. Sure.
        Mr. Smith. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr.
    Secretary, I would ask you if you would to your thought about
    the waivers for the Mexico City policy in answer to my friend
    and colleague, Dr. Bera. I would hope that you would not go
    that route. That would have the perverse impact of
    incentivizing foreign non-governmental organizations to be
    noncompliant with the Mexico City policy.
        And I would point out to my colleagues that back in 1985,
    after Ronald Reagan first announced the Mexico City policy at
    the U.N. Conference in Mexico City, hence its name, there were
    large numbers of NGOs, foreign NGOs, that said ``We are not
    going to comply.'' I offered the amendment on the floor of the
    House of Representatives in 1985 which passed. And I fully
    expect we will have an all-out legislative battle on the floor
    again which I would welcome, with a policy that seeks to hold
    harmless unborn children in our foreign aid.
        Global health ought to be inclusive, not exclusive of
    unborn children who we know now beyond any reasonable doubt are
    harmed in a way that is violence against children, whether it
    be by dismemberment or chemical poisoning. Abortion is violence
    against children and it also has consequences in the negative
    for women.
        And the Mexico City policy, as you know so well, has three
    exceptions: Rape, incest, and life of the mother, which tracks
    what Ronald Reagan did and what George W. Bush did and what the
    first Bush did when he initiated the policy as well.
        And at the end of the day when it only applied to family
    planning organizations, when I offered the amendment on the
    floor, Olympia Snow and others said none of the groups are
    going to accept it. At the end of the day, all but two accepted
    it. And that was IPPF, based out London and Marie Stopes
    International. They all accepted it.
        So I would encourage you, waivers would be an incentive to
    a foreign, non-government organization, and again American
    taxpayers through the polling have shown clearly that they do
    not want our foreign aid subsidizing and enabling the killing
    of unborn children overseas or anywhere else. That is why the
    Hyde Amendment domestically enjoys such strong support. So I
    just would offer that thought.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Lois Frankel of Florida.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr.
    Secretary of State.
        I think today is the day where we all recognize our common
    humanity as my thoughts are with my colleague and the other
    folks impacted by the shooting. So I will try and be kind and
    gentle. I am always kind and gentle, aren't I?
        So in a very kind and gentle way, I want to say that I am
    sad to say that I think your budget is inhumane and dangerous.
    Okay. I had to say that.
        I don't want to turn this into an abortion fight at all,
    because that was not part of my remarks, but I just want to
    counter my colleague who I respect very, very much and just say
    that women having full access to reproductive choice and care
    is imperative for them to have a full and productive life and I
    think it is important to the security of their community. But I
    am going to move on.
        I wanted to mention, I remember the President said, I think
    he said he inherited a mess in talking about international
    affairs, so to me it is very perplexing that he inherits a mess
    and then you come in with a budget with almost a one-third cut
    in State Department activities.
        Over 120 retired Four Star Generals sent a letter opposing
    the cuts, saying this is not the time to retreat. Secretary
    Mattis, when he was Commander of U.S. Central Command says,
    ``If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to
    buy more ammunition.'' I guess this is the Trump doctrine
    because he is putting billions of more dollars into ammunition
    and cutting, as my colleague said before, two of the legs of
    our national security which are diplomacy and development.
        I want to focus on what I think is one of the crown jewels
    of our development efforts and that is our global health
    investments. I know you would probably agree that diseases do
    not recognize international borders. Every year, almost 80
    million people from other countries visit the United States.
    This was in 2016 and Americans took more than 77 million
    international trips. We have hundreds of thousands of military
    living overseas. So U.S. global assistance helps not only to
    protect people in other countries, but it protects the United
    States.
        I hope you would agree that these health initiatives help
    keep countries stable. When you have, one of my colleagues
    mentioned famine, but if you have disease, you have famine, you
    have inhumane conditions, it promotes not only people trying to
    escape the country, but it destabilizes countries creating an
    environment for terrorism.
        George Bush, one of his greatest achievements was PEPFAR,
    which put us on track to end AIDS as a public health threat by
    2030. I know you yourself have said it is a model for the world
    to follow, yet the President's budget cuts this by $1.1
    billion.
        The Global Fund, which controls the spread of malaria, TB,
    and HIV, also is being cut by $225 million. And I know people
    have said why should we care what is happening in these other
    countries? I think that is going to the questions I want to ask
    you which is this, Mr. Secretary, why should we care about
    diseases in other countries?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, Congresswoman, I think you just
    gave the explanation for why we should care and I do not
    think----
        Ms. Frankel. --all right, well, I will go on.
        Secretary Tillerson. What I would point to, I know we are
    focused on the cuts. I think it is important to also focus on
    how much we still will be committing and spending toward these
    diseases, toward our global health efforts. We are not zeroing
    health out. These were difficult choices that were made in the
    budget. We do believe that we can attract others and other
    funding and enable the continuation of these programs. And
    there is no stepping back from our commitment on PEPFAR to the
    countries. We are going to fully meet the commitments on our
    AIDS programs in PEPFAR. We are fully meeting our commitments,
    fulfilling our 5-year pledge to Gavi. We don't intend in any
    way to abandon our efforts or abandon our view of how important
    these issues are.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Lee Zeldin of New York.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here.
        A few questions. First, I want to ask about Iran. There is
    a lot of agreement that Iran has violated the spirit of the
    JCPOA. Have you seen any evidence that Iran has violated the
    letter of the JCPOA?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, we will await the quarterly
    report from IAEA to see if they have found any specific
    violations. I have read the entire JCPOA agreement now for
    myself, so I can understand this spirit and intent. Quite
    frankly, it is a poorly constructed agreement. The bar for
    Iran's compliance is pretty low. And so it should not come as a
    surprise to people that they are able to comply. It is not that
    difficult for them to comply.
        Having said that, we intend to have a rigorous application
    of the compliance requirements and a rigorous confirmation from
    the IAEA that they are complying.
        The whole spirit and intent question is one that obviously
    is always open to interpretation by both sides. And
    importantly, remember the JCPOA is a multi-lateral agreement,
    so we have partners I would say that were on our side of the
    table, best I can tell. They will have their interpretation of
    that as well.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. And your predecessor pointed out
    that it was a political commitment. It wasn't a treaty. It
    wasn't an executive agreement. It was a political commitment,
    one that we didn't even ask for a signature on, an unsigned
    political commitment.
        Does the administration recognize Jerusalem as the capital
    of Israel?
        Secretary Tillerson. The administration has not expressed a
    specific view in that regard.
        Mr. Zeldin. I would state my own position. I believe
    strongly that the administration should recognize Jerusalem as
    the unquestionable capital of Israel.
        Will the administration eventually move the American
    Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?
        Secretary Tillerson. That decision is under evaluation by
    the President. Obviously, he will have to make a decision
    coming up on whether to extend a final decision on that or not.
    He has not made that decision to my knowledge.
        Mr. Zeldin. And the President was absolutely correct during
    the campaign when he had stated his position and intent then of
    moving the Embassy and I would encourage him to go with his
    instinct from the campaign and follow through with that pledge.
        How do you believe the United States can better leverage
    our foreign aid that we provide to the Palestinian Authority?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, I think again our engagement
    with them and our making clear on our expectations of how aid
    is utilized. One thing I would like to clarify from this
    morning's hearing, several times in the questions people
    suggested our support to the Palestinian Authority was
    increasing next year. That is inaccurate. It is actually going
    down about $20 million, if I remember correctly.
        And to remind everyone, our aid does not go directly to the
    Palestinian Authority. It is given to them by way of Israel and
    we work closely with them as to how that money is delivered and
    for what purposes it is delivered.
        Mr. Zeldin. And I appreciate that point. And I would offer
    that whatever the United States can't do to the Palestinian
    Authority, legally, we should also have the position that we
    also cannot do for the Palestinian Authority indirectly.
        I cosponsored the Taylor Force Act, as I know a number of
    my colleagues in the House and the Senate did as well. I
    believe it is now one that has bipartisan support over on the
    Senate side. And I wish a better leverage of the aid that is
    provided for the Palestinian Authority which includes providing
    certifications that the Palestinian Authority is not inciting
    violence. And as in the name Taylor Force Act, the United
    States Military Academy graduate, the Palestinians are not only
    inciting violence to target innocent Israelis, but they are
    doing so to target Americans as well.
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, just so you are clear. It
    was with that strong bipartisan sense of the Congress that we
    have taken the position with the Palestinian Authority in a
    very unequivocal way, that you either take care of this
    yourself or someone else is going to take care of it for you.
    And those are the words I have used with them.
        Mr. Zeldin. And you have strongly stated in recent
    statements where you have mentioned that the President brought
    this up with Abbas, that you have received assurances. It is in
    the news today that there are Palestinian officials pushing
    back on your position that the Palestinian Authority has agreed
    to stop providing these payments to financially reward terror
    and I really do wish you the absolute best as Secretary of
    State in your pursuit here. And I would love to talk to you
    further about those efforts moving forward in the weeks,
    months, and years ahead. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Joaquin Castro of Texas.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for
    being here today and for your testimony. Obviously, cooperation
    between Congress and the State Department is important, but I
    am concerned over what looks like a lack of cooperation within
    the Executive.
        The policy of the White House and the State Department has
    not been completely aligned over the last several months. For
    example, mere minutes after you stated that the Saudi and
    Emirate blockade of Qatar hindered U.S. military action against
    ISIS, President Trump took to Twitter to praise the blockade.
        As you attempted to form an international coalition to
    isolate North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, President
    Trump called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un ``a smart cookie''
    and said he would be ``honored to meet him'' hurting your
    efforts.
        Your efforts to assure our European and Asian allies have
    our commitment to alliances have similarly been undercut by the
    White House and the President.
        It was reported that when Prime Minister Netanyahu and
    President Trump stood up at their press conference and broached
    the idea of a one state solution instead of a two state
    solution, that you were in an airplane somewhere else and that
    the State Department was not part of those discussions.
        So my question is how can Americans and our allies around
    the world have confidence in your word, in the State
    Department's position, and most of all that it represents what
    President Trump believes?
        Secretary Tillerson. Congressman, just to be clear, there
    is no gap between the President and myself or the State
    Department on policy. There are differences in terms of how the
    President chooses to articulate elements of that policy. In the
    instance of the Qatar example that you gave where I made a
    statement, the State Department. I then attended a bilat with
    President of Romania with President Trump and then he made his
    statement in the Rose Garden. I was involved in writing his
    comments in the Rose Garden to reflect the strong message he
    wanted to send which was not just to Qatar, but he said to
    everyone, to all countries, to stop the funding, stop the
    killing, stop teaching your young people hate. That was the way
    he wanted to deliver. He wanted to deliver a very strong
    message----
        Mr. Castro. Mr. Secretary, I know that.
        Secretary Tillerson. There is no daylight between he and I.
        Mr. Castro. I hear you. Jared Kushner has been given,
    reportedly given a big portfolio with respect to foreign
    affairs. Who is responsible for the foreign affairs of our
    country? Is it the Department of State and yourself or is it
    Mr. Kushner and the White House?
        Secretary Tillerson. It is the Department of State and
    myself and that has been reconfirmed by the President to me on
    multiple occasions.
        Mr. Castro. And part of the reason I ask these questions,
    in February I was in Japan and South Korea and this was the
    biggest question people had. When we look to the United States,
    who speaks for the President reliably? Whose word can be
    trusted?
        I know you can understand how important that is for our
    allies and also for our adversaries. So why would the State
    Department be left out of any discussion about one of our most
    important foreign policy issues, whether you are going to have
    a one state solution or a two state solution? You can see how
    that is quite strange and bizarre.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, I think that came out of the
    bilateral private meeting between the President and Prime
    Minister Netanyahu. And I think to be fair, what the President
    was indicating is that whatever approach the two sides, the
    Palestinians and the Israelis, want to take to achieve a peace
    accord, we will support. I think what he was saying is we are
    prepared and he is prepared to put his shoulder to the wheel to
    see if we can move a process along and he is going to be
    unconstrained to exploring any and all other alternatives.
    Because the alternatives everyone has pursued now for so many
    years have not produced a result. And I think these are some of
    the changes that people have a difficult time perhaps
    understanding tactically.
        Mr. Castro. And thank you for that.
        Secretary Tillerson. The President is saying let us explore
    everything.
        Mr. Castro. Let me just make one last comment. First, I
    don't mean it as a knock on your leadership or your record at
    the Department. I believe that you have put in a very difficult
    position. And it is not just yourself. It is other members of
    the Cabinet where they essentially will make a statement,
    believing what they believe to be the President's position,
    only to have the President go on Twitter or otherwise make a
    contradictory statement. But in all of it, it is very
    unsettling for Americans to try to understand where our
    Government is headed, where the President is headed. But even
    more unsettling for allies who are not in the United States and
    have no other indicators than what they hear on the news. So we
    would just ask, I would just ask for I guess more
    thoughtfulness from the Executive Branch on how they approach
    these things.
        Chairman Royce. So we go now to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good
    seeing you again. Appreciate your being here.
        As we talked the other day about 10 years ago, there were
    25 conflicts around the world. Today, there are over 75. There
    are certainly no shortages of great challenges in the world.
    But with the challenges come great opportunities, so I see
    great things in store for you, for our Nation, and hopefully
    for the world.
        I feel some of my colleagues aren't accepting the fact that
    we are $20 trillion in debt and that austerity measures are
    coming. We have reports where we are going to be in 5 to 6
    years and we are looking at Puerto Rico. We are looking at
    Greece and we don't want to go there.
        So we do have to reform some of these programs and that
    leads to the current budget, that we continue the programs that
    work and we get the results. We get the results that we are
    looking for and get rid of the programs that aren't working.
        We were in the DRC with Chairman Royce and I remember
    sitting there at the table with the ministers and we are going
    around and talking about things and I asked the people at that
    table, and keep in mind we have given hundreds of billions of
    dollars. What do you do for your social programs? And they
    asked me, what do you mean? I said feeding the hungry, housing,
    healthcare. And he goes we have you. Those aren't good programs
    and we need to reform those and we need to put pressure on
    those kind of countries.
        The comment that President Trump said make America great
    again, put America first. I truly believe in that. And I think
    it has taken out of context because the only way we can become
    great or we can become first at whatever we do is to look out
    for the partners that we are working with and that comes
    through diplomacy in your agency. And I have a lot of
    confidence in your business acumen that you can transfer those
    to the State Department. I have watched you since you have come
    in and I am just a big fan of what you can do.
        I know we are in separate branches of government. And look
    at this committee--I chair the Asia Pacific Subcommittee as we
    talked about--of how we can partner together to work on those
    commonalities.
        And with that as you know yesterday, Panama terminated the
    diplomatic relationships with Taiwan. It is the latest in
    China's effort to restrict Taiwan's international space and
    including the blockade of Taiwan delegation at the World Health
    Assembly. To me, this is unconscionable to say to another
    nation, and I feel like what other people have said, they are a
    nation that I recognize. And I know it is in a tough situation
    because we have had that policy since President Nixon. But
    saying that and China says they are going to be a reliable
    partner to bring North Korea to the table.
        When we look at what China has done, they have increased
    their trade with North Korea, 37.4 percent in the first
    quarter. Chinese imports of North Korean iron has increased 270
    percent in January and February, yet no Chinese firms have been
    subjected to U.S. secondary sanctions. I have heard you talk
    about that. It looks like we are moving in that direction. And
    I commend you for that. Can we realistically rely on China in
    lieu of their past experience or actions?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, first just to remind you that
    our North Korea policy really went into effect late February,
    early March when we began to execute that and so we recognize
    there was a lot of activity going on early in the year and
    through the first quarter and that is what we have been trying
    to attack.
        We recognize what China is doing to put pressure on smaller
    countries. They are using the power of their trading relations.
    They are using the power of aid that they have gone in and
    provided to smaller countries. And in my trip that I recently
    made down to Australia and New Zealand in my meetings I have
    had with members of ASEAN, we are hearing this directly from
    them, that they are not only feeling this pressure, it is being
    put right in front of them to say you either sever relations
    with this and so or we are going to end our trading
    relationships with you.
        Even large countries are being threatened in this way. And
    our conversations with the Chinese about this next 50 years of
    stability and prosperity, we are being clear to them that you
    are destabilizing what has been a stable relationship with
    these actions. If this is where you are going, you are going to
    create instability and you are going to take this balance that
    has maintained a period of non-conflict, you are going to upset
    that balance.
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        Secretary Tillerson. So these are the kind of high-level
    discussions we are having with the most senior levels of the
    Chinese leadership. You have to think about where does this go?
    Where does this lead? And what are you going to force as a
    response to that? So we are very mindful of it. We see it
    happening and we see it as threatening stability in the region.
        Mr. Yoho. I agree. And I am out of time. My last statement
    is I hope we stay in honor of the Taiwan Relations Act as we
    have in the past.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. As I
    mentioned before, this hearing will conclude at 1:30. The
    Secretary has been very flexible and he does have other
    commitments. So if the members will be brief and not be
    compelled to use their full time, we want to give everyone a
    chance in the next 20 minutes. And we will go to Robin Kelly of
    Illinois.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
    for coming to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You are
    actually the first government witness I believe to appear
    before the full committee, so I thank you for that.
        The official mission statement of the State Department
    reads, ``The Department's mission is to shape and sustain a
    peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster
    conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the
    American people and people everywhere.''
        In your testimony, you stated that the State Department's
    primary focus is to protect our citizens at home and abroad.
    And to me, that sounds more like the mission of the Defense
    Department than the State Department. So has the mission of the
    U.S. State Department changed somewhat under President Trump?
        Secretary Tillerson. The mission statement that you just
    read is one that is very powerful. And that I would certainly
    support. Having said that, it was a statement developed under
    previous administrations.
        Part of this redesign opportunity we have in front of us, a
    lot of the elements that we learned out of the listening
    sessions, was there is some confusion over the mission. And
    that confusion doesn't just exist as of today. It has existed
    for some time.
        I think we do owe it to ourselves with the input and help
    of our colleagues in the State Department to do a better job of
    articulating what is the enduring mission of the State
    Department that endures regardless of what political party may
    be in place at any given time because the State Department is
    here constant. We understand that the will of the American
    people changes and can change from one election to the next,
    but the State Department must have a mission that delivers
    regardless of what the policy decisions may be that change from
    time to time.
        And I think that is a conversation we really need to have
    with ourselves inside the State Department, with our
    colleagues, and that is the mission statement that I am in
    search of is what will endure regardless of who may be
    occupying the White House.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I do agree with most of my colleagues
    said about the budget cuts. I have a lot of concern and a
    recent article by Mike Mullin and James Jones, two
    distinguished military leaders, specifically cited cuts to
    USAID as risking U.S. national security. And they go on to
    specifically say that ``in the 21st century, weapons and war
    fighters alone are insufficient to keep America safe.''
        Mr. Chairman, I ask to submit the entire article into the
    record.
        Chairman Royce. Without objection.
        Ms. Kelly. I also have concerns about the staffing up that
    needs to be done because that will help you do the job you need
    to do if you have the people you need to have. Is there a
    backlog of policy recommendations now because of the lack of
    staffing?
        Secretary Tillerson. There really is not. And again, I want
    to recognize that every job is filled today, either a Deputy
    Assistant stepped up to be the Acting Assistant, or an Acting
    Assistant has stepped up to be the Under, if necessary. And
    these are remarkably good people, competent, dedicated. I have
    had a lot of conversation with them about how I know it is
    difficult to be the acting, but they are doing a superb job. I
    have great confidence in them. They travel with me when I go
    overseas. These are the people that help me develop the policy.
    They are executing the policy and they are doing an
    extraordinary job.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. Because of time, I will yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you for yielding back. We go to Brian
    Mast of Florida.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for
    your time today. Just a couple quick questions. Do you have any
    plans to bring Vladimir Putin a red reset button?
        Secretary Tillerson. I don't think you can reset anything.
    We are where we are. We just have to address the conditions as
    they exist.
        Mr. Mast. Do you foresee turning a blind eye if Russia were
    to invade any other sovereignty?
        Secretary Tillerson. Certainly not.
        Mr. Mast. Do you anticipate President Trump whispering in
    the ear of the Russian President saying he would have more
    flexibility after the next election?
        Secretary Tillerson. I would not expect that President
    Trump has any intent to do anything other than to try to
    restore this relationship to something that is in the interest
    of the American people.
        Mr. Mast. Do you anticipate mocking the threat of the
    Russian influence on the United States by saying the 1980s want
    their foreign policy back?
        Secretary Tillerson. I think we will be articulating our
    own view toward Russia which I have described in some respects
    today.
        We take the relationship with Russia as serious. They are a
    global nuclear power. Having said that, we have a number of
    troubling issues with them in front of us to deal with.
        Mr. Mast. Do you think there is any level of funding that
    can make up for actions like that?
        Secretary Tillerson. I think this is going to be just very
    hard work of diplomacy, coupled with some strong actions that
    have been taken already and the prospect of what the Congress
    can enable us to do with stronger actions if we cannot get
    progress.
        Mr. Mast. Do you believe that it is more important, the
    words and the actions that you undertake, than any level of
    funding that you try to meet?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, today, in restoring that
    relationship, it is not an absence of funds that is in any way
    preventing us from continuing to work to identify our areas
    where we may find cooperation to begin to build some level of
    trust and confidence. Funding is not an issue in terms of how
    we are working with Russia today.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you for your remarks. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go now to Dina Titus of Nevada.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary. I, too, share my colleagues' concerns about the
    devastating budget cuts and also about the lack of senior
    leadership at the State Department. I don't see how we can move
    forward in a leadership role in the world with those two
    things, those two problems hanging over us.
        But I want to go back to the questions that Mr. Castro
    raised. I don't believe our country has a singular voice when
    it comes to foreign policy. And that concerns our allies and it
    also emboldens our adversaries because nobody knows who to
    believe. Now he mentioned several examples, Qatar, the incident
    that occurred recently; the peace talks in the Middle East. But
    I would like to bring up a couple of others.
        You weren't part of the discussion to withdraw from the
    Paris Climate Agreement. And I believe you have said that you
    are opposed to that, that we should not have done that. I would
    like to ask you why you think this was a bad idea and is there
    any way with all this limited funds that we can move forward in
    any way as a leader on climate change?
        The second one I would like to ask you to address is in the
    written statement, you say the U.S. and I quote, ``Will
    continue to be the leader in international development, global
    health, democracy, and good governance initiatives, and
    humanitarian efforts.'' Yet, the President has said that we
    don't really care about what other countries are doing
    internally, only how they relate to us. It is not up to us to
    interfere. I believe the quote was, ``We are not here to tell
    other people how to live, what to do, and who to be.''
        Would you tell us how that kind of jives with what you have
    said?
        Secretary Tillerson. With respect to the decision to
    withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, I was part of that
    interagency process. What I would point out to you is this is a
    decision the President could easily have taken the first week
    after inauguration, that he clearly indicated in his campaign
    he intended to.
        I think it is noteworthy that he took some time to think
    about it. He deliberated on it. We had a couple of different
    sessions on it with him. He waited until he took his first
    overseas trip and attended the G-7 so he could hear directly
    from others that the issue is quite important to. And then he
    came home. He had one more deliberation. It was on a telephone
    conference call which I participated.
        I was free to express my views. I took a counter view to
    the decision that was made, but I fully appreciate the elements
    behind why he took the decision.
        Ms. Titus. Can you tell us why you have a counter position?
    Why you don't think it was a good idea to pull out?
        Secretary Tillerson. As I have expressed publicly, and I
    expressed to the President, I think having our seat at the
    table around the Paris Climate Accord to continue to have
    influence on the issue itself, continue to represent America's
    efforts because America has done an extraordinary job of
    dealing with our own greenhouse gas emissions without heavy-
    handed regulation. And just because we have walked away from
    targets that were set under Paris is in no way indicative of
    our intent to walk away from that continued improvement.
        I think America's businesses and private and public
    enterprises have no intent of changing that commitment. So my
    view was, as a diplomat, it is an opportunity for engagement.
    And I take every opportunity for engagement I can. This is an
    issue that is very important to many of our allies.
        Ms. Titus. I agree.
        Secretary Tillerson. So I think having the opportunity to
    engage, that is the reason I argued for staying in.
        Ms. Titus. And how about the second point about just okay
    with whatever you do in your own country?
        Secretary Tillerson. I think what the President was
    indicating is he is not into government building, or changing
    governments. I think what he is indicating is, in his view,
    mistakes have been made in the past by involving ourselves with
    countries and then expanding our involvement to want to now
    change their culture, change their heritage, change who they
    are, change the way they live their lives.
        And I think what he was saying is there is a lot of
    conflict that can be created when we try to go too far in
    imposing our way of life on others, that we have to recognize
    and respect the history of countries, the history of the
    regions, their culture, and not create new areas of conflict
    just because we think they should be doing things differently.
    I think that is the intent.
        And I think there is a lot of merit in that and I think
    when I reflect on the conflicts around the world and how did we
    get there and why do they exist, a lot of it is grounded in
    these areas. We continue to believe that if we can de-conflict
    areas, bring peace to areas, we have a much better chance of
    engaging on many things like human rights, freedom, democracy,
    which we want to and will continue to promote.
        Ms. Titus. My time is up. I appreciate that. So after we go
    in after the war is over, we don't have any responsibility for
    doing any nation building? That is okay, my time is up.
        Chairman Royce. Francis Rooney of Florida.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
    you for your service. Thank you for leaving private industry to
    serve your country.
        As a person who has been in and out of the State Department
    for many years and has had commercial relationships with the
    Agency for International Development, I want to thank you for
    bringing a business-like and pro-taxpayer approach to funding
    the Department.
        What you said is true. It is about what you can accomplish
    and what kind of people you have, not necessarily what you
    spend to get there. For example, like the record reflects, the
    Department has spent over $29 million to subsidize an
    organization you and I know personally, the World Economic
    Forum. I wonder what the taxpayers would think of that.
        I want to applaud you in your budget for scrapping the
    disaster known as the U.S. Institute of Peace. If every
    taxpayer from Florida to California could see that building, we
    would have a revolt on our hands.
        And lastly, I wish you would reconsider the $10 million you
    have in there for the U.N. Human Rights Council. That is on top
    of $17\1/2\ million that we have spent in the last few years to
    try to buy friendship with Israel, that I will tell you, I will
    bet you a steak dinner, is not going to work.
        So I guess I just want to know what can we do, who agree
    with you, to have your back to encourage you to stay tough and
    to reinforce your effort to bring reform, to eliminate wasteful
    spending, and to position the Department to live effectively in
    the 21st century?
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, Congressman, first, thank you
    for the support we already receive from the Congress and the
    input which is really important for us to have an understanding
    of what the priorities are in the minds of the Congress and in
    particular the House because you are closest to the face of the
    American people and I recognize that.
        I think in terms of some of these cuts to international
    organizations, we are looking at those one by one by one and
    really asking ourselves, what is the cost of benefit here? And
    in some areas, we either are going to reform those or we are
    going to withdraw from them. And we actually are using this
    exercise, and everyone is well aware of what we are going
    through here where we are taking a very close look as to what
    do we, the American people, get in return for this investment
    or this funding that we provide. And that is very much not as a
    threat, but as a tool to use so they understand this time this
    is a serious conversation. We need to get to a serious
    conclusion. If you don't want to change, if you don't want to
    reform, that is fine. Just let us know and we will try a
    different approach.
        The Human Rights Council at the U.N. is one that we are
    currently engaged in and Ambassador Haley is directly engaged
    in. She and I have spoken about we are either going to reform
    this thing and make it reflect what it should be reflecting or
    we are going to withdraw our support for it and try to find
    other means that we can approach human rights issues on a
    multi-lateral basis with partners who see it the same way we
    do.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield my time.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Norma Torres from California
    will be our last speaker.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
    Secretary. Thank you for staying as long as you have and
    accommodating our tough day today.
        I understand that later this week you are traveling to
    Miami for a conference about security and prosperity in Central
    America, specifically the northern triangle area. I want to
    make you aware that we in Congress have been working very hard
    on a bipartisan way to deal with the crisis we have in this
    area.
        And I want to make sure that you understand that while our
    President may not think that we should be building up other
    governments, our national security is very dependent on the
    democracy and democracy issues within our closest neighbors to
    the south. We have to be very proactive at dealing with the
    very corrupt governments that have become a culture of our
    neighbors. We have to deal with the narcotraffic issues and the
    money laundering that happens in this region because they are
    our partners in our national security.
        So thank you for making a commitment to working there, but
    I also want to make sure that you understand that this is
    important to Congress. We passed this resolution unanimously
    here in Congress.
        The world looks at the United States for leadership on the
    global stage. Unfortunately, the President's words and actions
    have been undermining American leadership. Part of the problem
    is that we don't have a fully staffed, functioning State
    Department. Another problem is that there is a conflict of
    mixed messages that come across when the President tweets and
    you have a different response and his press team has a
    different response.
        Mr. Secretary, my question to you is are the President's
    tweets the official foreign policy of the United States?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am not going to comment extensively
    on the President's tweets. The President has his own means that
    he wishes to communicate through and he communicates a lot of
    different messages with those.
        Ms. Torres. I understand that, sir. But is it an informed
    decision based on facts that he is tweeting out and is this our
    policy, U.S. policy?
        Secretary Tillerson. I am not involved in how the President
    constructs his tweets, when he tweets, why he tweets, what he
    tweets.
        Ms. Torres. It seems to be a game that goes back and forth.
    This is not meant to be a gotcha question. This is simply
    wanting to clarify for other world leaders. I was just on a
    trip to Mexico with a delegation of U.S. Members of Congress
    and part of the insecurity with our closest neighbor to the
    South is the fact that the President puts out tweets and people
    don't know. These leaders don't know if this is informed policy
    and if this is truly how the United States intends to conduct
    business.
        Secretary Tillerson. What I would say with our neighbors in
    Mexico to the South, and you mentioned the Miami conference
    that I will be going to tomorrow to address both economic and
    security issues in the triangle area, this conference is being
    co-sponsored by the State Department, Department of Homeland
    Security, our Mexican counterparts, the Foreign Ministry, and
    the State Minister of Mexico. This is something that came out
    of our Mexico City engagement because we recognize we have a
    common issue in trans-migration that is a problem for Mexico, a
    problem for us.
        And what we are doing and this gets to our approach to the
    budget question and concerns that we are not going to be able
    to carry out our foreign policy objectives. These are some of
    the innovative approaches we are taking. We are bringing the
    Inter-American Bank, the World Bank, we are bringing a number
    of private sector entities to Miami. The Vice President is
    coming to give the keynote address at the lunch, so I think----
        Ms. Torres. Do you know who is not coming? Do you know who
    is not coming and it is not because you did not invite them.
    But the Attorneys General of all three countries are not coming
    simply because their governments think that there is
    instability happening here in the U.S. and they have left them
    out. And I think it is important at this conference, sir, that
    we call them out on that.
        Secretary Tillerson. Well, as you know, a lot of our
    assistance in those three countries is to strengthen law
    enforcement, strengthen the ability of Attorney Generals to
    prosecute, strengthen the courts to make those cases stick on
    corruption in particular.
        We have made progress and the reason we are focusing on the
    triangle area is because we made progress. We think we are very
    close to pushing this over the hump, so to speak, and we want
    to bring in a lot of others to help with this so that we aren't
    doing it alone.
        Chairman Royce. Well, I want to thank the Secretary for
    this time with the committee. This has been a challenging day
    in Congress. It is a tough world out there. Excuse me, we are
    at 1:30 and I made my commitment that we would adjourn.
        Mr. Schneider. I appreciate that and thank the
        Secretary for speaking here today and sharing your time so
    generously. On behalf of those of us who were not able to ask
    questions, I request that we may submit them to you and get a
    response in writing.
        Chairman Royce. Absolutely.
        Secretary Tillerson. I look forward to any other questions
    and I am sorry we were unable to have a dialogue with each of
    you as well. Again, I understand the circumstances entirely.
        Chairman Royce. And as I said at the beginning of the
    hearing, that absolutely is something we will do and I do want
    to convey on behalf of all of the members here, the committee
    looks forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, on many
    policies, including your reorganization efforts. You have heard
    our concerns and we look forward to receiving your legislative
    proposals for the Department's reorganization once they are
    ready.
        Again, I thank you for being prepared to respond to the
    other members who did not get an opportunity here today. I
    thank you and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]