    [Senate Hearing 115-726]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       S. Hrg. 115-726

                    REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 STATE
                      DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 13, 2017

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Available via the World Wide Web:
                             http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-614 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    TODD, YOUNG, Indiana                 CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               TIM KAINE, Virginia
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
                      Todd Womack, Staff Director
                Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
                        John Dutton, Chief Clerk

                                  (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee....................     1

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland.............     4

    Tillerson, Hon. Rex, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
      State, Washington, DC..........................................     7

        Prepared statement...........................................     9

            Secretary Tillerson's Responses to Additional Questions
                     Submitted by Members of the Committee

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Corker..........................    39

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Cardin..........................    44

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Johnson.........................    74

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Menendez........................    75

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Young...........................    81

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Coons...........................    81

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Portman.........................    82

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Merkley.........................    89

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Secretary Tillerson by Senator Booker..........................    91

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Letter to Senator Cardin from Ronald J. Daniels, President, Johns
      Hopkins University.............................................    96

    Material Submitted for the Record by Care USA....................    98

                                     (iii)

         REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 STATE DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
    Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
    chairman of the committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio,
    Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Isakson, Portman, Cardin,
    Menendez, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to
    order.
        Mr. Tillerson, Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here.
    We are having a little bit of a discussion about the timing
    issue. We do have a lot of other things happening today, and I
    really would like to finish this in one round. So what I think
    I am going to do--I think what we will do, Senator Cardin, if
    it is okay with you, is let us put 6 minutes on the clock, and
    if we really need to have a second round for some reason, we
    will. I am open to discussion about that right now, if you
    wish.
        Senator Cardin. I think 6 minutes sounds fair on the first
    round. I do not want to preclude a member on either side that
    believes that they need additional time for a second round from
    having that second round, but I would encourage our members to
    try to be efficient on the use of their time.
        The Chairman. So I want to begin by saying that last night
    about 10:20, we finished negotiating a Russia bill to be
    attached to the Iran bill, and we were able to gavel in the
    Senate last night and have Senator McConnell file cloture on
    it.
        And I just want to thank Senator Cardin and his staff,
    along with my staff, for what I think was an incredible effort
    to bring balance to a bill but to send a very strong, strong
    message to Russia. And it was a cooperative effort between the
    Foreign Relations Committee but also the Banking Committee,
    which meant a number of Senators ended up being involved. But I
    really do think we have ended up with a very good piece of
    legislation.
        And, Senator Cardin, I want to thank you for the way that
    you have worked with us, and I want to thank all the Senators
    here for the issues that you brought up along the way to help
    us make sure that we tried to deal with the issues that were
    important to this committee.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, on that point, let me just
    underscore the points that you have made. This was a very
    challenging negotiation between the Banking leadership and the
    Senate Foreign Relations leadership, and I want to thank you
    for the manner in which those negotiations took place.
        I encourage the members of the committee to read the filed
    amendment. I am extremely pleased with the way that we were
    able to manage that negotiation.
        On our side, I particularly want to acknowledge Senator
    Shaheen and Menendez who were very helpful in putting together
    this package. It does incorporate not only the work that this
    committee did on the democracy initiative that was passed out
    of this committee, but also two other bills, one that I
    authored with Senator McCain that deals with codification of
    executive sanctions against Russia, as well as additional
    sanctions against Russia. And that is included in the
    amendment. The other is a bill that was authored by Senator
    Graham that I worked with him on that provides for
    congressional review if the administration desires to remove
    any of the sanctions in regards to Russia.
        So I really believe that we did accomplish what we set out
    to do where we had initially 10 Democrats and 10 Republican
    Senators who had joined together in this effort and the
    chairman protected our work product. And I thank him very much.
        The Chairman. Just because I know we have a lot of media
    here, those bills are not in this bill. Those bills are not in
    this bill, but some of the topics that were brought up in these
    bills were points that we addressed in the overall legislation
    we developed. But I appreciate the input of all.
        And we will turn to the hearing. I do want to say we have a
    number of people here in the audience. I know people are pretty
    passionate about issues right now, and I just have to say that
    I do not like for anybody to be arrested. I asked someone to
    leave a meeting, and what that means is you are immediately
    arrested. I was able to go down and get them out of jail, but I
    am not going to do it anymore. So just be warned that if you
    stand up or make a noise or do something that you know to be
    inappropriate, we are going to ask you to be escorted out. And
    there is nothing I can do about it beyond that. So please do
    not do that. This is democracy in action, and this is our
    ability to express ourselves in appropriate ways. But you are
    here. We are glad you are here, but please conduct yourselves
    in an appropriate way.
        So with that, we will move to the business at hand. I want
    to thank Secretary Tillerson for being here. I want to thank
    him for what I believe has been unprecedented outreach to this
    committee and others who have wanted to give input. I share
    with people all over the country that, obviously, this
    administration is new. Some of the approaches have been very
    different. But one of the things that Secretary Tillerson has
    been willing to do and wants to do and seeks to do is to get
    input from the committee, and I appreciate that very much with
    all that you have got to do to organize. So that has been
    unprecedented.
        I do want to say in addition to that, I know some people
    are going to be taking shots. That is what happens in a budget
    committee meeting, especially one like this one. I think,
    though, I can speak for most everyone here. I will speak for
    myself, and I know others feel the same way. I am very thankful
    that you are serving as Secretary of State. I am very thankful
    that Secretary Mattis is serving as Secretary of Defense. I am
    very thankful that Mr. McMaster is serving as National Security
    Advisor. And I just have to tell you that around the world,
    people are thankful that you are in these positions. And I
    think that in spite of the fact that they may disagree with
    some of the policies that are coming forth, the fact that
    someone like you who is as seasoned as you are in this position
    gives me and a lot of people here and a lot of people around
    the country and a lot of people around the world a lot of
    comfort. So I want to thank you for your willingness to serve
    in the capacity that you are.
        On that point, I will say we sat down yesterday in the
    middle of the Russia negotiations. I took some time out to sit
    down with my staff, and we began going through the budget that
    you are presenting today. And after about 5 minutes, I said
    this is a total waste of time. I do not want to do this
    anymore.
        And the reason it is a waste of time is I think you know
    that the budget that has been presented is not going to be the
    budget we are going to deal with. It is just not. I mean, the
    fact is that Congress has a tremendous respect for the
    diplomatic efforts that are underway, the aid that we provide
    in emergency situations, and it is likely--and by the way, this
    happens with every presidential budget--every presidential
    budget. This one in particular, though, is likely--that what
    comes out of Congress is likely not going to resemble what is
    being presented today. And so I felt it was a total waste of
    time to go through the line items and even discuss them because
    it is not what is going to occur.
        So I say that with all due respect, pointing out that
    really over the last 17 years, you know, our Nation has been
    unwilling to deal with the fiscal issues that we face. And so
    70 percent of the budget is off budget. We are heading towards
    a fiscal calamity. Everyone knows it, sees it coming. And I
    realize that this President took an inordinate amount of cuts
    in this particular area to demonstrate that he was trying to
    address fiscal issues because in fairness, unwilling to address
    all the other issues that are driving spending so much. So we
    understand that. It has happened on both sides of the aisle for
    at least 17 years, and that is kind of where we are.
        So until we have a person who runs for President who says
    they are going to serve one term and they are going to try to
    deal with these issues, unfortunately, we are heading to a
    place that to me is a fiscal calamity.
        So what I do appreciate about what you are doing today and
    what you are doing within the Department, the fact that you ran
    a major company that had about the same amount of employees as
    the State Department has--what I appreciate is what you are
    doing today is bringing forth a debate that we have needed to
    have for a long time, and that is not focusing on everything we
    can do, but what we should be doing as a Nation. So I
    appreciate that very much.
        Since Congress is likely to write its own appropriations
    bills and spending, what I hope we will spend most of our time
    on today, instead of taking potshots, although everybody will
    do whatever they wish, I know, but I hope that you will help us
    lay out some of the things that you really think are
    appropriate for us to look at and different ways of
    approaching, whether it is international organizations, which
    many of us support, or whether it is how the State Department
    is going to be run.
        So we thank you for being here today. I respect you very
    much. I respect the role that you are playing for our Nation.
        And with that, I will turn to our ranking member, Senator
    Cardin.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me also welcome the
    Secretary here in order to discuss the proposed budget and
    other issues that are important for our national security.
        I just want to make an observation before I start my formal
    statement that reviewing the administration's fiscal year 2018
    budget is a waste of time. I know that we are going to write
    our own budget.
        Yesterday I was in Ellicott City, which suffered from a
    major, major flood almost a year ago, and I was talking to a
    federal administrator there not from the State Department--it
    was a different agency--about the tools that we need to make
    available for the businesses in Ellicott City in order to
    recover from that horrible tragedy and that the President's
    fiscal year 2018 budget for that agency would not allow the
    federal partner to continue providing mentoring services to the
    businesses and that it was a challenge for the administrator to
    be able to carry this out with the instructions being given by
    OMB in regards to budget issues.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the fiscal year 2018
    budget review is a waste of time. I think we will write our own
    budget, but I do think it has a chilling impact in the State
    Department with the career people trying to carry out their
    missions believing that their supervisors have a different
    vision as to what is necessary to carry out that mission.
        We meet at a challenging time for the State Department and
    for our Nation. Mr. Secretary, we meet at a time of deep and
    mounting concern regarding the tone, substance, and trajectory
    of your administration's foreign policy. Seventy years ago this
    month, one of your predecessors, George Marshall, delivered a
    speech that helped cement his reputation as a key architect of
    the post-war efforts to build a liberal international order. He
    was present at the creation.
        My concern today, quite frankly, is that your
    administration may go down in history as being present at the
    destruction of that order we have worked so hard to support and
    that has so benefited our security and prosperity and ideals.
        Mr. Secretary, I am deeply concerned with the direction
    that President Trump appears to intend on taking our country
    and the world with it. Indeed, no matter where we look around
    the world today, it seems that America's interests and values
    in the international system, which it has led, is under threat
    and under pressure. Most troubling, much of the recent pressure
    is coming not only from external forces and foes but also from
    the President of the United States and from your
    administration.
        I cannot tell you how devastating the President's decision
    to walk away from the Paris Accords was not only to our allies
    abroad but also to many Americans. The decision to abdicate
    America's leadership sent shock waves around the globe, raising
    concerns about our fundamental engagement as a stakeholder in
    the international order that the United States has worked so
    hard to help build and lead over the past 7 decades. I truly
    believe that climate change will be a defining issue for our
    generation, not just an environmental or security issue or even
    an economic issue, although they are all those, but a moral
    issue in which our success or failure as stewards of our
    Nation's interests and shapers of global interests will rise or
    fall.
        In your confirmation hearing, you said in response to one
    of my questions ``I think it is important that the United
    States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations
    around and how to address threats of climate change, which do
    require a global response. No one country is going to solve
    this alone.''
        Well, today we find that we have left our seat at the table
    and shredded the efforts of the international community to
    respond to climate change. And we stand alone. When President
    Trump repudiated the Paris, he repudiated all our partners in
    the international community, indeed, the very idea of an
    international community. It was, to quote from an op-ed penned
    by two of your colleagues, General H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn,
    the encapsulation of a view that--and I quote--``the world is
    not a global community but an arena where nations,
    nongovernmental actors, and businesses engage and compete for
    advantage. Rather than deny this element, the nature of
    international affairs, we embrace it.'' So we have given up on
    the international community? These words are hard to read.
        President Truman once described the Marshall Plan as the
    dividing line between the old era of national suspicions,
    economic hostility, and isolationism and the new era of mutual
    cooperation to increase prosperity of people throughout the
    world. And I would agree, Mr. Secretary, that in advancing this
    new era of mutual cooperation, that successive bipartisan
    administrations effectively put America first. A return to the
    old era, be it by walking away from Paris or by the President's
    refusal to pledge to honor our Article 5 commitments to NATO or
    proposing a budget that would abruptly terminate key
    development investments in dozens of countries, we find America
    isolated alone and last.
        America's leadership and engagement of global issues and
    with global leaders is perhaps more vital today than ever
    before, and there is simply no substitute for presidential
    commitment to American leadership and engagement. America's
    first approach risks undermining key tools and mechanisms that
    enable the United States leadership in the world, and I am
    deeply concerned that your administration's approach does not
    place America first but rather leaves America alone and places
    our interests and values at risk.
        Our positions as leaders of the free world is at risk. The
    ideas of a democracy as a model of diplomacy, as a force
    multiplier and development as a catalyst for change are being
    significantly challenged. The idea of a Europe whole and free
    that wellsprings our security and prosperity for the past 70
    years is now being undermined, including by the President
    himself who hurls insults at the mayor of London following a
    terrorist incident and appears indifferent at best to our
    treaty commitments to our European allies. Russia and China
    appear to be elevated to privileged positions ahead of our
    allies in a new game of great power politics while allies like
    Australia and the Republic of Korea and democratic allies and
    partners seeking to uphold international norms and standards
    are subject to bullying.
        The leaders of Egypt and the Philippines and others who
    commit devastating human rights offenses are embraced, while
    the rights and aspirations of the Egyptian people and the
    Filipino people are dismissed.
        Russia has attacked our democracy, illegally annexed
    Crimea, and invaded eastern Ukraine. Yet, President Trump and
    your administration seems hell bent on finding accommodations
    and appeasements, even exploring how to return seized Russian
    spy facilities in the United States, which presumably Mr. Putin
    would be able to once again put to good use.
        As I have said before, democracy does not defend itself.
    We, those of us on this dais and those of us in this room, must
    defend democracy and must defend the notion of good governance.
    We know that America derives its strength from its values and
    we must never retreat from that core concept. Yet, when you
    suggested in a speech at the Department of State earlier this
    year that we could divorce our values from our policies, you
    suggested such a retreat.
        The deep cuts to international affairs spending in your
    budget proposal is an approach to American foreign policy that
    is nothing less than a devastating assault on America's
    interests and values. What is most perplexing to me about your
    efforts to gut international affairs spending is that the
    Defense Secretary, Mr. Mattis, made it clear that that is
    critically important development assistance to our national
    security. Slashing our foreign operations and foreign
    assistance makes the world more dangerous for Americans and for
    America.
        Yet, that is precisely what that budget would do. The
    budget takes a pennywise pound foolish approach that will cost
    lives and endanger Americans here at home. The proposed cut to
    the State Department and foreign assistance budget suggested by
    you and by the Trump administration will fatally undermine our
    ability to renew and revise our leadership and will leave us
    less safe and less secure in an increasingly complex world
    unable to advance our ideals or to secure our prosperity.
        So I look forward to hearing your thoughts and views on how
    this budget advances our interests and values around the world.
    But I can tell you that my starting point is to be prepared to
    work with Democratic and likeminded Republican colleagues to
    make sure that nothing remotely close to this budget is enacted
    by Congress.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Secretary, since I know you just made an announcement,
    before you begin your opening comments, would you like to go
    ahead and share with us what has just occurred and then do your
    opening statement?

       STATEMENT OF HON. REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.
                  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Secretary Tillerson. Well, some of you may have seen a
    press release that was put out just before I arrived announcing
    that at the President's direction, the Department of State has
    secured the release of Otto Warmbier from North Korea. He is on
    his way, en route home to be reunited with his family.
        We continue our discussions with the North Korean regime
    regarding the release of the three other American citizens that
    have been detained.
        We have no comment on Mr. Warmbier's condition out of
    respect to him and the family, and that is the statement that
    was released.
        The Chairman. Very good.
        Well, listen, we look forward to your opening comments and
    questions. Thank you again for being here. You can begin with
    that, if you would. Thank you.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, thank you, Chairman Corker,
    Ranking Member Cardin, distinguished members of the committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this administration's
    State Department and USAID request for fiscal year 2018.
        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 day, 24/7, 365 days a year. 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
    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 freedoms 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, as well as
    humanitarian efforts. If natural disasters or epidemics strike
    overseas, America will respond with the care and support it
    always has. And I am convinced we can maximize the
    effectiveness of these 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's and
    USAID's mission-critical objectives. The request focuses the
    State Department and USAID's 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 of $55.6
    billion in fiscal year 2017. Recognizing 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 also have 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 clear 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 are 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 final findings of the survey soon.
    From all of this, one thing is certain: I am listening to what
    my people tell me are the challenges facing them and how we can
    produce a more efficient, 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 your time and am happy now to answer your
    questions.
        [Secretary Tillerson's prepared statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

        Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and distinguished members
    of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this
    administration's State Department and USAID budget request for Fiscal
    Year 2018.
        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.
        In Syria and Iraq, ISIS has been greatly diminished on the ground,
    but there is still a substantial fight ahead to complete the job and
    eliminate it from the region. But the battle to ensure that ISIS and
    other terrorist organizations do not gain or grow footholds in other
    countries will continue.
        The fight against Islamist extremism extends to the digital world.
    The battle to prevent terrorists' use of the internet and other digital
    tools will continue to challenge us from a security and diplomatic
    perspective.
        The regime in Iran continues activities and interventions that
    destabilize the Middle East: support for the brutal Assad regime,
    funding militias and foreign fighters in Iraq and Yemen that undermine
    legitimate governments, and arming terrorist organizations like
    Hezbollah, which threaten our ally Israel. We and our allies must
    counter Iran's aspirations of hegemony in the region.
        Thoughtful development and implementation of policies to ensure
    Afghanistan never again becomes a platform for terrorism, Pakistan does
    not become a proliferator of nuclear weapons, and the region is
    positioned for stable economic growth.
        On our southern border, illegal migration from countries in the
    Western Hemisphere presents a risk to our security, with criminal
    cartels exporting drugs and violence into our communities. Almost
    20,000 Americans died from overdoses of heroin or synthetic opioids in
    2015, and between 90 and 94 percent of all heroin consumed in the
    United States comes from or passes through Mexico. While we, as
    Americans, must take responsibility for being the largest demand center
    in the world for the drug trade, stopping the cross-border flow of
    drugs is an essential step in protecting American lives from the
    catastrophic effects of drugs and the violence that follows them.
        While we seek a constructive relationship with China, and in many
    cases are seeing signs of shared interests, their artificial island
    construction and militarization of facilities on features in
    international waters is a threat to regional stability and the economic
    livelihood of the United States and our allies. As a nation dependent
    on the free flow of commerce across the globe, we, and all other
    nations, have a legitimate interest in the peaceful use of
    international waters, and we must assert our lawful right to the use of
    the South China Sea and other bodies of water.
        Both state and non-state actors' malicious cyber capabilities
    present a threat to U.S. national security, and complicate our
    diplomatic efforts with a surge of misinformation and interference in
    sovereign countries' internal governments.
        With such a broad array of threats facing the United States, the FY
    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. Within the FY 2018 request level, funding
    for Diplomatic Security operations will increase by approximately 11%
    over FY 2016. 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 freedoms 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 FY 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. But 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 these programs and continue to offer America's helping
    hand to the world. Despite necessary reductions from FY 2017 levels, we
    are still devoting $25.3 billion to foreign assistance, which accounts
    for over 2/3 of the State and USAID budget. This entails $7.1 billion
    in security assistance programs, and $5.6 billion, including our
    diplomatic engagement, to defeat ISIS and other terrorist
    organizations. In several other areas where we have chosen to make
    reductions, we will ask other donors and private sector partners to
    increase their support.
        This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure every tax
    dollar spent is aligned with the Department's and USAID's mission-
    critical objectives. The request focuses the State Department and
    USAID's 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% from FY 2007, reaching a record
    high $55.6 billion in FY 2017. Recognizing that this rate of increase
    in funding is not sustainable, the FY 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 also 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 had 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 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 tell 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 Congress to
    improve both organizations.
        Throughout my career, I have never believed, or 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 resources. I am confident that the U.S. State Department
    and USAID will continue to deliver results for the American people.
        I thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I am going to use just a portion of my time, I think.
        If you could, since there will be an appropriations process
    that is underway soon, when do you expect to have your thoughts
    together on how the State Department itself will be
    reorganized?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Senator, as I indicated, we have just
    completed an important listening phase. I have had an initial
    readout. I will get a final report. I am interviewing a couple
    of individuals who will come in and help us now with the next
    stage which is the redesign effort itself, which will involve
    the colleagues in the State Department and USAID. That effort
    likely--we will have that framed over the course of the summer.
    The effort itself will likely get underway sometime in August-
    September time frame when we have our pathway forward, the
    process, how we want to engage our colleagues, how we want to
    get at various elements and themes that emerged from the
    listening session. Some of this is work process. Some of it is
    how we handle people. Some of it is how decisions are made. It
    is a very broad set of issues, which will quite inform us. So
    we have got to map out how do we want to get at each of those.
        But the work itself will start towards the end of the year.
    Hopefully we will have some clarity around what that looks like
    by the end of this year. Early next year we will begin
    implementation.
        The Chairman. And when you say this year, you mean this
    fiscal year?
        Secretary Tillerson.  This calendar year.
        The Chairman. So we are likely, as we move through the
    appropriations process, not to have benefit of that effort. It
    will take place after the appropriations for this next year are
    in place.
        I know it is sometimes hard for State Department employees
    to speak, if you will, truth to power when people are sitting
    there talking with them about the future and sometimes their
    future. Can you give us some general contours of what, as you
    are talking with folks, you are hearing from them relative to
    the actual State Department operations?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I would be happy to. Several things
    emerged. I think the overarching theme obviously though is the
    extraordinary dedication and patriotism of the men and women in
    the State Department and USAID and why they undertake a career
    like this, and that is a strength that we will build upon.
        What we heard from a number of people is they are dedicated
    to this broad mission of representing America's interests
    around the world, but from time to time, not just now but
    historically as well, there have been mixed messages within the
    Department, between the Department and USAID, between the State
    Department and embassies' missions themselves. So greater
    clarity around how the mission is defined and how direction is
    given.
        There are significant layers--layering of work processes
    and approvals required to deliver on mission. Some of these are
    imposed by State Department procedures and rules. Some of them
    are imposed by the Congress and how appropriations and programs
    are established and approved, all well intended to monitor and
    ensure that we are delivering on what we have been asked to
    deliver. But it does create a number of duplicative layers that
    create real obstacles for people to deliver on mission. And it
    adds cost, obviously.
        We also heard a theme that they do not feel that people are
    held accountable for their work in the State Department, that
    poor performers are not dealt with. You know, the people in the
    State Department know who is getting the work done and who is
    not getting the work done. And it is demoralizing to them when
    they see that we do not deal with those who are not delivering
    on their responsibilities. That gets to how we appraise
    performance, how we give people feedback, how we work to
    improve their performance. So we have a number of human
    resources processes that we believe can be improved and a
    number of leadership areas that need to be addressed.
        So most of the themes have to do--and this is the nature of
    what we wanted to engage people with is not, you know, is this
    the right objective, are these the right organizational boxes.
    Tell us how you get your work done and tell us what gets in the
    way of you getting your work done and what frustrates you
    because that translates to inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
        As I said, we have no preconceived notions going in. It
    would have been very easy to approach this, take the
    organization chart, start collapsing boxes, start making it
    flatter in an uninformed way. I do not have any number in mind
    as to what the efficiency will be, whether it is going to be 10
    percent, whether it is going to be 25, 30. We are going to let
    the redesign drive what those efficiencies will be. That is my
    experience in doing this in very large organizations both in
    the private sector and in the nonprofit sector where I have
    taken a similar approach. At the end of it, we capture
    significant efficiencies. But let us let the work of the
    redesign drive that, not going and saying I am looking for 20
    percent because those generally are not sustainable changes
    then.
        The Chairman. So much of that we can deal with, by the way,
    with the State Department authorization. I will say we are
    moving along. I know Senator Cardin and I have a meeting today.
    But many of the things you just addressed I know in the last
    administration, they began to see the State Department
    authorization process as a tool for them to help cause the
    Department to run better. And I hope you will work with us in
    that regard.
        I am going to reserve my last 37 seconds for an
    interjection at some point. But thank you.
        Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to follow up on this reorganization and your desire
    to make sure you work with Congress on that because I think the
    chairman raises a good point. We are working on the State
    Department authorization which with the authorizing committees,
    we may have some views that may be consistent, it may be
    inconsistent. But we are the policy arm so we do that. The
    appropriators are going to pass a budget. They are going to do
    that. And that budget may very well be consistent or
    inconsistent with the way that you are moving forward. So if we
    do not have that update--we have asked for an update, and I
    understand you are in a process. Our staff nor myself have been
    given any briefings as to how the reorganization is coming
    along.
        So let me just give you one practical example. You could
    not remove the ambassador on trafficking because that is set up
    by statute. But you could remove the ambassador on gender
    issues because that is not set up by statute. So Congress may
    want to weigh in now to let you know we want an ambassador on
    gender issues. So if we do not have that close working
    relationship, it is going to be very difficult to get an
    agreement on how this committee operates or the Appropriations
    Committee operates consistent with what you are trying to
    accomplish.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, first, Senator, we welcome the
    input at all times on the wishes of Congress, what your
    priorities are.
        As you point out, we have a large number of special envoys,
    special representatives. I think there are some 70-plus of
    them. What we have done is, obviously, those that are required
    by statute, we have left incumbents in place if they wanted to
    continue. So all of those that require us to have someone in
    the job, some people are double-hatting. They are doing two
    jobs at this point. But we have left this alone.
        As I said, it would be very easy to go ahead and just tell
    you, look, we are just going to collapse all of this into
    bureaus. But that would be prejudging an outcome, and I am
    trying to let--I am trying to get input on this.
        Senator Cardin. Well, understand Congress and previous
    Congresses have spoken on these by statutes. We have had
    traditions here of strong support for particular functions. I
    agree with you that that needs to be looked at, but if you do
    it in isolation of working with us, we are going to have a
    collision.
        Secretary Tillerson.  We have no intention of doing it in
    isolation. I am trying to give you a sense of where we are in
    the exercise.
        Senator Cardin. But my concern is the train is leaving the
    station in regards to the appropriations bill and the
    authorization bill, and your process will not conclude a lot of
    these issues until after those trains have departed. We have
    got to get better input as to your thinking as we move through
    this process.
        Secretary Tillerson.  I think that perhaps the difference
    in how we are thinking about this--it is just what people think
    about things differently. The effort that we are undertaking is
    to institutionalize change so that it stays, and we capture now
    and forevermore these----
        Senator Cardin. I think I understand.
        Secretary Tillerson.  I understand we are working on a
    fiscal year budget, and I know it is hard for people to know
    where to----
        Senator Cardin. We want to give you the authority you need
    to run your agency as efficiently as you possibly can. There is
    no disagreement. How you put a spotlight on different
    priorities is something that the Congress has some strong
    views.
        Secretary Tillerson.  We welcome that.
        Senator Cardin. That is why we set up these specialties.
        Let me just ask you quickly. Anti-corruption priorities in
    the budget. I had a hard time finding, as the budget was
    submitted, a commitment to fighting corruption, which is
    something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing
    and you were pretty committed about. Am I missing something?
        Secretary Tillerson.  In particular, whether it is in
    development areas or in law enforcement areas, we have looked
    carefully in particular countries of particular focus. We have
    done our best to preserve our ability to continue those
    efforts. For instance, in the Triangle country areas of Central
    America, through the initiatives there and other initiatives
    that we are working collaboratively with the Department of
    Homeland Security and others, to maintain our efforts towards
    strengthening law enforcement, strengthening the judicial
    system, strengthening the courts' ability to prosecute
    corruption because we have made progress down there and we do
    not want to lose that momentum.
        So we have looked in particular areas of the world where
    that has been--and we see the opportunity to capture lasting
    gains. We are trying to make sure we do not give ground to any
    place that we have current efforts underway. But we are looking
    at also ways to execute on that mission by bringing others in,
    seeking other contributors, finding other ways to enable that.
        Senator Cardin. In regards to the Paris agreement, you
    heard my opening statement. Did you change your view on that,
    or is this a matter that was just a political decision made by
    the administration?
        Secretary Tillerson.  My view never changed, Senator, from
    what I shared with you. It was run through an interagency
    process. I would tell you that the President was quite
    deliberative on the issue and took some time to come to his
    decision, particularly waiting until he had heard from European
    counterparts in the G7 on it. So my view did not change. My
    views were heard out. I respect that the President heard my
    views, but I respect the decision he has taken.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. That is pretty clear,
    and I can understand.
        I want to ask one more question, if I might, and that is,
    as you heard from the chairman and from me, we have reached an
    agreement in regards to a Russian sanctions bill that will be
    considered on the floor later this week.
        We had deferred committee action pending your input as to
    whether there was any positive progress with your discussions
    with Russia as to either their reductions in their affirmative
    attacks on democratic institutions, their views in regards to
    Syria, their views in regards to Ukraine. Is there any positive
    message that you can report back to us?
        Secretary Tillerson.  We have a large placemat of difficult
    issues with the Russians. You just cited a number of them. As I
    have said, our relationship is at an all-time low and it has
    been deteriorating further. Our objective is to stabilize that.
    We are working in a couple of areas in particular to see if we
    can establish that there is a basis for reestablishing some
    type of working relationship with the Russian Government that
    is in our interest. There are efforts underway in Syria
    specifically. Those are, I would say, progressing in a positive
    way, but it is far too early in the process to say whether they
    are going to bear fruit.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. So a liberty there. Because of the way that
    today is going to go, I am going to hold pretty firm to time
    here, if we could.
        Senator Gardner?
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Tillerson, for your service and your
    time today.
        Yesterday I noted that Secretary Mattis declared that North
    Korea was the most urgent threat to national security facing
    the United States. I share your assessment that North Korea is
    the top national security concern for the United States and
    that exerting maximum pressure is the only way to force this
    regime to peacefully denuclearize.
        Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with the new
    South Korean Government, and I hope that in the coming weeks,
    they will decide that this June summit between President Moon
    and President Trump is an opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-
    Republic of Korea alliance.
        But I want to draw your and my colleagues' attention to two
    independent reports that have recently come out regarding North
    Korea. They have been released this past week.
        The first report was a report released by an independent
    organization named C4ADS, and this report identified over 5,000
    Chinese companies that are doing business with North Korea.
    These Chinese companies are responsible for $7 billion in trade
    with North Korea, which represents 90 percent of North Korea's
    total global trade. Moreover, the C4ADS report found that only
    10 of these companies controlled 30 percent of Chinese exports
    to North Korea in 2016 alone. One of these companies--just one
    of those companies--controlled 10 percent of total imports from
    North Korea. Some of these companies were even found to have
    satellite offices here in the United States.
        The second report I want to highlight was a report released
    by the Royal United Services Institute in the United Kingdom
    last week. It concluded the report finds that not a single
    component of the United Nations sanctions against North Korea
    currently enjoys robust international implementation.
        In February of 2017, the U.N. Panel of Experts on North
    Korea similarly assessed that Pyongyang's illicit networks
    overseas were, ``increasing in scale, scope, and
    sophistication.''
        Do these reports undermine the administration's claim that
    we are exerting maximum pressure on Pyongyang?
        Secretary Tillerson.  No. I think they shed a significant
    amount of light on how complex and difficult applying pressure
    to North Korea is. But what we are doing is we are calling on
    everyone, obviously the Chinese Government. We are calling on
    governments around the world. And there is not a bilateral
    discussion I have with any government anywhere in the world,
    whether it is in eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, or Central and
    South America that we do not talk about their relationship with
    North Korea and asking them to examine all of those ties. And
    even when they say, oh, we only have $5 million worth of
    business, I say make it $2 million. So we are at least at this
    stage making clear to people around the world and governments
    what the U.S. policy and position is.
        The report that you cite, which I have not had an
    opportunity to review in detail, but I am familiar with it, I
    think does illustrate just how sophisticated and complex
    getting at North Korea's sources of revenue are. That is why we
    are also working with China and Russia to put pressure more on
    how commodities are delivered into North Korea because that is
    very visible.
        The intricate financial networks that they have established
    around the world are challenging, but they are not impossible
    to address. So we are working closely with the Treasury
    Department. We can substantiate because we do not want to take
    inadvertent action against someone that we are not confident is
    violating these sanctions. We are moving. The approach is we
    reveal to the host government. We say to them we have this
    information. We are confident with this information. We are
    going to ask you to deal with this within your own country so
    that we are not, to the extent possible, interfering with their
    own ability to manage this. But we have also told them if you
    do not deal with it or if you do not want to deal with it, we
    will certainly be willing to deal with it ourselves.
        So we are in a stage where we are moving into this next
    effort of are we going to have to, in effect, start taking
    secondary actions because countries that we have provided
    information to either have not or are unwilling to, do not have
    the ability to do that.
        But I think you have highlighted how challenging this is.
    That is why we are going to have to move to work with others to
    begin to deny North Korea basic needs like crude oil supplies,
    petroleum fuel supplies, things that are fairly--or at least
    they are easier. I do not want to say they are fairly easy.
    They are easier to monitor whether we are getting cooperation
    with people or not.
        Senator Gardner. Would you support an Iran-style global
    embargo on North Korea, getting international community support
    to deny things like petroleum and other exports into North
    Korea?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, clearly we would have to work
    very closely and carefully with their two principal suppliers,
    which is China and Russia. So if China and Russia said we are
    never going to vote for a global embargo--and that has
    historically been their position for reasons I think we all
    understand--then it would be ineffective.
        Senator Gardner. Do you believe that China is living up to
    the agreements that they have made in conversations with
    President Trump? Do you believe they are living up to what they
    said they would do as it relates to North Korea?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I would tell you it is uneven at this
    point.
        Senator Gardner. Because I think trade with China and North
    Korea has increased 40 percent just in the first quarter
    alone--between China and North Korea.
        Secretary Tillerson.  And some of that was prior to our
    conversations with the Chinese. They have taken steps, visible
    steps that we can confirm. We are in discussions with them
    about entities inside of China.
        Senator Gardner. Is there a timeline for those discussions
    on sanctions?
        Secretary Tillerson.  We have another high-level dialogue
    with the Chinese next week. This is going to be the first topic
    on the agenda.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Good timing.
        Senator Menendez?
        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, just a prefatory remark. As the longest-
    serving member of this committee presently, I can tell you that
    budget hearings are never necessarily about budgets, and they
    are not about potshots. Getting to the truth about what an
    administration's views and policies are is a search for the
    truth and an understanding. And I know that there is an attempt
    to gloss over the administration's budget as it is dead on
    arrival, but a budget is a statement of values. And the
    administration has put forth a budget for the State Department
    that I do not think shares American values.
        So in that context, I am particularly concerned, Mr.
    Secretary--and we appreciate you being here today--about the
    cuts to programs that support democracy, human rights, and good
    governance. While our support for democratic governments,
    independent media, and the rights of people to freely express
    themselves and organize are rooted in the core values that
    shape this great country, our support for these programs
    overseas is not solely in pursuit of lofty ideals. History has
    proven that over the long term, governments around the world
    with strong democratic institutions that respect the human
    rights of all their citizens are more stable, more prosperous,
    more resilient to the tentacles of radicalization and
    instability and ultimately make better partners for the United
    States.
        This administration, despite statements to the contrary,
    seems to have deemed democracy and human rights a low priority
    for our American foreign policy. The administration has
    requested 31 percent less money for democracy, human rights,
    and governance programs. Furthermore, when heads of state from
    countries who have a long and visible history of repressing
    human rights make official state visits, human rights seem
    nowhere on the President's agenda.
        So I am appalled that you have completely zeroed out--
    zeroed out--the democracy assistance account. As brave citizens
    continue to risk their lives advocating for the basic freedoms
    we enjoy here, this budget sends a message that the United
    States is no longer on their side and abandoning the pursuit of
    justice. It effectively withdraws American leadership around
    the world, pushing the door open for Russia and China to
    increase their scope of influence. There is a direct connection
    between repressive actions domestically and adversarial actions
    abroad.
        The Russian Government this week continued a long tradition
    of arresting and detaining peaceful opposition protesters. This
    is the same Russia that violated international order by
    invading and occupying Ukraine, spreading its repressive
    tactics.
        Now, in your opening statement to this committee at your
    confirmation hearing, you stated the following. ``Our approach
    to human rights begins by acknowledging that American
    leadership requires moral clarity. We do not face an either/or
    choice in defending global human rights. Our values are our
    interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian
    assistance.''
        So my question, Mr. Secretary, is simple. Does this
    administration believe that support of democracy and human
    rights is a reflection of American leadership and values? And a
    simple yes or no to that would be appreciated.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Yes.
        Senator Menendez. How can you say that then when the budget
    completely zeroes out assistance for democracy assistance?
        Secretary Tillerson.  As you know, there are other
    mechanisms in other parts of the budget where we continue to
    remain engaged with countries that are dealing with
    interference or repressive regimes. Certainly areas of Eastern
    Europe that are being threatened--we have ensured that we can
    maintain our engagement there and parts of Africa. There are
    countries that we have had to withdraw the support. And again,
    these are some of the hard choices that I mentioned in terms of
    where do we put the dollars we have to best use it where we are
    making progress and the threats are the greatest.
        Senator Menendez. If this is a core value of our foreign
    policy, then ultimately zeroing out its account does not speak
    to that core value.
        Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the Russia
    sanctions that the Senate is about to vote on--first of all, do
    you believe that the Iran sanctions bill, which has been out
    there for some time, is on the Senate floor--do you believe the
    administration will support that legislation?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I have not had a conversation
    directly with the President as we have not reviewed that in the
    interagency discussion yet.
        Senator Menendez. What would be your advice to him?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I think it looks pretty good to me,
    and so I think you are going to find it receptive. But I do not
    want to speak on behalf of the President or the interagency
    process.
        Senator Menendez. I understand.
        What about Russia sanctions that have been agreed to in a
    bipartisan fashion?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I have been reviewing those as they
    have emerged in the last 24 hours. I think with respect to
    Russia--and the chairman and I have had discussions about this
    as well and I have had discussions with others who have called
    to inquire. I think what we would like is the flexibility to
    turn that heat up when we sense that our efforts with Russia,
    whether it be in Syria--we have engagements that they have
    asked for us to engage with them on Ukraine. So we have some
    channels that are open where we are starting to talk, and I
    think what I would not want to do is close the channels off
    with something new.
        Senator Menendez. I understand. They have done plenty
    already that they should be responded to.
        Finally, you said in your confirmation hearing that slavery
    and human trafficking have to be addressed and America has to
    lead. The President's budget calls for a drastic 68 percent cut
    in funding for the State Department's anti-trafficking efforts.
    How is that we fight modern slavery when you make that type of
    cut?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Again, we have to target there as to
    where we see the greatest risk and the greatest opportunity to
    achieve some success, but also engage other countries in
    multilateral approaches, which we are doing in our trans-
    criminal organization's initiative with Mexico, the Mexican
    Government. That is targeted at illicit narcotics, but it is
    also targeted at human trafficking and other illicit trade. So
    we have got to take new approaches that engage other countries
    who should share our same objectives for their part of the
    world. Then we will move and try to engage others elsewhere and
    keep the effort underway with the resources we have, but call
    on others to do more as well.
        Senator Menendez. Well, I hope, Mr. Chairman, we change the
    budget in a way that reflects the values. And I know that in
    this particular case, the chairman is very passionate about it.
        The Chairman. I appreciate you raising that point very
    much.
        Senator Young?
        Senator Young. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I first want to
    commend you and the dedicated public servants of the State
    Department for securing the release of an American national
    from North Korea.
        I also want to applaud the Trump administration for your
    effort to reform our development assistance. To help inform
    that effort, on May 30th, Senator Shaheen and I announced that
    we are co-chairing a Center for Strategic and International
    Studies congressional task force on reforming and reorganizing
    U.S. development assistance. We brought together a bipartisan
    group of top development experts, former Bush and Obama
    administration officials, retired senior Foreign Service
    officers of USAID and State, former ambassadors, former members
    of the National Security Council staff. And our goal is to
    provide recommendations to you regarding what optimal reform
    and reorganization looks like, something you have spoken to you
    are deeply interested in. We want to provide you some
    actionable steps that this administration can take working with
    Congress.
        We have already met twice. We will be meeting a number of
    other times. And our plan is to issue a report in mid-July. So
    we will have a work product very soon.
        Would you be willing, Secretary Tillerson, to meet with me,
    Senator Shaheen, and some of these panelists to discuss the
    findings of this task force, the recommendations we put forward
    to improve the effectiveness, the efficiency, and the
    accountability of our Nation's development assistance?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Certainly we would welcome the
    perspective of that group that you just described. We are also
    reaching out to former Foreign Service officers, retired
    ambassadors to get them involved as well in terms of helping
    inform this initiative and effort. So, yes, I certainly would
    welcome the opportunity to do that and to have some others who
    are going to help us with this exercise also participate in
    that. I think it would be useful.
        Senator Young. Great. So we will look forward to sitting
    down with you and the others we mentioned. Thank you so much.
        As you know, Mr. Secretary, we are seeing a heartbreaking
    humanitarian crisis in four countries: Nigeria, Somalia, South
    Sudan, and Yemen, the so-called four famines, a humanitarian
    crisis. You may recall that on March 23rd I handed you a letter
    signed by 10 members of this committee asking the Department of
    State to implement an urgent and comprehensive diplomatic
    search to address political obstacles that are preventing the
    delivery of food and humanitarian supplies to these countries,
    each of which have their own complexities and challenges. Since
    then, this committee has passed my resolution, Senate
    Resolution 114, calling for the very same thing.
        Sadly, in the meantime, the humanitarian situations in many
    of these places have only gotten worse.
        Can you provide this committee with an update of what
    specific steps the Department of State has taken to address the
    political obstacles that are preventing the delivery of food
    and medicine in these four countries?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, we have had discussions with
    the United Nations people as well to get their perspectives. We
    have worked with some other partners in the region. And again,
    on this issue, we are trying to elicit participation by others,
    have others bring their own capacity as well. As you point out,
    in all these countries, the situation is quite dynamic, and the
    circumstances on the ground does shift, and it does move back
    and forth on us, which makes delivery of humanitarian
    assistance all the more difficult. We have more work to do,
    obviously, in this regard, and we have more work to do with
    partners who have influence as well.
        So I would welcome the opportunity to get back to you with
    more details later on the circumstances there. They are
    extremely challenging because of the situation on the ground
    that is contributing to the famine itself. As you well know, it
    is not entirely driven by just Mother Nature. It is driven by
    the conflict situations which we are dealing with as well.
        Senator Young. So very complex, sometimes quite challenging
    to make a significant difference in each of these four
    countries.
        One area where, frankly, I see some low-hanging fruit, as
    it were, is Yemen. Arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis of
    the four countries. Roughly 20 million people will be facing
    near death circumstances either through starvation or lack of
    medical attention. Thousands, we can anticipate, will be
    infected with cholera. The situation goes on and on. No need
    for me to lay out the parade of horribles in my limited time.
        But I have been working on this issue very directly for
    some time trying to engage the administration's interest and
    attention on the matter.
        You visited with the Saudi foreign minister this morning.
    You, of course, know the Saudi-led coalition is engaged in a
    regional conflict there. There is a civil war in Yemen. And I
    think there is a real opportunity to mitigate some of the
    suffering while increasing, furthering U.S. national security
    interests in that region.
        Were there any specific steps that you asked of the Saudis
    this morning with respect to improving the humanitarian
    situation in Yemen? For example, there are four cranes in the
    major port of Hodeidah in Yemen where 80 percent of the
    incoming food and other supplies are typically delivered. Those
    cranes, paid for in large measure by U.S. taxpayer dollars,
    have not been delivered. Was that or anything else brought to
    the foreign minister's attention, sir?
        Secretary Tillerson.  On the Yemen situation, I have been
    in discussions with the crown prince of the Emirates. I had a
    fulsome meeting with him and with the Saudis.
        The issue in the Port of Hodeidah is it is controlled today
    by the Houthi rebels. We have evaluated how do you get the aid
    delivered and then not have it stolen, which is what is
    happening. And so we are working on how to open up a secure
    delivery mechanism as well. We are actively working it. I am
    very familiar with the situation with the cranes. We are very
    familiar with the situation of turning the operation of the
    port over to perhaps the United Nations. We are working through
    all of these in a very specific way to ensure that if we
    deliver aid, it ends up to the people that need it.
        Senator Young. I have some comebacks. Regrettably I am out
    of time, which is how this works.
        Secretary Tillerson.  We look forward to continuing this
    with you offline. Please call me.
        Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        The Chairman. I really appreciate your pursuing these
    issues prior to today's vote. I mean, I know you have had
    conversations about that and look forward to that outcome.
        Senator Markey?
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I
    appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the regular order that you have
    created here so that we can question the Secretary on the State
    Department budget.
        I wish that there was regular order to deal with the health
    care bill. I wish that the Republican leadership was having
    open hearings, public input so that this massive health care
    bill, which is being constructed clandestinely, could be seen
    not only by the American public but by every Member of the
    Senate before it is brought out to the Senate floor. It could
    lead to 23 million Americans losing their health insurance,
    people losing their opioid coverage for illnesses in their own
    families. And it is just absolutely wrong. This is the way the
    Senate should operate. What they are doing with that health
    care bill is absolutely--it is just wrong what they are doing.
    And we are going to have to continue to elevate that issue.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on what Senator
    Gardner said. This story that is in the ``Washington Post''
    today about C4ADS, a company that has put together a report
    called ``Risky Business,'' which tries to find the links
    between the China Government and its companies and the North
    Korean Government. And it has identified key component
    companies that, if they were targeted, could potentially
    cripple the networks because they are so intertwined with links
    right into the United States of America. And it could go a long
    way towards choking off this global illicit finance system,
    which the North Koreans have constructed. They are centralized.
    They are limited. They are vulnerable. I really recommend this
    report to you, Mr. Secretary. I think that this is where we
    should be going.
        There has been a 37 percent increase year over year in
    trade between China and North Korea. There is no way they are
    going to respond to our request that they negotiate on the
    ballistic missile and nuclear question unless they feel the
    pain of the noose tightening around their economy.
        This report today is a blistering, scalding indictment of
    the lack of true enforcement of the trade between China and
    North Korea with actual financial benefits that flow to
    individuals and companies in the United States. So I just
    strongly recommend that you become very familiar with this
    because I think it goes right to the core of what we have to be
    concerned with.
        Illicit fentanyl comes in from China, comes in from Mexico.
    In the United States last year, unbelievably 59,000 people died
    from overdoses. In Massachusetts, 2,000 people died from
    fentanyl in their system. If that was multiplied out by the
    whole country, that would be 70,000 Americans who died from
    fentanyl. The precursor chemicals come from China. They are
    moved to Mexico. Then the Mexican gangs bring them up into the
    United States.
        This for me is the real terror on the streets of our
    country, this opioid epidemic. And given the scope of the
    tragedy, the Trump administration's proposed 32 percent cut to
    the budget of the Bureau of International Narcotics Control and
    Law Enforcement is absolutely unacceptable. It just shows that
    instead of prioritizing an issue that goes right to the heart
    of what people are concerned about, where they want our State
    Department, where they want our law enforcement, and instead,
    we see this dramatic undermining of the effort to stop these
    lethal drugs.
        Can you talk about why there would be a 32 percent cut, Mr.
    Secretary, given the epidemic of fentanyl coming in from China
    and Mexico?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Senator, I could not agree more with
    your assessment of the seriousness of the threat of fentanyl,
    as well as other illicit narcotics. We have underway, as a
    result of Secretary Kelly and my first bilateral visit to
    Mexico City--one of the issues we had on our discussion early
    on was this trafficking that occurs either from Mexico or
    certainly through Mexico. I told my Mexican counterparts it is
    time to stop playing small ball. We got to start playing large
    ball.
        We have followed that up now with two additional
    bilaterals, one most recently held here in Washington where we
    are mapping out a different way of attacking the issue in a
    supply chain, value chain mechanism. Where are things produced?
    Where are they manufactured? Where are they distributed and
    transported? How are they marketed? How are they delivered?
        So clearly there are parts of all of that they own. There
    are parts of it that we own together. And certainly the part
    that we own is how do we get at why we are the demand center
    for this. We brought in Health and Human Services to work with
    us in this effort as well.
        Senator Markey. Have you raised this issue with your
    counterpart in the Chinese Government?
        Secretary Tillerson.  We have discussed with the Chinese
    Government, yes.
        Senator Markey. Did you raise it yourself?
        Secretary Tillerson.  In my discussion with the Chinese, I
    have talked to them about the illicit drug flow coming out of
    China through Mexico.
        Senator Markey. Fentanyl specifically?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Yes.
        Senator Markey. And what did they say?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, obviously, they say it is a
    serious problem. Yes, they will crack down on that as well. I
    think it is too early to tell what efforts and whether that is
    producing anything. But we are going to keep it in our dialogue
    with the Chinese that we need you to work on your source of
    supply with this particular additive, this fentanyl additive
    which is deadly.
        Senator Markey. A kilo of heroin costs $6,000. It can be
    sold for $80,000. A kilo of fentanyl costs $6,000. It can be
    sold for $1.5 million. The Chinese and the Mexicans are
    rational economic actors. They are moving in that direction,
    and unless you get a positive response from the Chinese
    Government and Mexican Government, then we have to escalate
    this up to the very top of the list of issues that our country
    expects the Trump administration to deal with.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you for that point.
        Senator Isakson?
        Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, first of all, thank you for the great job. I
    do not just say that in a pandering way. Your first 6 months
    have been very impressive, and I appreciate it. The first trip
    you took with the President, with the leadership in the State
    Department. We are fortunate to have you in place, and thank
    you for doing what you are doing.
        Secondly, having reorganized a large company on the scale
    of a small business but not a large company on the scale of
    Exxon Mobil, you are in an unenviable position of answering
    budget questions in advance of the result being determined by
    how you reorganize the Department and how they use the budgets
    of the future. In fact, if we could have fiscal year 2019 in
    front of us instead of 2018, the questions would be totally
    different, I am sure. But you do not get to do it that way. I
    think your statement to Senator Cardin, I do not think the
    train has left the station yet and do not prejudge us, but
    gives us the chance to do the job.
        And you made a great statement in your prepared remarks
    when you said the budget will not determine our effectiveness.
    Our people will. And I think the way you are approaching the
    reorganization of the Department and getting all the facts in
    before you take any steps will serve well the reorganization
    that does take place in the State Department of the future.
        With that said, the hiring freeze that is currently in
    place has had an impact on the State Department's hiring of new
    Foreign Service officers. Is that not correct?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, as of today, Senator, we
    actually are up about 50 Foreign Service officers from the
    start of the year, about a half a percent. The effect will come
    later as what we are doing is just allowing normal attrition to
    bring the numbers down.
        And as we look forward, we know we have got to continue to
    replenish our Foreign Service officer corps. So we are still
    interviewing people, and as we look ahead, we will probably be
    looking at a one for three kind of replacement. But the Foreign
    Service, if we look further out--and I think we have said this
    publicly--by the end of fiscal year 2018, we think we will be
    down about 8 percent overall on permanent State Department
    Foreign Service, Civil Service. Foreign Service is actually
    only going to be down about 4 percent. Civil servants are going
    to be down about 12. So it is being managed in a deliberate
    way, but being very mindful of not diminishing the strength of
    our Foreign Service officers.
        Senator Isakson. I just do not want to see you get into a
    position where we have a brain drain that we could not make up
    for pretty quickly down the line because these people are
    important to the visibility of America overseas.
        Finally, was there a freeze relative to the employees of
    the State Department?
        Secretary Tillerson.  State Department family members that
    are eligible to be hired in mission--we have a waiver process
    in place for that, and I have approved a number, in answer to
    your question, to all of those. But where we have critical
    missions like in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, where we really
    need these positions filled by family members who are willing
    to go to those tough locations, I have been providing waivers
    in those circumstances.
        Senator Isakson. That is why I raised the point because
    those people have invaluable experience that nobody else has
    and a reason to have a willingness to serve that nobody else
    would have as well. So they would be valuable to the State
    Department.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Indeed.
        Senator Isakson. One example of what has been read in the
    budget by some people when they have seen consolidations of
    departments and responsibilities without the future result is
    you have got the economic support fund and the development
    assistance account merged into one fund without any change in
    the authorization for the fund and a new name called the
    economic support and development fund. Well, our 2019 showed
    the results of these mergers not just in terms of financially
    but in terms of reauthorization for these departments. You are
    not just going to redo the budget, but you are, in fact, going
    to restructure these departments and the mission too, I assume.
        Secretary Tillerson.  That will be the intent coming out of
    this redesign. As all of you well know, we have a number of
    bureaus that have common missions. Some of them have
    overlapping missions, not just true within the State
    Department, but we have that with other agencies as well.
        This exercise is to also identify where we have overlapping
    missions with Defense, Agricultural Department, Commerce, where
    do we have opportunities to achieve delivery on mission, do it
    perhaps more effective because there is a common greater
    coordination. All of that is yet to come. And that is why I
    said I do not want to foreclose anything at this point.
        Senator Isakson. In other words, the train has not left the
    station. So stay tuned.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Please get on the train with us. We
    need everybody on the train.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you for your service.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Murphy?
        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary.
        I want to echo the comments and concerns of Ranking Member
    Cardin. To many of us and to many people who follow U.S.
    foreign policy, the withdrawal of American leadership from the
    world in the first several months of the Trump administration
    looks deliberate, whether it be a proposed 32 percent cut to
    your Department which represents us in some of the most forums
    and in every country around the world, whether it be the
    decision to back out of the most important international
    agreement that has been entered into over the course of the
    last decade, or whether it be this decision, whether it be
    deliberate or not, to keep Assistant Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary positions unstaffed for a longer time than any of us
    can remember in any previous administration. You know, it has
    resulted in some fairly dramatic statements by leaders around
    the world, not the least of which was Chancellor Merkel who
    said, upon President Trump's first foreign trip, at the
    culmination of it--she said ``the times in which we can count
    on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past
    few days.''
        So this decision to take a big step back from U.S.
    leadership--it does seem deliberate. It does seem intentional.
    I can understand that certainly could be a strategy, to
    telegraph to the rest of the world that they need to make their
    own plans, that they need to form their own alliances, that
    they just simply are not going to be able to rely on us.
        So let me just ask you that simple question. Is this a
    deliberate strategy? Should our allies start making plans that
    rely less on U.S. leadership and U.S. support?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, Senator, I take a completely
    counter view to the way you have interpreted it, the
    President's actions and what the administration has had
    underway. In discussions with many of our longstanding allies
    and friends, I think we are really leaning into U.S. leadership
    to make it clear to these longstanding allies and very
    important allies and friends of ours that America has been
    leading for a very long time, and the American people have been
    reaching in their pockets and paying for this leadership for a
    very long time. And we are going to continue to be in this
    leadership role, but you, our allies, must do your part. You
    must do your share. And I think there is a realistic and honest
    examination of what the American people have been asked to do
    relative to what some of our allies and partners have been
    asked to do. There is a lack of alignment there. And I think
    what our approach is----
        And I would tell you my interpretation of Chancellor
    Merkel's remark was for her to say to the German people you
    need to understand we are going to have to do more than we have
    been doing because we have that responsibility now. We should
    not look to America to carry us on their backs every step of
    the way. That is part of the conversation that we have been
    trying to stimulate, and every leader has to express it to
    their own people in their own way.
        I would tell you NATO is a perfect example. And you are
    well aware of the demands we have been making of NATO members.
    Secretary-General Stoltenberg has thanked us for taking this
    position. NATO has never seen a response from countries like
    they are seeing now because of this pressure that has been put
    on others. And it is a very open, honest conversation we are
    having with our friends and allies about how are we going to
    share this burden. We all carry the burden. We are not going to
    set the burden down. We are not going to walk away. But we have
    to talk about how we are going to carry this burden going
    forward because the world has changed. The world has changed
    dramatically.
        Senator Murphy. I want to switch to a question about what
    is happening in Syria today, just to get you on the record. In
    the last 30 days, the United States has come into conflict with
    Syrian forces, with forces aligned with the Assad regime, and
    with his Iranian proxies three different times. We have taken
    offensive action against those forces.
        Let me ask you this. Has the administration made a decision
    to actively contest territory inside Syria with the Assad
    regime? And what legal authorization is the administration
    using to take action against the Syrian regime or against
    Iranian proxies inside Syria?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, I do not want to get into
    detail since we are in an unclassified environment here. But
    our mission and our purpose and reason for being in Syria is
    unchanged. We are there to defeat ISIS. And all of our efforts
    are focused on defeating ISIS, denying them of their caliphate.
    As you know, both in Iraq and Syria, it is a coordinated
    effort. We are making tremendous progress in denying ISIS their
    caliphate and chasing them further down the lower Euphrates
    River Valley. That is the objective. That is why we are there.
        Senator Murphy. Would you agree that there is no legal
    authorization granted to the administration by Congress to wage
    war against the Assad regime or against Iranian proxies?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I would agree with that.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. And I do want to say that this
    work period we plan to deal with an AUMF, and I thank everybody
    for their interest in that.
        Senator Risch?
        Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I wish Senator Markey had stayed. I understand that the
    memo went out to all the Democrats that they are supposed to
    raise health care. So I do not know what that had to do with
    our hearing today, but Senator Markey raised health care. And I
    should respond to him briefly, if I might.
        He was beating his breast in righteous indignation that we
    have working groups that are trying to resolve this mess that
    is called Obamacare, and the stuff is not getting out. I would
    remind him that 3,000 pages of that complex legislation was
    dropped on my desk 30 minutes before we voted on it in the
    middle of the night. And so he is right. We should have
    substantially more work on it than doing it in the middle of
    the night like happened with Obamacare or we are going to wind
    up with the same mess.
        Secretary Tillerson, I have been very impressed with your
    service. There was a lot of criticism of the President over a
    lot of things but particularly when he appointed you because of
    the fact that you did not come out of what has traditionally
    been diplomatic circles. And I can tell you that seeing you
    work in the months, it has been a real pleasure when you have
    been on board because you have certainly picked this up. As you
    know, this is not run-of-the-mill stuff when you are dealing in
    diplomatic circles. So thank you for your service. Thank you
    for doing that, and we are very proud of you. And it is not
    just me. In my service here and on the Intelligence Committee,
    I deal with people from other countries all the time, and I am
    telling you you are getting high marks wherever you put
    footprints on the ground. So thank you for your service.
        Senator Murphy brought up the comments by Angela Merkel
    about the comments that she made about people taking care of
    themselves. And I want to ask you a question that I have
    noticed. I have been here over the last 8 years meeting with
    people from other countries, and they were incredibly
    frustrated by our leading from behind or whatever you--doing
    nothing I guess is what it was.
        After the President pulled the trigger twice, which you
    never hear about in the media anymore, once in Syria after the
    use of chemical weapons and then again in Afghanistan after one
    of our SEALs got killed, there was a marked change in my view
    of the attitude of particularly our allies and some that are
    not particularly allies of ours. Indeed, I met with some right
    after that Syrian episode, and some of them were positively
    giddy about the fact that America was back.
        Are you finding the same thing as you travel around the
    world?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Senator, I am. I think all of our
    allies and friends appreciate decisiveness. Even if we make a
    decision they may not like or agree with, they appreciate
    decisiveness. So it is clear where we are going. They certainly
    on the security front and in our shared battle against ISIS and
    counterterrorism--our moves have been very welcomed. I find our
    relationships to be quite strong.
        My discussions with my counterparts. Whether they are
    foreign secretaries, foreign ministers, it is very open. It is
    very frank about where we are agreeing, where we are not. But
    there is a real common sense that U.S.-ally relationships are
    stronger today. We have our differences and we express them in
    different ways. But there is greater clarity to where we are
    going today than there has been in some time. That is what I
    hear.
        Senator Risch. I hear the same thing. And that decisiveness
    that you talk about has given them, in my judgment, a lot
    stronger confidence in what they can expect of us. I saw
    confusion. I saw a real troubling view from their point of view
    during the last 8 years, and it has changed markedly since
    those two events that nobody ever talks about.
        And by the way, have you heard any reports of use of
    chemical weapons in Syria since that episode?
        Secretary Tillerson.  None that we are aware of, but we are
    watching it closely.
        Senator Risch. Thank you.
        And I would assume it would not take a rocket scientist to
    figure out that if we can drop 97 of them on a dime in one of
    their airfields, that we can probably put one down the chimney
    in Damascus somewhere. Would that be something that some
    reasonable person might conclude?
        Secretary Tillerson.  We would just like to know who is
    sitting next to the fireplace.
        Senator Risch. Lastly, Mr. Tillerson, those of us that sit
    on this committee and, for that matter, on the Intelligence
    Committee--one of the things--and this is not something that is
    a huge part of this budget, but there is money that goes to
    assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And the payments that
    have been made over the years from some of that money to the
    Palestinian Liberation Organization that they use to pay
    families of suicide bombers--I will tell you that is like
    grating on a blackboard as far as a lot of us are concerned. I
    am sure that is on your radar. And I realize that there are
    other sides of that as far as those payments into the West Bank
    or into Gaza. But this is something that really galls on us.
    Anything you can do about that would be greatly appreciated.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, let me assure you, Senator, it
    was discussed directly when President Abbas made his visit with
    his delegation to Washington. The President raised it, but then
    I had a much more detailed bilateral with him later that day,
    and I told him you absolutely must stop making payments to
    family members of ``martyrs.'' I said it is one thing to help
    orphans and children, but when you designate the payment for
    that act, that has to stop.
        They have changed their policy. At least I have been
    informed they have changed that policy, and their intent is to
    cease the payments to the family members of those who have
    committed murder or violence against others. So we have been
    very clear with them that this is simply not acceptable to us.
    It is certainly not acceptable to the American people.
        Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Abbas probably has something to
    say about the West Bank, but you get deep into Gaza--I do not
    know how much influence he has got there.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, and I would say in Gaza we are
    working with others who have provided assistance and funding
    into Gaza, much of which is, as you know, to relieve the
    humanitarian problem, rebuilding homes, hospitals, schools. But
    there is always a lot of leakage of that money. And so we are
    working carefully with others as to how do you help. And the
    Israeli Government is supportive of stabilizing Gaza by
    providing these type of humanitarian actions. We just cannot
    have the money leaking into the hands of those who would commit
    violence with it.
        Senator Risch. Thanks for the job you are doing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I do want to thank you for
    bringing up the Taylor Force issue. And I just want to say to
    the committee that it is my hope that before we go home for
    August recess, that we will have passed out of committee a
    Taylor Force-like piece of legislation to address that issue.
    So thank you for raising it.
        Senator Coons?
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member
    Cardin.
        Thank you, Secretary Tillerson, for your service and the
    chance to be with you again. We will be together later today at
    an Appropriations subcommittee.
        So in this context, I will focus on some narrow questions
    that are about State Department functioning and authorization,
    if I might.
        Let me just first more broadly say my predecessor in this
    seat, former Vice President Biden, often said, ``Do not tell me
    what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what
    you value.'' And I am greatly concerned that the proposed deep
    cuts to development assistance and diplomacy suggest we do not
    value diplomacy and development as tools of foreign policy at a
    time when we badly need them and need more of them.
        I think the growing threat we have seen, the attack on our
    democracy by Russia, the destabilizing acts of North Korea, the
    nuclear program, and the world's worst humanitarian and refugee
    crisis since the Second World War call for us to invest more in
    diplomacy and development, not to dramatically cut it. But I
    will save the rest of that for the appropriations hearing this
    afternoon.
        I understand from your testimony you are nearly done
    conducting a review of the whole State Department. How soon can
    we expect nominations for the six regional bureaus? I am
    concerned about some of the difficulty in moving forward key
    nominations.
        Secretary Tillerson.  We are at about, I would say, the 50
    percent mark in terms of under secretaries, assistant
    secretaries, in terms of people that have been identified.
    Names are actually being submitted so they can begin to work
    their way through the White House PPO process, but also for a
    lot of people, they have to get this paperwork behind them. And
    I would tell you that is no small challenge. As I check on the
    status of various people we have recommended and nominated to
    the White House, what I am finding, is more often than not it
    is the paperwork that is slowing them down. In my own case, I
    had to hire eight people to help me get mine done. Most people
    cannot afford to hire eight people to help them get their
    paperwork done. So it takes a very long time.
        But we are about 50 percent of the way through, and we have
    other names that are in process. What we are doing, we try to
    get the candidate list of people we think would be useful to
    talk to down to a couple, and then we actually interview them
    face to face and then make a decision and submit them.
        So this is a pretty active process. It is one I sit down
    with the people that are helping me coordinate it about every
    10 days just to see where are we, make decisions on other
    people, if we are hearing feedback, we have talked to folks.
    Maybe they do not want to do it after all. So it is moving and
    that is about where we are within the State Department and the
    bureaus.
        Senator Coons. It is my hope and expectation, Mr.
    Secretary, that we will work on a bipartisan basis to confirm
    qualified candidates who come forward. I am concerned about the
    impact on our embassies in a lot of places in the world that
    may not be top of the news but that need an Assistant Secretary
    to help coordinate policy.
        As I have traveled recently--I traveled to Uganda with
    Chairman Corker not too long ago, traveled to Vietnam with
    Senator McCain recently--I make my best efforts to visit with
    mid-level Foreign Service officers and with the Civil Service
    folks who really run the Department. And I am concerned about
    the impact on morale of these proposed cuts.
        One specific concern I have also got is about diversity. As
    part of the hiring freeze, I understand State has frozen the
    accession for all current Rangel and Pickering fellows. And
    last week all those current fellows were told these classes
    were on hold indefinitely. And this is one of the premier
    accession programs in the Foreign Service and has served as a
    key tool for improving diversity in the ranks of FSOs. These
    actions taken to freeze the program to me could indicate a
    disturbing lack of attention to the importance of diversity.
        What are your plans for these programs, and how do we move
    forward on diversity initiatives taken by previous
    administrations that are worthy of continued effort?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, I will follow up on it,
    Senator, but I do not think we have frozen the Rangel and
    Pickering programs in terms of people that are in process. We
    are continuing and we are going to continue to take applicants
    as well. But let me follow up with you because I do not think
    there is a full freeze in place on those.
        Senator Coons. My understanding is they are being asked to
    make very difficult choices in terms of seeking employment
    elsewhere while they wait for the next opportunity for an entry
    level class. And you can imagine how someone with a lot of
    skill and ability would find it quite difficult to go take
    another job while waiting an indeterminate period for an
    opening in the State Department.
        In April, I was one of a number of Senators on
    Appropriations who pressed for additional money for emergency
    funds to address famine conditions in Nigeria, South Sudan,
    Somalia, and Yemen where there is roughly 20 million people at
    risk of starvation. And the congressional budget justification
    accompanying your fiscal year 2018 request notes unusually high
    carryover funds. I think the estimate was $1.3 billion in IDA
    funds.
        Why were these funds not obligated in the year they were
    appropriated by Congress, which was 2016 and 2017? And what is
    your longer-term goal? I am concerned about impoundment and
    whether or not these funds, which are critically needed to
    address famine, might instead be reprogrammed or returned as
    unobligated balances.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, first, let me thank the
    Congress for the big plus-up in 2017 in recognition, as you
    point out, of some serious challenges around the world.
        I think, Senator, our intention is to get that deployed in
    a way that the food shows up, the relief shows up where it is
    needed.
        I think what you are seeing is how difficult it is to
    execute on some of these areas. And so having the money--having
    the funds are certainly appreciated and needed, but then we
    have to be able to deliver, working with other aid agencies and
    working with the situation on the ground to have the aid reach
    those most in need. Our expectation, as we reflect--I just
    wanted to be completely transparent with everyone--is that we
    are pushing that out as quickly as we can effectively do that,
    but that we are going to have some carryover as a result of the
    plus-up. I think when we get around--it is broader budget
    question as to--you know, it is difficult to execute a $55
    billion budget for the organization.
        And so the statement show me your funding and I will show
    your level of commitment I do not agree with. Funding does not
    equal results. Show me your results and I will tell you your
    commitment. And that is what we are trying to get the folks in
    the State Department--is what are the results, and then I will
    tell you what I need to deliver on those results. Giving me a
    pot of money and suggesting that that confirms our success and
    our commitment is just simply--I have to take exception to
    that. I have never had the experience anywhere.
        Senator Coons. Mr. Secretary, we may share a view that once
    money is obligated, we also have an obligation to spend it in
    the most efficient way possible. I do not think this is an
    either/or conversation. I think the chairman and I have worked
    hard to try and find ways to improve the efficiency of delivery
    of food assistance, and having this funding in the IDA accounts
    I believe was a way that it would be streamlined and moved
    forward more efficiently. I did not mean to suggest that simply
    spending proves our values. Spending efficiently is what proves
    our values. Cutting without a reasonable justification at a
    time of record famine I also have some difficulties with. I
    look forward to our further conversation this afternoon about
    how we can be more efficient and effective in our support of
    development and diplomacy.
        Secretary Tillerson.  And I agree with delivering through
    the IDA program, we believe is also much more effective as
    well.
        The Chairman. We look forward to working with you. 5
    million to 8 million people a day--5 million to 8 million
    people a day--would be being fed around the world if we would
    break down these cartels that are controlling us right now and
    move funding appropriately to IDA. It is a shame. The same
    amount of dollars, not a penny more. Think about that--5
    million to 8 million people a day--so thank you for that.
        Senator Rubio?
        Senator Rubio. Thank you for coming. How is it going? You
    could have been HHS, you know, Health and Human Services. You
    could have answered all the Obamacare questions today.
        I want to start with the Asian continent, the news I guess
    today or yesterday about a $4.5 billion cut to Radio Free Asia.
    And that comes on the heels of what I am hope you are aware of,
    an article in ``The Wall Street Journal'' from May 23rd about
    an interview that had been scheduled in the Mandarin language
    broadcast with a Chinese real estate and investment tycoon
    about his claims of extensive corruption in the Chinese
    Communist Party. The Chinese Government got very upset about
    this interview. They actually issued a red notice on Interpol
    to try to wrap him up and the like. And then there was a
    dispute within the Voice of America. This interview was cut
    short. The person who conducted the interview, Sasha Gong, who
    I believe was the head of the Mandarin radio broadcast is on
    suspension, and now there is this fight going on internally.
        So two questions that I have. The first is the combination
    of the cuts and the interview. You could assure us here today
    that our efforts to improve relations with China have nothing
    to do with either the budget cut and/or the directive that was
    given to this reporter to cut the interview short.
        Secretary Tillerson.  I can confirm that to my knowledge,
    it had nothing to do with our relationship with China.
        Senator Rubio. And would you be supportive of an IG
    investigation into this dispute that is occurring within that
    branch between the head of the Voice of America and this
    particular reporter?
        Secretary Tillerson.  I would like to look at it, get a
    greater understanding myself. But certainly if it would seem
    that if there has been anything improperly done there, we
    should call for one.
        Senator Rubio. The concern is basically is that we cannot
    allow geopolitical pressures from China to influence our
    ability to broadcast the truth, particularly in that language
    in Mandarin. And so, obviously, we want to understand whether
    that is what would happen or not.
        Secretary Tillerson.  I strongly agree, strongly agree.
        Senator Rubio. Now, obviously you have heard from a lot of
    the members here about the budget situation. And, look, I get
    it. We have got to do better. We have got to get more bang for
    our buck in terms of the money we invest in foreign aid and in
    foreign engagement. I am a big believer in foreign engagement
    because it certainly has paid extraordinary dividends. And it
    is always important to remind people, when it comes to foreign
    aid, it is less than 1 percent or about 1 percent of our
    budget. Some people think it is like 25 or 30, and it has
    brought real successes.
        And I think South Korea is a success of that. People forget
    that 35 to 40 years ago, South Korea's economy was smaller than
    North Korea's. It was a dictatorship. And today I believe it is
    the 11th largest economy in the world, the strongest American
    ally, a vibrant democracy. And nothing illustrates that better
    than that famous Google Earth picture of the darkness on the
    North Korean side and all the lights on the South Korean side.
    American engagement.
        In the western hemisphere, one of the best news stories
    from that engagement is Plan Colombia and the state that was on
    the verge failure, thanks to extraordinary bravery and courage
    and investment by the Colombians and U.S. support for that
    effort, brought them to a better place under President Uribe.
        As you are well aware, President Santos visited here a few
    weeks ago. And it has always been my preference and inclination
    to be helpful because of the importance of our relationship
    with Colombia.
        That said, I left open-minded. Despite the fact that the
    Colombian people in a referendum rejected his peace deal, I
    have tried not to opine about internal matters in that country
    because they are an ally and a democracy. So he comes to
    Washington. And after the visit, I am actually more concerned
    than I was before he came for a couple points.
        The first is I remain concerned about their creation of the
    special legal framework in their peace deal that basically puts
    the FARC on par with the Colombian Government in terms of
    prosecuting people, which basically means human rights abusers,
    prosecute them. But it basically means some of these people
    that were working with us to destroy these drug gangs and these
    guerilla groups could be on trial for working with us to carry
    that mission out. We put the FARC at equal footing, not to
    mention they have now become a political party.
        I am concerned about them stopping extraditions. As of the
    latest count, about 60 members of the FARC are potentially
    wanted for extradition because they violated all laws. And they
    have even pushed at one point to delist the FARC as a terrorist
    organization, which they should always be on that list.
        And the one that is really concerning is this massive surge
    in cocaine production in Colombia over the last year and a
    half, which perfectly coincides with President Santos' decision
    to suspend aerial eradication, which he chalks up to not
    wanting to spray in national parks. But I would just advise him
    when he keeps saying that to Members of Congress who know
    better, that may have been an element of it, but that is not
    entirely the rationale. They stopped aerial eradication because
    he did not want to upset the peace deal with the FARC.
        I raise all this because they are now coming back for
    additional money to help implement all of these things we have
    concerns about. So the peace deal belongs to the sovereign
    nation of Colombia, but our willingness to participate and fund
    it depends on the conditions that we lay out. And I just wanted
    to get your sense,in the minute that we have remaining, where
    we are in that process, what those conditions are, and in
    particular, the delisting of the FARC, the release of a
    criminal, Simon Trinidad, who is in federal prison, the aerial
    eradication. In essence, why should the American taxpayer be
    paying for a deal that is flawed and, actually in many ways,
    could potentially undo the progress of Plan Colombia?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, all of the flaws that you have
    identified and the peace plan that they have we would agree
    with. I think we see it the same way.
        We have had discussions with them, and as you point out, I
    think it is a question of how far do we want to go in trying to
    interfere with or condition or in any way undo the plan that
    they have arrived at and the agreement they have arrived at
    with the FARC.
        I would comment on the spraying of the fields. And we had a
    long discussion about this because the numbers are just eye-
    popping in terms of what has happened with the acreage under
    cultivation in particular. They indicated they had, in some
    sense, created this problem of their own because they had been
    paying farmers to get out of production of cocaine fields and
    the supply fields and convert to other. And they have halted
    that program while they were in the midst of these talks. And
    what the farmers did is they went out and planted more acreage
    so they could get more payments. So we have told them, no, we
    have got to get back to the spraying. We have got to get back
    to destroying these fields, that they are in a very bad place
    now in cocaine supply to the United States. And the President
    talked to President Santos directly about that. So we are going
    to work with them on how do we address that particular issue.
        And then on the other issues, it is a question of how
    heavily we want to condition our support to them in terms of
    making changes to a peace process that they have put together
    and understanding would that completely unwind it. What is the
    consequences of that?
        So I share all of the concerns you have. We have
    highlighted those concerns to them as well. Very troubling to
    us because we were on a great track. It kind of came off the
    track with the vote, and this is where we are.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Very good, good exchange.
        Senator Udall?
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
        I think everyone on this panel can agree that among our
    greatest national security threats are nuclear proliferation
    from North Korea, as well as remnants of the A.Q. Khan group in
    Iran, among others. Just yesterday, Secretary Mattis made it
    clear by stating ``the most urgent and dangerous threat to
    peace and security is North Korea.''
        Given the importance of countering this threat, I would
    expect the State Department to prioritize nonproliferation and
    programs that support anti-terrorism. Yet, the budget the
    President has presented to the Congress for consideration does
    the opposite. Instead of robustly funding these programs, this
    budget puts Americans at risk by cutting the nonproliferation
    and anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs that account
    for $333 million.
        Based on your personal review, have you directed the State
    Department to deemphasize these areas? Is the official State
    Department position that these accounts are no longer a
    priority?
        Secretary Tillerson.  No, Senator, we have not in any way
    deemphasized this. As you point out, we agree North Korea is
    the greatest threat, and that is why if you look back at the
    early stages of the administration, that was the first foreign
    policy area that we dealt with at the State Department was
    North Korea. That process continues, as you well know.
        I think in terms of our activities that you just listed,
    some of those we are working with the Defense Department on
    areas of budgeting authority they have, how do we coordinate
    the most effective deployment of the resources available to us
    to achieve common objectives. We are not looking for their
    money to supplant our money. Rather, we have, between Secretary
    Mattis and I, developed a very, very close process between our
    two relevant bureaus as to how we are putting our funds that
    are available to work, what funds do they have in the same
    geographic locations where they are trying to achieve similar
    objectives, how do we manage that in a way that continues to
    allow us to address the issues that you are discussing there.
        But we have not deemphasized the threat of
    nonproliferation. We have other parts of the world that this is
    a serious concern to us and are developing policy approaches
    there. Again, these are just some of the difficult choices that
    have been made in where to take certain budget reductions.
        Senator Udall. Mr. Secretary, I would like to move to our
    own hemisphere here. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its
    support for engaging Cuba and during its launch of the U.S.-
    Cuba Business Council stated that--and I am quoting here--``we
    are facing an historic opportunity to support a vital and
    growing Cuban private sector, one that is defined by
    entrepreneurs whose expanding efforts show that the spirit of
    free enterprise is already taking hold in the country.''
        In fact, multiple States are already in trade agreements
    with Cuba, increasing business opportunities for rural and
    urban areas alike. And the Cuban people themselves, including
    those who host tourists from the United States either in
    cuentapropistas or Airbnb's have gained entrepreneurial
    experience and have begun the work to pull themselves out of
    poverty.
        Do you agree we should continue these efforts, or do you
    believe that we should return to the failed policies of the
    Cold War?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Senator, what you described is the
    sunny side of the relationship, and it is all positive and it
    is great and it is good. There is the dark side, though, and
    that is that Cuba has failed to improve its own human rights
    record. Political opponents continue to be imprisoned.
    Dissidents continue to be jailed. Women in White continue to be
    harassed. And so what we have to achieve in approaching Cuba is
    if we are going to sustain the sunny side of this relationship,
    Cuba must--absolutely must--begin to address its human rights
    challenges.
        Now, within that sunny side of the relationship, there are
    troubling elements to us that bring the relationship into
    conflict with existing statute obligations. And that is, as we
    are developing these business relationships, as we are enjoying
    the benefits on the economic and development side, are we
    inadvertently or directly providing financial support to the
    regime? Our view is we are. And the question is how do we want
    to deal with that. How do we bring that into compliance with
    longstanding statutory obligations?
        So we are examining that. We would love to keep the sunny
    side. We would love to keep it in compliance with existing
    statutes that does not lead to financial support for this what
    we can only describe continues to be a very oppressive regime.
        Senator Udall. Mr. Secretary, should the United States make
    it easier or harder for U.S. companies to engage in Cuba to
    improve access to the Internet? Do you believe, as many on this
    committee do, that access to the Internet is an important part
    of creating a modern and just society, including supporting
    nascent entrepreneurs? And finally, will you build on efforts
    from the previous administration to help U.S. companies do
    business in Cuba?
        Secretary Tillerson.  We do support greater access to the
    Internet, not just for the commercial economic reasons, but we
    also think it is an important way people have access to voices
    of freedom and democracy and greater visibility. So we are
    supportive of that. We are supportive of continued economic
    development as long as it is done in full compliance with our
    existing statutes to not provide financial support to the
    regime. That is the focus of our current policy review.
        Senator Udall. And this is not a question. It is just a
    final comment. If that is the sole test on financial support
    from the regime and if they are getting money from small
    businesses and everything, then it just seems to me we are
    headed down a path of once again closing down the abilities of
    these private businesses and Airbnb's and cuentapropistas and a
    lot of others to be out there and people be making a living and
    developing the private sector. I mean, as long as I have been
    working on this issue and the opening up, I mean, we have seen
    half a million people that are working there in the private
    sector. But if the test is going to be do they give a single
    dime to the government, then we get ourselves, I think, in a
    situation where we go back to the old Cold War policy, which I
    think has been a real failure.
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, Senator, I know you are not
    suggesting that we encourage private companies to violate the
    law, but it does require perhaps a more thorough discussion
    among the Congress and the executive over is that law still
    useful. But the law is there. We cannot ignore that law, and we
    cannot encourage people to violate that law.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin for closing comments and observations.
        Senator Cardin. So, first, Mr. Chairman, I would ask
    consent that a letter addressed to me from President Ron
    Daniels at Johns Hopkins University concerning the global
    health budget be included in the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

        [The information referred to is located at the end of this
    hearing transcript.]

        Senator Cardin. And two documents I received from CARE
    USA--one is testimony for the record, the other an assessment
    of human impacts of the budget--also be made part of our
    record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

        [The information referred to is located at the end of this
    hearing transcript.]

        Senator Cardin. And then two observations.
        One, Mr. Secretary, in regards to the discussion with
    Senator Coons on the Pickering and Rangel fellows, there has
    been an historic challenge within the Department of State that
    predates your stewardship on attracting a diversified
    workforce. And this committee has weighed on it. We have had
    legislation on it. I have introduced some legislation in this
    Congress. I would just urge you that in regards to the
    Pickering and the Rangel fellows, that is one of the avenues
    that have been a bright spot for diversity within the State
    Department and that your personal attention to allow that
    process to continue would be very important.
        The second observation--the chairman has made this
    suggestion. You have also, working together as you go through
    the reorganization at the State Department. I will just give
    you another example. Your budget proposes to eliminate the
    development assistance account at USAID and the economic
    support fund at State, instead creating a new economic support
    and development fund. There is a cut in that, which we will
    leave aside, but then the organizational aspects of how that
    would be done versus USAID and State is something of interest
    to our committee. So I would just urge you to work with us on
    those issues because I think these are areas where we can work
    together to give you the type of accountability that we have
    all talked about that we want to see in the Department.
        Secretary Tillerson.  I look forward to that, Senator, and
    welcome it.
        The Chairman. I just, in my closing observations and
    comments, want to say that I really do think that there are
    things that prevent the State Department from functioning as
    well as it could that we can help with. And I leaned over in a
    side conversation with Senator Cardin, and I know you all have
    been in to brief us both--your staff has--and briefed our staff
    as to how things are moving along. But we do look forward to
    working with you in that regard. And I think for this year in
    particular, I think people are going to want to be very engaged
    in that in a way that--I think we began to see the
    opportunities last year, but this year see tremendous
    opportunities in working with you in that regard.
        On the food aid component, if I could, you know, the
    American farmer, generally speaking--these are people that are
    patriotic, care about other people, proud of what they do. And
    as I have talked with them about what we are doing in food aid,
    I get a response of disbelief. They are unaware, totally
    unaware, that people who represent them here have forced U.S.
    commodities to be used, when it is only one-half of 1 percent
    of their entire output--to be used in places that you cannot
    get U.S. commodities to. Senator Coons referred to Uganda. In
    some cases, it takes 6 months, believe it or not, when people
    are starving to get U.S. commodities to these places. And as
    you know, when we do that, 50 percent of it has to be shipped
    by these maritime entities that--it costs 40 percent more for
    us to do it that way. So I appreciate the comments you made
    about IDA and some of the things that we can do.
        I would just ask, with all the things that you have going,
    that you sit down with Secretary Perdue also because I think as
    we talk to the grassroots farmers out there, again they are in
    disbelief that we have a program that for the same amount of
    dollars could feed 5 million to 8 million more people a year,
    and yet people who ``purport to be representing their interests
    are keeping that from happening.'' So if you could make that
    happen, I would appreciate it. I know we are planning to do the
    same.
        And then secondly, I know this Friday the President is
    going to be laying out Cuba policy. I know Senator Udall asked
    some questions about it. Can you give us some of the general
    contours you see shaping up relative to what that policy is
    going to be?
        Secretary Tillerson.  Well, Senator, it is still in an
    interagency review going on actually today. My deputy is
    hefting it for me since I am here. The general approach, if I
    can say that, is to allow as much of this continued commercial
    and engagement activity to go on as possible because we do see
    the sunny side, as I described it. We see the benefits of that
    to the Cuban people and to ultimately restoring somehow down
    the road, getting to some point of normalization.
        But on the other hand, we think we have achieved very
    little in terms of changing the behavior of the regime in Cuba
    and its treatment of people, and it has little incentive today
    to change that. And in fact, our concern is they may be one of
    the biggest beneficiaries of all of this, which just, again,
    promotes the continuance of that regime. So we are examining
    how the past policy was implemented, how it was described to
    others, you know, what were people told, what assurances were
    given. But we think it is important that we take steps to
    restore the intent of the Helms-Burton legislation which was to
    put pressure on the regime to change. And that pressure has
    been, in our view, largely removed now. How do we reengage on
    that and still allow as much of the sunny side of what has been
    done to be preserved?
        There are other areas of important diplomatic issues
    regionally that we want to engage with the Cuban regime on
    because we think there may be some areas of common interest if
    we can establish what this relationship is going to be.
        So the policy takes all of these things into consideration.
        The Chairman. Well, look, I was down there not long ago.
    America has always felt if it could do more business with
    folks, then that would help pave the way towards Western
    values, capitalism, democracy, and those kinds of things. On
    the other hand, the obstinance that the government has--it is
    almost like it is engrained in them that whatever it is the
    United States wishes for them to do on human rights and other
    activities, they are not going to do just to demonstrate that
    the revolution is still alive, still calling what is happening
    down there a blockade.
        So I look forward to engaging some this week with you and
    others over what we ultimately do on Friday. And I understand
    the rub, and I do hope we end up with a policy that over time
    will cause the Cuban people themselves to be able to reach
    their aspirations. It is a country that has incredible
    potential, like Venezuela, with a terrible governance system
    that has held people back for years and yet very intelligent,
    well-educated folks that could be in a very different place
    standard of living-wise if the policy would ever get right.
        So with that, thank you for being here today. I think it
    has been a great hearing.
        We are going to keep the record open until Thursday for
    written questions. I know you have a lot of responsibilities,
    but to the extent you could answer those fairly promptly or if
    Mary or others can answer those fairly promptly, we would
    appreciate it. Thank you.
        And the meeting is adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 ----------

                 Secretary Tillerson's Responses to Additional
                Questions Submitted by Members of the Committee

               Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
               Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Corker

        Question 1. What processes do you use or anticipate developing to
    prioritize the allocation, composition, and deployment of sector
    assistance resources?
        Answer. The Department has longstanding practices for prioritizing
    the allocation, composition, and deployment of its security assistance
    funds, including the development of the Integrated Country Strategy,
    which details each Mission's goals and objectives; the development of
    the Mission Resource Request, which reflects each Mission's annual
    funding request for all State assistance accounts; various interagency
    planning forums; and program-specific proposal review processes.
        State is also working with DoD to develop processes to integrate
    security assistance planning and programming across the two
    Departments. At the direction of Secretary Mattis and myself, the
    Departments have established a new State-DoD Security Sector Assistance
    Steering Committee that is taking on this important task. The Steering
    Committee will oversee a process to ensure that State and DoD are
    optimizing our respective department resources and individual
    authorities to advance top national security priorities and
    partnerships.

        Question 2. Security Cooperation programs and expenditures
    administered by the Department of Defense have grown relative to those
    administered by the Department of State over the past 15 years. Do you
    have any concern for an erosion of civilian oversight over this
    instrument of national influence?

        Answer. The provision of security assistance is inherently an act
    of foreign policy. The Department must be able to coordinate and align
    all U.S. security assistance programs to ensure that we are advancing a
    unified foreign policy strategy. We appreciate this Committee's strong
    support for the Department's role in this regard.
        Both State Department and DoD foreign assistance resources advance
    U.S. foreign policy objectives. State and DoD are working together to
    develop processes to synchronize security assistance planning and
    programming across the two agencies. At the direction of Secretary
    Mattis and Secretary Tillerson, the Departments have established a new
    State-DoD Security Sector Assistance Steering Committee that is taking
    on this important task.
        Legislated provisions for State concurrence with, and joint
    planning of, DoD assistance programs-like those included in DoD's new
    section 333 train and equip authority-help ensure the synchronization
    of State and DoD assistance policy and programs over the long-term.
    State encourages the inclusion of this requirement in all other DoD
    train and equip programs.

        Question 3. The FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that was
    passed and signed into law last year consolidates many of the
    Department of Defense authorities for security cooperation programs and
    mandates a number of organizational and administrative structures,
    including a single office for oversight at the undersecretary level or
    below. Do you anticipate that you will identify a similar single point
    of contact for security sector assistance with the Department of State?
    Where will it be? How will it be integrated with the regional bureaus
    and embassies?

        Answer. I have designated the Assistant Secretary for Political-
    Military Affairs (PM) as the lead coordinator for the Department in the
    joint planning, development, and implementation of section 333
    programs, in line with the requirement for the Department to designate
    an individual responsible for program coordination at the lowest
    appropriate level. At the same time, the Office of U.S. Foreign
    Assistance Resources (F) maintains overall responsibility for ensuring
    the alignment of foreign assistance resources with administration
    policy and strategies, and exercises the delegated authority to concur
    with section 333 programs.
        In fulfilling its role as lead section 333 coordinator, PM manages
    a consultative and inclusive planning and approval process to ensure
    that Departmental priorities and policy concerns are reflected in DoD
    plans and programs. This process involves the Department's functional
    and regional bureaus, including F, the Legal Advisor, the Bureau of
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and Chiefs of Mission.

        Question 4. The FY 2017 NDAA requires the establishment of a system
    for assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Title 10 security
    cooperation programs:

       Do you anticipate that you will seek to establish such a system for
            Title 22 security assistance programs that is consistent with
            or complementary the DOD system? Will it be consistent to the
            extent practicable across the various international security
            assistance funding and program streams (INCLE, FMF, NADR, PKO,
            and parts of ESF / DA, etc.)?

        Answer. With respect to security assistance, the Department has
    been and remains a leader among U.S. government agencies on developing
    and implementing assessment, monitoring, and evaluation for these
    programs. State led the interagency effort to create a Performance
    Management Framework to establish common principles for effective
    security sector assistance (SSA) performance management, including:
    assessment, design, performance management, and monitoring and
    evaluation of SSA plans and programs. DoD contributed to the framework
    and the interagency ensured that the framework was consistent with and
    complementary to DoD's Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation process.
    This framework lays the foundation for Departments and Agencies to
    better realize the goals of effective SSA programs by determining
    whether and how plans are progressing through looking at the collective
    effort supporting and, when appropriate, refining SSA objectives and
    sub-objectives. The framework also provides SSA policymakers, planners,
    program managers, and implementers the information and evidence
    necessary to make effective decisions, maximize program outcomes,
    increase program accountability, and report program achievements.
        The Department's evaluation policy, which applies to security
    sector activities, has guided the conduct of and standards for
    evaluations of assistance and establishes evaluation requirements. The
    policy also provides considerable flexibility in the implementation of
    evaluation activities within the Department. This flexibility is
    necessary due to the number and scope of foreign assistance programs
    implemented by the Department around the world.
        Through the early evaluation work of the PKO-funded Global
    Peacekeeping Operations Initiative and followed by other State
    programs--the Department has developed a range of frameworks, tools,
    and best practices widely recognized to ensure effective programs,
    improve future plans, and, ultimately, inform policy. While the
    programs cited cover a broad range of activities serving an array of
    foreign policy objectives, the Department continuously seeks to ensure
    consistency. Ensuring that our efforts are complementary with DoD's
    nascent assessment, monitoring, and evaluation effort is a focus for
    our military assistance programs.

        Question 5. What are the incentives, structure, and management
    tools in place or anticipated for security assistance implementers
    within State to coordinate among themselves? To coordinate with the
    Department of Defense and Regional Commands?

        Answer. The Department has longstanding mechanisms for coordinating
    security assistance, including processes such as the development of the
    Integrated Country Strategy, which details each Mission's goals and
    objectives and provides a framework to organize and prioritize the full
    spectrum of in-country activities; the development of the Mission
    Resource Request, which reflects each Mission's annual funding request
    for all State assistance accounts; various interagency planning forums
    throughout the budget cycle; and program-specific proposal review
    processes.
        State is also working with DoD to develop processes to synchronize
    security assistance planning and programming across the two
    Departments, in light of DoD's expanded assistance authority. At the
    direction of Secretary Mattis and myself, the Departments have
    established a new State-DoD Security Sector Assistance Steering
    Committee that is taking on this important task.
        Both State and DoD benefit from coordination, as close
    collaboration permits the agencies to maximize our limited resources
    and capitalize on each other's unique expertise and authorities.

        Question 6. When should this Committee expect a communication of
    State Department management reorganization plans?

        Answer. The Department of State (State) takes very seriously its
    responsibility to consult with Congress on its plans and vision for the
    future of the agency.
        Executive Order 13781 of March 13, 2017, calls for each agency to
    submit a plan, due in September, to improve the efficiency,
    effectiveness, and accountability of that agency. State and U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID) are working to meet this deadline
    and have begun to discuss goals, priorities and the strategic direction
    of the organizations to adapt to the changes that we will face over the
    next twenty years. We are looking at aligning resources, people, and
    our overarching mission, including restructuring State and USAID's
    operations, in order to deploy the talent and resources of State and
    USAID in the most efficient way possible. This review has no
    preconceived outcomes.
        In the first ``listening'' phase of this discussion, we asked for
    the participation of the State and USAID community, to enlist their
    help in identifying how they are going about completing the
    organizations' missions. We engaged Insigniam, a consulting firm, to
    conduct a survey made available to all of our State and USAID
    colleagues, including employed family members, locally-engaged staff,
    and contractors. Over 35,000 surveys were completed. Insigniam also
    held in-person listening sessions with approximately 300 individuals,
    including Committee staffers, to obtain their perspective on what we do
    and how we do it. Most of the sessions were conducted with randomly
    identified individuals who fit a representative cross-section of our
    workforce, and some of these were held abroad at our posts. The surveys
    and listening sessions, all of which occurred in early-mid May,
    collected information on our organizational processes and culture,
    including what activities to eliminate, ideas for restructuring the
    organization, ideas for improving organizational efficiency and
    effectiveness, and workforce management. Insigniam compiled the results
    and generated a report, which was previewed to me on May 30. From this
    feedback, we have been able to get a clearer overall view of our
    organization. We are still analyzing the feedback we have received, and
    intend to use the results of the report as input to efficiency
    improvements as part of our larger efforts called for under E.O. 13781.
        Before the end of June, I will communicate with all State and USAID
    employees, as well as the committee and others in Congress, about the
    results of the report and the plans for the second phase of this
    endeavor. The general intent for the second phase is to engage the
    State and USAID community to design how the agencies will function for
    the next twenty-plus years. We will seek the input of the Committee and
    others in Congress throughout this process. The recommendations,
    blueprints, and new vision that emerge from the redesign phase will be
    presented to OMB in September as part of the requested Agency Reform
    Plan, and will be fully discussed with the Committee and others in
    Congress before implementation begins in FY 2018.

        Question 7. In response to a question regarding Cuba, you stated
    that in assessing policy changes, the administration wants to ensure
    you are in compliance with longstanding statutory obligations:

       Were you referring to the Libertad Act? Also, it is my
            understanding that the policy changes undertaken by the
            previous administration were taken based on statutory
            authority, including the President's authority to issue
            licenses under the embargo. Is this also your understanding?

        Answer. The embargo in its current form results from both executive
    and legislative actions over the past half century. The LIBERTAD Act
    constitutes one of the statutes relevant to the embargo against Cuba,
    along with others, including the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917,
    the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and
    Export Enhancement Act of 2000. While the embargo contains certain
    prohibitions on transactions, it is well established that the Executive
    branch may authorize transactions notwithstanding the prohibitions, by
    license or otherwise, within certain limits.

        Question 8. What role has the State Department and USAID played in
    the administration's strategic consideration of U.S. policy for
    Afghanistan and Pakistan?

        Answer. Both the State Department and USAID are integrally involved
    in a thorough and wide-ranging ongoing interagency strategic review for
    South Asia to clarify our priorities in the region and how best to
    achieve them. The interagency is continuing discussion to ensure that
    U.S. policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is integrated within a broader
    regional strategic framework. When the administration concludes its
    strategy review, we look forward to briefing Congress on the State
    Department's activities under this reframed strategy.

        Question 9. How has diplomacy and development been incorporated
    into overall U.S. strategic policy deliberations and conclusions with
    regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan?

        Answer. The Department of State and USAID have been active
    participants in the administration's review of our policy towards
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Asia. Diplomatic and development goals
    and initiatives continue to play a central role in the administration's
    approach to South Asia.
        Our primary goal is to ensure that transnational terrorist
    organizations never again exploit Afghanistan, or the broader region,
    to threaten the United States. Diplomatic and development initiatives
    in the region will continue to play an integral role in achieving our
    national security objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including
    encouraging regional security, stability and peace. We continue to
    prioritize the launch of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process to
    end the conflict in Afghanistan.

        Question 10. What is the overall USG strategy, broken down by
    agency, as it relates to Afghanistan, and how each will implement in
    the field?

        Answer. The National Security Council (NSC) is currently leading an
    interagency strategy review for South Asia. Although the strategy is
    still in development, the underlying objective is to protect U.S. vital
    national interests in Afghanistan and the region. Achieving this
    objective requires a capable Afghan government partner and a stable
    political order.

        U.S. Government agencies currently do the following:

       The State Department works to promote a political dialogue to end
            the Taliban insurgency and advance U.S. interests in
            Afghanistan through political, economic, and public diplomacy.
            State implements assistance programs to support the Afghan
            government in the following sectors: counternarcotics, justice,
            corrections, weapons removal and abatement, export control and
            border security, and anti-terrorism assistance. State also
            provides humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees and
            internally displaced persons.
       The Department of Defense maintains a presence of 8,400 U.S. troops
            to support the bilateral counterterrorism mission and NATO's
            non-combat Resolute Support Mission.
       USAID implements development and technical assistance programs to
            support improvements in health, education, women's empowerment,
            economic growth, infrastructure, agriculture, and good
            governance, to include rule of law and anti-corruption efforts.
            USAID also provides substantial on-budget support to the Afghan
            government through a World Bank-managed trust fund.

        Question 11. Describe in detail the national strategic interests
    for continued U.S. commitment in Afghanistan and what if any
    expectations must be met by the Afghan government and regional actors
    to sustain that commitment.

        Answer. Our primary vital national interest in Afghanistan is to
    keep the United States safe and to prevent al-Qa'ida, ISIS-K, and other
    terrorist groups operating in South Asia from using Afghan soil to
    develop the capability to direct or support attacks against the U.S.
    homeland or U.S. persons. Our diplomatic, development, and military
    engagement in Afghanistan contributes to this goal by bolstering the
    Afghan government's ability to provide security and services to the
    Afghan people. The Afghan government counts on its partnership with the
    United States and recognizes that it has an obligation to improve its
    performance. President Ashraf Ghani has committed to a comprehensive
    reform agenda to address core governance issues that include reducing
    corruption, improving transparency, and increasing economic growth.
    Many of these commitments have already been codified in the Self-
    Reliance through Mutual Accountability Framework, which was established
    in 2015 and updated at the October 2016 Brussels Conference on
    Afghanistan. Long-term stability in Afghanistan will only come through
    a peace process and negotiated settlement between the Afghan government
    and the Taliban.

        Question 12. Describe in detail the national strategic interests
    for continued cooperation and collaboration with Pakistan, and what if
    any expectations must be met by the Pakistan government to sustain that
    commitment.

        Answer. Our relationship with Pakistan involves a number of vital
    national strategic interests, including combatting terrorism, promoting
    security and economic growth across Central and South Asia, ensuring
    strategic stability, and safeguarding the U.S. homeland from threats.
        There are, however, elements of our relationship that have proved
    challenging. For instance, the United States and Pakistan have
    collaborated successfully to combat many terrorist groups operating in
    Pakistan, including those that pose a direct threat to the U.S.
    homeland--such as Al Qai'da and ISIS. However, the Afghan Taliban,
    including the Haqqani Network, and other externally-focused militant
    groups retain the ability to plan, support and conduct terrorist
    operations from Pakistani soil, including attacks that target U.S.
    interests in Afghanistan. We continue to stress to the Pakistani
    leadership the need to take specific and deliberate action to curb the
    activity of all militant and terrorist groups in Pakistan. As you know,
    we are currently engaged in an interagency policy review to determine
    the most effective policy for achieving our goals in Pakistan and the
    region.

        Question 13. What role has the State Department, USAID, MCC, OPIC,
    BBG, our embassy country teams--as well as specific inclusion of USTR,
    defense and intelligence community input--played in the
    administration's budget and organizational review relative to U.S.
    policy and presence in African countries?

        Answer. The initial input for developing the budget request for
    Africa comes from the Chief of Mission at each sub-Saharan Africa post
    in response to these overarching policy goals. It incorporates input of
    all U.S. government partners at post--including USAID, MCC, OPIC, BBG,
    USTR, and the defense and intelligence communities--and lays out an
    integrated approach for meeting the diplomatic and development
    challenges in each country. The Africa Bureaus at both State and USAID
    work hand in hand throughout all phases of the budget development
    process--from the initiation of the request in the field to the
    development of the final request for the President.
        Other U.S. government partners are included throughout the planning
    and budget development process as appropriate for their areas of focus.
    For example, through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
    Relief (PEPFAR), the cornerstone of health programming in the region,
    the State Department's Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and
    Health Diplomacy leads an interagency process--including, USAID, the
    Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and
    the U.S. Peace Corps--in planning and implementing the comprehensive
    U.S. government response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
        MCC Board members include the Secretary of State who serves as
    Chairman, the USAID Administrator, and other principals from the
    interagency community, such as the Secretary of the Treasury and the
    U.S. Trade Representative. This participation ensures that our
    respective resources are brought to bear on common objectives that both
    increase the impact of developmental objectives and optimize
    stewardship of U.S. resources.

        Question 14. How does the FY 18 budget proposal incorporate the
    input or otherwise consider the input of each of the above elements?

        Answer. State Department budget proposals for Africa incorporate
    inputs from a variety of stakeholders, including Washington and field-
    based missions, the interagency community, regional and functional
    bureaus, and technical roundtable and working group recommendations.
    These inputs combined help to inform final request levels.
        The initial input for developing the budget request for Africa
    comes from the Chief of Mission (COM) at each sub-Saharan Africa post
    in response to several overarching policy priorities jointly agreed
    upon by the interagency community. They include: 1) advancing peace and
    security; 2) spurring economic growth and trade; 3) strengthening
    democratic institutions; and 4) promoting opportunity and development.
        Under COM leadership, the initial request incorporates input from
    all U.S. government partners at post and lays out an integrated
    approach for meeting the diplomatic and development challenges in each
    country. The Africa Bureaus at both State and USAID work hand in hand
    throughout all phases of the budget development process--from the
    initiation of the request in the field to the development of the final
    request for the President.

        Question 15. List each sub-Saharan African country where the United
    States has diplomatic facilities or representation, including regional
    and sub-regional organizations and chart the existing personnel levels
    by agency and function at each. Please carry this chart out, extending
    4 years as the administration's budget process currently projects for
    each of these posts.

        Answer. Due to the sensitivity of the requested information, the
    Department of State is not able to provide it publicly. The Department
    will provide the requested information in an appropriate setting.

        Question 16. As man-made humanitarian crises persist, and have
    grown significantly more threatening relative to civilian populations,
    describe the preventive or deterrent U.S. foreign policy that will help
    minimize the threat of and ultimate high U.S. cost in response to such
    events?

        Answer. The United States is a leader in global humanitarian
    response and conflict prevention efforts. The U.S. Government is
    actively engaging with partners to reduce fragility and promote
    stability in conflict-affected states. This includes enhancing the
    ability of fragile countries to mitigate shocks and prevent conflict,
    and advancing the stabilization of conflict-affected areas so that they
    can transition to long-term political, economic and social stability.
        To strengthen fragile states and prevent conflict, our diplomatic
    and development efforts promote accountable and transparent governance,
    equitable delivery of services, along with inclusive economic growth,
    job creation, and the sound policies needed for sustainable private
    sector expansion and stable employment. We are actively working to
    assess dynamics that put countries at greater risk of conflict and
    violence and the best mechanisms to address those factors. Our FY 2018
    request includes programs that will build the capacity of civil society
    actors including those operating in closing and closed spaces so they
    can successfully advocate for peaceful change and mitigate conflict.

                                   __________

               Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
               Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Cardin

        Question 1. The FY 18 Budget Request makes a draconian $1 Billion
    cut to the FMF program, exempting only Israel, Jordan and Egypt;
    Pakistan receives a significant reduction. All other states receive
    zero allocations, and are to be offered the option of loans; however,
    this is a false choice, in that all but a literal handful will be
    likely be ineligible for such loans, and most if not all will be
    unwilling to assume such debt. As such, the President's request is, in
    practical effect, the end of the FMF program as a long-standing U.S.
    global tool to assist countries with their legitimate defense needs,
    promote better U.S. security and foreign policy relationships with
    them, and a golden opportunity for China and Russia to fill the gap and
    gather greater influence. Moreover, since FMF is spent on U.S. defense
    companies, and according to Department of Commerce estimates, it is
    likely that this cut could affect or eliminate as many as 6,000 U.S.
    jobs: Why does the administration and the State Department wish to cut-
    off this long-standing and successful national security program?

        Answer. The administration is taking steps to encourage our
    partners to assume more responsibility for their defense needs,
    including by making U.S. defense articles and services available on a
    repayable basis, via Foreign Military Financing (FMF) loans. At the
    same time, the administration's request maintains the flexibility to
    provide both grants and loans, and resources for DoD to undertake
    foreign assistance programs. Partners may have the opportunity to
    borrow more than they received in prior years in grant assistance,
    potentially allowing recipients to purchase more American-made defense
    equipment and services than they have in the past.

        Question 2. What will the State Department use to replace this
    program and attempt to maintain U.S. influences with all the countries
    that are about to [be] cut-off from this assistance?

        Answer. U.S. influence around the world does not depend solely on
    the provision of grant military assistance. The Department will work
    with other U.S. government agencies, including DoD, to leverage all our
    available diplomatic tools, authorities, and resources to advance our
    foreign policy objectives in a strategic manner.

        Question 3. How will the U.S. seek to prevent Russia and China from
    taking advantage of this opportunity to replace U.S. assistance with
    these countries and thereby garner greater influence?

        Answer. The administration's request gives the United States a
    range of tools to build the capacity of foreign militaries, including
    through FMF grants, FMF loans, and DoD assistance programs.
        The administration has requested $200M in global FMF funds to
    support current foreign policy priorities. To ensure the strategic
    focus of these resources, the Department will finalize the most
    appropriate allocations and purposes for these funds during the year of
    appropriation, based on real-time requirements and priorities, and
    notify Congress appropriately. This approach permits greater
    flexibility, selectivity, and responsiveness than the previous
    structure, which required the Department to determine and publish
    requested bilateral allocations years before the funds would be
    implemented.
        DoD resources will also be available to build the security capacity
    of foreign partners. The Department will work with DoD to optimize our
    respective resources and authorities to advance top national security
    priorities.

        Question 4. In going through the budget proposal you submitted I
    note that the number of accounts where the budget requests a total
    amount but provides no detail is upwards of 30 percent of the entire
    Function 150 budget. How can Congress make decisions on authorization
    levels, budgets, or appropriations when we don't know how you arrived
    at the number or what level is appropriate to support activities that
    both the Department and this committee want to support? For example,
    with the exception of Israel, Egypt and Jordan, no country levels for
    FMF were included in the budget proposal, other than vague language
    that says that amounts will vary in the new loan system. The result is
    that we have no visibility into how much other nations would get, for
    example, or how FMF can continue to play a role in partners capacity
    building in the Asia-Pacific maritime domains: Can you provide this
    Committee, today, country-by-country details on your FMF proposal?

        Answer. The administration has requested $200M in a global FMF fund
    to support current foreign policy priorities. To ensure the strategic
    focus of these resources, the Department will finalize the allocations
    and purposes for these funds during the year of appropriation, and
    notify Congress appropriately. This approach permits greater
    flexibility, selectivity, and responsiveness than the previous
    structure, which required the Department to determine and publish
    requested bilateral allocations years before the funds would be
    expended.

        Question 5. On the other budget items where no detail has thus far
    been provided to Congress? If you can't do so today--and I understand
    that this is somewhat of an unfair question--can we get your commitment
    to provide that necessary detail to this Committee and other relevant
    congressional committees by the end of this month?

        Answer. The FY 2018 Department of State and USAID Congressional
    Budget Justification (CBJ) did not include as much detail as previous
    years due to the accelerated budget formulation during the Presidential
    transition. The Department has committed to providing additional
    program or account details, as presented in past CBJs, upon request by
    Congress.

        Question 6. The International Development Association (IDA), part
    of the World Bank, was created in 1960 at the suggestion of the United
    States to provide concessional loans to the world's poorest countries.
    Over the last five years, IDA financing has helped immunize 227 million
    children, provide access to better water sources for 64 million, and
    provide access to health services for 500 million people. The
    President's Budget request reduces our IDA contribution by nearly $100
    million: As U.S.-led international financial institutions face
    increasing competition from organizations such as the Asian
    Infrastructure Investment Bank and BRICS Bank, are you concerned that
    the reduction in U.S. funding for the multilateral development banks
    will negatively affect our international standing?

        Answer. We do not believe that the proposed funding level for the
    MDBs will negatively affect our international standing. The proposed
    funding level for MDBs opens space for funding other security and
    domestic priorities, has limited impact on the funding that the MDBs
    will be able to make available to developing countries, and ensures
    that the United States remains a leading donor to the MDBs. Please note
    that as the lead agency overseeing the MDBs, Treasury, is responsible
    for the funding request for the MDBs and can provide any further
    details.

        Question 7. Your budget proposal cuts ECA funding by 55 percent,
    but at the same time enumerated in the congressional budget
    justification a large number of programs that have, as I suspect you
    know, political support on the Hill, indicating that these programs
    would be protected and supported. Help me understand how the math will
    work on that. At what level will these programs be supported? Likewise,
    the budget documents also suggest that private sector exchanges will
    fill the relationship void made by budget cuts: And while I support
    private sector exchanges as well, given that the Hire American
    Executive Order policy review is looking at cutting the J-1 Summer Work
    Travel program by 90 percent please help me understand how gaps in
    programs cut will be filled by programs that are also likely getting
    gutted. Something does not seem to add up?

        Answer. Facing a limited resource environment, ECA has reviewed the
    full range of the Bureau's exchange programs. The Department's budget
    request for ECA proposes to retain a portfolio of established and
    effective programs to meet the highest priority foreign policy goals.
    In consultation with Department leadership, ECA would identify how and
    where to deploy specific people-to-people exchange programs and at what
    scale in order to most effectively address foreign policy challenges
    around the world.
        Private sector exchanges overseen by ECA, including the Summer Work
    Travel program, are an important part of our outreach. However, private
    sector exchanges do not replace the targeted foreign policy effect of
    United States Government funded exchanges.

        Question 8. Defense, diplomacy and development make up the three
    legs of our national security stool. The Defense leg of the stool has
    no shortage of champions on Capitol Hill. The other legs--diplomacy and
    development- which combined make up just over 1 percent of the federal
    budget--are grossly underfunded and yet save millions of lives and
    promote global stability and security. We need to invest in these
    aspects of our foreign policy, to strengthen our alliances and to
    combat the apathy and sympathy towards extremism and political
    instability that can be generated by poverty, hunger and disease. In
    addition to the immediate development and economic gain there is also a
    critical element for U.S. moral leadership in these programs. Yet your
    budget proposes a massive cut in development assistance from State and
    USAID: Do you believe that robust investment in civilian foreign
    assistance programs is necessary for effective US global leadership?

        Answer. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request includes substantial
    funding for many State Department and USAID foreign assistance
    programs. In a constrained budget environment, the request focuses on
    the most critical U.S. national security interests and foreign policy
    priorities. I acknowledge we had to make some tough choices, but even
    with reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in
    international development, global health, democracy and good governance
    initiatives, as well as humanitarian efforts. If natural disasters or
    epidemics strike overseas, America will still respond. I am convinced
    we can maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to
    offer America's helping hand to the world.
        It is important to note that global challenges cannot be met by the
    United States alone. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our
    most important foreign policy goals, while ensuring that other donor
    countries contribute their fair share toward meeting these global
    challenges.

        Question 9. The budget is very scant on detailing the policies and
    procedures that would govern this new ESDF program. In fact, extent of
    the budget's operational description of this new program is limited to
    one sentence in the budget: ``Through ESDF, assistance previously
    provided separately in the DA, ESF, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and
    Central Asia (AEECA), and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts will support
    only those countries and programs that are most critical to U.S.
    national security and strategic objectives:'' Did you and your staff
    undertake a thorough review to ensure that best practices remain and
    that there is sufficient funding available to achieve America's goals
    under this proposal?

        Question 10. Do you have a detailed policy and administration
    proposal for how this new program would be governed? If so will share
    it with this committee? If not, then please explain how this program
    will work and why are you proposing it, at the expense of eliminating
    other well established programs, if it does not appear ready for
    execution?

        Question 11. How are determining which countries and programs ``are
    most critical"? Will you share with this committee the inputs, data and
    stakeholders that are informing these decisions?

        Question 12. Do you believe the public has a right to know how
    these decisions are being made?

        Answer to Question 9 to 12. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request
    supports the President's commitments to make the U.S. government more
    efficient by streamlining efforts to ensure effectiveness of U.S.
    taxpayer dollars. Our proposed creation of a new, consolidated Economic
    Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account that replaces the Economic
    Support Fund (ESF), the Development Assistance (DA), Assistance for
    Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA), and Democracy Fund (DF)
    accounts is one example of how we are streamlining our efforts.
        This consolidated account does not mean that development programs
    are eliminated, or that development is no longer important to the
    United States. Instead, it allows the State Department and USAID to
    better assess, prioritize, and target development-related activities in
    the context of broader U.S. strategic objectives and partnerships. It
    will support many of the same programs previously funded with ESF, DA,
    AEECA, or DF funds.
        In a constrained budget environment, the request focuses on the
    most critical U.S. national security interests and foreign policy
    priorities as determined by the administration. The President is
    committed to a government that is transparent and accountable to the
    American taxpayer.

        Question 13. Does the administration intend to seek congress
    authorization for the ESDF?

        Answer. The Economic Support and Development Fund requested in the
    FY 2018 budget is a new account that would combine existing authorities
    of the Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance Accounts. If
    the requested ESDF appropriation is enacted, it would be based on the
    existing authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and no
    further legislation would be requested.

        Question 14. If the administration is not provided specific funds
    for the ESDF, but is instead appropriated funds for the historical
    programs the FY 18 budget proposes to eliminate, will you just
    reallocate those funds to the ESDF anyway? And if that happens or is
    planned will you consult this committee beforehand?

        Answer. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID) will obligate funds consistent with
    the appropriations and authorities provided by law.

        Question 15. How will you ensure that development with identified
    long-term objectives to reduce poverty--including by supporting
    education, agricultural improvements, and health interventions--is
    prioritized over short-term political calculations?

        Answer. Development programs are critical to meeting our foreign
    policy objectives, but challenges to global development cannot be met
    by the U.S. alone. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our
    most important policy goals and national security interests, while
    ensuring that other donor countries contribute their fair share toward
    meeting global challenges.

        Question 16. The budget eliminates DA and ESF investments in 37
    countries. The goal of U.S. aid should be to foster long-term self-
    sufficiency in partner countries, ultimately supporting their
    transition from foreign aid. However, these transitions should not be
    driven by arbitrary budgets or timelines, but by measurable and
    realistic benchmarks, such as social and economic progress across
    social groups, public sector capacity, and the enabling environment for
    civil society and the private sector: What do you believe is the
    appropriate way for the U.S. Government to help countries move along a
    continuum of partnership with the United States?

        Answer. Under the FY 2018 budget request, the United States will
    remain a major donor of foreign assistance while focusing our funds on
    the most critical priorities. In some cases, we are leveraging prior-
    year funds to continue some support to particular countries. In others,
    we propose utilizing funds from a regional line to support activities
    in a particular country. When making these difficult choices, we
    considered the track record of the assistance partnership as well as
    our interests and goals.
        As the President has said, we need to focus foreign assistance on
    regions and programs that most advance our national interests. The
    challenges facing countries today cannot be met by our assistance
    alone. We anticipate that the private sector, other donors, and
    countries themselves will make effective use of other resources for
    development. We will continue to partner with these countries and
    organizations.

        Question 17. How will you leverage alternative finance mechanisms
    like domestic resource mobilization and co-financing that assist
    countries build self-reliance?

        Answer. The development finance landscape has changed considerably
    over the last several years, and USAID is taking significant action to
    adapt to it.
        USAID is committed to use its assistance whenever possible to help
    developing countries better mobilize their own domestic resources to
    finance their development, build self-reliance, and reduce dependence
    on foreign aid. In particular, USAID is helping more than 15 countries
    strengthen their capabilities in domestic resource mobilization (DRM)
    so that their systems of public financial management including their
    tax systems are more efficient, transparent, and accountable, and raise
    more revenue while lowering barriers to economic growth.
        In this same vein, USAID is supporting mobilization of large and
    growing pools of home-grown institutional capital, particularly local
    pension funds. The Agency is also working with more private capital
    providers to spur new lending in sectors critical to development. For
    example, through its loan guarantee program, the Agency has mobilized
    $4.8 billion in private sector financing from 382 partners across 77
    countries to support development programming in agriculture, education,
    health, environment, small business and microenterprise expansion, and
    municipal finance.

        Question 18. What risk analysis has the State Department conducted
    on the impacts of ending or significantly curtailing U.S. development
    presence in countries like Sierra Leone, Niger, Laos, and Malawi--all
    countries where we've historically invested DA and ESF funds, but under
    the President's FY 18 budget would receive zero ESDF funds?

        Answer. The State and USAID budget formulation process considers
    inputs from a variety of stakeholders, including Washington and field-
    based missions, regional and functional bureaus, and technical
    roundtable and working group recommendations. These combined inputs
    help to inform final request levels.
        To ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer
    dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some
    difficult choices. Not requesting bilateral funding for a particular
    country does not necessarily mean that no programs are supporting that
    country. For example, the USAID/West Africa Regional and USAID/Sahel
    Regional operating units will fund activities in Niger, Cote d'Ivoire,
    and other countries in the Sahel. We may also utilize Washington
    central funds to support activities in countries that do not receive
    bilateral assistance. In some cases, other U.S. government funding
    (e.g. MCC, Peace Corps or via international organizations) will
    continue to provide critical support.

        Question 19. If you've done such a risk analysis, would you share
    it with this committee? If not, what confidence can you provide this
    committee that a U.S. retreat from these countries won't contribute to
    a collapse in governance, economic growth, and sustainable development
    in these countries.

        Answer. To ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer
    dollars, we acknowledge that we had to make some tough choices. We do
    not consider this a retreat from the affected countries. We recognize,
    instead, that global challenges cannot be met by government assistance
    alone, and cannot rely too greatly on the United States. The FY 2018
    request expects to see greater leverage of U.S. investments, along with
    increased efficiency and effectiveness of each dollar. The request
    moreover requires that the private sector and countries themselves make
    better use of their own investments for development.
        Not requesting bilateral funding for a particular country does not
    necessarily mean that no programs are supporting that country. In some
    cases we may utilize funds from a regional line to support activities
    in a particular country. In other cases we may utilize Washington
    central funds to support activities. In several cases, other U.S.
    government funding (e.g. MCC, Peace Corps) will continue to provide
    critical support. Countries for which bilateral funding has not been
    requested may also receive critical support from the private sector, a
    variety of international organizations to which the U.S. contributes,
    and other governments worldwide.
        We will continue to partner with key allies to protect Americans,
    advance bilateral partnerships, open new markets for U.S. businesses,
    and promote U.S. interests abroad, in a manner that puts America first.

        Question 20. A common metaphor I often hear you, Mr. Secretary and
    Chairman Corker recite is that you believe we need to evolve our
    approach to foreign affairs and foreign assistance away from a ``Cold
    War Mentality". I have to be honest, I'm not what you mean when you say
    this. If you are saying that you don't think the U.S. should work to
    counter Russian aggression or that Russia's meddling in our elections,
    and the elections of our close allies, than I have to strongly disagree
    with you. If perhaps you mean the U.S. practice of ``buying influence''
    through development investments needs to stop, than I would ask you to
    explain how that squares with all the ``counter ISIS'' mentions in the
    State Foreign-USAID Budget, where the budget seems to suggest that
    foreign economic and development assistance should be focused in areas
    to counter terrorism--i.e. buy influence: Can you please tell the
    committee what this metaphor means? The sentence explaining how the new
    all-encompassing ESDF program, would seem to perpetuate a ``Cold War
    mentality'' by requiring all ESDF funds to be dispensed based on
    political and strategic (i.e. defense) goals determined by the
    President. How is that not perpetuating the Cold War mentality on
    development and foreign policy? Isn't this administration just changing
    out who the enemy is: exchanging the USSR for ISIS?

        Answer. As noted in my opening comments, America's global
    competitive advantages and standing as a leader are under constant
    challenge. In spite of the important work that the dedicated men and
    women of the State Department and USAID carry out each and every day,
    the 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. With such a broad array of threats facing the United States,
    the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request aligns with the administration's
    objective of making America's security our top priority.
        The proposed Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) is an
    effort to streamline accounts and ensure the most effective use of
    foreign assistance funding. The ESDF account will continue to support
    select programs and activities previously requested under the Economic
    Support Fund and Development Assistance accounts, allowing the
    Department and USAID to better assess, prioritize, and target
    development-related.

        Question 21. The line item for PL 480, Title II is zero. The budget
    appendix section on Foreign Disaster Assistance, however, says: ``This
    request includes $723.7 million for the USAID Office of U.S. Foreign
    Disaster Assistance to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,
    civil strife and prolonged displacement of populations that continue to
    hinder the advancement of development and stability. It also includes
    $1.094 billion for the USAID Office of Food for Peace for emergency
    food responses with a range of interventions such as local and regional
    purchase of agricultural commodities near crises, the provision of U.S.
    food commodities, food vouchers and cash transfers and complementary
    activities:'' What is the rationale for zeroing out PL 480 and changing
    the account source for the program to one where food assistance must
    compete with other global crisis situations?

        Answer. The International Disaster Assistance (IDA) Account request
    includes $690.3 million in enduring resources as well as $1.817 billion
    in Overseas Contingency Operations resources. The combined total of
    $2.508 billion will provide humanitarian assistance in response to
    natural disasters and complex emergencies around the world.
        Given the topline budget constraints of FY 2018, the administration
    looked for budget-neutral means to increase critical Defense Department
    gaps. The proposed FY 2018 humanitarian budget decreased in size along
    with the total proposed FY 2018 State/USAID budget. The proposed
    percentage of humanitarian funding requested as part of the FY 2018
    State/USAID foreign assistance budget remains the same as in FY 2016,
    roughly 22 percent, and the relative priority of these interventions
    has not diminished.
        The International Disaster Assistance (IDA) Account provides USAID
    with the full flexibility needed to provide the most appropriate food
    assistance modality for any emergency context. IDA is the most flexible
    and efficient account when responding to food security emergencies
    overseas, allowing partners to provide in-kind food purchased in the
    United States or in markets closer to beneficiary populations, and
    allowing beneficiaries to purchase food themselves in local markets.

        Question 22. Feed the Future is specifically driven by needs and
    capacity, not to be politicized: Will you commit to fulfilling the
    goals of the Feed the Future program according to the law and keep this
    program free of political or ``strategic'' influence?

        Answer. Yes.

        Question 23. The success of this program, is of course linked to
    how well it is resourced, will you commit to adequately resourcing Feed
    the Future so that the U.S. can continue to be a force for good in
    getting more countries on the path towards sustainable food production
    making them more food secure and less likely to need disaster food
    assistance in the future?

        Answer. The U.S. Government will remain a global leader in the
    effort to increase food security and resiliency around the world.
    Through targeted, catalytic investments, the State Department, USAID,
    and nine other USG agencies will continue to partner with other
    countries, international organizations, and the private sector to
    invest in sustainable food production.

        Question 24. How many of the 10 countries where the administration
    is proposing not to continue Feed the Future effort were based on these
    countries achieving ``transition'' status and what were the metrics
    used and benchmarks achieved in making these determinations?

        Answer. The interagency undertook a process of country selection in
    three phases to produce an objective and evidence-based list of target
    countries. The countries were selected based on the six selection
    criteria outlined in the Global Food Security Strategy: level of need,
    potential for agriculture-led growth, opportunities for partnership,
    opportunities for regional integration, host government commitment to
    investment and policy reform, and U.S. Government resource
    availability. The interagency, led by USAID, analyzed a wide range of
    quantitative and qualitative data to inform the selection process.
    While the U.S. Government will focus and concentrate its efforts in the
    new target countries, we remain committed to supporting food security
    efforts, where possible, in other countries where there is still need
    and potential for sustainable impact.
        Former Feed the Future focus countries still investing in
    agriculture and nutrition will continue to receive BFS technical and
    programmatic support. Similarly, countries that continue to prioritize
    food security but have not yet reached target country status will
    receive support tailored to meet their specific food security needs.
    The interagency is developing a thoughtful graduation approach that
    analyzes where each target country falls along the development
    continuum to meet each country's specific food security needs and bring
    to bear interagency tools that can accelerate success.

        Question 25. Poor maternal and child nutrition in the first 1,000
    days has irreversible physical and economic impacts for the rest of a
    child's life. Poor nutrition can hold entire national economies back.
    Nutrition in Global Health Programs was requested at $78.5 million for
    FY 2018--a decrease of almost $50 million from the past few years. And
    the total specified for maternal and child nutrition from all accounts
    was $120 million--a decrease of $136 million in the total budget for
    nutrition in the State Department and USAID from last year: What is the
    justification for cutting funding to maternal and child nutrition
    programs?

        Answer. Good nutrition is central to successful development,
    creating a defining link among health, economic growth, and food
    security. We have looked at our programs and are strategically focusing
    our investments within a reduced overall budget. Funds will support
    evidence-based approaches to nutrition and innovations that will
    improve outcomes for the most vulnerable populations. We are also
    looking to our development partners and host country partners to
    increase their efforts to help improve maternal and child nutrition.
    While the United States will continue significant funding for global
    health programs, even while refocusing foreign assistance, other
    stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global
    health initiatives.

        Question 26. How do you plan to maintain current U.S. commitments
    to global nutrition (USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy, U.S.
    Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, U.S. Government Global
    Food Security Strategy, Global Nutrition Targets 2025, 2030 Agenda)
    with such a budget?

        Answer. We are confident that this budget request will allow us to
    support US commitments and priorities. The United States is committed
    to helping achieve global nutrition targets and we have been a large
    funder of global nutrition programs for many years. Our commitments are
    made together with the commitments of other development partners and
    countries, and we expect these partners to increase their efforts to
    help meet these global targets.

        Question 27. How would the proposed elimination of Food for Peace
    and IDA funds impact the ability to help treat and prevent the life-
    threatening condition of acute malnutrition afflicting millions of
    children around the world?

        Answer. The International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account
    provides USAID with the full flexibility needed to save lives, reduce
    suffering, and mitigate and prepare for natural disasters and complex
    emergencies through relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
    assistance, including emergency nutrition programming.
        USAID has used both Food for Peace Title II and IDA resources to
    procure specialized food products and support emergency nutrition
    interventions overseas. IDA resources can be used to procure
    commodities--including specialized products used to prevent and treat
    acute malnutrition--both in the United States and from suppliers closer
    to targeted beneficiary populations.

        Question 28. What do these cuts mean for preventing the long-term
    effects of malnutrition such as stunting?

        Answer. The United States will continue to implement effective
    nutrition programs to prevent the long-term effects of malnutrition,
    such as stunting. Funds will support evidence-based approaches to
    nutrition and innovations that will improve outcomes for the most
    vulnerable populations. Activities focus on the prevention of
    undernutrition through integrated services, including nutrition
    education to improve maternal diets; nutrition during pregnancy;
    exclusive breastfeeding and infant and young child feeding practices;
    diet quality and diversification including through fortified or bio-
    fortified staple foods, specialized food products, and community
    gardens; and delivery of nutrition services such as micronutrient
    supplementation and community management of acute malnutrition. We will
    work with countries to increase domestic investments in nutrition
    programs. The FY 2018 request expects greater leverage of U.S. dollars,
    along with increased efficiency and effectiveness of each dollar. In
    addition, the request requires that the private sector and countries
    themselves make better use of their own investments.

        Question 29. There is no line item for Power Africa in the Budget,
    although USAID's Africa Regional summary in the CBJ states:
    ``Assistance will fund Power Africa's work towards 2020 targets
    identified under 277 the Electrify Africa Act of 2015 by supporting new
    power generation and access to electricity and leveraging private and
    public sector commitments made to Power Africa:'' Will you commit to
    supporting Power Africa and provide a specific FY 18 budget goal or
    target for Power Africa to this committee?"
        Answer. Power Africa is an extremely valuable and successful
    program, and I commit to supporting it. As one of the largest public-
    private partnerships in the world, Power Africa is leading a global
    consortium of public and private partners to revolutionize the power
    sector by bringing American innovations and investments to the African
    continent. The administration remains committed to emphasizing programs
    such as Power Africa that, as Ambassador Green said in his confirmation
    hearing, ``incentivize local capacity-building and implementation,
    mobilize domestic resources, and ensure that our host-government
    partners have `skin in the game.' '' The administration believes that
    Power Africa represents these values. In the FY 2018 budget, the Africa
    allocation of $5.2 billion includes a planned level of $45.45 million
    for Power Africa under the USAID Africa Regional Operating Unit to
    support transaction assistance, on-grid and beyond the grid
    connections, and enabling environment reforms critical to the
    development and sustainability of the power sector.

        Question 30. In the FY 18 State Department Congressional Budget
    Justification it says that, ``. the United States is working to
    significantly reduce child and maternal deaths--with all countries
    having fewer than 20 deaths per 1,000 live births and fewer than 50
    maternal deaths per 100,000 live births by 2035:'' Please explain how
    eliminating the Family Planning and Reproductive Health program account
    at USAID will help reduce child and maternal deaths by 2035. Will you
    commit to ensuring that ending preventable deaths of mothers and
    children remains a USAID priority?

        Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
    USAID and relies on sustained investment and appropriate linkages
    across diverse health programs focused on maternal and child health,
    nutrition and malaria. All of these efforts contribute to preventing
    child and maternal deaths. The FY 2018 request includes $1.3 billion to
    prevent child and maternal deaths and proposes to redirect $250.0
    million in previously appropriated Ebola supplemental funds for malaria
    programs.
        The United States is by far the largest overall global health
    donor. While the United States will continue significant funding for
    global health programs, even while refocusing foreign assistance, other
    stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global
    health initiatives.

        Question 31. USAID plays a critical and distinct role in global
    health research and development (R&D), supporting late-stage and
    implementation research to advance new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics,
    and other health tools intended for use in remote and low-resource
    settings. Since 2000, the agency has supported development of 21 new
    health technologies with demonstrated track records of saving lives and
    cutting program costs. USAID's research investments are also critical
    for American health, and allow health technologies to be tested in
    regions of the world with the highest disease burdens, which in turn
    ensures Americans have access to the most effective, high-performing
    health tools. Despite these returns, the administration's FY 18 budget
    proposal cuts USAID funding for global health R&D--and zeros out USAID
    investments in HIV/AIDS research. This work is unique, and not
    duplicative of research happening at other US Agencies: Can you detail
    why global health research is being deprioritized by administration's
    budget at a time when global infectious disease epidemics are on the
    rise?

        Answer. The FY 2018 budget consolidates all U.S. assistance for
    global HIV/AIDS efforts within the State Department to simplify the
    management and coordination of these investments. USAID will continue
    to remain one of the primary implementing agencies for PEPFAR, and will
    continue to implement a significant share of U.S. global HIV/AIDS
    assistance in this capacity. With regard to global health research,
    USAID intends to increase its efforts to leverage partners' expertise
    and resources, strengthen country capacity to conduct their own
    research and development (R&D), and strategically utilize market
    shaping and innovative financing tools to incentivize private companies
    to invest in R&D.
        While the United States will continue significant funding for
    global health programs, other stakeholders must do more to contribute
    their fair share to global health initiatives. USAID will work closely
    with the State Department's Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator to
    highlight the importance of developing and introducing microbicides for
    women, HIV vaccines, and improved HIV treatment regimens.

        Question 32. International basic education assistance works. Not
    only does it exemplify core US values, it is a powerful determinant of
    economic growth. Studies have shown that each additional year of
    education can bring with it a 10 percent increase in income, and if all
    children in low-income countries left school with basic reading skills
    there would be a 12 percent reduction in world poverty. Since 2011,
    U.S. education projects in 45 different countries have reached over 41
    million learners and trained an average of 450,000 teachers annually.
    USAID's programs ensure that students develop the necessary skills to
    be part of the global workforce, have safe learning opportunities, and
    have equitable access to quality education.

        Answer. Thank you for your acknowledgement of the successes of our
    basic education programs. USAID has focused on learning outcomes and
    taken seriously the measurement of results in education. The Agency
    recently released its USAID Education Strategy 2011-2015 Progress
    Report, which is publicly available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf--docs/
    pa00mg68.pdf. The report shows that, from 2011 to 2015:

       In reading, USAID reached a cumulative 37.7 million individual
            primary school students (18.4 million females, 19.3 million
            males). Of these 37.7 million, we have measured change, through
            a baseline and midline or endline assessment, in reading for 10
            million (4.9 million females, 5.1 million males). Of these 10
            million, 1.5 million meet our definition of improved reading
            (900,000 females, 600,000 males). As data become available, we
            will report on the results for the 27.7 million learners who
            have been reached but not yet measured with a midline or
            endline assessment.
       In terms of access to education in conflict and crisis, USAID
            programs reached a total of 11.8 million individual children
            and youth (5.6 million females, 6.2 million males) through
            programming designed to improve or establish safe, quality
            education. This number includes increased access to education
            for 2.4 million who were previously out-of-school (1.1 million
            females, 1.3 million males).

        Question 33. Do you agree that for United States to fully engage in
    and benefit from a stable and healthy international economy, we must
    continue to invest in the world's most at-risk and vulnerable children?

        Answer. Yes. Improving educational opportunities for the world's
    most vulnerable populations and strengthening education systems
    accelerates economic growth, strengthens communities, and reverses the
    root causes of instability that often fuel crime, conflict, and
    extremism. Investments in education are a smart, strategic, and
    effective part of U.S. foreign assistance, and remain vital to U.S.
    national security and economic interests.

        Question 34. The administration's current review and potential
    reorganization of the federal government should increase the
    effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. development institutions, rather
    than undermine them. This includes a critical recognition that
    development and diplomacy serve complementary, but distinct, roles in
    U.S. foreign policy: Recognizing it is critical that development and
    humanitarian assistance be provided in an independent and impartial
    way, how will you protect development and humanitarian assistance at
    the State Department and USAID from political, security, and economic
    priorities of other U.S. Government entities?

        Answer. Both development and humanitarian assistance are necessary
    to help prevent and mitigate humanitarian crises. The administration's
    goal for FY 2018 is to balance humanitarian and development
    interventions to help prevent the next humanitarian crisis.
        Humanitarian assistance is provided by the United States based on
    need, regardless of political, religious, and other affiliation, and
    does not discriminate against or favor one group over another. The goal
    of humanitarian assistance is to save lives and alleviate suffering and
    supporting the most vulnerable populations is the core value of our
    humanitarian assistance.

        Question 35. The President's budget proposes a 44 percent cut
    across accounts that provide the bulk of U.S. humanitarian assistance:
    International Disaster Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance,
    Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, and Food for Peace Title
    II, the latter of which also includes significant funds for development
    assistance. This is despite 128 million people being in need of
    humanitarian assistance globally, including over 70 million who are
    food insecure--30 million of whom are at risk of famine--65 million
    forcibly displaced persons, and the possibility of large-scale natural
    disasters or pandemics which we cannot currently foresee:

       In the face of potential cuts, how will you ensure decisive and
            adequate humanitarian action to meet increasing needs in
            response to emergencies in countries like Afghanistan, Burundi,
            Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
            Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, the Northern Triangle in Central America,
            Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen?

        Answer. The proposed percentage of humanitarian funding requested
    as part of the FY 2018 State/USAID foreign assistance budget remains
    the same as in FY 2016, roughly 22 percent, and the relative priority
    of these interventions has not diminished.
        Both development and humanitarian assistance are necessary to help
    prevent and mitigate humanitarian crises. The administration's goal for
    FY 2018 is to balance humanitarian and development interventions to
    help prevent the next humanitarian crisis.
        We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to those who
    need it most. The FY 2018 request includes significant funding for
    humanitarian assistance, including food assistance, disaster, and
    refugee program funding. This request would focus funding on the
    highest priority areas while asking the rest of the world to pay their
    fair share.
        Humanitarian funding decisions are based on need, as assessed by
    international and non-government organizations, USG field teams,
    assessments, and in close coordination with local governments and our
    implementing partners. The Department and USAID continually work to
    support populations with the greatest humanitarian need, and to assess
    whether implementing partners have the operational capacity and access
    to the people in need.

        Question 36. Given growing humanitarian need around the world, what
    criteria will you use to prioritize the allocation of humanitarian
    assistance?

        Answer. The Department and USAID continuously monitor humanitarian
    needs worldwide and make emergency funding decisions on a rolling
    basis, providing lifesaving assistance where it is most needed today
    while also meeting and mitigating anticipated emergency needs. We rely
    on a variety of tools to determine need and vulnerability and
    prioritize resources, including information from international and non-
    government organizations, our field staff and partners, as well as
    forecasting from the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET)
    funded by USAID.
        Unfortunately humanitarian needs always exceed global resources
    available and we may not be able to fund responses to all crises at the
    desired levels. Difficult trade-offs, such as prioritizing immediate
    action at the expense of longer-term resilience and development
    activities may need to be made.
        Recognizing that the U.S. alone cannot meet all needs, we will
    continue to engage with fellow donors and actors within the
    international humanitarian community to seek their assistance and
    collaboration. Sustained U.S. humanitarian leadership, both diplomatic
    and financial, is critical for the continued engagement of both
    traditional and emerging donors, and to further develop new
    partnerships with the private sector, and the World Bank.

        Question 37. How will you ensure that humanitarian assistance goes
    to the most vulnerable, regardless of location? How will you protect
    humanitarian assistance from political/security/economic priorities of
    other USG entities?

        Answer. Both development and humanitarian assistance are necessary
    to help prevent and mitigate humanitarian crises. The administration's
    goal for FY 2018 is to balance humanitarian and development
    interventions to help prevent the next humanitarian crisis.
        The United States provides humanitarian assistance based on need,
    regardless of political, religious, and other affiliation, and does not
    discriminate against or favor one group over another. The goal of
    humanitarian assistance is to save lives and alleviate suffering.
    Supporting the most vulnerable populations is the core value of our
    humanitarian assistance.

        Question 38. Timeliness is vital in a humanitarian response. Not
    only do timely interventions save lives, they also help ensure that
    crises do not deepen, increasing demand for larger, costlier responses
    in the future. The President's budget indicated that OMB intends to use
    higher levels of carry-over funding--or to withhold funding allocated
    by Congress in FY 17, including additional resources provided for
    immediate famine relief--in order to blunt the impacts of its proposed
    cuts to and consolidation of humanitarian accounts: How will you ensure
    that humanitarian responses limited by the proposed cuts in FY 18, as
    well as OMB's stated intention to carry over funding from FY 17, will
    not lead to larger, costlier humanitarian response in future years?

        Answer. The amount of carry-over from humanitarian accounts each
    year is a function of prioritizing needs in crises, funding
    availability, timing, humanitarian access, the capacity of our
    implementing partners, the ability to effectively monitor programs, and
    the ongoing and prospective actions of other donors. The administration
    is continually adjusting to changing conditions and needs, and building
    in the ability to respond to unanticipated new disasters, humanitarian
    crises, or changes in existing situations.
        The USG continues to respond robustly to the major humanitarian
    crises facing the world today, including famine and potential famine in
    South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen, as well as conflict and
    refugee crises in Syria and Iraq. The State Department and USAID will
    utilize funds appropriated in 2017 to provide life-saving assistance
    through the remainder of the fiscal year and into early FY 2018. We
    will continue to make programming decisions based on humanitarian need.

        Question 39. How do you justify carrying over levels of funding
    above historical norms in the face of clear Congressional intent to
    respond to pressing crises now?

        Answer. The administration is continuing to assess needs in order
    to determine the U.S. share of the resources needed to adequately
    respond to crises. As with previous years, the State Department and
    USAID anticipate that it will carry over significant FY 2017 funds into
    FY 2018 to enable it to respond quickly early in the new fiscal year to
    the needs that do not correspond with the budget cycle.
        Due to the timing of the generous FY 2017 IDA appropriation, which
    is higher than the administration anticipated, and over $2.1 billion
    above the record FY 2016 spending levels, the administration
    anticipates that the carryover of IDA from FY 2017 into FY 2018 will be
    significantly higher than in prior years even while responding at a
    higher level to ongoing crises. [NOTE: Including P.L. 480 Title II, the
    increase is nearly $2.6 billion (over 60 percent) above the record FY
    2016 spending levels.] Carry over of MRA from FY 2017 into FY 2018 is
    anticipated to be in line with more traditional levels.

        Question 40. While no one objects to reforms which may create
    efficiencies, we cannot plausibly expect that a drastic reduction in
    funding will not impact the extent of humanitarian response. Where do
    you plan to cut back on such funding in FY 18? Which crises do you feel
    warrant a lesser response now?

        Answer. Given the topline budget constraints, the proposed FY 2018
    humanitarian budget has decreased in size along with the total proposed
    FY 2018 State/USAID budget. However, the proposed percentage of
    humanitarian funding requested in the FY 2018 State/USAID foreign
    assistance budget remains the same as in FY 2016, roughly 22 percent,
    and the relative priority of these interventions has not diminished.

        Question 41. Has your counsel advised you about what level of
    carry-over funding may run afoul the Congressional Budget and
    Impoundment Control Act of 1974? Do you intend to push back on this
    withholding of funds to meet the exceptional level of humanitarian need
    globally?

        Answer. The Department and USAID will obligate funding appropriated
    by Congress consistent with applicable law, including the Congressional
    Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

        Question 42. If the goal of our global health programming is to
    ``graduate'' countries off U.S. assistance by helping them develop
    strong, sustainable health systems: Please discuss how a 26 percent
    reduction in State and USAID global health programs will help us
    achieve that goal.

        Answer. While the United States will continue significant funding
    for global health programs, other stakeholders and the partner
    countries must do more to contribute their fair share to global health
    initiatives. In the aftermath of the Ebola epidemic, for example, many
    partner countries have made renewed commitments to building resilient
    health systems. Countries are moving toward strengthening the
    management capacity needed to develop and sustain essential health
    institutions and programs.The FY 2018 budget will continue our efforts
    to strengthen country health systems, with the goal of graduating
    countries from U.S. assistance.

        Question 43. Democracy and Governance: Assistance for Democracy,
    Rights, and Governance pays dividends. In recent years we have
    witnessed gains in Colombia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and
    Tunisia, among others: How will this administration support these
    positive trends and support fragile states headed in the right
    direction?

        Answer. Supporting countries in strengthening democracy, human
    rights, and governance (DRG) is critical for defending national
    security, fostering economic opportunities for the American people,
    asserting U.S. leadership and influence, and ensuring effectiveness and
    accountability to the American taxpayer. It is also fundamental to
    reducing fragility. As has been the case for many years, DRG programs
    implemented by both USAID and the State Department seek to build the
    accountability, transparency, and responsiveness of democratic
    governing institutions; foster respect for human rights and the rule of
    law; fight corruption; promote citizen participation and engagement in
    good governance and rule of law; and strengthen civil society
    organizations and independent media. These programs are foundational to
    sustainable development and, coupled with sector-specific programs such
    as health, economic growth, and food security, help reinforce the
    positive gains made by countries such as Tunisia, Nigeria, Myanmar, and
    Colombia.

        Question 44. Every year, hundreds of aid workers are attacked,
    killed, injured, and kidnapped in the course of their work, with the
    largest number of these attacks occurring in Afghanistan, Somalia,
    Sudan, South Sudan, and Syria. A new report released May 3 by the
    Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition found that in 2016, hundreds
    of attacks on healthcare providers took place in 23 different
    countries: How will the State Department respond to these
    unconscionable assaults to ensure that humanitarian personnel are
    respected and protected while carrying out their work?

        Answer. We remain deeply concerned by frequent lapses in the
    respect for the rules of international law, in particular international
    humanitarian law. We are gravely concerned that in many places affected
    by conflict, access to medical care continues to be severely restricted
    due to indiscriminate attacks on healthcare facilities (including their
    water and power sources), targeting of healthcare workers, and
    restrictions on medical supplies, among other limiting factors. We
    continue to use all means available to call upon all parties to armed
    conflict to comply with their obligations under international
    humanitarian law, including with respect to the protection of
    healthcare staff and humanitarian aid workers. As the largest single
    humanitarian donor, we regularly condemn these attacks in our bilateral
    discussions, in the U.N. Security Council, and in our public diplomacy.
        The United States strongly supports the principles of humanity,
    neutrality, impartiality, and independence for the provision of
    humanitarian assistance and regularly calls upon all States, all
    parties involved in armed conflict, and all humanitarian actors to
    respect these principles in order to ensure the provision of
    humanitarian assistance, the safety of civilians receiving such
    assistance, and the security of humanitarian personnel. We urge all
    parties involved in an armed conflict to allow full, unimpeded access
    by humanitarian personnel to all people in need of assistance; to make
    available all necessary facilities for their operations; and to promote
    the safety, security, and freedom of movement of humanitarian
    personnel.
        We regularly and consistently express deep concern that attacks and
    threats against humanitarian personnel, the United Nations, Red Cross
    and Red Crescent, and associated personnel are factors that severely
    restrict the provision of assistance and protection to populations in
    need. We regularly and consistently urge States and all parties to
    armed conflict to develop effective measures to prevent and address
    unlawful violence against such personnel, their means of transport and
    equipment, as well as hospitals and other medical facilities.
        The United States has and will continue to reiterate our strongest
    condemnation of all violations of international law committed against
    or directly affecting civilians, including healthcare workers and
    humanitarian personnel. At every opportunity, we will continue to
    restate our insistence that all parties to armed conflicts comply
    strictly with the obligations applicable to them under international
    humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international
    refugee law, and emphasize the need for all parties to armed conflict
    to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties and to
    respect and protect civilian populations, including healthcare workers
    and humanitarian personnel.

        Question 45. Civil Society: NGO access and preserving the role of
    civil society is critical to both humanitarian and development
    assistance, especially in supporting societies that hold their
    governments accountable: How will funding be provided to support civil
    society under the President's budget?

        Answer. An independent civil society is not only critical to the
    delivery of development and humanitarian assistance, it is also an
    important bulwark against state fragility. Despite the critical role
    that Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play in a country's development
    process, CSOs have faced a mounting backlash and closing of the
    political space in which they operate in many parts of the world. In
    2017, Freedom House reported the eleventh consecutive year of global
    decline in civil liberties and political rights.
        In response, the Department of State and USAID's FY 2018 budget
    request includes $1.6 billion for Democracy, Human Rights and
    Governance (DRG) programs, of which, $261.6 million is dedicated to
    civil society. This funding would support CSOs working in closing and
    closed spaces by building their capacity to galvanize citizen
    participation, foster a positive shift in government responsiveness to
    citizen demands, improve freedom of information, and expand civic
    participation and CSO engagement with governments for improved
    accountability.

        Question 46. Today, youth between the ages of 15 and 29 comprise
    more than 30 percent of the population of the Arab world--roughly 100
    million out of 300 million people. Is it in the national interest to
    engage with these young people who will one day be the region's leaders
    and citizens? If so, how should the U.S. engage the youth of the Middle
    East and how can the U.S. do it effectively given the deep cuts to
    diplomacy and development budgets in the President's request?

        Answer. The youth bulge, rise of violent extremism, and high youth
    unemployment in the NEA region demonstrate the urgency to engage with
    and invest in youth. The State Department and USAID work in partnership
    with governments, the private sector, and civil society to advance our
    interests in reducing extremism and violence by supporting educated,
    healthy, employed and civically engaged youth who drive economic
    growth, democracy and prosperity. Public diplomacy focuses on robust
    social media outreach, educational exchanges like the Kennedy-Lugar
    Youth Exchange and Study (YES) program, and English teaching programs,
    including English Access Micro-scholarships. Foreign assistance
    programs emphasize areas of economic growth such as vocational
    education, skills training, and small and medium enterprise
    development; democracy and governance programs that partner with civil
    society to develop youth leadership in democratic processes and
    institutions; conflict resolution and countering violent extremism; and
    social sector development programs that promote literacy, support
    equitable access to quality basic education and higher education
    scholarships. We will work to maintain current program levels for the
    most effective youth programs, expand virtual exchange programs like
    the J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative which endeavors
    to involve 20 million regional youth in on-line, digital exchanges by
    2020, and explore additional outreach opportunities.

        Question 47. In the Middle East, we have heard plenty from the
    administration about use of military force to defeat ISIS, including
    delegating decision-making down to commanders in the field. In the
    medium and long term however, the conditions that allowed ISIS to
    flourish cannot be addressed exclusively through military means. This
    is another reason why the President's proposed budget is deeply
    alarming--this budget cuts funds for the experts and programs that seek
    to address entrenched systemic problems--a deficit of good governance,
    open economies, and fundamental freedoms that enable citizens to
    flourish: Are you raising the challenges of long-term accountability,
    anti-corruption, human rights, and genuine reform with your
    counterparts in the Middle East?

        Answer. We continue to raise these long term challenges with our
    interlocutors across the region in the full range of our diplomatic
    engagements, including through private engagement and, when
    appropriate, public engagement and targeted programming. We are deeply
    committed to promoting human rights and good governance and, combatting
    corruption around the world, particularly in the Middle East and North
    Africa. We consider these activities as integral factors in fostering
    long term regional stability and security. Budgetary fluctuations do
    not mean that these issues are not priorities. As I said in my
    testimony, the United States will continue to be the leader in
    international development, global health, democracy and good governance
    initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. I am convinced that we can
    maximize the effectiveness of our diplomacy and programs.

        Question 48. The May 3rd readout of President Trump's meeting with
    President Abbas said that the President ``raised his concerns about
    payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have committed
    terrorist acts, and to their families, and emphasized the need to
    resolve this issue:'' What would be required for the issue to be
    resolved? What steps is the administration taking to pressure
    Palestinian leaders to abandon a system of payments that incentivizes
    violence?

        Answer. The United States always condemns any payments for acts of
    terrorism. We cannot tolerate any program that results in financial
    gain for committing acts of violence.
        Senior U.S. government officials have repeatedly asked senior
    Palestinian Authority (PA) officials to stop payments related to
    perpetrators of violent acts, and have facilitated meetings with
    members of Congress who have made similar requests. Last month, the PA
    announced it was stopping payments to some Hamas-affiliated prisoners.
    While this is a positive first step, much more needs to be done to
    address our concerns.

        Question 49. The May 3rd readout of President Trump's meeting with
    President Abbas said that the President ``raised his concerns about
    payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have committed
    terrorist acts, and to their families, and emphasized the need to
    resolve this issue:'' What would be required for the issue to be
    resolved? What steps is the administration taking to pressure
    Palestinian leaders to abandon a system of payments that incentivizes
    violence?

        Answer. The United States always condemns any payments for acts of
    terrorism. We cannot tolerate any program that results in financial
    gain for committing acts of violence.
        Senior U.S. government officials have repeatedly asked senior
    Palestinian Authority (PA) officials to stop payments related to
    perpetrators of violent acts, and have facilitated meetings with
    members of Congress who have made similar requests. Last month, the PA
    announced it was stopping payments to some Hamas-affiliated prisoners.
    While this is a positive first step, much more needs to be done to
    address our concerns.

        Question 50. It is my understanding that U.S. and Iraqi officials
    are currently discussing a follow-on mission for U.S. forces in Iraq,
    after the defeat of ISIS. However, I am concerned that Iraq will remain
    perpetually unstable and susceptible to ISIS' successor if Iraq's
    leaders do not come together in a national program of inclusive
    governance and reconciliation: What conditions should the U.S. insist
    on if we are to shoulder the cost and risk of keeping forces in Iraq?

        Answer. Defeating ISIS and ensuring that it cannot reconstitute is
    a core national security priority of the United States. The ISF,
    including Kurdish Peshmerga, are bravely leading this fight, taking the
    vast majority of the casualties, and slowly but surely pushing ISIS out
    of Iraq. More than 70 percent of the territory ISIS once held is now
    back under Iraqi control and not a single liberated community has
    fallen back under ISIS control. At the invitation of the Government of
    Iraq, the United States has played a supporting, but critical, role in
    helping the ISF achieve a nearly two-year run of unbroken victories in
    Tikrit, Ramadi, Sinjar, Fallujah, Hit, Bayji, Rutbah, Qayyarah, and
    soon Mosul. Nevertheless, ISIS remains a brutal foe that is a threat to
    the United States and our partners in the region and Europe; it is
    clearly in the interest of the United States to defeat ISIS and to
    remain engaged with our partners to ensure the group cannot reemerge.
        President Trump and Prime Minister Abadi made it clear during
    Abadi's March visit to Washington that together they seek to build an
    enduring bilateral security partnership after the defeat of ISIS in
    Iraq. A continued U.S. security partnership will help Iraq to develop
    the forces needed to prevent threats to Iraqi sovereignty and a
    resurgence of terrorist activity, and will ensure our gains against
    ISIS are lasting. It is in the interests of both the United States and
    Iraq to develop this post-ISIS partnership.
        We share your concerns about instability in Iraq and the potential
    for continued terrorism, even after ISIS no longer controls territory.
    This is all the more reason why the United States should remain engaged
    with our Iraqi partners--we, and they, must not fight the same war
    again. We agree that Iraqi leaders need to do more to improve
    governance and address unresolved issues to better meet the needs of
    the Iraqi people. The Iraqi government's decentralization program,
    which helps bring responsibility for government services closer to
    local communities, is one example of our joint efforts. We will
    continue to work with a wide range of Iraqis across the political
    spectrum and civil society to advance this agenda. As a starting point,
    we consider stabilizing areas liberated from ISIS a key component in
    ensuring that displaced communities, primarily Sunnis and ethnic
    minorities, are able to return home in dignity and with greater
    autonomy from the central government to manage their affairs. These
    grassroots initiatives to promote reconciliation complement and
    reinforce the Government of Iraq's efforts at broader national
    reconciliation.
        Iraq will hold national elections in the spring of 2018, and the
    Iraqi people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for their
    performance in office. The United States will continue to work with the
    United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) to ensure that these
    elections occur on time and reflect the will of the Iraqi people. Our
    focus remains on supporting the constitutional system and strengthening
    democratic institutions that transcend the interests of individuals,
    political parties, or sectarian components of Iraqi society.

        Question 51. What are you asking other members of the anti-ISIS
    Coalition to contribute to reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq?
    What are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council contributing?

        Answer. The United States and our partners, particularly those in
    the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, are making significant
    contributions to help Iraq as it recovers from destruction caused by
    ISIS. In March of this year, donors utilized the Counter-ISIS Coalition
    Ministerial in Washington, D.C. to make more than $2 billion in
    Coalition pledges for humanitarian assistance, stabilization, and
    demining support for Iraq and Syria. These contributions come on top of
    the $22.2 billion in humanitarian assistance, stabilization, demining,
    and economic support by coalition partners for Iraq and Syria since
    2014.
        The stabilization of liberated areas is the first step toward
    recovery and is instrumental in cementing gains made on the
    battlefield. Coalition governments from over twenty countries have
    contributed $411 million to the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) Funding
    Facility for Stabilization (FFS), which funds stabilization projects,
    such as efforts to rehabilitate infrastructure, grants to small
    business to help jump-start the local economy, technical support to
    local government, and grass-roots reconciliation programs. UNDP has
    initiated and/or completed over 1,000 stabilization activities in 28
    liberated areas of Iraq, including in Anbar, Salah ad Din, Ninewa, and
    Diyala provinces.
        Our assistance to UNDP is cost effective: for every $1 contributed
    by the United States, UNDP received roughly three times that amount
    from our Coalition partners. More importantly, we are seeing results:
    to date, stabilization initiatives have facilitated the return of 1.9
    million internally displaced Iraqis nationwide.
        Demining is another important area of Coalition support for Iraq.
    The United States and Coalition partners have contributed over $40
    million to fund mine clearance of high priority sites in Anbar and
    Ninewa provinces through a private contractor, Janus. The Janus Task
    Order is approximately 70 percent State Department funded, with the
    other 30 percent contributed by Coalition partners.
        Stabilization and demining are not possible without trusted local
    security. Italy is leading a Coalition police training program to build
    the capability of federal, local, and Kurdish police forces. Spain and
    the Czech Republic have also contributed trainers to this effort that
    to date has trained over 8,500 police officers across Iraq. Several
    other partners are exploring trainer contributions to increase the
    throughput of Iraqi police force generation.
        The World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and
    Development has provided Iraq with a $350 million loan for
    reconstruction; a significant portion of these funds will be directed
    toward the Sunni areas of Salah ad Din Province, and portions of the
    loan could also be directed toward Anbar reconstruction. Germany has
    also agreed to provide Iraq with a 500 million euro loan for
    reconstruction.
        Our engagement with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members on
    support for Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization has proven
    effective. The United Arab Emirates has contributed $50 million toward
    Iraq stabilization. The Emirates Red Crescent provided over $10 million
    in humanitarian assistance to support IDPs in northern Iraq. Qatar
    donated $10 million to the Qatar Red Crescent Society for humanitarian
    assistance for Iraq, with a focus on food security and health care in
    predominantly-Sunni Anbar province. Additionally, the Qatari Foundation
    for Humanitarian Services (RAF) implemented a number of humanitarian
    projects for IDPs in Iraq's southern provinces. Kuwait's financial
    assistance to Iraq by suspending Iraq's obligation to pay 5 percent of
    Iraq's oil revenues to Kuwait as reparations for Iraq's 1990 invasion
    of Kuwait in both 2015 and 2016 freed up billions for Iraq to spend on
    domestic priorities. The Government of Kuwait also provided more than
    $9.5 million to U.N. humanitarian agencies and $500,000 to the Kuwaiti
    Red Crescent for humanitarian assistance to Iraqi IDPs.

        Question 52. I am concerned that, with Afghanistan policy
    deliberations reportedly fixated on a troop increase, we are missing
    the bigger point-that there is no solely military solution to the
    conflict. We need to encourage a negotiated political settlement,
    including an end to the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan, and boost the
    Afghan government's ability to uphold justice and the rule of law in
    the face of rampant corruption and record-high civilian casualties:
    What is U.S. policy on Afghanistan? Should the U.S. play an active role
    in supporting political settlement? If so, what do you see as the role
    of the State Department?

        Answer. The National Security Council has been coordinating an
    interagency process to develop an integrated regional strategy that
    advances our vital interests in Afghanistan and the broader region. The
    strategy recognizes that there is no military solution to the conflict
    in Afghanistan.
        A negotiated political settlement with the Taliban is critical to
    ending the conflict and ensuring the long-term preservation of our
    national security interests. We have stated to the Afghan government
    and our NATO allies that it is our priority to launch a peace process,
    and we regularly engage Afghanistan's neighbors to press the Taliban to
    come to the negotiating table. The Department of State is taking a lead
    role in building a regional consensus in support of an Afghan peace
    process. The United States would only support an agreement to end the
    conflict if it ensured that the Taliban would cease violence, break all
    ties to international terrorists, and accept the Afghan Constitution,
    including its protections for women and minorities. These end-
    conditions are necessary to ensure the gains achieved over the last 15
    years are protected.
        The integrated regional strategy is broadly focused on combatting
    terrorism and preventing wider conflicts. Afghanistan is nested in this
    strategy within a broader context to account for the dynamics and
    interdependencies among the South Asian nations and the region. The
    review process is ongoing, but has already resulted in some important
    decisions, including the President's decision in June to delegate
    authority over troop levels in Afghanistan to the Department of
    Defense. Meanwhile, as this strategic review continues, we remain fully
    engaged with our Afghan and international partners in advancing our
    common interest in a more stable, secure and self-reliant Afghanistan.

        Question 53. In your response to questions for the record for your
    confirmation hearing, you said that ``helping African countries
    strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law should remain a
    primary U.S. objective.'' However the FY 18 budget request for such--
    nearly two thirds lower than the FY 17 request--indicates that this is
    not a priority: How do you explain such a drastic draw back?

        Answer. Accountable, citizen-centered governance and independent
    civil society are bulwarks against state fragility and help promote
    stable and open economies. We will continue to support democracy, human
    rights, and governance (DRG) programs in Africa and work with our
    African and other international partners to support the consolidation
    of democracy, which promotes America's security and economic interests.
    As we focus on ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of foreign
    assistance overall, a continued commitment to DRG in Africa is
    reflected in the request. The FY 2018 request includes $131.2 million
    for DRG in Africa, $20.1 million below FY 2016. The proportion of the
    non-health request for Africa to support DRG programs is 16 percent in
    the FY 2018 request as opposed to 9 percent in the FY 2016 actual
    level.
        Our DRG efforts in Africa span a wide range of country situations,
    from post-conflict states to consolidating democracies. In partnership
    with African governments, civil society, and international like-minded
    diplomatic missions, the U.S. government helps advance democracy and
    good governance in Africa by promoting the rule of law, credible and
    legitimate elections, a politically active civil society, and
    accountable and participatory governments. Support is also provided for
    anti-corruption reforms, strengthening the rule of law, effective
    service delivery, and improved accountability of African governments to
    their citizens.

        Question 54. Nigeria: The Nigerian Air Force mistakenly bombed an
    IDP camp in Rann in January, killing as many as 200 people. There has
    been no report to the public about what went wrong. The Army is accused
    of massacring 300 people and burying them in a mass grave in December
    of 2015.
        No one has been held accountable to date. In mid-2015, Amnesty
    International released a report alleging that the deaths of 8000
    civilians are attributable to the Nigerian military in northeast
    Nigeria, and that specific commanders had knowledge of torture, extra-
    judicial killings and arbitrary detentions in overcrowded facilities.
        In your response to questions for the record for your confirmation
    hearing, you said that ``assistance on the improvement on human rights
    is something that must be considered on a case by case basis:''

       Have you reviewed the case of Nigeria?
       Why are we moving ahead with the sale of Super Tucanos without
            getting assurances that the government will share with us the
            findings of the investigation into the Rann bombing and
            insisting on accountability for the Zaria massacre?

        Answer. In the State Department's conversations with the Nigerian
    government at all levels, we regularly underscore that human rights
    abuses and impunity for those violations tarnish Nigeria's
    international reputation, undermine its ability to establish trusting
    relationships with its citizenry, and impede our ability to serve as a
    partner in Nigeria's efforts to defeat Boko Haram and the Islamic State
    of West Africa. I will continue to urge timely and credible
    investigations into all allegations of human rights abuses, pursue
    broader and more transparent efforts to end impunity, and that
    individuals found guilty of wrongdoing be held to account.
        Nigeria is a critical partner in the fight against terrorism in
    Africa. As President Trump told President Buhari in their February
    phone call, we support Nigeria's interest in purchasing a close support
    aircraft capability from the United States to counter the regional
    threat of the Islamic State of West Africa and to defeat Boko Haram.
    This is part of our efforts to help professionalize the Nigerian
    security forces. The ultimate goal of U.S.-Nigeria security cooperation
    is to support the transformation of the Nigerian military into an
    operationally capable and professional organization which upholds
    international human rights standards and the Law of Armed Conflict in
    its operations and holds any violators to account.
        The bombing of Rann was a terrible tragedy. The strike appears to
    be the result of human error. When the incident occurred, the Nigerian
    government and military immediately assumed responsibility for the
    tragedy. The Nigerian air force also promptly stood up a six-person
    panel to investigate the incident. This and other investigations are
    ongoing. The Nigerian air force has also initiated a number of
    corrective actions to prevent future such mistakes, including closer
    coordination with humanitarian organizations active in the region. We
    support Nigeria's desire to acquire aircraft which are designed for
    more precise air-to-ground strikes, enabling pilots to positively
    identify targets prior to the release of weapons. Since this incident,
    the U.S. government has secured funding for air-to-ground integration
    training with the Nigerian military.

        Question 55. In your response to questions for the record for your
    confirmation hearing, you said that ``the situation in South Sudan is
    one of the pressing. in the world. It is critical to help build some
    political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
    factions.'' The conflict continues to rage on. Nearly four million
    people have been forced to flee their homes; half of them children.
    Famine has been declared in parts of the country. A bipartisan group of
    Senators has asked for the appointment of a special envoy. The
    nomination of an Assistant Secretary of State for Africa would be a
    welcome step as well: In your six months as Secretary, what steps have
    you taken to, as you say, ``help build some political space?'' Are
    there international efforts to implement the 2015 peace agreement?

        Answer. We are currently pressing our partners, notably the Inter-
    Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Troika (Norway and
    the United Kingdom), the African Union (AU), and the United Nations to
    work with us to open the political space and develop a way forward. In
    recent months, we have encouraged the African Union and the U.N. to
    take an active role in pressing all parties in South Sudan to implement
    a cessation of hostilities in conjunction with the resumption of an
    inclusive political process. Only an end to the fighting combined with
    a renewed political process can lead to a lasting, stable peace.
        We have also pressed IGAD to work towards the political resolution
    of the South Sudan conflict with more urgency. After consistent
    diplomatic pressure from the United States and our Troika partners,
    IGAD held an Extraordinary Summit on June 12 where it called for the
    rapid convening of a ``High-level Revitalization Forum'' of the 2015
    peace agreement that would be open to all ``estranged parties.'' This
    marked the first regionally-sanctioned call for renewed political talks
    between the core warring parties since the resumption of hostilities in
    July 2016.
        In parallel to our efforts to work with international and regional
    partners to achieve a cessation of hostilities and initiate a credible,
    inclusive political process, the United States continues to address the
    humanitarian crisis, providing emergency, life-saving assistance to
    those affected by the conflict. The United States has provided more
    than $2.5 billion in emergency humanitarian assistance since December
    2013 to conflict-affected South Sudanese and South Sudanese refugees in
    neighboring countries.

        Question 56. I and a bipartisan group of Senators including several
    on this committee have introduced a resolution calling for greater
    respect for human rights in Ethiopia. In your response to questions for
    the record for your confirmation hearing, you said that you would
    ``engage Ethiopia to express our concerns about violations of human
    rights and support for responsible governance.'' You also said that you
    would work closely with us to support greater democracy and human
    rights: What have you done since becoming Secretary to follow through
    on your commitment to engage Ethiopia on these issues?

        Answer. Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam and I spoke on March
    1, and we discussed a range of issues concerning the relationship
    between the United States and Ethiopia, including those related to
    human rights and governance. The Department of State and the United
    States Embassy in Ethiopia advocate for human rights by attending the
    trials of arrested journalists, bloggers, and opposition party
    officials; by raising issues pertaining to these detentions, including
    the government's use of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and its
    continued state of emergency to stifle dissent; by advocating for rule
    of law and assisting legal defense clinics; by calling for respect of
    religious freedom; by supporting access to social media and sponsoring
    events through our visiting speaker program; by applying Leahy vetting
    to all applicable bilateral assistance programs; by calling publicly
    and privately for evidence-based investigations and prosecutions; by
    having our Resident Legal Advisor connect Ethiopian judges and
    prosecutors with U.S. counterparts to expand best practices, and by
    working with Ethiopian nongovernmental organizations to assist the
    justice sector in efforts to improve accountability and ethics.

        Question 57. In recent years, a succession of new and re-emerging
    infectious diseases have caused outbreaks and pandemics that have
    affected thousands of people worldwide. In just the last month we have
    seen the emergence of Ebola in DRC; Zika in India; Middle East
    Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar and
    avian flu in China. Given the extraordinary challenges we've seen with
    global health security over the last couple of years: Please explain
    how eliminating the global health security account and instead
    instituting a one-time transfer of $72.5 million from Ebola funds (33
    percent cut from FY 16 funding levels) will protect Americans at home
    and abroad from infectious disease threats?

        Answer. The FY 2018 request continues to support Global Health
    Security by requesting to use $72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola
    emergency funds, which would maintain a straight-line of support for
    global health security in development programs at the FY 2016 levels.
        The remaining balances from the Ebola response are an appropriate
    source of funding for programs whose objective is to prevent and
    contain future outbreaks of existing or new diseases. Programming these
    funds will enable the U.S. government, in partnership with other
    nations, international organizations, and public and private
    stakeholders, to prevent avoidable epidemics that could spread to the
    United States, detect threats early, and respond rapidly and
    effectively to disease outbreaks in an effort to prevent them from
    becoming global pandemics.
        The budget pursues greater efficiencies and leveraging of
    resources. Funding will enable sustained support for global health
    security and the building of country-level systems to prevent, detect,
    and respond to emerging disease threats to the American people.

        Question 58. With the recent reemergence of Ebola in Africa, in
    your view, is reprogramming Ebola funds appropriate at this time?

        Answer. Redirecting a portion of the remaining balances from the
    Ebola response will provide an appropriate source of funding for
    programs whose objective is to prevent and contain future outbreaks of
    new or existing diseases, such as Ebola. Programming these funds will
    enable the U.S. government, in partnership with other nations,
    international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to
    prevent avoidable epidemics that could spread to the United States,
    detect threats early, and respond rapidly and effectively to disease
    outbreaks in an effort to prevent them from becoming global pandemics.
        The budget pursues greater efficiencies and leveraging of
    resources. Funding will enable sustained support for global health
    security and the building of country-level systems to prevent, detect,
    and respond to emerging disease threats to the American people.

        Question 59. Last week, an alarming New York Times report included
    projections that drug overdose deaths in the United State likely
    exceeded 59,000 in 2016. This staggering figure is largely driven by
    illicit heroin and fentanyl analogs. As a result, drug overdoses are
    now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50. While our
    country needs a comprehensive solution that also includes improved
    public health interventions, we desperately need better
    counternarcotics cooperation with our closest partners: Given the scope
    of this tragedy, can you explain why, in FY 2018, the administration
    has proposed a 32 percent cut to the International Narcotics Control
    and Law Enforcement budget over the level enacted by Congress for FY
    2017?

        Answer. The FY 2018 budget reflects the President's ``America
    First'' agenda that prioritizes the well-being of Americans, bolsters
    U.S. national security, secures our borders, and highlights U.S.
    economic interests. As we work to streamline efforts to ensure
    efficiency and make effective use of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we
    acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some tough choices.
    Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy
    goals. While the administration has proposed a reduction of 32 percent
    to the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
    budget over the level enacted by Congress for FY 2017, we will
    concentrate resources where they offer the most value and impact to
    U.S. national security priorities. The Department of State is also
    helping lead U.S. implementation of President Trump's February 9, 2017
    Executive Order 13773 on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to
    Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International
    Trafficking, and in this regard is working to ensure that U.S. foreign
    assistance programs are aligned with U.S. interagency efforts to combat
    illicit drug trafficking and related transnational organized crime
    threats. This includes activities funded through the INCLE budget that
    address the U.S. drug epidemic by strengthening our partners' capacity
    to combat transnational organized crime, to include illegal narcotics
    trafficking. INCLE resources for counternarcotics will focus on
    programs that directly impact the flow of illegal drugs, particularly
    fentanyl and other opioids, to the United States. These programs
    address national security interests and align with long-term strategic
    goals for engagement and assistance.
        Projects funded with INCLE resources bolster partner countries'
    criminal justice systems, including their ability to cooperate
    effectively with U.S. law enforcement, strengthen law enforcement and
    judicial capabilities, counter drug flows, combat transnational crime,
    and address the underlying conditions, such as corruption and weak rule
    of law, that foster state fragility and spur irregular migration to the
    United States. This includes improving foreign law enforcement and
    intelligence gathering capabilities; enhancing the effectiveness of
    criminal justice sectors to allow foreign governments to increase drug
    shipment interdictions; effectively investigating, prosecuting, and
    convicting major narcotics criminals; and breaking up major drug
    trafficking organizations. These activities enable foreign governments
    to be stronger partners with U.S. law enforcement and criminal justice
    agencies in investigating and prosecuting transnational crime and
    combatting the trafficking of dangerous drugs to the United States.
    INCLE projects also fund multilateral counterdrug information sharing
    systems run by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and
    the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). INCLE funding, and
    that of other donors, enables critical global awareness of emerging
    threats from synthetic drugs, including fentanyl analogues and new
    psychoactive substances.

        Question 60. Is it the administration's intention to weaken
    international cooperation to combat heroin and fentanyl trafficking?
    Are you trying to cut efforts to reduce the volume of lethal drugs
    entering our country?

        Answer. The Department of State's most urgent drug control priority
    is to reduce the flow of illicit opioids and other lethal drugs
    entering the United States. The current opioid epidemic is our
    country's worst drug-related public health crisis in decades, and the
    Department of State is proactively working along multiple lines of
    effort to address this national emergency. This includes integrating
    U.S. law enforcement and policy efforts to combat drug trafficking as
    part of our interagency efforts to implement President Trump's February
    9, 2017 Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to
    Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International
    Trafficking.
        We are particularly working to improve cooperation with our
    neighbors, Mexico and Canada, to reduce illicit opioid production and
    improve interdiction efforts on our continent. Building on prior
    security collaboration, the Department of State is working with the
    Government of Mexico to identify new opportunities to combat
    transnational criminal organizations, including by disrupting the
    business model of their drug trafficking networks. In Mexico, the
    Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
    Affairs (INL) administers programs to improve the effectiveness of
    Mexican efforts to eradicate opium poppy; train and equip Mexican law
    enforcement to identify and dismantle clandestine drug laboratories,
    including through safe handling of interdicted fentanyl; upgrade
    Mexico's National Drug Control System to track legitimate precursor
    chemicals entering Mexico to avoid their diversion to illicit
    production of fentanyl and other drugs; and build Mexican investigative
    capacities to interdict drugs and dismantle drug trafficking
    organizations. By building the capacity of Mexican security
    institutions to strengthen borders and ports, interdict drugs,
    including heroin and fentanyl, disrupt illicit financial networks, and
    bring criminals to justice, our security assistance will continue to
    provide the lasting change both nations seek.The United States works
    with Mexico and Canada through the North American Dialogue on Drug
    Policy to develop a greater shared understanding of drug flows and drug
    threats within North America and we are working together to confront
    these threats. For example, we have agreed to improve cooperation by:
    (1) sharing results of research and analysis of heroin, fentanyl,
    methamphetamine, and precursor chemicals; (2) exploring ways to better
    track cross-border illicit financial transfers; and (3) coordinating
    our messaging to countries outside of North America on mitigating the
    impact of the illicit opioid threat to our continent.
        The Department has also expanded its engagement with China to
    tighten controls over the production and traffic of illicit fentanyl
    and other dangerous synthetic drugs including support for the annual
    meeting of the United States--China Joint Liaison Group on Law
    Enforcement (JLG). The State Department, along with the Departments of
    Justice and Homeland Security, co-chairs this meeting to address broad
    law enforcement cooperation. Through this forum, the United States has
    provided China with updated lists of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS),
    assigning greatest priority to fentanyl-related substances, together
    with relevant scientific data and samples to facilitate expediting
    China's process.
        Since 2015, China has taken unprecedented action, controlling 138
    NPS and establishing an expedited mechanism to control other synthetic
    drugs that have no known medical use. This March, in response to our
    engagement, China announced control on four fentanyl analogues,
    including carfentanil, which is even more potent than fentanyl and
    responsible for a rash of deaths in the United States. All four of
    these fentanyl analogues were on the priority list of fentanyl
    analogues the Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) shared with China
    during the JLG Counter Narcotics Working Group (CNWG) in September
    2016.
        Because drug trafficking networks are adaptable and can shift to
    new sources of supply and transit routes in response to law enforcement
    pressure, we also remain committed to continuing our work to reduce the
    illicit drug trade in Afghanistan, where the majority of the world's
    illicit opium originates. INL continues to build Afghan capacity to
    conduct eradication, interdiction, alternative development, demand
    reduction, and public information programs.
        We are also heavily engaged in multilateral venues to combat the
    trafficking of illicit drugs to our streets. In particular, our support
    to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the
    International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), and outreach to key
    international partners in the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND),
    has paid dividends. Last March, the 53 member states of the U.N.
    Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted in favor of implementing
    international controls on ANPP and NPP--the two primary precursor
    chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. This
    action should help reduce the availability of chemicals used for the
    illicit manufacture of fentanyl and its analogues.

        Question 61. DHS Secretary Kelly has spoken at length about how
    U.S. engagement in Central America can address the root causes of
    irregular migration, mitigate humanitarian concerns, and uphold U.S.
    national security. In fact, he is hosting a conference this week with
    Central American leaders to strengthen that cooperation. However, your
    State Department is proposing 30 percent cuts to funding for the very
    programs needed to improve security conditions, combat corruption,
    defend human rights, and create economic opportunity. How will these
    cuts undermine cooperation that Secretary Kelly has said is important
    to U.S. national security?

        Answer. The United States is providing a total of $1.3 billion in
    FY 2015 and FY 2016 assistance to Central America. Congress directed an
    additional $655 million for Central America in the FY 2017
    appropriation. Prior year U.S. assistance in Central America will
    continue to have a positive impact as we implement programming well
    into FY 2018. This level of funding, when combined with the FY 2018
    request of $460 million, represents a significant investment by the
    American taxpayer in dismantling criminal networks and addressing the
    underlying causes of illegal migration and illicit trafficking.
        The FY 2018 funding will enable us to focus efforts in areas that
    will have the greatest potential for transformative impact on U.S.
    national security. The Department and USAID will implement an
    integrated approach to crime and violence prevention through programs
    that reduce gang violence and the influence of organized crime across
    borders; promote good governance, anti-corruption, and fiscal
    management; and foster prosperity through regional integration and the
    creation of sustainable jobs for citizens, which in turn will create
    opportunities for U.S. companies.
        We are also encouraging increased private sector investment in the
    Northern Triangle and to mobilize additional support from other partner
    nations and institutions. For example, 60 private sector
    representatives from the Northern Triangle countries, Mexico, and the
    United States participated in the Central America conference in Miami
    in June. Moreover, Mexico co-hosted the event with the United States
    and representatives from Chile, Canada, Colombia, Spain, and
    international financial institutions also attended.

        Question 62. Additionally, as I have repeatedly raised the
    importance of making sure that our assistance in Central America is
    consequential, what efforts will you undertake to assess the impact of
    our engagement? I am particularly concerned about challenges of
    corruption and human rights abuses; how will you prioritize these
    issues?

        Answer. Human rights abuses are symptomatic of the high levels of
    impunity prevalent in the region for most kinds of crime. U.S.
    assistance efforts build professional and accountable civilian police
    forces throughout the region, and support campaigns against impunity
    and public corruption to strengthen the rule of law. We will direct
    U.S. assistance to support the Honduran government's implementation of
    a protection mechanism to safeguard human rights defenders,
    journalists, social communicators, and justice operators with the
    objective of protecting and promoting freedom of association,
    expression and other fundamental human rights. A key goal is to
    strengthen national level institutions so they are more transparent and
    responsive to citizen's needs. As part of this, the United States also
    supports the Organization of American States' Mission to Support the
    Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH), an anti-
    corruption commission charged with preventing and combatting corruption
    and impunity and improving the rule of law in Honduras.
        With our support, the Salvadoran government has taken important
    steps to establish and implement a plan to create a professional,
    accountable civilian police force and curtail the role of the military
    in internal policing and to reduce venues for corruption. This plan
    includes strengthening the regional police offices in charge of
    investigating police misconduct, such as the San Miguel investigative
    office responsible for the Eastern region of El Salvador. We also
    direct U.S. assistance to the Salvadoran Attorney General's efforts.
        In Guatemala, the United States actively supports the U.N.
    Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, the Public Ministry, and
    civil society organizations working to strengthen the rule of law,
    expand access to justice, and prosecute officials who commit abuses. We
    direct U.S. funding to programs that educate Guatemalan National Police
    and our funding also supports the Body for the Analysis of Attacks
    against Human Rights Defenders to strengthen government protection of
    key members of civil society.

        Question 63. As Venezuela trends towards failed state status, the
    country is suffering an economic and humanitarian crisis marked by
    growing human rights abuses and an increasingly authoritarian
    government. While the administration has emphasized multilateral
    diplomacy and used targeted sanctions, you have zeroed out all funding
    to address the situation, including critical assistance for democratic
    civil society and human rights defenders. As you know, I introduced a
    bipartisan bill on Venezuela with members of this committee that
    includes humanitarian aid, supports multilateral efforts, codifies
    additional targeted sanctions, and requires increased intelligence
    reporting on corruption: What is your assessment of the trajectory of
    Venezuela's crisis and what is the administration's policy for
    responding? Will you commit to working with members of this Committee
    on our bipartisan legislation to address the Venezuelan crisis?

        Answer. Yes, I will commit to working with the committee. We are
    following developments in Venezuela. Based on current assessments,
    Venezuela's crisis is worsening as evidenced by the rise in deaths
    related to violent protests, economic dysfunction, and acute medicine
    and food shortages. It is in this context that the U.S. government is
    working with democratic governments throughout the Americas, to support
    a unified regional approach to help Venezuela find a peaceful,
    democratic, and comprehensive solution to its current problems. At the
    Organization of American States General Assembly, the voices of 20
    member states representing the vast majority of the population of our
    hemisphere demonstrated that despite the Venezuelan government's
    efforts to silence dissent, the international community will continue
    to speak up for democratic principles and respect for human rights. Our
    region continues to be seriously concerned about the function of
    democracy in Venezuela and we are working with a growing group of like-
    minded countries to promote a sustainable Venezuelan-led solution. Such
    a solution should involve the National Assembly. We will explore every
    option in our diplomatic and legal toolkit, including the use of visa
    restrictions and targeted sanctions to hold accountable those
    individuals, regardless of their rank or position, who participate in
    actions that undermine democratic processes or institutions, abuse or
    violate human rights, and restrict freedom of expression or freedom of
    peaceful assembly.

        Question 64. Last month, DHS granted a short six-month extension of
    Temporary Protection Status (TPS) for more than 58,000 Haitians in the
    U.S. given the precarious conditions stemming from natural disasters in
    Haiti. While I support the extension, I am concerned that Haiti will
    adequately equipped to receive more than 58,000 people come January
    2017. As you know, the U.S. has committed billions in foreign
    assistance to Haiti, especially after the devastating earthquake of
    2010 and Hurricane Matthew in 2016: In an era of reduced budgets,
    including our funding for Haiti, how will you ensure that U.S.
    assistance in Haiti is consequential? Are you concerned that the return
    of more than 58,000 individuals will be counterproductive to our
    efforts in the country?

        Answer. Following two years of political impasse and stalled
    elections, Haiti now has a democratic government in place with an
    elected president, a confirmed cabinet, and a complete Parliament. We
    are encouraged by the progress in Haiti, and believe the post-election
    stability, combined with President Moise's private sector experience,
    will lead to more effective development. The government of Haiti is
    focused on reforms to bolster economic opportunities that allow Haitian
    citizens to help build their country. In addition, the Haitian
    government affirmed its commitment to ensuring Haitian citizens, who
    may be affected in the event that TPS is not extended, return to Haiti
    safely, with dignity, and opportunities.
        Continued U.S. assistance will promote good governance, fight
    poverty by advancing economic development, and safeguard transparent
    and accountable government institutions.

        Question 65. In May, President Trump praised President Santos'
    efforts to bring peace to the Colombia and reaffirmed U.S. commitment
    to continued bilateral cooperation. The President also pledged U.S.
    willingness to support Colombia's efforts to address ongoing security
    challenges, including a spike in coca cultivation and cocaine
    production. As you know, Colombia is at a pivotal point as it
    transitions from armed conflict to the implementation of its peace
    accord. Successful implementation is imperative as the consolidation of
    peace and regional stability depend upon it. The administration's
    request proposes a nearly 30 percent reduction in funding levels for
    Colombia at a time when U.S. engagement is critical: Are you concerned
    that a reduction in funding for Colombia will undercut our ability to
    fulfill U.S. commitments to peace?

        Answer. As the President stated in his May 18 meeting with
    Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia is a strategic U.S.
    partner, and the United States remains committed to helping the
    Colombian government secure a just and lasting peace. We have a vital
    national interest in Colombia's success. Colombia at peace will be an
    even stronger partner for us on countering drug-trafficking, organized
    crime, terrorism, and irregular migration. Securing the peace in
    Colombia will also increase trade and investment opportunities for U.S.
    firms.
        Our budget request reflects the administration's more constrained
    approach to foreign assistance. Building on prior year programs, U.S.
    assistance will help the Colombian government implement the peace
    agreement and focus on special U.S. capabilities and technical
    expertise to catalyze and enhance Colombia's own peace accord
    implementation and counternarcotics efforts.
        Our programming focuses U.S. assistance on: (1) security, including
    the government's counternarcotics efforts and reintegration of ex-
    combatants; (2) the expansion of state institutions and presence in
    former rebel areas, including rural economic development, justice
    services, the military's civil engineering units, and humanitarian
    demining; and (3) justice and other support for victims.

        Question 66. Will these cuts limit our ability to combat drug
    trafficking and increased cocaine production?

        Answer. We remain deeply committed to supporting Colombian efforts
    to combat drug trafficking and roll back recent increases in coca
    cultivation and cocaine production. The administration's FY 2018
    Request includes an eight percent increase from the FY 2016 Actual
    levels for Department of State and USAID counternarcotics programs. The
    FY 2018 Request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
    (INCLE) for Colombia counternarcotics activities is $90.5 million, a
    slight increase over the FY 2016 Actual level. The Department will
    concentrate these resources on the highest priority activities. This
    will include assistance to help Colombia combat the increase in coca
    cultivation by supporting implementation of Colombia's counternarcotics
    strategy, including through land and maritime interdiction efforts,
    eradication, and police aviation programs. In addition to
    counternarcotics, INCLE funding will support activities that counter
    transnational organized crime, support police reform, and promote the
    rule of law.
        Additionally, the FY 2018 Request includes $57.4 million in ESF for
    USAID counternarcotics programming, a 16 percent increase above FY 2016
    Actual levels. This funding supports programs to improve the conditions
    necessary for inclusive, licit, rural economic growth-an important
    complement to the INCLE counternarcotics programs. USAID's programs
    will be prioritized to bolster citizen security and extend access to
    justice and other government services, all in support of U.S. national
    security and consistent with peace accord implementation.

        Question 67. As you know, I believe that it is critical for US
    security and prosperity to continue to invest in the Asia-Pacific. In
    particular I support the State Department and USAID taking a lead role
    in expanding maritime security in the South China Sea and promoting
    democracy and governance issues throughout the region: How does the
    budget request reflect the State Department's priorities when it comes
    to maritime security and democracy and governance funding in the Asia-
    Pacific?

        Answer. We appreciate Congress's support for and attention to
    maritime security capacity building and advancing democracy and good
    governance in the Asia Pacific region.
    Maritime Security
        The United States has made significant progress building the
    military and law enforcement capabilities of key partners in Southeast
    Asia, including maritime domain awareness and other maritime
    capabilities. The U.S. government uses several funding streams to build
    capacity in the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia including
    Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and
    Training (IMET), and DoD funding, including the Maritime Security
    Initiative (MSI). The State Department also supports maritime capacity
    building for law enforcement from the International Narcotics Control
    and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account. The Department of Defense uses its
    Maritime Security Initiative (MSI) to provide training and equipment to
    improve intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and other
    military capabilities.
        For example, in the Philippines, programs will promote the rule of
    law through modernization of the court system, which will likewise
    foster citizen confidence, reduce tolerance for extra-judicial
    killings, and combat corruption. U.S. assistance will continue to build
    trust by engaging citizen participation in local governments in
    Mindanao, and enhancing their ability to deliver services that are
    responsive to citizen needs. In Indonesia, democracy and governance
    efforts address corruption, weak rule of law, and ineffective
    government institutions by strengthening both the government and civil
    society institutions that are the frontline in the struggle against
    radicalism, intolerance, and violent extremism in Indonesia. The budget
    will also support civil society in Vietnam and reinforce democratic
    gains in Burma by supporting good governance and the peace process to
    end ethnic conflict.

        Question 68. China's official development assistance to African
    countries has increased by more than 780 percent since 2003. And just
    last month, President Xi Jinping pledged $124 billion for a new global
    infrastructure and development initiative called ``One Belt One Road.''
    At the same time, the administration is proposing to close nine USAID
    missions and eliminate economic and development assistance to 37
    countries around the world. That includes zeroing-out Thailand, Laos
    and Cambodia in the proposed ESDF and cutting over $300 million from
    the EAP bureau:

       Are you concerned that your cutbacks to development assistance
            could provide an opening for countries like China to exert
            additional influence in Asia and around the globe?

        Answer. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request will allow us to
    advance our foreign policy goals, while ensuring we are using U.S.
    taxpayer dollars as effectively and efficiently as possible. It
    includes substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs, but
    we have made tough choices to reduce funding for other foreign
    assistance initiatives. The budget request acknowledges that our
    operations must become more efficient, that our aid must be more
    effective, and that our primary mission must always be advocating for
    the national interests of our country. Focusing our efforts will allow
    us to advance our most important policy goals. We will continue to be
    the leader in international development, global health, democracy, good
    governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts in Asia and around the
    globe. We are working with partners in the region to provide an
    alternative to Chinese state-directed financing, thereby mobilizing a
    broader effort beyond U.S. development assistance. This includes new
    approaches that engage other countries that share the same objectives
    for the region as we do, and that cooperate with the World Bank and
    other multilateral development institutions to improve the investment
    climate in ASEAN countries and attract more private sector financing to
    the region.

        Question 69. We are facing the largest refugee crisis in decades.
    We know that pregnancy related deaths and instances of sexual violence
    increase significantly during these times. In 2015, the U.N. estimated
    that 61 percent of maternal deaths worldwide occur in fragile states,
    many of them affected by conflict and recurring natural disasters where
    health services were not available to women. However, the State
    Department in April made a baseless determination to withhold funding
    for UNFPA, the leading provider of maternal and reproductive health
    care in humanitarian settings, and the FY 18 budget proposal reflects
    this decision:

       How are the State Department and USAID working to ensure the needs
            of women in these crises are being met?

        Answer. We will continue to prioritize gender based violence
    prevention and response and reducing maternal deaths, including in
    humanitarian settings. The Department is continuing to work with
    partners to find alternative ways to use its funding originally
    intended for UNFPA to meet humanitarian challenges in conflict-affected
    countries.

        Question 70. Just thirteen years ago, the AIDS epidemic threatened
    the very foundation of societies in Africa- creating millions of
    orphans, stalling economic development and leaving countries stuck in
    poverty. Today, thanks to bipartisan commitment to PEPFAR-the largest
    commitment by any nation to combat a single disease internationally-we
    have made remarkable progress in our fight to stop HIV/AIDS in its
    tracks. Recently released data suggests that more than 11 million AIDS-
    related deaths and 16 million infections have been averted worldwide
    since PEPFAR began. In 2016 alone, PEPFAR investments ensured that
    nearly 2 million babies were born HIV-free, that 6.2 million orphans
    and vulnerable children received care and support and that more than
    74.3 million people received HIV testing and counseling. There is broad
    international consensus that the next four years of action towards
    controlling AIDS is imperative if the AIDS crisis will be ended as a
    public health threat by 2030-a goal enshrined in the U.N.'s Sustainable
    Development Goals. According to UNAIDS, to achieve this by 2030, the
    number of new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths will need to
    decline by 90 percent compared to 2010: Will the President's budget
    enable us to scale up our efforts around the globe? How does the
    President's budget move us toward the global goal to end AIDS as a
    public health threat by 2030?

        Answer. The nearly $5.0 billion requested for PEPFAR in the
    President's budget will allow the program to continue prioritizing
    smart investments that save lives and advance progress toward
    controlling the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The President's budget also supports
    PEPFAR's close collaboration with key partners, including host
    governments and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
    Malaria, all of which must step up their efforts to end the AIDS
    epidemic as a public health threat by 2030.
        With the President's budget, PEPFAR, in collaboration with host
    governments, will accelerate efforts toward achieving epidemic control
    in 13 high impact epidemic control countries by expanding the most
    impactful HIV services among the highest-HIV-burden locations and
    populations. PEPFAR will also focus on increasing partner performance
    and identifying and leveraging efficiency gains through the collection
    and use of more granular data (disaggregated by age, sex, and at the
    site level).

        Question 71. Given the wealth of rigorous evidence available about
    what works in HIV programming, how can you assure the American people
    that these cuts will not reverse the gains we've seen globally in
    mitigating the impact of HIV nor increase HIV-related deaths worldwide?

        Answer. In the 13 high impact epidemic control countries, PEPFAR
    will accelerate efforts to reduce HIV infections and AIDS-related
    deaths toward achieving epidemic control. We will expand the most
    impactful HIV prevention, treatment, and care services among the
    highest-HIV-burden locations and populations. This effort will be
    supported by using data to drive accountability, find efficiencies,
    leverage partnerships, and increase transparency.
        Outside of these 13 high impact epidemic control countries, PEPFAR
    will maintain its current level of antiretroviral treatment through
    direct service delivery and expand both HIV prevention and treatment
    services, where possible, through increased performance and efficiency
    gains. PEPFAR will also work with partner governments, the Global Fund,
    and others to determine how HIV prevention and treatment services can
    be expanded in cases where PEPFAR is not the primary funder and/or
    service delivery provider.

        Question 72. What is the rationale for zeroing out the $330 million
    in HIV and AIDS funding for USAID? Will the US meet our 33 percent
    contribution to the Global Fund?

        Answer. The FY 2018 budget consolidates all U.S. assistance for
    global HIV/AIDS efforts within the State Department to simplify the
    management and coordination of these investments. It is important to
    note that in the budget, USAID will remain one of the two (along with
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) primary implementing
    agencies for PEPFAR, and will continue to implement a significant share
    of U.S. global HIV/AIDS assistance in this capacity.
        The budget includes $1.13 billion for the U.S. contribution to the
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which keeps the
    U.S. on track to meet its commitment to match $1 for every $2 provided
    by other donors for the Global Fund's most recent 5th Replenishment
    period.

        Question 73. The President's budget would scale PEPFAR down to just
    12 focus countries to achieve epidemic control. OGAC indicates that
    since the budget release you have added one country to the list, so now
    there are 13: What was the criteria for determining the 13 epidemic
    control countries?

        Answer. Yes, Lesotho was added, bringing the total number of high
    impact epidemic control countries to 13. These 13 countries were
    prioritized based on several factors: HIV/AIDS burden; rate of new HIV
    infections (HIV incidence); number of AIDS-related deaths; and the
    potential for achieving epidemic control in the next 3.5 years--by
    2020.

        Question 74. Are you considering adding more countries to the list?
    Perhaps most importantly, how will you transition non-priority
    countries off PEPFAR programs?

        Answer. With the President's budget, PEPFAR will accelerate efforts
    toward reaching epidemic control in 13 high impact countries in the
    next 3.5 years--by 2020. Across its entire program portfolio, PEPFAR
    will maintain its current levels of antiretroviral treatment through
    direct service delivery as well as its current level of prevention
    services.
        Outside of the 13 high impact epidemic control countries, PEPFAR
    will expand both HIV prevention and treatment services, where possible,
    through increased performance and efficiency gains. PEPFAR will also
    work with partner governments, the Global Fund, and others to determine
    how HIV prevention and treatment services can be expanded in cases
    where PEPFAR is not the primary funder and/or service delivery
    provider.

        Question 75. OGAC indicates that current PEPFAR-supported ART
    patients (irrespective of where) will continue to receive these
    lifesaving drugs. Who will oversee the provision of ART in non-priority
    countries?

        Answer. In all of the countries its supports, PEPFAR will maintain
    its current levels of antiretroviral treatment through direct service
    delivery as well as its current level of prevention services. PEPFAR
    will expand both HIV prevention and treatment services, where possible,
    through increased performance and efficiency gains. Outside of the 13
    high impact epidemic control countries, PEPFAR will continue to work
    closely with partner governments, the Global Fund, and others to
    determine how HIV treatment services can be expanded in cases where
    PEPFAR is not the primary funder and/or service delivery provider.

        Question 76. Can you explain how all current HIV/AIDS patients
    would stay on treatment with a 15 percent reduction in resources?

        Answer. With the President's budget, PEPFAR is committed to
    maintain its current level of antiretroviral treatment through direct
    service delivery globally. This will be accomplished by increasing
    partner performance, identifying and leveraging efficiency gains
    through the collection and use of more granular data (disaggregated by
    age, sex, and at the site level), and prioritizing the strategic
    outcomes that are most directly related to achieving epidemic control.

        Question 77. The President's budget request does not include a
    voluntary contribution to UNICEF. While UNICEF would still be able to
    access funds for specific programs, like lifesaving measles
    vaccinations and humanitarian response, those funds do not support the
    staffing and infrastructure that makes UNICEF a global partner for the
    United States in helping children around the world. The lack of UNICEF
    support in the President's budget is also unfortunate given that the
    U.N. is in the process of choosing a new UNICEF Executive Director. The
    UNICEF Executive Director has always been an American, because of our
    historic strong support for that agency: What is the justification for
    eliminating the US voluntary contribution to UNICEF?

        Answer. The United States has traditionally been one of the top
    contributors to many U.N. funds and programs, including The United
    Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
        The President's request does not include funding for UNICEF from
    the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. The IO&P
    account is only one of numerous USG sources of funding for voluntary
    contributions to international organizations. State Department and
    USAID funding may still be contributed to other U.N. organizations,
    such as UNICEF, if they are selected as implementing partners to
    execute specific foreign assistance programs, such as humanitarian or
    health programs.
        The absence of funding for these programs in the FY 2018 request is
    the result of prioritizing the use of scarce funding within overall
    budget constraints. The administration also believes that the high
    level of U.S. voluntary contributions has allowed other countries to
    lessen their voluntary contributions resulting in an unfair and
    disproportionate burden on U.S taxpayers.

        Question 78. The United States relies on a number of
    intergovernmental organizations, including the IAEA, CTBTO, and OPCW to
    assist the United States in combating the spread of chemical,
    biological, and nuclear weapons. The President's budget does not
    provide for specific funding levels for these organizations in his FY
    18 request: Will you commit to fully funding critical non-proliferation
    intergovernmental organizations at FY 2016 levels?

        Answer. With regard to the IAEA and the OPCW, the President's FY
    2018 budget request proposes to reduce funding for the Department of
    State's Contributions to International Organizations account by
    approximately thirty percent from the previous year to $1 billion.
    Specific amounts of funding for international organizations will be
    determined following an inter-Agency process that weighs U.S. national
    interests and the impact of funding reductions at each organization,
    with a particular emphasis given to how the organization advances U.S.
    national security.
        With regard to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
    Organization (CTBTO) Preparatory Commission (PrepCom), we intend to
    fully pay our assessment. The $29M requested in FY 2018 is essentially
    unchanged from FY 2017. Our requests have decreased since FY 2016
    because the fall in the value of the euro against the U.S. dollar means
    that fewer U.S. dollars are needed to pay the euro-denominated portion
    of our PrepCom assessment.

        Question 79. Is the United States planning on calling for a meeting
    of the Special Verification Commission to discuss Russia's continued
    violation of the INF treaty?

        Answer. The United States requested that the Special Verification
    Commission convene last fall. The session occurred November 15-16,
    2016. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia participated, and the
    United States used the session to raise its concerns with Russia's
    violation. While no final decision has been made regarding whether to
    call an additional session of the Special Verification Commission, we
    are pursuing diplomatic engagement with Russia to pressure it to return
    to compliance with its INF Treaty obligations, including by raising the
    issue in appropriate venues. We have made very clear our concerns about
    Russia's violation, the risks it poses to European and Asian security,
    and our strong interest in Russia returning to compliance with the
    Treaty.

        Question 80. What steps is the United States taking to pressure the
    Russian Federation to abide by its commitments regarding the INF
    Treaty?

        Answer. The administration's review of U.S. policy toward Russia,
    and approach to enforcing compliance with arms control agreements such
    as the INF Treaty, is ongoing. As this review continues, we are
    pursuing diplomatic engagement with Russia to pressure it to return to
    compliance with its Treaty obligations, closely coordinating and
    sharing information with regional allies and partners, and considering
    responses to impose costs and deny Russia any significant military
    advantage from its violation.

        Question 81. Can you promise that you will fully consult and
    coordinate with our European allies and Congress before any decision is
    taken to withdraw from the INF Treaty?

        Answer. The administration has maintained close contact with
    Congress and European and Asian allies on developments relating to
    Russia's ongoing violation of the INF Treaty, and we will continue to
    do so. As the administration continues its review of Russia's violation
    in order to assess the viability of the Treaty, and the potential
    national security implications for the United States, we stand ready to
    continue to provide briefings and additional information related to our
    concerns with Russia's INF compliance and efforts to address this
    issue.

        Question 82. Currently, Foreign Service Officers newly-graduated
    from A-100 courses perform a consular tour for their first tour of
    duty. The current hiring freeze, and subsequent lack of A-100
    graduates, will presumably result in a severe dearth of Foreign Service
    Officers on consular tours. These consular officers are on the front
    lines when it comes to protecting our borders, as they make the first
    decision on whether or not to let foreign nationals into our country.
    With fewer officers serving in these roles, consular officials,
    workloads will become more overloaded, resulting in even shorter
    interview times and larger backlogs of paperwork. In addition, our
    consular operations in some countries, like India, are a profit-
    generating enterprise. In India alone, the United States collected an
    estimated $180 million in visa revenue in 2016. These revenues also
    help offset the costs of consular operations in other countries with
    loss-making visa operations: Given the hiring freeze, what are the
    State Department's plans to sufficiently staff consular operations?

        Answer. The provision of consular services is one of the
    Department's highest priorities, a national security imperative, and a
    powerful driver of the U.S. trade and tourism sectors. Consular
    adjudication can only be performed by a U.S. citizen consular
    professional with an active consular commission. The Department has
    traditionally relied on Foreign Service Entry-Level Officers to fill
    consular positions through a requirement that all newly hired officers
    serve at least one year in a consular assignment. The current hiring
    freeze has widened the projected gap between hiring and near term
    adjudicator need beyond initial CA projections.
        Predating the hiring freeze, the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA)
    and the Bureau of Human Resources (HR) anticipated that the demand for
    consular services would outpace the hiring of Entry-Level Officers. To
    address this deficit, the Department developed a range of hiring
    programs to diversify the pool of candidates available for assignment
    to entry-level consular positions, including Appointment Eligible
    Family Member Consular Adjudicators (CA-AEFMs), Civil Service
    Adjudicators, members of the Consular Fellows Program (CFP), and
    Register Candidate Consular Fellows. The CFP targets candidates with
    existing language skills in Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese,
    Russian, and Spanish. CA and HR are working with the Foreign Service
    Institute (FSI) to ensure these hires have the language skills
    necessary to satisfy national security requirements prior to their
    assignments. These alternative hiring programs are funded by consular
    fees.
        To satisfy urgent staffing gaps while under the hiring freeze, we
    prioritize and deploy Temporary Duty (TDY) staff and utilize the CFP.
    CA's TDY program has grown dramatically in the past two years; in FY
    2015, our personnel completed 684 TDY assignments, more than a 156
    percent increase from the previous year. In FY 2016 our personnel
    completed 675 TDY assignments. The White House recognized the
    importance of the CFP in Executive Order 13780, which directed that
    ``the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows
    Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows.''
    The Department will hire up to 98 Consular Fellows in August 2017--the
    largest ever such class.

        Question 83. I have heard repeatedly from our European allies that
    the U.S. is not committed to upholding transatlantic partnerships and
    the democracy and human rights values on which they are based. In
    particular, there are increasing questions about the stance this
    administration is willing to take against Russian aggression toward
    Europe: What are the Department's plans for bolstering democratic
    institutions in Europe to defend against Russian aggression--this would
    include programs to promote anti-corruption, governance, and pushing
    back against disinformation.

        Answer. Supporting countries in strengthening democracy, human
    rights, and governance is critical for defending national security,
    fostering economic opportunities for the American people, asserting
    U.S. leadership and influence, and ensuring effectiveness and
    accountability to the American taxpayer.
        Europe remains an important priority for the Department and USAID
    as we work to counter Russian pressure and aggression through support
    for a strong, independent Ukraine, an economically and politically
    resilient Georgia, and Balkan countries able to resist the external and
    internal pressures that result in democratic backsliding. In
    particular, targeted U.S. foreign assistance will bolster long-term
    resilience against Russian pressure by building the accountability,
    transparency, and responsiveness of democratic governing institutions;
    fostering respect for human rights and the rule of law; fighting
    corruption; promoting citizen participation and engagement in
    governance and rule of law; strengthening civil society organizations
    and independent media; and promoting Euro-Atlantic integration.

        Question 84. To what extent will such programs be directed at
    countries in the Western Balkans especially vulnerable to Russian
    interference?

        Answer. The administration's request for the Western Balkans
    reflects a continued focus on consolidating democratic reform in the
    region as a means of countering Russian pressure and advancing national
    security interests relating to transnational crime, corruption, and
    violent extremism. Assistance will support our governmental and non-
    governmental partners' efforts to reform weak democratic institutions
    and to fight corruption and organized crime. These efforts will build
    resilience against Russian pressure in the region, ensure continued
    momentum toward EU and NATO integration, and help to preserve a more
    even playing field for foreign investors. Bilateral and regional rule
    of law programs that provide technical assistance to special
    prosecutors who tackle high profile corruption and organized crime
    cases are prioritized throughout the region. Support for investigative
    journalism, independent media, and civil society will help to increase
    the reach of outlets producing objective news and to expose corruption.
    This support is critical to countering Russian disinformation and to
    keeping Euro-Atlantic integration on track in spite of Russian efforts
    to derail the process.

        Question 85. How are you working with Secretary Mattis to support
    European resilience in political-military, cybersecurity, and other
    critical spheres?

        Answer. The European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), including the
    $4.8 billion requested for FY 2018, provides funding to increase U.S.
    presence across Europe, expand U.S. participation in exercises and
    training activities with NATO Allies and partners, enhance
    prepositioning of U.S. military equipment in Europe, improve
    infrastructure at military installations, and provide assistance to
    build the capacity of our allies and partners to defend themselves and
    enable their full participation as operational partners in responding
    to crises.
        U.S. efforts under ERI and NATO's deterrence and defense decisions
    out of the 2016 Warsaw Summit--specifically to establish an enhanced
    Forward Presence in the Baltic States and Poland and a tailored forward
    presence in the Black Sea region, serve as an important deterrent to
    Russia.
        Further on the military side, the Alliance will continue to prepare
    for, deter and defend against attacks that employ chemical, biological,
    radiological, or nuclear material; to invest in robust, flexible, and
    interoperable military capabilities; and to protect our military supply
    chains and work to address, as appropriate, existing dependencies on
    Russian-sourced legacy military equipment through national efforts and
    multinational cooperation.
        On the civilian side, the Alliance will continue to improve civil
    preparedness, maintain and protect critical civilian capabilities. The
    Alliance will also strengthen and enhance, as a matter of priority, the
    protection of our national infrastructure and networks against the
    increasing threat and sophistication of cyber-attack.

        Question 86. Do you agree with the collective intelligence
    community view that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

        Answer. As the U.S. intelligence community first reported in
    October 2016, the U.S. government is confident that the Russian
    Government directed the compromise and the subsequent release of emails
    in advance of the November 8 general election.
        The intelligence community assessed that Russia's activities were
    intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic
    institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process,
    and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government.
        The Department remains concerned by Russian efforts to interfere in
    elections in Europe and elsewhere. Russian tactics include
    disinformation campaigns, financial influence of political parties, and
    use of cyber operations.

        Question 87. Since coming into office, you have met with Russian
    Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on at least four occasions and had
    several phone conversations:

       Have you raised Russia's interference in our election with Lavrov?

        Question 88. How many times have you raised it? Please describe the
    nature of those conversations.

        Answer to Question 87 to 88. While I do not want to get into
    specifics of my diplomatic conversations, I assure you that the Russian
    Government is well aware of our concerns over its cyber activities
    directed against the United States and more globally. The Department
    has repeatedly raised its concerns with the Russian Government. The
    U.S. government will take action to protect our interests and to harden
    our defenses against malicious cyber activity. The Department also
    continues to maintain established means and modes of communication to
    ensure that the United States and Russia do not misunderstand one
    another.

        Question 89. What specific diplomatic measures are you taking to
    send a clear message to Russia that it cannot interfere in the 2018
    election?

        Answer. The Department has raised U.S. concerns repeatedly and at
    all levels with the Russian Government about its cyber activities. The
    Department also continues to maintain established means and modes of
    communication to ensure that the United States and Russia do not
    misunderstand one another.

        Question 90. Putin's aggressive foreign policy to undermine
    democratic processes and values in Europe and the United States is a
    function of his domestic policy to eliminate dissent and shore up his
    brittle, corrupt regime. So part of our response to Russian aggression
    must be to support to those Russians pushing for reform, transparency,
    and human rights in their own country. As you know, many of your
    predecessors met with human rights activists in Russia as a matter of
    course during their visits to Moscow, though you did not: Why did you
    not meet with human rights defenders and civil society activists during
    your visit to Moscow?

        Answer. I believe that the Department of State's mission is at all
    times guided by our longstanding American values of freedom, democracy,
    individual liberty, and human dignity.
        While I was not able to meet with civil society groups on this
    first trip, Department officials at all levels, including officials at
    the United States Embassy in Moscow, Russia, regularly meet with civil
    society groups. We believe that the Russian people, like people
    everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of
    ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under
    the law, and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of
    retribution. Although the space for civil society and free media in
    Russia has become increasingly restricted, Russian organizations and
    individuals continue to express a desire to engage with the United
    States. As long as this continues to be the case, the United States
    will support opportunities for direct interactions between Russians and
    Americans, including through peer-to-peer, educational, cultural, and
    other regional programs that provide exchanges of best practices and
    ideas on themes of mutual interest.

        Question 91. What is the State Department specifically doing to
    engage the Russian people?

        Answer. The Department of State maintains engagement with the
    Russian people in support of U.S. national interests. We use public
    diplomacy channels to build linkages between our societies. Our
    programs shape the perspectives of future Russian leaders and nurture
    relationships that anticipate improved political relations.
        U.S. public diplomacy operations overcome limitations through
    creative programming focused on Russian youth. When the government
    cancelled the 20-year old Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) program for
    high schoolers in 2014, the Embassy pivoted and launched the YEAR (Year
    of Education in America for Russians) program, which sends college-age
    students on a similar one-year exchange and connects them to thousands
    of FLEX alumni across Russia.
        English programs are critical avenues to expose students and
    teacher/influencers to Western principles and sources of information.
    Our cultural programs provide a broader and more nuanced view of
    America, diluting the negative impact of Russian Government
    disinformation and propaganda.
        Embassy Moscow runs an American Center on the Embassy compound that
    attracts a significant audience. This American Center is the last
    remaining space in a network of 29 centers that the Russian Government
    shuttered over the past five years. Despite operating out of a
    temporary space, Embassy Moscow is seeing an increasing flow of
    Russians eager to use the space and attend American-themed programming.

        Question 92. How does this administration regard our long-standing,
    bipartisan support for Russians' human rights and their hope for
    transparent, accountable governance?

        Answer. We believe that the Russian people, like people everywhere,
    deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of ideas,
    transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under the law,
    and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of persecution or
    retribution.
        The United States will continue to support longstanding efforts to
    ensure the rights of all Russians are protected, and promote values of
    freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human dignity. In
    coordination with Allies and partners, we will call on the Government
    of Russia, in both public statements and private discussions, to uphold
    its international obligations and commitments to promote and protect
    human rights and fundamental freedoms. We will also urge Russian
    authorities to take steps to ensure the release of anyone wrongfully
    detained, conduct an independent and credible investigations into
    reported human rights violations, and hold any perpetrators
    responsible. Continued robust implementation of Magnitsky Act sanctions
    will also demonstrate our commitment to accountability for human rights
    abuses.

        Question 93. The Director of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of
    Energy Resources office for Europe, the Western Hemisphere and Africa,
    reportedly stated this past February that Russia's planned Nord Stream
    2 pipeline is ``a national security threat:'' Can you confirm that this
    is the official position of the U.S. State Department and explain what
    steps are being taken to counter this threat? If not, please explain
    what the official U.S. position is on Nord Stream 2.

        Answer. The United States has a clear interest in the energy
    security of our European allies and therefore we oppose Gazprom's Nord
    Stream II gas pipeline. We share many of our partners' concerns that
    this project strengthens Russia's dominance over Europe's gas sector,
    undermines European energy security, and hurts Ukraine. Some states in
    the Baltic Sea region also have raised broader security concerns about
    the project. The Director referenced these European concerns in the
    course of a panel discussion at a conference.
        We believe that energy security derives from a diversity of energy
    type, supply sources, and transshipment routes, as well as an
    integrated and efficient regional energy market. Russia has an
    established energy relationship with Europe and it is neither possible
    nor desirable to exclude Russian gas from the European market. However,
    Russia should play by the same rules as others; Russia should not be
    able to use its market position to either exert geopolitical leverage
    on its Eastern European neighbors or engage in anti-competitive
    practices. This is the message the State Department has conveyed to
    European interlocutors, many of whom share our apprehensions.
        Earlier this year, the European Commission stated that it considers
    Nord Stream II inconsistent with the core principles of the European
    Energy Union and would seek EU member state approval to lead
    negotiations with Moscow on the applicability of the principles of EU
    energy law to the offshore pipeline.
        Ultimately, the European Union and its member states must make
    their own energy choices, but our view is that Nord Stream II runs
    counter to Europe's own energy policy, energy security, and long-term
    interests, as well as to United States' and European Union efforts to
    support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

        Question 94.  My understanding is that the Department is State is
    looking to apply some FY 17 funds to FY 18 for Embassy Security, under
    the argument that are excess funds available for Embassy construction
    and Embassy Security, with your budget proposal asserting that the ARB
    is fully funded. It is my understanding, however, that the ARB can only
    be considered fully funded because of funds applied from prior years
    and that in fact $300 million in additional funding is required in FY
    18 to meet the next set of ARB recommendations. $300 million might not
    be much in the context of a federal budget proposal that double counts
    $2 trillion, but that represents a large amount of money for State.
    Assuring that there are no embassy security vulnerabilities or
    exposures is a critical priority for me: How did you arrive at your
    budget proposal for Embassy Security?

        Answer. Consistent with the Benghazi Accountability Review Board
    recommendation, the FY 2018 Request provides $2.2 billion for Capital
    Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) in
    total when the Department's appropriated share is combined with other
    agency contributions and State consular fees. The State Department's
    appropriated share of the FY 2018 CSCS-MCS programs is $956.2 million,
    of which $337.8 million is requested in FY 2018 and $618.4 million is
    would be applied from the FY 2017 Security Assistance Appropriations
    Act (SAAA).
        The Department does not regard the SAAA funding as ``excess,'' but
    rather a reprioritization of available balances to provide State's
    share of the ARB recommended level for the CSCS and MCS program. The
    Department will formally notify such changes as part of the FY 2017
    Operating Plan for the ESCM account.

        Question 95. How will the FY 18 proposal, without borrowing from
    prior years, fully fund all the ARB recommendations?

        Answer. The FY 2018 Request provides $2.2 billion in total for the
    Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS)
    program, combining $337.7 million in new Embassy Security Construction
    & Maintenance (ESCM) funding, other agency contributions, consular fees
    retained by the State Department, and resources provided for ESCM in
    the FY 2017 Security Assistance Appropriations Act (SAAA). The FY 2018
    budget request includes language that would clarify that the
    Department's FY 2018 CSCS-MCS contribution would include ESCM
    appropriations provided under the SAAA. If ESCM appropriations provided
    under the SAAA are not utilized for the Department's FY 2018 CSCS-MCS
    contribution, the Department would need to identify other available
    funds to support the FY 2018 CSCS-MCS program at the $2.2 billion
    level.

                                   __________

               Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
              Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Johnson

        Question 1.  National security experts from every field and from
    both political spectrums are outspoken in their support of cultural
    programs such as the J-1 visa Summer Work Travel program, citing their
    immense strategic value and cost effectiveness. Please explain the
    administration's position on the strategic value of educational and
    cultural exchanges to U.S. national interests.

        Answer. Educational and cultural exchange programs increase
    American global competitiveness, create relationships and
    understanding, and contribute to increased national security in meeting
    the President's goal of ``building a more democratic, secure, and
    prosperous world.'' Exchange programs allow us to reach diverse sectors
    of American society and are vital to our diplomatic engagement
    worldwide, including with frontline states, countries in transition,
    emerging economies, and longstanding allies. Exchange programs benefit
    Americans, as more than 90 percent of the State Department's budget for
    exchange programs is either spent in the United States or invested
    directly in American citizens. Every exchange program involves
    Americans and brings the strengths of our society and its values to
    bear. In fact, more than 10,000 Americans, hailing from every state,
    have the opportunity to travel abroad each year on State Department-
    funded exchange programs, ranging from Fulbright and Gilman to the
    National Security Language Institute for Youth. International students
    also contribute nearly $36 billion annually to the U.S. economy and
    local communities
        In addition to fully funded programs, the State Department's Office
    of Private Sector Exchange, which uses no appropriated funds, promotes
    greater understanding of the United States through a variety of
    programs dedicated to a particular group of foreign participants with
    whom the United States wishes to engage. One such initiative is the
    Summer Work Travel program (SWT), a privately-funded Exchange Visitor
    Program that places foreign students in a U.S. business or organization
    for a short period of time, typically during the summer months. This
    program allows thousands of Americans, including tens of thousands of
    volunteers, from all walks of life and every state, to host and
    interact with exchange participants from around the world. It also
    allows small and family-operated U.S. businesses in tourist
    destinations such as Ocean City, Maryland and the Wisconsin Dells to
    meet short-term, high volume worker needs during peak and shoulder
    seasons.
        Exchanges like SWT are a strong complement to U.S. Government-
    funded programs, which are more uniquely able to reach underserved
    populations and people from countries that are foreign policy
    priorities for the United States. We will continue to support this
    critical outreach with a strategic focus to ensure our State
    Department-funded educational and cultural exchange programs are
    advancing America's foreign priorities.

        Question 2. In 1999, the United States Information Agency was
    folded into the State Department and U.S. public diplomacy has never
    recovered. There have been widely circulated reports suggesting the
    administration was considering a similar restructuring of USAID. Is the
    administration considering such a reorganization, and, if so, how will
    it ensure USAID retains its mission, culture, mandate, and expertise?

        Answer. We are reviewing options to ensure the efficiency,
    effectiveness, and accountability of the United States' diplomatic and
    development operations. This endeavor has no preconceived outcomes.
        The State Department and USAID recently completed collecting
    information on our organizational processes and culture through a
    survey that was made available to everyone in State and USAID. Over
    35,000 surveys were completed, and we also held in-person listening
    sessions with approximately 300 individuals to obtain detailed
    perspectives on what we do and how we do it. From this feedback, we
    have been able to get a clearer overall view of our organizations and
    will be able to make informed decisions on how we can produce a more
    efficient, effective State Department and USAID that maximize the
    expertise of staff and continue to deliver results for the American
    people.

        Question 3. Russia is prosecuting an information war in Europe
    designed to weaken EU and NATO solidarity. Does the administration
    intend to build a capacity to counter Russian propaganda and
    disinformation that is inimical to our interests? Does the
    administration believe the Department of State should play a leading
    role in such an effort?

        Answer. The goal of Russian disinformation and propaganda is to
    destabilize, distract, and divide our allies and partners in Europe and
    undermine transatlantic unity and U.S. interests. The State
    Department's public diplomacy programming, and our alignment with
    Allies and partners, including through NATO and the EU, enhances our
    collective resilience against Russian malign influence that threatens
    democratic institutions and processes.
        The Department of State has partnered with the Department of
    Defense and other members of the interagency to craft a whole-of-
    government approach that addresses the challenge of disinformation and
    false narratives, including those that originate from Russia. A key
    channel is supporting U.S. Embassies in Europe so they can promote
    positive, accurate messages about the United States and our interests
    to effectively counter this propaganda. U.S. programs and initiatives
    also work to inoculate foreign publics by bolstering civil society,
    expanding media literacy, and supporting independent media.
        The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act broadened the mission
    of the Department of State's Global Engagement Center (GEC), providing
    it the statutory authority to ``lead, synchronize, and coordinate
    efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and
    counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation
    efforts aimed at undermining United States national security
    interests.'' The GEC continues to engage in widespread consultations
    throughout the interagency and civil society to address its expanded
    mission.

                                   __________

               Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
              Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Menendez

        Question 1. How will this administration manage effective levels of
    assistance to the Northern Triangle countries and ensure that U.S.
    funds are beneficial and continue to address corruption, poverty,
    violence and development challenges?

        Answer. The United States is providing $1.3 billion in FY 2015 and
    FY 2016 assistance to Central America. Congress directed an additional
    $655 million for Central America in the FY 2017 appropriation. This
    level of funding, when combined with the FY 2018 request, represents a
    significant investment by the U.S. taxpayer in dismantling criminal
    networks and addressing the underlying causes of illegal migration and
    illicit trafficking, which include corruption, poverty, and violence.
    The FY 2018 request level of $460 million supports our programs in
    Central America that directly impact the well-being of Americans by
    bolstering U.S. national security and advancing U.S. economic
    interests.
        Assistance to El Salvador supports the strengthening of
    institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption,
    tax policy, and public finance management systems, and effective trade
    and business development services for small- and medium-sized
    enterprises. Assistance for Guatemala includes implementation of
    economic growth, health, and education programs in the Western
    Highlands, the area with the highest levels of out-migration to the
    United States, in addition to strengthening institutions that aid in
    the investigation and prosecution of corruption. Assistance for
    Honduras seeks to build on the Honduran government's efforts to achieve
    a properly trained and vetted civilian police force, and supports
    efforts to strengthen the capacity and independence of the Honduran
    Public Ministry to investigate and prosecute criminals. Assistance to
    Honduras also supports improved early-grade literacy and job training,
    particularly for youth and other vulnerable populations. Regional
    assistance for security, rule of law, and human rights programs
    implemented by the Department of State and USAID supports: community-
    based violence prevention programs, anti-corruption initiatives and
    increased effectiveness of the judiciary and law enforcement, expanded
    vetted investigative and enforcement units for counternarcotics
    efforts, reform of prison systems, and improved border and maritime
    security.

        Question 2. State Department economic assistance and USAID support
    have committed to strengthening judiciary institutions, protecting
    human rights, and preventing violence in Mexico. This year already six
    journalists have been killed in Mexico and human rights defenders
    remain in danger. An effective response to addressing violence and
    corruption in Mexico involves maintaining this assistance including to
    the Mechanism to Protect Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, police
    reform, the independence of the attorney general's office and the
    transition to a new criminal justice system.

       How will the State Department continue to help these programs
            ensure that Mexico advances towards addressing human rights and
            corruption?

        Answer. Through the Merida Initiative, the United States and Mexico
    have forged a multi-faceted partnership to combat transnational
    organized crime and drug trafficking and to support Mexico's efforts to
    strengthen its security and justice institutions, enhance rule of law,
    improve border security, disrupt illicit financial networks, and
    promote respect for human rights.
        U.S. support for Mexico's ongoing transition to an accusatorial
    criminal justice system has been an integral component of our strategy
    to combat organized crime. A transparent, efficient, and effective
    criminal justice system is essential to the administration's goal of
    dismantling transnational criminal organizations and helps the
    Government of Mexico combat impunity. It also strengthens the rule of
    law by protecting due process, promoting assistance to crime victims,
    and strengthening human rights. As Mexico embarked on this set of
    reforms, the United States provides essential support for law
    enforcement professionalization, strengthening judicial institutions,
    training prosecutors and judges, curriculum support for law schools,
    accreditation of federal and state forensic laboratories and
    certification of their personnel, and improving the corrections system.
        The U.S. government continues to play a key role in supporting the
    Government of Mexico in standing up its Protection Mechanism which
    currently provides protection measures to more than 600 human rights
    defenders and journalists. USAID works with the Mexican government to
    increase prosecution of crimes against journalists, advocate for
    increased protection, and apply lessons learned from international best
    practices in protecting freedom of expression. USAID support to civil
    society groups, who advocate for threatened human rights defenders and
    journalists and help them learn self-protection methods, has been
    essential to the program.

        Question 3. As you know, a strong Mexican middle class, (as my
    colleague Senator Rubio often says) is the best economic partner we can
    hope for in Mexico. Do you believe cutting vital economic development
    programs that help build independent businesses and provide economic
    opportunities outside of organized crime serves American interests?

        Answer. Economic development investments build independent
    businesses that provide more economic opportunities. The United States
    makes substantial contributions to economic growth and development of
    the middle class in Mexico primarily through international financial
    institutions. In 2016, the United States supported $2.04 billion in
    commitments to projects in Mexico via the Inter-American Development
    Bank. In 2016, the United States supported $100 million in World Bank
    projects in Mexico and $350 million to date in 2017. Given the
    importance of macroeconomic stability to ensuring growth of a strong
    middle class in Mexico, the United States has also supported an $85
    billion Flexible Credit Line from the International Monetary Fund which
    the Mexican authorities have used as a precautionary measure to protect
    against global market volatility.
        The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S.
    Export-Import Bank (EXIM) also have significant engagement in Mexico.
    As of September 2016, EXIM had authorized over $8 billion in lending,
    insurance, and guarantees to help Mexican firms purchase U.S. products.
    OPIC currently has $781 million in active projects helping to develop a
    wide range of Mexico's economic sectors, including wind, solar, and
    other renewable energy projects which generate demand for U.S. products
    and services.
        Reflecting the U.S. government commitment to tackling the issue of
    transnational criminal organizations, USAID provides support through
    the Merida Initiative to train at-risk youth to gain the skills
    required to either obtain employment or further education, thereby
    drying the pool of recruits for these organizations.

        Question 4. What is your assessment of the trajectory of
    Venezuela's crisis and what is the administration's policy for
    responding?

        Answer. The U.S. government is working with democratic governments
    throughout the Americas to support a unified regional approach to help
    Venezuela find a peaceful, democratic, and comprehensive solution to
    its current problems. At the Organization of American States General
    Assembly, the voices of 20 member states representing the vast majority
    of the population of our hemisphere demonstrated that despite the
    Venezuelan government's efforts to silence dissent, the international
    community will continue to speak up for democratic principles and
    respect for human rights. Our region continues to be seriously
    concerned about the functioning of democracy in Venezuela and we are
    working with a growing group of like-minded countries to promote a
    sustainable Venezuelan-led solution. Such a solution should involve the
    National Assembly.
        We will explore every option in our diplomatic and legal toolkit,
    including the use of visa restrictions and targeted sanctions to hold
    accountable those individuals, regardless of their rank or position,
    who participate in actions that undermine democratic processes or
    institutions, abuse or violate human rights, and restrict freedom of
    expression or freedom of peaceful assembly.

        Question 5. Will you commit to working with members of this
    Committee on our bipartisan legislation to address the Venezuelan
    crisis? How will your request for no funding address your ability to
    respond to the Venezuelan crisis?

        Answer. Yes, I will commit to working with the committee on your
    legislation and other approaches to this serious problem. We will
    support all efforts that would appropriately address the Venezuelan
    crisis. I am convinced that we can maximize the effectiveness of our
    programs.
        While there is no funding requested in FY 2018, the FY 2017
    appropriation provided support for democracy in Venezuela, consistent
    with current USAID programs. These funds will allow us to continue our
    programming for the near future. The Department will engage and support
    human rights and democracy activists diplomatically. We will work with
    partners in the region to promote peaceful solutions in Venezuela. We
    want the Venezuelan people to thrive under a representative democracy
    that respects the constitutional roles of Venezuela's different
    branches of government, especially the role of the National Assembly.

        Question 6. The Inter American Foundation was on the list of
    federal agencies that may be revoked based on the FY 18 budget
    proposal. As you know Mr. Secretary, the IAF has demonstrated to be an
    economically well-run small independent agency that has provided
    effective aid to reduce poverty in Latin America and Caribbean for the
    last four and a half decades. Its position in the region helps to
    address the roots of the migration and refugee crisis in the Northern
    Triangle of Central America, with its community development projects
    focused on poor rural areas affected by drought and coffee blight and
    its programs for at-risk youth in rural and urban areas. Will the
    administration revisit this decision?

        Answer. The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) is a separate legal
    entity from the State Department, with independent authority, its own
    enabling legislation, and separate Congressional appropriations.
    Accordingly, the State Department's budget does not include funding for
    the IAF. We refer you to the IAF for further details on the FY 2018
    request.
        The FY 2018 President's Budget supports the President's priorities
    to defend national security, assert U.S. leadership, foster
    opportunities for U.S. economic interests, and ensure accountability to
    the U.S. taxpayer. The administration had to make some tough choices,
    including eliminating Federal funding for agencies that serve niche
    missions and may duplicate the efforts of other federal programs or the
    non-profit and private sectors, in order to focus our limited foreign
    assistance resources on advancing our most important policy goals and
    national security interests.
        The $1.1 billion Department of State and U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID) FY 2018 request for the Western
    Hemisphere, includes assistance to address weak governance, insecurity,
    corruption, uneven economic growth, poverty, and human rights under the
    U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America. To advance prosperity
    and governance objectives under the Strategy pursuant to the FY 2016
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, the IAF is receiving $6 million of FY
    2016 Development Assistance for the Empowering Community Prosperity and
    Resilience program via a non-expenditure transfer from USAID.

        Question 7. Can you confirm if the Egyptian government, for
    example: has freed political prisoners, is enforcing laws or policies
    to govern democratically, is taking necessary steps towards protecting
    and advancing the rights of women and religious minorities, and is
    providing detainees with due process of law?

        Answer. Egypt has made some efforts in these areas, including the
    new church construction law and legislation restricting female genital
    mutilation. The overall human rights situation, however, has
    deteriorated. As noted in the Department's 2016 Human Rights Report,
    the most significant human rights problems in the country were
    excessive use of force by security forces, deficiencies in due process,
    and the suppression of civil liberties. Although the government has
    freed some prisoners, it has not freed many prisoners arrested for
    their political affiliations or activism. The continued restriction of
    civil society is deeply concerning.

        Question 8. After President el-Sisi signed an oppressive new law
    confining civil society and reports of an increased crackdown against
    civil society organizations in Egypt, do you believe the Egyptian
    government is enforcing reforms that protect ``the ability of civil
    society organizations and the media to function without interference"?

        Answer. I testified previously that we were extremely disappointed
    by the recent legislation that President Sisi signed regarding NGO
    registration and preventing certain NGOs from operating. Looking at
    this legislation as it is written gives me strong doubts that they are
    engaged in reforms that protect the ability of civil society to
    function without interference, but we need to remember that the law has
    not been implemented yet and much will depend on the way in which the
    legislation is applied. We continue to raise our serious concerns about
    this legislation and the overall human rights situation in Egypt.

        Question 9. What examples, if any, can you give as evidence of
    those actions by the Egyptian government? What examples, if any, can
    you specify as evidence of the Egyptian government violating those
    principles?

        Answer. A notable improvement was the acquittal and release of Aya
    Hijazi, her husband and their colleagues. We are glad to see her back
    in the U.S. The passage of the new Church Construction Law was also a
    step in the right direction. The government, at its own expense,
    finished rebuilding the churches burned by rioters under the previous
    government and religious dissident Islam el-Beheiry was pardoned by the
    President.
        Despite these steps, our human rights report makes clear areas of
    continued concern. Significant human rights problems include lack of
    due process, including the excessive use of preventative custody and
    pretrial detention, trials involving hundreds of defendants in which
    authorities did not present evidence on an individual basis, and the
    use of military courts to try civilians. Civil society activists are
    regularly subjected to asset freezes, travel bans and arrests. The
    government failed to resolve the ongoing ``foreign funding case'' which
    involved convictions against U.S. citizens and Egyptian employees of
    U.S. registered non-profits. We will continue to stress the fundamental
    importance of respect for human rights and the need for a robust civil
    society.

        Question 10. Do you believe that Egypt's new NGO law defies the
    Brownback Amendment by allowing the Egyptian government veto power over
    U.S.-funded democracy programs?

        Answer. The Department of State and USAID implement programs
    consistent with the Brownback Amendment. Many of the practical
    implications of Egypt's new NGO law are not yet clear, and we are
    trying to get a better understanding of the law and how it may impact
    our programs and implementing partners. We continue to make clear to
    Egyptian government our commitment to supporting Egypt's stability,
    which requires, among other things, respect for civil society. We will
    continue to monitor closely Egypt's implementation of its new NGO law.

        Question 11. In broader terms, under this new law, what type of
    economic, development, or democracy programming is even possible for
    U.S. assistance to support in Egypt?

        Answer. On May 24, 2017 President al-Sisi signed a new law
    governing NGOs. The law contemplates extensive government oversight,
    onerous regulatory burdens, and high registration fees for NGOs. It
    imposes severe consequences-including imprisonment-for failure to
    register properly or even for conducting a survey without Egyptian
    government permission. Many of the practical implications of the new
    NGO law remain unclear, and we are in the process of determining how
    the law will impact our programs and implementing partners.
        State and USAID have deep experience operating in challenging
    environments and consistently find ways to adapt our programming to new
    and difficult circumstances. We will continue to monitor these
    developments closely.

        Question 12. In your view, should the repeal of this NGO law be a
    pre-requirement to the United States giving continued economic aid to
    Egypt?

        Answer. The Egyptian government is an important partner on a number
    of key U.S. foreign policy priorities. While there has been some
    progress over the last few months in the bilateral relationship, we
    were extremely disappointed when President al-Sisi signed the NGO law.
    From the time the parliament proposed this legislation until President
    al-Sisi approved it, the United States clearly and repeatedly
    communicated our concerns about the law. We do not want to slow the
    progress we have made in our bilateral relationship, but a strategic
    relationship is a two-way street that requires trust and credibility.
    We are therefore considering a range of options to respond to recent
    developments.
        A strong U.S.-Egypt partnership that includes economic assistance
    helps strengthen Egypt's security and social safety net, grow its
    economy, and build accountable government institutions--which is
    ultimately in the best interest of both Egypt and the United States.
        We have reiterated our concerns to Egyptian officials about the law
    and will continue urging them to mitigate the effects of the law
    through the implementing regulations that are due this July. We must
    continue to press the Egyptians to implement and enforce the law in a
    manner that preserves reasonable means and sufficient freedom for U.S.
    assistance programs and civil society to operate. With Egypt, as is the
    case around the world, we use a wide range of tools including our
    assistance and diplomatic engagement to advance U.S. interests. We
    continuously assess how these tools can be utilized and believe we can
    achieve our foreign policy goals most effectively with fewer
    limitations on the funding we are appropriated.

        Question 13. Nearly 300,000 women die of complications related to
    pregnancy and childbirth every year, and 225 million women in
    developing countries want to avoid pregnancy but are not using an
    effective contraceptive method. Evidence shows that fully meeting the
    need for both contraceptive and maternal and newborn health services
    saves more lives and is more cost-effective than funding only maternal
    and newborn health services. In fact, every additional dollar spent on
    contraceptive services will save almost $1.50 in the cost of providing
    pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Moreover, maternal deaths
    would drop by two-thirds and newborn deaths by three-fourths.
    Supporting family planning services is one of the most effective and
    cost-effective tools we have in saving mothers' and newborn lives. Yet,
    this administration proposes eliminating this funding entirely. Why is
    this administration proposing a more expensive, inefficient and
    ineffective way to reduce maternal and newborn deaths?

        Answer. Preventing maternal and child deaths remains a priority for
    this administration. By focusing our efforts on global health programs
    in maternal and child health, nutrition, and malaria we will continue
    to save the lives of women and children, while ensuring that other
    donors contribute their fair share toward global challenges.

        Question 14. Nearly 300,000 women die of complications related to
    pregnancy and childbirth every year, and 225 million women in
    developing countries want to avoid pregnancy but are not using an
    effective contraceptive method. Evidence shows that fully meeting the
    need for both contraceptive and maternal and newborn health services
    saves more lives and is more cost-effective than funding only maternal
    and newborn health services. In fact, every additional dollar spent on
    contraceptive services will save almost $1.50 in the cost of providing
    pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Moreover, maternal deaths
    would drop by two-thirds and newborn deaths by three-fourths.
    Supporting family planning services is one of the most effective and
    cost-effective tools we have in saving mothers' and newborn lives. Yet,
    this administration proposes eliminating this funding entirely: What is
    your view on the Global Gag rule, or the Mexico City Policy? Do you
    believe it is furthers our interests abroad?

        Answer. ``Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,'' implements
    what the President has made very clear: U.S. taxpayer money should not
    be used to fund foreign organizations that perform or actively promote
    abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. The policy,
    which applies to global health assistance furnished by all U.S.
    departments or agencies, will not impact the total amount of U.S.
    government funding for these programs. Departments and agencies will
    make available to other organizations any funding they would have
    awarded to NGOs that do not agree to the terms of the policy. Given the
    expansive nature of the new policy, the Department will undertake a
    review of the effectiveness and impact of the policy's application
    after the first six months of implementation, which could include
    identifying implementation issues and the impact on our partnerships
    with other donors and any other new information affecting
    implementation going forward.

        Question 15. Nearly 300,000 women die of complications related to
    pregnancy and childbirth every year, and 225 million women in
    developing countries want to avoid pregnancy but are not using an
    effective contraceptive method. Evidence shows that fully meeting the
    need for both contraceptive and maternal and newborn health services
    saves more lives and is more cost-effective than funding only maternal
    and newborn health services. In fact, every additional dollar spent on
    contraceptive services will save almost $1.50 in the cost of providing
    pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Moreover, maternal deaths
    would drop by two-thirds and newborn deaths by three-fourths.
    Supporting family planning services is one of the most effective and
    cost-effective tools we have in saving mothers' and newborn lives. Yet,
    this administration proposes eliminating this funding entirely. Can you
    say that with these cuts to maternal and child health, nutrition, and
    other core global health programs will keep us on track for reaching
    those goals? The money that doesn't go to saving these people, is it
    more important for it to go to defense funding?

        Answer. The Department believes the prevention of maternal and
    child death is an important global health goal. As we work to ensure
    that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively, we
    must prioritize our international assistance and make some difficult
    choices.

        Question 16. What actions can you take to help these individuals
    that are committed to the Department and furthering diplomacy?

        Answer. We understand your concern about the recent letter sent to
    the current cohort of Fellows offering them the choice of entering the
    next available Foreign Service Generalist Orientation Class (A-100) or
    entering the Consular Fellows Program in the interim. Historically,
    Fellows have entered the Foreign Service as Foreign Service officers on
    career conditional appointments in the regularly scheduled July and
    September A-100 classes. However, given the current hiring constraints,
    the next A-100 has not yet been scheduled.
        We have offered the current cohort of Pickering and Rangel Fellows
    the opportunity to join our Consular Fellows Program, where they will
    play a crucial role in our visa security efforts, doing the same work,
    with the same responsibilities and authority as career Foreign Service
    Officers. Consular Fellows are members of the Foreign Service and are
    often the first U.S. Government official foreigners meet. Service in
    the Consular Fellows Program would count toward Fellows' service
    obligations under the fellowships. If an individual Pickering or Rangel
    Fellow chooses not to join the Consular Fellows Program, he/she may
    choose to wait and enter the next scheduled A-100 class, depending on
    his/her personal and individual circumstances. Fellows who choose to
    begin their service as Consular Fellows will be placed in the next
    available A-100 class upon completion of their one or two two-year
    Consular Fellows tour(s). Time spent as Consular Fellows will count
    towards their Pickering or Rangel Fellowship service commitment and
    will fulfill their Foreign Service Generalist consular tour
    requirement. As Consular Fellows, they may also be eligible for the
    Student Loan Repayment Program and a recruitment incentive payment of
    10 percent of basic salary, if authorized. As we have conveyed to the
    Fellows, the Department's commitment and intent to hire every
    qualifying Fellow into an A-100 class regardless of which option they
    choose has not changed.
        The Department is committed to the Pickering and Rangel Programs as
    our premier diversity recruitment programs, which together are
    responsible for 21 percent of the diversity currently in the Foreign
    Service. We value these talented individuals and recognize that their
    selection as Pickering and Rangel Fellows is testimony to their
    substantial promise and abilities. It remains our hope that regardless
    of which option a Fellow may choose now, they will make their careers
    in the Foreign Service. We will continue to keep Congress apprised of
    the status of the A-100 course.

        Question 17. Do you think the President's hiring freeze further
    inhibits and constrains the State Department? Wouldn't you consider the
    above counterintuitive?

        Answer. The President's government-wide hiring freeze was in place
    from January 23 through April 12 of this year. At the end of the
    freeze, I chose to continue it for the Department of State, with
    exemptions on a case-by-case basis, pending a comprehensive review of
    the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department, which is going on
    now.
        We're allowing normal attrition to bring the numbers down. As we
    look forward, we will continue to replenish our Foreign Service Officer
    corps. We are mindful of not diminishing the strength of our Foreign
    Service.
        We remain flexible. I have granted several exemptions in order to
    support our safety, security, and health and I continue to entertain
    requests for exemptions from throughout the Department on a case-by-
    case basis.
        As part of these efforts, I aim to make the Department of State
    lean, accountable, and more efficient. Continuation of the hiring
    freeze is a necessary, but temporary part of that effort.

                                   __________

                Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
    Submitted to Witness deg. Secretary Tillerson by Senator Young

        Question 1. On May 25, in anticipation of Ambassador Haley's trip
    to Geneva, I convened a subcommittee hearing on the United Nations
    Human Rights Council (UNHRC). That hearing and the testimony of the
    witnesses underscored two leading problems with the U.N. Human Rights
    Council. First, some of the world's worst human rights abusers are
    members of the human rights council; and second, the Council exhibits a
    shameful and systematic anti-Israel bias. What specific steps do the
    Department of State and our mission at the U.N. plan to take to address
    these two problems at the U.N. Human Rights Council?

        Answer. I share your serious concerns about the membership and
    anti-Israeli bias of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
        Although, at its best, the UNHRC calls out human rights violations
    and encourages positive action, all too frequently it fails to act as
    it should--not addressing critical situations for political reasons--
    and undermines its own credibility. Countries with poor human rights
    records are routinely elected to the Council, where they use their
    position to shield themselves and frustrate efforts to safeguard
    fundamental freedoms. The UNHRC maintains a clear anti-Israel bias in
    the persistence of Agenda Item 7.
        This administration believes that reforms are urgently needed to
    strengthen the Council's membership and revise its agenda.
        Toward that end, we are calling on member states to join together
    in the months ahead to develop and enact changes to the Council's
    election procedures, accountability measures, standing agenda, and
    operations to ensure that the world's most critical human rights
    situations--regardless of where they take place--are addressed fully
    and effectively.
        If such reforms are not possible, I have been clear that we will
    have to reevaluate our participation in the UNHRC.

        Question 2. The Center for Strategic and International Studies
    (CSIS) recently published a report on why the merger of the U.S.
    Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department in 1999 was a poor
    decision with long-lasting and negative repercussions on the post-9/11
    war of ideas. Have you read this report and how do you believe it might
    inform current reorganization discussions?

        Answer. The State Department is reviewing and taking into
    considering a wide range of ideas, including those from CSIS, without
    having any restrictions placed on the internal working groups tasked to
    provide recommendations to bring greater effectiveness and efficiency
    for all employees in completing their missions and objectives. I look
    forward to working with you and the Committee as we develop specific
    proposals in the months ahead.

                                   __________

                Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
               Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Coons

        Question 1. Multiple families in Delaware have been impacted by the
    Ethiopian government's decision to suspend international adoptions.
    What is the status of the State Department's inquiry into the
    suspension and ensuring that adoption cases underway prior to April
    21st will be resolved?

        Answer. Since Ethiopia's April 2017 suspension of intercountry
    adoptions, Department of State officials have vigorously engaged with
    the Ethiopian government to strongly advocate for a way forward for
    cases in process. On June 1, an official from the Ministry of Woman and
    Children's Affairs (MOWA) told Embassy Addis Ababa that MOWA would
    resume issuing Vital Signature letters for cases with Federal First
    Instance Court (FFIC) approval, which is a legal adoption.
        Since June 1, MOWA has issued documents allowing more than 24
    adopted children with FFIC approval to obtain Ethiopian passports and
    initiate their U.S. immigration processes. MOWA continues to process
    cases in all stages of the adoption process and has informed the
    Embassy they will have an ``exit strategy' for remaining cases. The
    Department of State continues to request information on the status of
    pending cases.
        Ethiopia's adoption policy has reportedly changed to favor domestic
    placements over international adoptions. The Ethiopian government has
    not released an official statement on the suspension or the reported
    policy change. The Department of State will continue to advocate for
    intercountry adoption as an option for Ethiopian children in need of
    permanent homes.

        Question 2. As a part of the hiring freeze, I understand that the
    State Department has decided to freeze the accession for all current
    Rangel and Pickering fellows. Last week, all current Pickering and
    Rangel fellows who were about to start A100 were told were told that
    those classes were on hold indefinitely. Both the Pickering and Rangel
    fellowships are premier accession programs into the Foreign Service and
    have served as vital pathways for increasing the diversity in the ranks
    of Foreign Service Officers. The actions taken to freeze these programs
    show a disturbing lack of attention and commitment of the crucial
    importance of diversity in the State Department. What are your plans
    for these important programs?

        Answer. The Department is committed to the Pickering and Rangel
    Fellowship diversity recruitment programs, which were established to
    increase diversity in the Foreign Service. Fellows are trained to and
    expect to join the Foreign Service upon the completion of the programs.
    Historically, the Fellows have entered the Foreign Service as career
    conditional entry level officers. As of June 13, the Department was
    unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows a spot in an A-100 class
    at that time, as had been customary. We value these talented
    individuals and are determined to bring their skills into the
    Department. Although the Department was not able to offer the Fellows a
    spot in an A-100 class as of that date, the Department offered them the
    opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to
    waiting until the next A-100 class. Fellows were given the option to
    choose to enter the Foreign Service as a Consular Fellow now, or wait
    until the next A-100 class, depending on their personal and individual
    circumstances. Fellows who would have chosen to begin their service as
    Consular Fellows would have been placed in the next available A-100
    class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular Fellows
    tour(s).
        Since that time the Department has offered all eligible Fellows
    spots in the July and September 2017 A-100 entry level Foreign Service
    Officer classes. On July 24 we welcomed 35 Pickering and Rangel Fellows
    into the Foreign Service, and we will welcome another 24 on September
    18.

                                   __________

                Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
              Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Portman

        Question 1. When you were here last, you spoke about the importance
    of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and maintaining
    sanctions against Russia for its purported annexation of Crimea and
    ongoing activities inside eastern Ukraine. Having engaged with the
    Russians on this issue, what do you think the Russian goals are in
    Ukraine?

        Answer. Russia has opposed any attempts by former Soviet states to
    integrate with NATO or the European Union (EU). Russia's violation of
    Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity came as a response to
    Ukrainian efforts to sign a cooperation agreement with the EU, and
    Moscow's main goal is likely to exercise veto power over Ukraine's
    strategic foreign policy decisions.
        This administration believes that Russia needs to make the first
    step toward ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, including
    implementing a lasting and durable ceasefire, withdrawing heavy
    weaponry, and granting OSCE monitors full and safe access. Russia, and
    the forces it leads in the Don River Basin (Donbas) continues to
    systematically obstruct the operations of the Special Monitoring
    Mission (SMM), which is a vital component to implementation of the
    Minsk agreements. We have called on Russia to compel the so-called
    ``separatists'' they equip, lead, train, and fight alongside, to
    immediately end their campaign of harassment aimed at the SMM and allow
    their operations to continue. The administration has stated that Russia
    must adhere to its commitments under the Minsk agreements.
        Russian involvement in Ukraine remains a significant obstacle to
    improving U.S.-Russian relations. If Russia wants to move the U.S.-
    Russia bilateral relationship to a better place, it needs to begin by
    making a visible, verifiable, and irreversible improvement in the
    security situation in eastern Ukraine now.

        Question 2. When you were here last, you also stated your support
    for providing defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine, as part of a
    comprehensive strategy to give Ukraine the tools to needs to defend
    itself. Do you still hold this position?

        Answer. While the United States has not provided lethal defensive
    weapons to Ukraine, we have not ruled out the option of doing so. As I
    stated previously, Ukraine has a right to defend itself against Russian
    aggression. We are closely examining how to best use our security
    assistance funding going forward to bolster Ukraine's ability to defend
    its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States continues
    to focus on finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis in eastern
    Ukraine through the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. In
    response to Russian aggression, the United States has committed more
    than $600 million in security assistance to provide training and
    equipment to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial
    integrity, better monitor and secure its borders, and deploy its forces
    more safely and effectively. We have also established a Multinational
    Joint Commission and a training group to coordinate international
    efforts and help build Ukraine's defense capacity to deter further
    Russian aggression. As I have told my Russian counterpart directly, our
    Minsk-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia fully
    implements its commitments, and our separate Crimea-related sanctions
    will remain in place until Russia returns the peninsula to Ukraine.

        Question 3. What is the role you see for the EU, particularly the
    French and the Germans, in helping to resolve the situation in Ukraine?
    Do you agree that it is important for the United States to assume a
    leadership role in urging our allies to remain united on this issue?

        Answer. The EU has been a reliable and crucial partner in
    implementing and maintaining sanctions on Russia in response to its
    aggression in Ukraine. On June 22, EU leaders agreed to extend the
    economic sanctions against Russia for its failure to implement the
    Minsk Agreements. We anticipate this political decision to be formally
    adopted by the Council of the EU in the coming weeks.
        France and Germany play a flagship role in resolving the conflict
    in eastern Ukraine and are working through the Normandy process to
    achieve sustainable peace as outlined in the Minsk Agreements. Shortly
    after his inauguration, newly elected French President Macron called
    for a Normandy Quartet (Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine) Heads of
    State summit, demonstrating France's commitment to the implementation
    the Minsk peace agreements.
        We are exploring ways that we can accelerate a resolution of the
    conflict and put an end to the human suffering in eastern Ukraine. We
    want to supplement the work that is already taking place and find a
    meaningful way to contribute in consultation with all parties involved.

        Question 4. With regards to Ukraine, in what areas have you seen
    the greatest progress in implementing reforms? In what areas should the
    United States encourage greater progress?

        Answer. Ukraine has made significant progress in implementing key
    reforms since the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. In the area of
    macroeconomic reforms, Ukraine has passed two IMF-compliant national
    budgets, continues to clean-up the banking sector, relaxed currency
    controls, and is actively pursuing pension reform.
        In the energy sector, reform of state-owned natural gas company
    Naftogaz, including more professional corporate management of the
    enterprise, enabled Naftogaz to be a net contributor to the national
    budget for the first time last year. Ukraine also increased gas tariffs
    to 100 percent of cost recovery in order to more accurately reflect
    market prices and lower Government expenses, passed an electricity
    market law (a key requirement under the EU's Third Energy Package), and
    adopted the Law on the Regulator, which increased the political and
    budgetary transparency of the National Energy Regulatory Commission.
        The United States will continue to encourage greater progress in
    the following areas: anticorruption and judicial sector reforms
    (including the formation of an anticorruption court); corporate
    governance reform and privatization efforts; and, continuing to meet
    required conditions for additional funding under the $17.5 billion IMF
    program.

        Question 5. What is your assessment of the impact of these proposed
    cuts on our efforts to support Ukraine and other post-Soviet states
    attempting to forge an independent and democratic future?

        Answer. The President's FY 2018 budget request for Europe and
    Eurasia will allow us to continue to support the work of the Department
    and USAID to strengthen resilience, reduce vulnerability to Russian
    aggression and malign influence, and support the Euro-Atlantic
    aspirations of our partners in the region.
        The United States remains firmly committed to Ukraine's sovereignty
    and territorial integrity, and sanctions against Russia will remain in
    place until Russia fully implements its commitments under the Minsk
    agreements and returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. In
    addition, the FY 2018 request supports Ukraine's reform agenda and
    efforts to accelerate Ukraine's integration into Europe. It also
    provides assistance to resist Russian aggression and malign influence
    region wide, with a particular focus on conflict mitigation, anti-
    corruption, rule of law, democratic governance, trade and investment,
    financial sector reform, and economic and energy diversification.

        Question 6. Please explain why you propose cutting funding to post-
    Soviet states like Ukraine, often considered among the states most
    vulnerable to Russian influence, considering that countering Russian
    aggression and malign influence is considered one of the main
    objectives of regional assistance?

        Answer. As we work to streamline efforts to advance the security
    and prosperity of the American people and ensure efficiency and
    effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we have had to prioritize and
    make some tough choices.
        With the President's FY 2018 Request for Europe and Eurasia, we
    will target our assistance areas where we see the greatest risk of
    Russian malign influence and the greatest opportunity to achieve
    success, retaining focus on our highest priorities, engaging other
    countries to advance our shared interests, and leveraging our funds
    with other donors wherever we can. U.S. foreign assistance programs
    will seek to counter Russian covert and overt malign influence by
    improving democracy and good governance; expanding civic engagement and
    independent media; increasing defense capabilities; strengthening rule
    of law and anti-corruption measures; and, promoting European
    integration, trade diversification and energy security. This includes
    continuing support for a strong, independent Ukraine, an economically
    and politically resilient Georgia, and Balkan countries that are able
    to resist external and internal pressures that result in democratic
    backsliding.

        Question 7. Would you agree that the dangers posed by extremist
    messaging and state-sponsored information operations represent a
    critical national security threat to the United States?

        Answer. Yes, both extremist messaging and state-sponsored
    disinformation operations represent a critical national security threat
    to the United States.
        GEC leads the USG effort to deny extremist groups a digital safe
    haven even as they lose territory on the ground. We recognize that the
    information battlespace is as important as the physical battlespace.
    Any long-term strategy to counter violent extremism needs to focus on
    preventing the recruitment of terrorists. As we continue to defeat ISIS
    on the battlefield, we must continue to fight them aggressively online
    to prevent their ability to increase their online presence and inspire
    audiences to commit violence in response to territorial losses. That is
    precisely why the USG originally established the Global Engagement
    Center (GEC) last year and charged it with leading the coordination of
    federal government efforts to counter the messaging of non-state
    actors. The GEC is focused on countering the recruitment efforts of
    terrorist groups such as ISIS and exposing and countering their warped
    and perverse ideology.
        In December 2016, the U.S. Congress expanded the GEC's mission and
    granted it new legal authorities out of growing concern about the
    adverse effects of state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation
    efforts on U.S. national security. State-sponsored propaganda and
    disinformation have emerged as clear national security concerns,
    increasing in overall size and sophistication. State-sponsored
    disinformation operations impact United States foreign policy
    objectives. Disinformation operations create a lack of confidence in
    foreign populations and sow seeds of doubt in the susceptible
    populations living in our allied and partner nations.
        As stated in the Director of National Intelligence's January 2017
    report, countries and entities involved in spreading disinformation
    during election campaigns in Western democracies will apply what they
    have learned ``to future influence efforts worldwide, including against
    US allies and their election processes.'' It is critical that efforts
    to counter both extremist messaging and state-sponsored disinformation
    are fully supported with policy authority and funding. We appreciate
    the important leadership and support that Congress has provided the
    GEC.

        Question 8. Where does the Department stand on carrying out this
    important mandate? I understand that the Center itself has been
    established, and your budget requests $34.4 million for the GEC in FY
    18. Have you requested any funds yet from DoD?

       If so, have these funds been received?
       If not, why not? What needs to happen first?

        Answer. In addition to the GEC's base budget request, the FY 2017
    NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $60 million
    to the State Department to support the GEC in FY 2017 and FY 2018,
    provided that the amounts otherwise made available to the GEC do not
    exceed $80 million in each of those years. To date, the GEC has not
    received any funding from DoD or from any other sources to conduct the
    expanded counter state propaganda and disinformation mission. The
    entirety of the GEC's current FY 2017 and planned FY 2018 base budgets
    are required to conduct its counterterrorism mission. No additional
    funds were included in these base budgets for the GEC's counter state
    disinformation mission.
        The GEC is focused on requesting the $60 million from the Pentagon.
    GEC's leaders have held meetings with my senior advisors, including a
    recent briefing with my Deputy Chief of Staff, on the topic of this
    transfer of funds from DoD. My Department is currently assessing all
    the implications of this potential transfer of funds, with an eye
    toward ensuring that funding exists to support these vital efforts
    beyond FY 2018.
        Since the enactment of the FY 2017 NDAA in December, GEC leadership
    and GEC's counter state disinformation office have consulted with
    interagency colleagues to gain a deeper understanding of current USG
    efforts to counter state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation. These
    consultations with our DOD partners include EUCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM,
    SOCOM, OSD/SOLIC and the Joint Staff (J39). Consultations with bureaus
    within the State Department have included EUR, AF, NEA, CT, and EAP.
    Further, the GEC continues to engage with foreign governments and
    various experts in civil society to help us achieve our new mission,
    including engagements with individuals from NGOs, donor organizations,
    and academia.

        Question 9. What are the current scope and scale of the Center's
    operations, and what is its strategy for countering the challenges
    emanating from Russia, China, Iran and other nation-state practitioners
    of information warfare?

        Answer. The GEC's efforts include building a community of interest
    domestically and abroad. Domestically, this effort includes
    collaborating across the interagency to map current counter foreign
    propaganda and disinformation efforts, identifying where gaps exist,
    synchronizing those efforts to reduce redundancy, and integrating
    technology and data science. The GEC plans to counter foreign state
    propaganda and disinformation efforts, in coordination with our NATO
    and civil society partners, to prevent foreign actors from dominating
    the information environment.
        Abroad, the GEC is expanding the community of interest with its
    network of allies and nongovernmental partners. The GEC plans to engage
    in activities that include the sharing of information intended to
    expose propaganda and disinformation campaigns, and the local
    operatives who support them. This effort will support the GEC's ability
    to forewarn foreign audiences of disinformation, and provide an avenue
    to disseminate fact-based narratives that counter the propaganda and
    disinformation of our adversaries. GEC's proactive measures to expose
    propaganda and disinformation campaigns will include leveraging
    academics and think tanks who report on regional disinformation trends
    and campaigns and training journalists to identify and report on
    disinformation and propaganda. The GEC will support foreign partners to
    make their governments and communities more resilient to propaganda and
    disinformation.

        Question 10. After engaging with the Russians on Syria, Ukraine,
    the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, and other issues, what
    areas of common interest do you see, and what is the your assessment of
    the likelihood of progress on these areas any time soon?

        Answer. The United States is open to working with Russia where we
    can find areas of practical cooperation that will benefit the American
    people and serve our national security interests. Where we do not see
    eye-to-eye with Russia, the United States will continue to stand up for
    the interests and values of America, our allies, and our partners.
        The United States remains committed to a peaceful resolution to the
    conflict in eastern Ukraine. We continue to support the Minsk
    agreements as the best path towards peace. Sanctions against Russia
    will remain in place until Russia fully implements its Minsk
    commitments. Crimea-related sanctions will remain until Russia returns
    control of the peninsula to Ukraine.
        In Syria, the United States supports any effort that can genuinely
    de-escalate the violence in Syria, ensure unhindered humanitarian
    access, focus energies on the defeat of ISIS and other terrorists, and
    create the conditions for a credible political resolution of the
    conflict.
        On arms control, Russia continues to implement and comply with the
    New START Treaty, but we are concerned about Russia's behavior in a
    number of areas, including Russia's violation of the Intermediate-Range
    Nuclear Forces Treaty. In the near future we plan to start a dialogue
    with Russia on Strategic Stability issues.

        Question 11. The previous administration was infamously slow in
    rolling out a Russia strategy. Does the Trump administration have one?
    If not, has a process to develop one begun?

        Answer. Currently, our bilateral relationship is at a low point.
    The President has asked me to begin a re-engagement process with Russia
    to see if we can first stabilize the relationship, and then identify
    areas of mutual interest where we can begin to rebuild some level of
    trust. As this process has developed, the Department of State has
    worked closely with National Security Staff and other U.S. agencies.
        Our overall strategy is to work with Russia where we can find areas
    of practical cooperation that will benefit the American people, such as
    counterterrorism, defeating ISIS in Syria, promoting strategic
    stability and scientific research. I have stressed that while the
    United States is willing to work with Russia in areas of common
    concern, we will hold Russia accountable when it violates international
    norms. Where we do not see eye-to-eye with Russia, the United States
    will continue to stand up for the interests and values of America, our
    allies, and our partners.
        Russian aggression in Ukraine remains a significant obstacle to
    improving U.S.-Russian relations. I made clear to Russian Foreign
    Minister Sergey Lavrov that as we search for common ground, Russia
    needs to make the first step toward ending the conflict in eastern
    Ukraine, including implementing a visible, verifiable and irreversible
    ceasefire, withdrawing heavy weaponry, and granting OSCE monitors full
    access. I have repeatedly emphasized, including to Russian Federation
    President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during my
    April 12 visit to Moscow that Russia must adhere to its commitments
    under the Minsk agreements.
        On Syria, the United States supports any effort that can genuinely
    de-escalate the violence in Syria, ensure unhindered humanitarian
    access, focus energies on the defeat of ISIS and other terrorists, and
    create the conditions for a credible political resolution of the
    conflict. I have been clear with Minister Lavrov: Russia should use its
    influence to de-escalate the situation, sustain momentum against ISIS,
    and rein in the Assad regime. The continued brutality of the Assad
    regime, including its use of chemical weapons, presents a clear threat
    to regional stability and security as well as to the national security
    interests of the United States and our allies. We have agreed that the
    way to bring stability to Syria must come through diplomatic and
    political means.
        We continue to face a number of problems with Russia on compliance
    with its arms control obligations. While Russia continues to implement
    the New START Treaty in a pragmatic manner, we are concerned about
    Russia's behavior in a number of areas, including Russia's violation of
    the INF Treaty. This is creating a lack of trust and is an impediment
    to improving the bilateral relationship.

        Question 12. What are the strategic implications for the United
    States of its shift to bilateral negotiations?

        Answer. The United States remains fully committed to strengthening
    its economic relationships across the Asia-Pacific region. Our overall
    engagement strategy does not depend on a single agreement or
    initiative. Our goal is to advance our economic relationships in the
    region through bilateral FTAs and other bilateral frameworks with
    countries that agree to meet the high standards we have set.
        While negotiating agreements on a bilateral basis may take more
    time, it will provide us the greatest prospect for achieving our
    economic goals.
        Through our bilateral engagements, including our dialogues with
    China and Japan, and work through regional bodies such as the Asia-
    Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the Association of
    Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), we seek to spur domestic reforms that
    will lead to high standards on trade and investment throughout the
    Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will allow us to set regional norms
    that encompass high standards, ensure the best possible outcomes for
    U.S. competitiveness, and reflect U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific.

        Question 13. Can smaller trade agreements with advanced regional
    economies like Japan, New Zealand, and Australia serve as a starting
    point for the promotion of high-quality, high-standard trade practices
    throughout the broader regional economy?

        Answer. The United States will elevate our Asia-Pacific dialogue on
    trade and investment through high quality and high standard bilateral
    agreements. Pursing bilateral agreements with some of our most
    important regional trading partners can spur a race to the top by
    developing high standards that reduce barriers to trade and investment
    and enhance market opportunities for U.S. companies. Our strategy will
    promote regional norms based on these high standards, which we expect
    will lead to economic and job growth in the United States and other
    countries in the region.

        Question 14. What are the potential strategic implications for the
    United States of the current economic initiatives in the Asia-Pacific
    region in which it is not participating, including the Asia
    Infrastructure Investment Bank, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, and
    Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)?

       How should these strategic considerations affect U.S. trade and
            economic policy in the region?

        Answer. The United States is committed to engaging broadly and
    deeply throughout the Asia-Pacific region. We have encouraged China and
    others in the region to ensure that regional initiatives promote and
    uphold internationally accepted best practices in infrastructure
    development and financing and adopt an open and inclusive approach to
    their overseas infrastructure projects. We are committed to improving
    regional connectivity and economic development and are exploring
    opportunities to increase U.S. firms' participation in this process.

        Question 15. Do you think the One Belt, One Road Initiative will be
    able to succeed in financing considerable infrastructure development in
    the region?

       If that infrastructure is built, how will it alter regional and
            global trade flows, and what would that mean for China's soft
            power in the region relative to that of the United States?

        Answer. We are encouraging Beijing to provide greater transparency
    as it develops OBOR, including information about OBOR projects' scope,
    location, financing, and timelines. While much about OBOR remains
    unclear, the initiative eventually is expected to result in many new
    large-scale infrastructure and other development projects in the
    region, and we are encouraging China to uphold internationally accepted
    best practices and adopt an open and inclusive approach.

        Question 16. Do you agree that the Assad regime's actions have
    helped fuel the growth of ISIS?

       Can a durable peace settlement be reached with Assad still in
            power?
       If Assad is removed, will the United States work to maintain some
            of the government institutions needed to maintain stability?
       What role do you envision the Russians playing in achieving this
            peace settlement?
       What happens after ISIS is defeated? How should the U.S. and its
            coalition partners consolidate the gains their short and
            medium-term actions are designed to achieve?

        Answer. For over six years, the conflict in Syria has created
    continued violence and a political vacuum in many parts of the country
    where ISIS was able to take significant territory. In these past six
    years, Assad has not focused on defeating ISIS. On the contrary, Syria
    is a state sponsor of terrorism and allowed ISIS to flourish, not
    focusing its efforts on the terrorist group or other terrorists active
    in Syria such as al-Qa'ida (AQ). Too often, the Assad Regime has
    attacked civilians, hospitals, and schools rather than ISIS. The
    regime's brutality and continued assaults on the Syrian people is a key
    ISIS recruiting tool for Syrians and foreign fighters, and continues to
    provide ISIS the space to operate.
        An end to the conflict must begin with a de-escalation of the
    violence, a defeat of ISIS and other terrorists, and ultimately a
    political solution. We want to see Syrian parties work together to
    advance the U.N.-facilitated political process, as called for in U.N.
    Security Council resolution 2254. We have stated on multiple occasions
    that we do not believe you can have a stable, peaceful Syria with Assad
    in charge. We do not, however, seek the complete dissolution of the
    Syrian state, which would likely result in further chaos, violence, and
    instability.
        The United States has already provided more than $900 million in
    non-lethal and stabilization assistance to the Syrian people since the
    start of the conflict. We are supporting moderate Syrians who serve as
    a bulwark against violent extremists who seek to exploit the vacuum in
    security and services, bolstering moderates' ability to play a role in
    Syria's future. These programs also support our highest national
    security priority, defeating ISIS and AQ, by stabilizing areas
    liberated from ISIS in order to help prevent its return. In addition,
    the United States has contributed more than $6.5 billion in
    humanitarian assistance to Syria and its neighbors since the start of
    the crisis, reflecting U.S. leadership in meeting dire humanitarian
    needs.
        The Assad regime remains in power because of Russian and Iranian
    support. Russia, with Iran and Turkey, began the Astana Process in
    December 2016. Through this process, the three countries hope to
    implement de-escalation areas throughout Syria in an effort to decrease
    violence. The United States is only an observer in this process. The
    goals set forth in Astana are important ones: de-escalate the violence;
    guarantee access for humanitarian assistance to communities in
    desperate need; and defeat ISIS. For these goals to be met, Russia must
    use the leverage they claim they have with the Assad regime. Although
    we welcome any actions that de-escalate the violence in Syria, we
    continue to have serious concerns about the Astana process, including
    the involvement of Iran as a so-called ``guarantor."
        As the United States and our Counter ISIS Coalition partners
    continue to make progress against ISIS on the battlefield, we are
    funding humanitarian assistance to those in need, supporting the
    destruction and removal of explosive remnants of war, providing
    stabilization assistance to resume essential services (e.g. water,
    electric, schools and medical facilities), jumpstarting local markets,
    and supporting bottom-up reconciliation efforts and the provision of
    psychosocial support to consolidate these military gains. Together, as
    a Coalition, working by, with, and through our partner forces on the
    ground we have liberated over 23,000 square kilometers ISIS once
    controlled in Syria. As a result of our efforts, and thanks to
    congressional support, ISIS has been unable to recapture a single inch
    of territory from Coalition-partnered forces. We are helping local
    partners hold ground against ISIS, restore services, clear schools and
    clinics of explosive hazards, care for displaced persons, and help
    families return home. This is critical to ensure the enduring defeat of
    ISIS and AQ and preventing the resurgence of other extremist groups.
    Post-ISIS stabilization assistance will seek to support local
    governance and civil society organizations that are civilian-led and
    prove themselves to be inclusive and representative of the populations
    they serve and create the necessary space for a political resolution to
    the broader conflict.
        The United States will continue to support constructive efforts to
    de-escalate the violence in Syria and ensure humanitarian aid reaches
    those in need, while continuing the fight against ISIS and AQ.

        Question 17. In your budget, the Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
    account would be reduced by 19 percent compared to FY 2017 enacted
    funding, with 95 percent of the request allocated to four countries:
    Israel ($3.1 billion), Egypt ($1.3 billion), Jordan ($350 million), and
    Pakistan ($100 million). By contrast, these countries comprised 85
    percent of FMF funding in FY 2016. The remaining $200.7 million would
    be for a global account to be allocated as necessary, on a grant or
    loan basis, to meet pressing security challenges.
        What is the perceived benefit to such an account compared to the
    current FMF structure? On what basis would allocation decisions for the
    global account be made? Would Defense Department-administered train-
    and-equip funding -which has significantly expanded in recent years -
    make up the difference in FMF funds?

        Answer. The global FMF fund would permit the Department to allocate
    funds according to current priorities during the year of appropriation.
    This approach permits greater flexibility, selectivity, and
    responsiveness than the previous structure, which required the
    Department to determine and publish requested bilateral allocations
    years before the funds would be implemented.
        The Department will determine allocations during the year of
    appropriation based on administration priorities, available funding,
    and likelihood of program success.
        State and DoD are working together to develop processes to
    synchronize security assistance planning and programming across the two
    agencies. At the direction of Secretary Mattis and myself, the
    Departments have established a new State-DoD Security Sector Assistance
    Steering Committee that is taking on this important task. While State
    and DoD assistance authorities are not identical, the Departments will
    work together to ensure that our respective authorities and resources
    advance the administration's foreign policy and national security
    priorities.

        Question 18. Under what scenarios do you anticipate FMF loans being
    provided in FY 2018 as opposed to grants? How might the proposed
    provision of loans instead of grants impact the participation of
    various countries, and their desire to acquire U.S.-origin equipment in
    general?

        Answer. The Department will pursue loans with partners that the
    U.S. government has determined as able to fulfill their financial
    commitments without significant risk or are developing military
    capabilities that advance core U.S. foreign policy priorities.
        It is not yet clear whether a transition from grants to loans will
    lead to a reduction or an increase in the amount of U.S. defense
    articles and services purchased, granted, and/or loaned around the
    world. Partners may have the opportunity to borrow more than they
    received in the past in grant assistance, allowing recipients to
    purchase more American-made defense equipment and services. However,
    not all recipients may be appropriate loan partners for the United
    States, due to their limited national budgets or other circumstances
    that could limit their ability to repay the loan. Some recipients may
    not be willing to accept or be able to repay a loan from the U.S.
    government, which must, by law, be offered at an interest rate of no
    less than five percent and with a term of no more than 12 years. In
    some circumstances, past FMF recipients may also choose to seek loans
    or assistance from other international suppliers. However, these
    possibilities are mitigated by the fact that some of the largest
    recipients will continue to be funded with FMF grant funds at
    significant levels, and by the high quality of defense articles and
    services produced by the United States compared to other possible
    suppliers.

                                   __________

                Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
              Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Merkley

        Question 1. Do you pledge to preview any proposed redesign of the
    State Department with members of this committee from both parties, to
    solicit feedback, and to only proceed with a plan that Senator Corker
    and Senator Cardin-collectively representing the views of the
    committee's broader membership-can support?

        Answer. The Department of State (State) takes very seriously its
    responsibility to consult with Congress on its plans and vision for the
    future of the agency.
        Executive Order 13781 of March 13, 2017, calls for each agency to
    submit a plan, due in September, to improve the efficiency,
    effectiveness, and accountability of that agency. State and U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID) are working to meet this deadline
    and have begun to discuss goals, priorities and the strategic direction
    of the organizations to adapt to the changes that we will face over the
    next twenty years. We are looking at aligning resources, people, and
    our overarching mission, including restructuring State and USAID's
    operations, in order to deploy the talent and resources of State and
    USAID in the most efficient way possible. This review has no
    preconceived outcomes.
        In the first ``listening'' phase of this discussion, we engaged
    Insigniam, a consulting firm, to conduct a survey made available to all
    of our State and USAID colleagues, including employed family members,
    locally-engaged staff, and contractors. Insigniam also held in-person
    listening sessions with approximately 300 individuals, including
    Committee staffers, to obtain their perspective on what we do and how
    we do it. The surveys and listening sessions, all of which occurred in
    early-mid May, collected information on our organizational processes
    and culture, including what activities to eliminate, ideas for
    restructuring the organization, ideas for improving organizational
    efficiency and effectiveness, and workforce management. Insigniam
    compiled the results and generated a report, which was previewed to me
    on May 30. From this feedback, we have been able to get a clearer
    overall view of our organization. We are still analyzing the feedback
    we have received, and intend to use the results of the report as input
    to efficiency improvements as part of our larger efforts called for
    under E.O. 13781.
        Before the end of June, I will communicate with all State and USAID
    employees, as well as the Committee and others in Congress, about the
    results of the report and the plans for the second phase of this
    endeavor. The general intent for the second phase is to engage the
    State and USAID community to design how the agencies will function for
    the next twenty-plus years. We will seek the input of the Committee and
    others in Congress throughout this process. The recommendations,
    blueprints, and new vision that emerge from the redesign phase will be
    presented to OMB in September as part of the requested Agency Reform
    Plan, and will be fully discussed with the Committee and others in
    Congress before implementation begins in FY 2018.

        Question 2. Will you commit that the United States will adhere to
    Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and come to the mutual defense
    of any North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, even if that member
    does not meet its two percent of GDP defense spending target?

        Answer. I assure you President Trump, as well as myself and
    Secretary Mattis, all agree that collective defense in accordance with
    Article 5 is a bedrock principle of NATO and underpins the
    transatlantic relationship. We have all reaffirmed this publicly. I
    look forward to continuing to reaffirm the United States' ironclad
    commitment to Article 5, including at the next meeting of NATO Foreign
    Ministers.
        An effective deterrent and a meaningful Article 5 commitment also
    require that Allies shoulder their fair share of the burden to
    strengthen our collective defense capabilities. We continue to stress
    to Allies the importance of meeting their commitments to move towards
    spending at least two percent of GDP on defense by 2024, and to invest
    those resources in ways that enhance our collective capabilities.

        Question 3. What is the administration's policy on the New START
    Treaty? Will you advocate for an extension of the treaty beyond its
    current February 2021 expiration date to ensure that legally binding,
    verifiable limits remain on Russia's nuclear arsenal?

        Answer. The administration is reviewing its Russia policy,
    including Russia's arms control implementation and compliance. Russia
    is in compliance with the New START Treaty. The administration is
    focused on reaching the New START Treaty's central limits by February
    2018 and will then assess next steps in strategic arms control.

        Question 4. Does President Trump plan to discuss the future of New
    START and Russian non-compliance with the INF Treaty directly with
    President Putin when they meet on the margins of the G-20 meeting in
    July? Will you recommend to him that he do so?

        Answer. The administration is reviewing its Russia policy,
    including Russia's arms control implementation and compliance. Even
    while the review is underway, we still plan to raise Russia's INF
    violation with Russian officials in appropriate venues to inform them
    that this violation impedes progress toward improving our bilateral
    relationship, and that Russia must take the first steps toward
    resolution.
        On New START, the administration is focused on reaching the New
    START Treaty's central limits by February 2018 and will then assess
    next steps in strategic arms control.

        Question 5. Do you support the United States playing an active role
    in negotiating a political settlement in Afghanistan, and, if so, what
    are the broad contours of a political agreement that would be
    acceptable to the administration?

        Answer. A negotiated peace accord with the Taliban is critical to
    ending the conflict and ensuring the long-term preservation of our
    national security interests. We have signaled to the Afghan government
    and our NATO allies our priority to launch a peace process, and we
    regularly engage Afghanistan's neighbors to press the Taliban to come
    to the negotiating table.
        The broad outlines of an acceptable agreement to end the conflict
    would require the Taliban to cease violence, break all ties to
    international terrorists, and accept the Afghan Constitution, including
    its protections for women and minorities. These end-conditions are
    necessary to ensure the gains achieved over the last 15 years are
    protected.

        Question 6. What steps are you taking to press Russia to adhere to
    the Minsk agreements, and how would you categorize your progress to
    date? Is the administration planning to increase or relax sanctions
    against Russia to encourage its adherence to the agreements?

        Answer. The United States remains committed to the Minsk
    agreements, but we are not satisfied with the progress of their
    implementation. We have called on Russia to use its influence over the
    so-called separatists to accept the International Committee of the Red
    Cross proposal to protect critical infrastructure and implement
    measures to ease the impact of the fighting on the local population.
        Russia-led separatists have continued to obstruct the operation of
    the SMM. The SMM is a vital component to implementation of the Minsk
    agreements. Parties that threaten it--or refuse to stop the threats
    against it--are signaling their contempt for the peace process for
    eastern Ukraine. We have called on Russia to compel the separatists
    that they lead, train, and fight alongside to end their campaign of
    harassment aimed at the SMM immediately and stop the harassment of SMM
    monitors, and to allow SMM operations to continue unimpeded.
        The United States remains deeply disturbed by the escalating
    violence in eastern Ukraine, and continues to fully support Ukraine's
    sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its
    internationally-recognized borders. Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia
    will remain in place until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered
    them, and we will keep them in place until Moscow fully honors its
    commitments to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.

        Question 7. Former Secretaries of State Powell, Rice, Clinton, and
    Kerry all met with civil society groups during visits to Russia. You
    declined to meet with any civil society representatives during your
    first visit there. Why did you choose to forgo meeting with civil
    society groups on your trip, and what steps do you plan to take to
    ensure that our bilateral relationship with Russia adheres to U.S.
    values?

        Answer. I believe that the Department of State's mission is at all
    times guided by our longstanding American values of freedom, democracy,
    individual liberty, and human dignity.
        While I was not able to meet with civil society groups on this
    first trip, Department officials at all levels, including officials at
    the United States Embassy in Moscow, Russia, regularly meet with civil
    society groups. We believe that the Russian people, like people
    everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of
    ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under
    the law, and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of
    retribution. Although the space for civil society and free media in
    Russia has become increasingly restricted, Russian organizations and
    individuals continue to express a desire to engage with the United
    States. As long as this continues to be the case, the United States
    will support opportunities for direct interactions between Russians and
    Americans, including through peer-to-peer, educational, cultural, and
    other regional programs that provide exchanges of best practices and
    ideas on themes of mutual interest.

        Question 8. Did you raise Russia's interference in the 2016
    presidential election cycle during your May 2017 meeting with Russian
    Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov? Have you or any other State Department
    officials addressed this issue in meetings with Russian counterparts?

        Answer. While I do not want to get into specifics of my diplomatic
    conversations, I assure you that the Russian government is well aware
    of our concerns over its cyber activities directed against the United
    States and more globally. The Department has repeatedly raised its
    concerns with the Russian government. The U.S. government will take
    action to protect our interests and to harden our defenses against
    malicious cyber activity. The Department also continues to maintain
    established means and modes of communication to ensure that the United
    States and Russia do not misunderstand one another.

        Question 9. President Trump has indicated a willingness to
    ``renegotiate'' the Paris Agreement following the U.S. withdrawal.
    Given that the United States designs its own commitments under the
    Paris agreement and could have changed them rather than withdraw, what
    would be the administration's objective in renegotiating the Paris
    Agreement? What, if anything, is being done by the State Department to
    secure a new agreement?

        Answer. As the President indicated, we will begin negotiations to
    re-enter either the Paris Agreement or an entirely new deal. We will
    engage with partners and stakeholders to identify a path forward. It is
    important to note that the President is not walking away from engaging
    on the issue of climate change. The administration will work to ensure
    that America remains the world's leader on environmental issues, but in
    a way that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are
    equally shared among the nations around the world.

        Question 10. While I would have disagreed with this policy, the
    administration could have reduced U.S. commitments while remaining in
    the Paris Agreement. What specific provisions of the Paris Agreement-
    apart from the U.S. pledge, which could have been altered-did the
    President object to that prompted the decision to withdraw?

        Answer. The President has made clear that he does not want to
    commit the United States to a set of actions, policies and measures
    that produce burdens specific to the United States that other countries
    do not face. He expressed concerns that implementing the U.S. pledge
    would have resulted in job losses in the United States, while other
    countries, especially economic competitors, were not taking on
    similarly rigorous targets. In addition, the President expressed
    concern that prior financial pledges to developing countries were not
    in the best interest of American taxpayers, and that major emerging
    economies were not taking on commensurate commitments. With that being
    said, the President is intent on staying engaged on the issue of
    climate change and interested in finding a way to reenter the Paris
    Agreement on terms that are more fair to the American worker and
    American consumers.

                                   __________

                Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
               Submitted to Secretary Tillerson by Senator Booker

    Democracy and Governance
        Question 1. According to Freedom House, freedom in the world has
    been in decline over the last decade. Meanwhile, the Fiscal Year 2018
    budget proposes a 50 percent cut in spending for Democracy, Rights, and
    Governance (DRG) programming from Fiscal Year 2010. There has long been
    a bipartisan consensus in the United States that democracies are more
    adaptable to change, more resilient, and therefore more stable.

       Do you believe that helping countries strengthen democratic
            institutions and the rule of law should remain a primary U.S.
            objective?
       In light of Russia's efforts to undermine Western Democracies and
            the threats to rule of law in many African countries such as
            DRC, in which an American, Michael Sharpe was killed
            investigating reports of state-backed atrocities, do you
            believe that deep cuts to DRG programming undermines our own
            security interests?

        Answer. Supporting countries in strengthening democracy, human
    rights, and governance (DRG) is critical for defending national
    security, fostering economic opportunities for the American people,
    asserting U.S. leadership and influence, and ensuring effectiveness and
    accountability to the American taxpayer. As has been the case for many
    years, Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) programs
    implemented by both USAID and the State Department seek to build the
    accountability, transparency, and responsiveness of democratic
    governing institutions; foster respect for human rights and the rule of
    law; fight corruption; promote citizen participation and engagement in
    governance and rule of law; and strengthen civil society organizations
    and independent media.
        Some of our most pressing national security threats at their core
    stem from other countries' poor governance and from the absence of the
    rule of law, including weak or nonexistent democratic institutions, a
    lack of accountability, corruption, low citizen engagement, and human
    rights abuses. DRG investments are critical to addressing the societal
    conditions that lead to violent extremism, radicalization, migration,
    instability, and organized crime. In FY 2018, DRG programs will be
    targeted to promote effective, accountable and democratic institutions
    and a vibrant civil society, which creates the conditions for long-term
    security Furthermore, DRG programs will strength the rule of law,
    diminish corruption, and encourage government transparency.

     Long Term U.S. Investment
        Question 2. I understand that USAID Missions are--in some cases--
    holding back funding for long-term development programs because they do
    not want to start programs they worry they will have to cut in FY 2018
    or beyond. I am extremely concerned by this as long-term development
    programs are essential for addressing the drivers of violence, poverty,
    and insecurity around the world. If programs continue on cost-
    extensions or are switched to short-term, year-long programs, they will
    not be as efficient or effective.

       How does your budget support effective programming that must take
            more than a year or two to work and have impact?

        Answer. USAID implements multi-year programming subject to the
    availability of funds. While USAID programs are funded by single fiscal
    year through the annual appropriations process, USAID's operational
    model requires multi-year planning designed to achieve longer term
    development objectives in a given country or region based on the best
    available evidence and analysis. In response to lessons learned,
    changes in partner country context, or the availability of resources,
    USAID can adapt its programming in order to continue to achieve
    effective and sustainable results and advance U.S. foreign policy.

    Nigeria
        Question 3. Senator Paul and I sent you a letter last week
    expressing concern about the reported sale of Super Tucano aircraft to
    Nigeria. The Nigerian Air Force mistakenly bombed an IDP camp in Rann
    in January, killing as many as 200 people. There has been no report to
    the public about what went wrong. The Nigerian Army is accused of
    massacring 300 people and burying them in a mass grave in December of
    2015.
        No one has been held accountable to date. In mid-2015, Amnesty
    International released a report alleging that the deaths of 8000
    civilians are attributable to the Nigerian military in northeast
    Nigeria, and that specific commanders had knowledge of torture, extra-
    judicial killings and arbitrary detentions in overcrowded facilities.
        In your response to questions for the record for your confirmation
    hearing, you said that ``assistance on the improvement on human rights
    is something that must be considered on a case by case basis.''

       Have you reviewed the case of Nigeria?
       Why are we moving ahead with the sale of Super Tucanos without
            getting assurances that the Nigerian government will share with
            us the findings of the investigation into the Rann bombing and
            insisting on accountability for the Zaria massacre?

        Answer. In the State Department's conversations with the Nigerian
    government at all levels, we regularly underscore that human rights
    abuses and impunity for those violations tarnish Nigeria's
    international reputation, undermine its ability to establish trusting
    relationships with its citizenry, and impede our ability to serve as a
    partner in Nigeria's efforts to defeat Boko Haram and the Islamic State
    of West Africa. I will continue to urge the Government of Nigeria to
    undertake timely and credible investigations into all allegations of
    human rights abuses, pursue broader and more transparent efforts to end
    impunity, and hold individuals found guilty of wrongdoing to account.
        Nigeria is a critical partner in the fight against terrorism in
    Africa. As President Trump told President Buhari in their February
    phone call, we support Nigeria's interest in purchasing a close support
    aircraft capability from the United States to counter the regional
    threat of the Islamic State of West Africa and to defeat Boko Haram.
    This is part of our efforts to help professionalize the Nigerian
    security forces. The ultimate goal of U.S.-Nigeria security cooperation
    is to support the transformation of the Nigerian military into an
    operationally capable and professional organization that upholds
    international human rights standards and the Law of Armed Conflict in
    its operations and holds any violators to account.
        The bombing of Rann was a terrible tragedy. The strike appears to
    be the result of human error. When the incident occurred, the Nigerian
    military immediately assumed responsibility for the tragedy. The air
    force also promptly established a six-person panel to investigate the
    incident. This and other investigations are ongoing. The Nigerian air
    force has also initiated a number of corrective actions to prevent
    future such mistakes, including closer coordination with humanitarian
    organizations active in the region. We support Nigeria's desire to
    acquire aircraft designed for more precise air-to-ground strikes,
    enabling pilots to positively identify targets prior to the release of
    weapons. Since this incident, the U.S. government has secured funding
    for air-to-ground integration training with the Nigerian military.

        Question 4. administration's Africa Policy: South Sudan, as you
    know is experiencing a famine, DRC is facing a political crisis that
    has thrown the country into turmoil, Mali and Central African Republic
    continue to experience conflict and violence. Meanwhile, there has not
    been a nomination for an Assistant Secretary for Africa, there is no
    Senior Director for Africa at the NSC, and despite a bipartisan call
    for a Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, none has been appointed.
    What we do see are major cuts to our programs in Africa at the same
    time that Ambassador Haley promises deep cuts to peacekeeping
    operations on the continent.

       Can you explain to this committee this administration's plan or
            strategy for Africa?
       Can you provide this committee with a commitment for the
            appointment of a special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan and an
            Assistant Secretary for Africa?

        Answer. The Department's strategy for sub-Saharan Africa focuses on
    four key priorities for the region: advancing peace and security;
    spurring economic growth, trade, and investment; strengthening
    democratic institutions; and promoting opportunity and development.
        We seek to advance peace and security in the region by: countering
    transnational threats, like terrorism and transnational crime;
    addressing economic and political drivers of violent conflict;
    preventing, mitigating, and resolving armed conflict; and advancing
    regional security cooperation and security sector reform.
        Our strategy also promotes the implementation of legal, regulatory,
    and institutional reforms that spur and sustain growth, trade, and
    investment as a way to encourage development of local capacity. We
    support deeper economic integration across Africa to enable greater
    levels of trade, provide a further boost to diversification and
    sustainable growth, and create broader and more diverse markets.
        We also recognize the foundational importance of democracy, human
    rights, and governance to Africa's future and U.S. foreign policy
    objectives on the continent and seek to strengthen democratic
    institutions. Working in partnership with African governments and civil
    society, we aim to help strengthen governance institutions, protect the
    democratic and development gains, and prevent democratic backsliding.
        Finally, we seek to accelerate development in sub-Saharan Africa by
    reducing poverty and addressing constraints to growth. Without the
    proper investments in African institutions, grievances about service
    delivery, corruption, poor health outcomes, a lack of economic and
    educational opportunities, and food insecurity will only increase
    forced migration and regional instability.
        With the recent confirmation of the Deputy Secretary, and an
    ongoing Department-wide organizational assessment, we are evaluating
    various roles, including special envoys.

    Food Security/Famine
        Question 5. Famine has been declared in parts of South Sudan, and
    another three countries-Yemen, Somalia, and northeastern Nigeria-are
    currently facing the threat of famine, leaving 20 million people at
    risk from starvation and disease. These countries are also some of the
    most unstable in the world, and harbor terrorist groups like ISIS, Al
    Shabaab, and Boko Haram.
        Since food insecurity is one of the main drivers of instability,
    the national security implications of this famine for the United States
    are real and urgent. However, the administration's FY 18 request
    proposes to cut overall funding for humanitarian assistance by $4.2
    billion (44 percent).

       Do you agree with the premise that there is a link between
            humanitarian crises and national security threats?

        Over the past three months, we have seen testimony on Capitol Hill
    from the Commanders of CENTCOM, AFRICOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, and
    SOCOM, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of
    Defense calling the State Department and USAID ``indescribably
    critical'' and expressing ``unqualified support'' for sufficiently
    resourcing our diplomats and development experts.

       Do you agree with these military leaders that the State Department
            plays a critical role in the whole-of-government approach to
            national security?
       Did you speak with Secretary Mattis and other military leaders when
            creating this budget?

        Answer. Many of the most exigent global threats to U.S. national
    security today emanate from conflict-affected and fragile states with
    poor governance, the absence of the rule of law, corruption, weak or
    nonexistent democratic institutions, and human rights abuses. Indeed,
    crises in these countries have sparked historic levels of displaced
    people around the world, which have required increasing amounts of U.S.
    and other international humanitarian resources to respond. These crises
    also create enabling environments for ISIS and other transnational
    terrorist groups to operate.
        The United States is committed to doing our fair share to respond
    to humanitarian crises. With our FY 2018 budget request, we will remain
    a leading contributor of humanitarian assistance. We are also asking
    our international partners to step up their efforts and contribute
    more. We continue to respond robustly to the famine or threat of famine
    in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria, providing nearly $1.2
    billion in FY 2017 to date for these crises. At the same time, I
    believe we must focus on addressing the fundamental conditions that
    give rise to these crises and work to prevent new ones from emerging.
    This requires aggressive diplomacy and targeted assistance to resolve
    conflicts, promote good governance, and promote stabilization. Our
    budget request in FY 2018 includes dedicated resources to support
    conflict mitigation, stabilization, and human rights and governance
    programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and
    elsewhere. That said, as I stressed in my opening remarks, I believe it
    is our people first and foremost--not the level of resources--that will
    determine our ability to meet these important goals.
        The Department of State and USAID have indispensable roles to play
    in a whole-of-government effort to address these challenges, including
    working with the Department of Defense (DoD). We partner closely with
    DoD in Washington on strategy and policy. In the field, our partnership
    with DoD is essential to ensure that bilateral partners help share the
    burden to address today's national security threats. In conflict
    environments, State Department and USAID also work closely with
    Department of Defense to bring complementary civilian tools to bear to
    address critical violent extremist threats and stabilization
    challenges. Alongside the National Security Council, we are reviewing
    how we can enhance our collective efforts and collaboration to address
    fragile states and promote stabilization. In addition, Secretary Mattis
    and I have committed our departments to work more closely together on
    security sector assistance (SSA) efforts. We have established a new
    State-DoD SSA Steering Committee that is working to review how can
    optimize our respective resources and authorities to advance an
    ``America First'' foreign policy that prioritizes U.S. national
    security and maximizes the value of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Improvements
    in how we provide SSA will enable our partners to provide greater
    security and stability, which in turn reduces one of the key drivers of
    the current humanitarian crises.

    Bipartisan Support for 150 Budget
        Question 6. Nine former U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations--a
    bipartisan mix of Republican and Democrats--recently sent a letter to
    Congressional leaders urging full funding for the organization, deeming
    the UN an ``indispensable instrument,'' and making clear how
    counterproductive slashing contributions would be.
        They said that, ``Withholding or slashing funding for the U.N.
    alienates allies whose support is critical to our reform priorities,
    undermines essential U.N. activities that promote core American
    interests and values, and costs us more over the long term. It also
    cedes the agenda to countries that can be hostile to our interests and
    more than willing to see the U.S. give up its seat at the table."
        Have you had any conversations with former U.S. leaders and or
    former U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. like John Negroponte or Tom
    Pickering or former Secretary of State Albright about their experiences
    and why they deem it an institution worth supporting?

        Answer. I welcome every opportunity to hear from the many
    experienced diplomats and senior leaders that have shaped American
    foreign policy over the years. I share the opinion of many from whom I
    have heard that the United Nations must be an important element of U.S.
    global leadership. As you know, the President has made clear his belief
    that the United Nations has enormous potential, but to realize that
    potential, reform must be prioritized.
        In addition to seeking reforms to improve U.N. efficiency,
    effectiveness, and accountability, the administration strongly believes
    that a more equitable burden-sharing among U.N. member states is
    warranted. The proposed budget reflects that thinking, while charting a
    course for continued U.S. leadership at the United Nations.

    Education and Cultural Affairs
        Question 7. I believe educational and cultural exchange programs
    fully align with the Department's stated policy priorities of
    supporting U.S. national security and strengthening our economy.
        There is strong bipartisan consensus in Congress that exchange
    programs are a critical diplomacy tool. They create important
    relationships between Americans and leaders around the world who gain a
    profound understanding of the U.S. and our values. In fact, 1 in 3
    world leaders today are exchange alumni. Exchange programs also
    directly benefit the U.S. economy: almost all of the appropriated
    exchanges funds are spent in the United States or on Americans.
    Exchange visitors coming to the U.S. also contribute significantly to
    the local economies of all 50 states.
        Yet the administration's budget proposes a 55 percent funding cut
    for these programs. I am convinced that such cuts would greatly harm
    our nation's diplomacy efforts. As your esteemed colleague, Defense
    Secretary James Mattis, has suggested, the way to reduce the
    possibility of war is to increase people-to-people diplomacy. This is
    at the heart of cultural and educational exchange.

       Can you share with us the Department's views about funding these
            programs and the need to ensure a comprehensive mix of
            federally and privately funded exchanges?

        Answer. The State Department recognizes the important contribution
    of exchange programs to advancing our foreign policy priorities. All of
    ECA's exchange programs engage in strategic public-private
    collaboration that leverages the expertise, networks, and resources of
    the Department with those of partner governments, the private sector,
    NGOs, and academic institutions to increase ECA's effectiveness in
    advancing U.S. foreign policy goals. Partnerships bring new resources--
    human, in-kind, financial--to address challenges or fill gaps best met
    through long-term and sustainable cooperation between the public and
    private sectors.
        Through these partnerships, ECA expands global opportunities for
    American citizens and organizations, engages a domestic American
    audience in the work of diplomacy, and showcases American leadership.
    At the same time, ECA oversees a broad array of private sector (J-1)
    exchanges that bring researchers, medical doctors, and others to the
    United States at their own expense. These private exchanges have
    positive impact on American workplaces and in our economy, while
    helping to build foreigners' positive views of the United States. In
    2016, ECA's Private Sector Programs welcomed more than 300,000 new
    exchange visitors in thirteen categories to the United States from more
    than 200 countries and territories. These private sector programs are
    self-sufficient and do not draw from appropriated funds.

                                   __________

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

               Letter to Senator Cardin from Ronald J. Daniels,
                      President, Johns Hopkins University

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Material Submitted for the Record by Care USA

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]