- STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

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

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2018

----------

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:48 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Leahy, Moran, Shaheen, Boozman,
Durbin, Van Hollen, Coons, Daines, and Murphy.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

STATEMENT OF THE HON. REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Senator Graham. The subcommittee hearing will come to
order. Our hearing today is on the President's fiscal year 2018
budget request and justification for the Department of State. I
would like to welcome our witness, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson. After opening statements from myself and the ranking
member, we'll hear from the Secretary.
We will accept your written testimony and anything you
would like to tell us personally.
This is going to be a little bit longer than normal. This
is a very important issue for the country, and a passion of
mine.
Number one, Secretary Tillerson, I like the way you
represent our country. You have a style that's pretty good for
the world as it is today. You're a man of few words, but when
you talk people listen. Your view of Qatar, I share. What
you're doing in North Korea is beginning to penetrate. I just
met with the Chinese. I think they get your message. And I
think you're looking for ways for people to get to yes and
always leaving backdoors to hard situations. So in terms of
your style and your attitude toward the job, I very much
appreciate it.
As to the budget, we need to increase defense spending, but
once you do that, if you're not going to deal with
entitlements, you have to go to non-defense discretionary
spending to find the offsets, and this account gets pretty much
devastated. I'm not blaming you, I'm not blaming anybody, I
just want the country to know this budget request is in many
ways radical and reckless when it comes to soft power, and I
look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, to find a
better budget, but also to find a better State Department.
You've just gotten there, you've been there a few months. A
year from now I think you'll have a better understanding of how
the State Department can be reformed, and I intend to be your
partner and champion for reforming the State Department. Let's
give it a good once-over, see what works, what doesn't. How
many people do we actually need? All of that is long overdue.
I welcome that kind of analysis, but what we have today is
a number basically driven by the requirement to balance the
budget, increase defense spending, and this account gets hit
pretty hard. I don't think it's a result of the scrutiny of how
the State Department works as much budget pressure given from
increased military spending.
So the first chart I have is to my right. General Mattis
said: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I
need to buy more ammunition''. Sixteen retired four-star
generals and admirals submitted testimony for this hearing that
``Cutting the International Affairs budget unilaterally will
have the effect of disarming our country's capability to stop
new conflicts from forming, and will place our interests,
values, and the lives of our men and women in uniform at
risk''.
So here's the point. I believe after 42 trips to Iraq and
Afghanistan, we are never going to win this war by killing
terrorists alone, that there has to be a soft power connection
that the day after you have to hold, and the terrorists offer a
glorious death, and we must offer a hopeful life. That's where
your people come in, Mr. Secretary, along with the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) to give the
capability the day after to form a better life for those who
are having to choose between terrorism and modern thought.
I believe, as the generals do--if you don't believe me,
listen to the generals--that the State Department's role in the
war on terror is very important, to me just as important as any
military power we have.
Now, how much do we spend on soft power? We spend 1.4
percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). A lot of people
think foreign aid is about 25 percent of what we spend, but
compared to hard power, which is about 20 percent of what we
spend, we spend a very small amount on soft power, and that 1.4
percent includes things beyond just traditional soft power.
I want the country to know that if you eliminated the State
Department, you would not even begin to move the debt needle.
The question is if you cripple the State Department, it's not
about debt to me, it's about security and American values being
impeded.
Let's look at GDP on defense and non-defense. GDP on hard
power is about 3 percent of GDP. On soft power, it's a rounding
error, and this chart shows you that we're going downward
dramatically on soft power and upward on hard power.
A comparison of DoD-State Department workforce. How many
people do we have in the hard power world and soft power world?
Okay. You see in this chart over here the numbers of State
USAID, which is a very small percentage, and we have well over
a million people in uniform.
If you believe soft power is important, and the generals
tell me you do, look at the balance. Here is what I would
suggest. We do need more hard power because sequestration has
hurt hard power, but you're going to have a hard time
convincing me that soft power can stand a 29 percent cut, and
we'll talk about that more. So that's the comparability of the
workforce basically.
For the International Affairs Budget historically, look at
the big drop in 2018, plus-up in 2017, and the world has gone
to hell in a handcart. Now, our response is to increase hard
power, which I agree with, but a 29 percent reduction in soft
power in 2018 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Just
look at that drop and say given the world as we know it, and
the role that soft power plays, according to the generals, not
Lindsey Graham, is this wise? I really don't think so.
Embassy security funding. We all remember Benghazi. Look at
this reduction in funding for security of our embassies. All I
can say, given the threats that I see, now is not the time to
decrease Embassy security funding unless you're going to close
a lot of embassies, and I'm not so sure now is the time to be
closing a lot of embassies.
Here's what the Benghazi Accountability Review Board told
us. It is imperative for the State Department to be mission-
driven rather than resource-constrained. So here's the
question: the mission of the State Department in a world
falling apart, is it greater or smaller? And if you think it's
greater, then the budget should follow the need, not just some
artificial number.
All right. Let's go to HIV/AIDS. As a Republican, I am
proud of President George W. Bush 43, who came up with a
program called the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR), supported by almost every Democrat. President
Obama continued this. And as you can see, in the return on the
dollar for the PEPFAR program has been absolutely astounding.
Millions of young Africans are alive today because of the
PEPFAR program. Mother-to-child AIDS transmissions has gone
down by 75 percent. Every American taxpayer should be pleased
that your hard-earned dollars went to a continent being
consumed by a vicious disease called AIDS, and we're beginning
to turn the corner. We're not there yet, but there are five
countries that are going to be self-sufficient, and this budget
cuts it by a billion dollars when we're inside the 10-yard
line. I could give you the numbers of what it means to the
programs, but there are a lot. Hundreds of thousands of people
will not be treated because of this budget cut. I think it's
penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Humanitarian assistance. There are currently 65.3 million
people forcefully displaced worldwide. That's the highest level
in modern history. Now, what role does the State Department
play in this? Twenty million people are currently at risk of
famine. So you have famine and you have manmade wars and
disasters. Look what we're doing with assistance. We're cutting
it at a time when disaster assistance needs are at an all-time
high.
The President's fiscal year 2018 budget cuts international
disaster assistance and food aid by $3.4 billion, 77 percent
below the 2017 numbers. The terrorists love this. The
terrorists hate the idea that America shows up with some food
and education. From a terrorist point of view, this is really a
recruiting tool. From an American point of view, we've got to
fix this problem because if we cut back, other people will
follow, and you're going to pay now or pay later. You're going
to deal with these people now while they can still be helped or
wind up killing them later when the young people become
terrorists. So I've got a real problem with that one.
Georgia, not my neighbor Georgia, the country. For the
record, I like the people in Georgia. [Laughter.]
Georgia is fighting in Afghanistan without any caveats.
They're one of the few countries that go to Afghanistan to
partner with our soldiers and do whatever we ask them to do.
They've died in large numbers. They have absolutely no
restrictions on their force. They help us win a war in
Afghanistan we can't afford to lose. Their neighbor is a pretty
bad hombre, the Russians.
I'm not going to bore you with telling you about what
Russia has been doing to their friends in the region,
particularly Georgia, but it's not good. What signal are we
sending to Georgia when we cut their assistance 66 percent at a
time when Russia is on the prowl and we need more help in
Afghanistan, not less? This is the wrong message to our friends
and certainly the wrong message to Russia. I am at a loss of
why we would cut aid to Georgia given what Russia is doing in
the region now, and I'm at loss of why we would want to send
this signal to a people who are sending their troops to
Afghanistan without any conditions.
Sri Lanka. Small place. It's within 20 miles of sea lanes
that carry over two-thirds of the world's oil shipments and
half the world's container cargo. China is a big player there.
They just ended a 26-year conflict; democratic progress is in
our interest to have a democracy that is close to the world's
shipping lanes. China is a competitor. And, unfortunately,
we're reducing our assistance to Sri Lanka as China is going
all in. Not a wise move.
Now, this is to you, Mr. Secretary. You ran one of the best
businesses in the world. You're a really smart guy. But here's
what's on your plate that I could think of: ISIS. You're going
to beat them militarily, but if you don't have a plan for the
day after, we're going to lose again. What do you do with Iraq?
What do you do with Mosul? What do you do with Anbar Province?
How do you hold it? So defeating ISIS permanently has to have a
hold-and-build strategy. That's where USAID and all your really
smart people come into play.
Qatar. If you read the op-ed piece today by the United Arab
Emirates ambassador, things are not going well. You've got
Qatar right from our point of view. We've got 10,000 airmen and
soldiers there. We can't let this get out of hand, so you're
going to be pretty busy with Qatar.
Russia. Don't have time to talk about what's on your plate
with Russia, it's just a lot.
Syria. If we can ever find a way to end the war, it will be
in Geneva, and you'll be at the table trying to find a way to
put Syria back together to make sure that the war doesn't start
again and Lebanon and Jordan don't fall because of endless war.
The resources necessary to repair the damage in Syria makes
Iraq look like a walk in the park, and part of those resources
will be you and your talented people who will go in there and
help the Syrian people deal with the devastation.
North Korea. I like what you're doing in North Korea. I
don't think we're out of the woods yet.
So you're going to be a busy guy. Sixty-five million people
displaced on your watch. By the way, the war in Afghanistan, we
need more soldiers, and I think the President is going to give
the generals what they want, but we also need to make sure that
the soldiers' sacrifice is not forsaken because you better have
a plan to rebuild those areas we've lost from the Taliban once
we take it back or we're going to lose them again. So that's
where your people come in.
The President said the Iranian nuclear agreement is
terrible, and he wants to replace it. If you had nothing else
to do but that, that would be a full-time job. Good luck.
Ukraine. It doesn't seem to be getting better to me.
China. I really like what you're doing with China regarding
North Korea. I think you're making it real to the Chinese they
better change their game because President Trump is not going
to allow them to get a missile to hit our homeland, and you've
got a pretty good approach, but China is tough.
Twenty million people impacted by famine, and they tell me
we're going to start the Mideast peace process all over again.
You're the man. You're going to do all that and cut the
budget by 29 percent. Thank you for coming.
Senator Leahy.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator Leahy. Well, I was going to be tough, but I'll----
[Laughter.]
I agree with Senator Graham. We've worked together on this
subcommittee for a long time, part of the time he's been
chairman, part of the time I've been chairman, but usually the
bills we've brought out of here have gotten a virtual unanimous
vote, Republicans and Democrats, because we care about it.
I want to read a few passages from a May 25 guest column in
the ``New York Times'' by Colin Powell, who served as Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush
and President Clinton, and as Secretary of State under
President George W. Bush. He wrote, and I quote, At our best,
being a great nation has always been a commitment to building a
better, safer world, not just for ourselves, but for our
children and our grandchildren. This has meant leading the
world and advancing a cause of peace, responding when disease
and disaster strike, lifting millions out of poverty, and
inspiring those yearning for freedom. This calling is under
threat. The administration's proposal to slash approximately 30
percent from the State Department and foreign assistance budget
signals an American retreat, leaving a vacuum and making us far
less safe, proposing to bring resources for our civilian forces
to a third of what we spent at the height of Ronald Reagan's
``peace through strength'' years. It would be internationally
irresponsible, distressing our friends and encouraging our
enemies and undermining our own economic and national security
interests. The idea that putting America first requires
withdrawal from the world is simply wrongheaded.
And he goes on to speak of his own experience, that many
thought that the end of the Cold War would allow us to retreat.
Well, it has not. Do we really want to slash the State
Department and USAID at such a perilous moment? No.
What we're saying when we talk about making America great,
what we're talking about, we're stepping aside, we're letting
other countries fill the vacuum, and making the United States
less great. I'd like to think our values are the ones that set
the example for other countries.
Obviously you disagree with Secretary Powell. Why do you
believe that eliminating thousands of personnel positions,
cutting billions of dollars from programs administered by the
Department of State and USAID is in our best interest? I would
ask the chairman to put the Powell article in the record.
Senator Graham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

[From The New York Times, May 24, 2017]

_______________________________________________________________________

Opinion op-ed contributor

COLIN POWELL: AMERICAN LEADERSHIP--WE CAN'T DO IT FOR FREE

(By Colin Powell)

At our best, being a great nation has always meant a commitment to
building a better, safer world--not just for ourselves, but for our
children and grandchildren. This has meant leading the world in
advancing the cause of peace, responding when disease and disaster
strike, lifting millions out of poverty and inspiring those yearning
for freedom.
This calling is under threat.
The administration's proposal, announced Tuesday, to slash
approximately 30 percent from the State Department and foreign
assistance budget signals an American retreat, leaving a vacuum that
would make us far less safe and prosperous. While it may sound penny-
wise, it is pound-foolish.
This proposal would bring resources for our civilian forces to a
third of what we spent at the height of Ronald Reagan's ``peace through
strength'' years, as a percentage of the gross domestic product. It
would be internationally irresponsible, distressing our friends,
encouraging our enemies and undermining our own economic and national
security interests.
The idea that putting Americans ``first'' requires a withdrawal
from the world is simply wrongheaded, because a retreat would achieve
exactly the opposite for our citizens. I learned that lesson the hard
way when I became Secretary of State after a decade of budget cuts that
hollowed out our civilian foreign policy tools.
Many had assumed the Cold War's end would allow us to retreat from
the world, but cuts that may have looked logical at the time came back
to haunt us as tensions rose in the Middle East, Africa, the Korean
Peninsula and elsewhere. Confronting such challenges requires not just
a military that is second to none, but also well-resourced, effective
and empowered diplomats and aid workers.
Indeed, we're strongest when the face of America isn't only a
soldier carrying a gun but also a diplomat negotiating peace, a Peace
Corps volunteer bringing clean water to a village or a relief worker
stepping off a cargo plane as floodwaters rise. While I am all for
reviewing, reforming and strengthening the State Department and the
United States Agency for International Development, proposals to zero
out economic and development assistance in more than 35 countries would
effectively lower our flag at our outposts around the world and make us
far less safe.
Today, the world is witnessing some of the most significant
humanitarian crises in living memory. With more than 65 million people
displaced, there have never been more people fleeing war and
instability since World War II. The famines engulfing families in South
Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia put more than 20 million people at
risk of starvation--further destabilizing regions already under threat
from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab.
Do we really want to slash the State Department and the U.S.A.I.D.
at such a perilous moment? The American answer has always been no. Yet
this budget proposal has forced us to ask what America's role in the
world is and what kind of nation we seek to be. The President's budget
director, Mick Mulvaney, has described these cuts as ``not a reflection
of the President's policies regarding an attitude toward State.'' But
how is a 32 percent cut to our civilian programs overseas anything but
a clear expression of policy?
True, many in Congress have effectively declared the
administration's budget proposal ``dead on arrival,'' but they also
acknowledge that it will set the tone for the coming budget debate.
That's the wrong conversation. Our diplomacy and development budget is
not just about reducing spending and finding efficiencies. We need a
frank conversation about what we stand for as that ``shining city on a
hill.'' And that conversation begins by acknowledging that we can't do
it on the cheap.
Diplomacy and aid aren't the only self-defeating cuts in the
administration's proposal. A call to all but eliminate two key export-
promotion agencies--the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the
Trade and Development Agency--would harm thousands of American workers
and actually add to the deficit. And any cuts to our economic
development investments in Africa and elsewhere would undermine our
ability to build new customer bases in the world's fastest-growing
markets.
With 95 percent of the world's consumers outside our borders, it's
not ``America first'' to surrender the field to an ambitious China
rapidly expanding its influence, building highways and railroads across
Africa and Asia. China is far from slashing its development budget.
Instead, it's growing--by more than 780 percent in Africa alone since
2003.
Since the release of its initial budget request in March, the
administration has started to demonstrate a more strategic foreign
policy approach. This is welcome, but it will take far more than a
strike against Syria, a harder line on Russia, increased pressure on
North Korea and deeper engagement with China to steer American foreign
policy. It also takes the resources to underwrite it.
America is great when we're the country that the world admires, a
beacon of hope and a principled people who are generous, fair and
caring. That's the American way. If we're still that nation, then we
must continue to devote this small but strategic 1 percent of our
Federal budget to this mission.
Throughout my career, I learned plenty about war on the
battlefield, but I learned even more about the importance of finding
peace. And that is what the State Department and U.S.A.I.D. do: prevent
the wars that we can avoid, so that we fight only the ones we must. For
our servicemembers and citizens, it's an investment we must make.

Colin Powell was the Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 25, 2017, on Page A27
of the New York edition with the headline: Leadership Isn't Free.

Senator Leahy. Secretary Powell also said that many had
assumed the Cold War's end would allow us to withdraw from the
world, but cuts that may have looked logical at the time came
back to haunt us as tensions rose in the Middle East, Africa,
the Korean Peninsula, and elsewhere. Confronting such
challenges requires not just a military that's second to none,
but also the resources for effective, empowered diplomats and
aid workers.
I think what General Powell was saying and others have
said, is that much of the world has looked to the United States
for leadership. We're walking away from that leadership. We
spend a little over 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid, and
on a per capita basis a lot of countries spend more. Why would
we give up that influence? Does that make us safer? Why do we
want to let some of these totalitarian regimes expand their
influence versus American influence? Does it make us safer if
we allow epidemics to spread around the world? Does it make us
safer if we don't do our part to help with the flood of
refugees that's overwhelming allies like Jordan? Does it make
us any safer if we pretend that we can be Fortress America? I
remember how well that worked in 9/11 when Saudi Arabia sent
people to fly airplanes into the Twin Towers.
We can't be Fortress America. We face problems at home, of
course. We face problems abroad.
I want you to know that I agree with the chairman, and we
have very strong views on this.
Senator Graham. Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. Thank
you for coming.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. REX TILLERSON

Secretary Tillerson. Thank you, Chairman Graham, Ranking
Member Leahy, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the 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 interest every single day, 24 hours a day, and 365
days a year. That mission is unchanged. However, the State
Department and USAID, like many other institutions here at home
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
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 the 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 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. But even with the 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.
This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure
every tax dollar that is 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 an all-time high of
$55.6 billion in fiscal year 2017. Recognizing that this rate
of increase in funding is not sustainable, the fiscal year 2018
budget request seeks to align the core missions of the State
Department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget
also represents the interests of the American people, including
responsible stewardship of the public's money.
I know there is intense interest in prospective State
Department and USAID redesign efforts. We have just completed
collecting information on our organizational processes and
culture through a survey that was made available to every one
of our State and USAID colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were
completed. And we 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 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 of our listening sessions and subsequent
evaluation of our organization are the same as those which I
stated in my confirmation hearing for 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 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 the Congress to
improve both organizations.
Throughout my career, I have never believed nor have I
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 the U.S. State Department and
USAID will continue to deliver results for the American people.
I thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rex Tillerson
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, 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
fiscal year 2018 budget request of $37.6 billion dollars aligns with
the administration's objective of making America's security our top
priority. The first responsibility of government is the security of its
own citizens, and we will orient our diplomatic efforts toward
fulfilling that commitment. Within the fiscal year 2018 request level,
funding for Diplomatic Security operations will increase by
approximately 11 percent over fiscal year 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 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. 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 fiscal year 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 percent from fiscal year 2007,
reaching a record high $55.6 billion in fiscal year 2017. Recognizing
that this rate of increase in funding is not sustainable, the fiscal
year 2018 budget request seeks to align the core missions of the State
Department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also
represents the interests of the American people, including responsible
stewardship of the public's money.
I know there is intense interest in prospective State Department
and USAID redesign efforts. We have just completed collecting
information on our organizational processes and culture through a
survey that was made available to every one of our State and USAID
colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were completed, and we 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.

FAMINE ASSISTANCE, SOFT POWER, AND THREAT-BASED BUDGETING

Senator Graham. Thank you. We'll do 7-minute rounds of
questions and answers. I look forward to your effort to reform
the State Department, get the feedback, come to us, and say,
``This is what we can do without. This is what we need more
of.'' I think you've got the right attitude, but we've got to
live with this budget until you get there. It's unacceptable
for me.
Between 2007 and 2017, would you say the world is more
dangerous or less?
Secretary Tillerson. The world is changing.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Tillerson. And it is in a very difficult place
today.
Senator Graham. Right. So if we've been spending more in
the last 10 years, there is probably a good reason. And I would
say that increasing military defense spending by 10 percent is
absolutely long overdue. Do you support the President's budget
to increase hard power by 10 percent?
Secretary Tillerson. I do.
Senator Graham. Do you believe, as General Mattis and other
generals, that soft power is an integral part of our national
security strategy?
Secretary Tillerson. Without question.
Senator Graham. Okay. So we've got the general construct
that soft power and hard power are important. I can understand
increasing hard power, given the threats. I don't understand
reducing soft power by 29 percent, but we'll work through this,
Mr. Secretary.
In terms of addressing famines as they may emerge--let's
put the chart back up--there are currently 65.3 forcefully
displaced people worldwide, four countries. More than 20
million are currently at risk of famine. Why would we reduce
spending in this area given the threats we face?
Secretary Tillerson. Senator, I think the way we're
addressing the challenge in these areas, and talk about why
people are displaced, and then why people are in need of relief
from famine, and the two are not unrelated because many of the
areas of severe famine are related to conflict areas.
What we have done in this budget is put the emphasis of the
funds that we do have available on where the problems lie. And
so in terms of our resources for the Defeat ISIS campaign and
how we put in place zones of stability and restore areas to
some level of normalcy, which would allow people who have been
forced to leave these areas by the advent of ISIS and by the
conflict to find the conditions such that they will want to
return home.
Senator Graham. Right.
Secretary Tillerson. So a lot of our de-ISIS effort is
directed at really creating conditions for the return of
refugees that have fled.
In areas of famine relief, we do appreciate the significant
plus-up in money that the Congress authorized in the food aid
programs in 2017. We're delivering that money to where it is
needed, or the food, in the most effective and efficient way we
can. Places like Yemen, which has severe famine problems,
obviously because of the ongoing conflict, that presents
significant challenges. So how we attack the famine need in
Yemen is we have to find the solution to Yemen that allows us
to deliver the aid to those.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Tillerson. So I look at these as an integrated
problem, not as simply one item here or one item there.
Senator Graham. And I look at it as threat-based budgeting.
I agree that it shouldn't be a number picked out of the air, it
should be based on threats we face. I just don't see how, given
the displacement of this many people and no end in sight, that
77 percent reduction in disaster assistance is consistent with
the threats we face from the disasters that are going on all
over the world. We'll just agree to disagree.

ASSISTANCE FOR GEORGIA

Georgia. What do we tell our friends in Georgia about
reducing their aid by 66 percent given the threats they face
and the importance of Georgia's democracy to overall stability
and our national security interests?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, I've had two bilateral meetings
with the Georgians already, and the President had an
opportunity to meet them as well. When I talk to the Georgians
about what they would like for us to do in the way of expanding
our relationship, what they'd like to see is more economic
trade activity between our countries. They are making
significant investments in their country to make it more
attractive in terms of deepwater port facilities.
Senator Graham. Do they agree with these reductions?
Secretary Tillerson. Their concern over these reductions
did not come up in our conversations. I think what I would
convey to you, Senator, is that at some point, as we have
helped these countries get on their feet and become successful,
we would expect for their requirements of our aid to be
reduced.
And I think Georgia would be the first to tell you they're
very proud of how far they have developed their economy and
have developed the ability to secure themselves against threats
from Russia. Having said that, we're not abandoning them. We're
going to focus the aid we have to help them in the areas where
they feel it is most useful.
Senator Graham. Well, I've been contacted by the people in
Georgia, and they're just absolutely floored. They say, ``What
more do you want us to do? We're fighting and dying with you in
Afghanistan without caveats.'' And maybe the threats coming
from Georgia to Russia justify reductions of 66 percent, but I
just don't agree with you. It's the worst signal to send to a
good ally, the worst signal to send to the Russians. But,
again, we'll work through this.

HIV/AIDS ASSISTANCE

HIV/AIDS. Do you agree that PEPFAR has been a very
successful program for the American taxpayer?
Secretary Tillerson. It's a model health program for the
world to follow.
Senator Graham. Why are we cutting it by a billion dollars?
Secretary Tillerson. The program monies that are available
are to sustain the HIV/AIDS treatments in 11 countries, to
continue to take those to a conclusion, and as patients roll
off of those rolls, new treatments can be made available.
Senator Graham. Right. I agree with you, that there may be
five or six countries that could be self-sufficient. I just
think the billion dollars cut now affects the countries who are
not going to be self-sufficient, and it's just penny-wise and
pound-foolish.
The bottom line here is a threat-based budget on the soft
power side would not resemble what is being presented in my
view. I humbly disagree with you. Just look at what you've got
to do here. The money we're reducing to disaster relief is
going to show up with more terrorists. Pulling back from
Georgia at a time when they're still under siege by the
Russians is going to reward Russia and punish allies, it's
going to create a perception I don't want to create. The
billion dollars coming out of HIV means less treatment for more
people at a time when we're actually turning the corner.
So from 2007 to 2017, if we've spent more, it's because the
threats to this country require us to spend more. 1.4 percent
of the budget is still real money, but at the end of the day,
it's a small amount of money given the return. And let's agree
with you on this, that the people who work for you are
incredibly brave, they serve us as well as anybody in uniform,
and I'm a pretty hawkish military kind of guy. The USAID
workers and the State Department people out there in the fight,
God bless you all. I just really worry about cuts in Embassy
security.
I'm not going to beat you up. I know that we can do better
than this, and we're constrained by artificial spending numbers
that are going to change. So thank you for representing our
country and taking this job, leaving a comfortable life to do
what's on this board.
Senator Leahy.

ASSURANCES ON CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSES

Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We only have a few
minutes here, so I think you can assume there will be other
questions that will be sent to you in written form. Do we have
your assurances they'll be answered?
Secretary Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. Whether they come from Republicans or
Democrats.
Secretary Tillerson. I'm happy to answer any questions of
anyone. I'm happy to take a phone call from anyone at any time.

DIMINISHMENT OF U.S. INFLUENCE

Senator Leahy. Thank you. You've sought to--and Senator
Graham alluded to this--you have sought to reassure our allies
that the U.S. will remain a global leader. With this budget,
cutting money for diplomacy and development by an average of 30
percent, China and Russia are expanding in those areas. Does
that increase our influence?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, Senator, I think we have to
devise new ways to respond to a rising China and respond to a
troubling Russia, and that long list of challenges on that
board over there have been around for a while. The level of
spending we've been carrying out hasn't solved them. I go back
to my view that I don't think the money we spend is necessarily
an indicator of our commitment, I think it's how we go about
it. And we've got to take some new approaches to begin to
address some of these very daunting challenges.
The aid and the support and what we can bring to the issue
is important. I'm not in any way diminishing that, but I think
if we equate the budget level to have some level of commitment
or some level of expected success, I think we're really
undercutting and selling short people's intellectual capacity
to bring different approaches to these problems.
Senator Leahy. Well, I know when Secretary Mattis talks
about cutting our budget, your budget, that we should buy him
more bullets. That kind of got our attention. You talk about
money we've spent. Is every program going to work? Of course
not. But I've worked with Presidents of both parties, both
Presidents Bush, for example, to increase funding in different
parts of the world. Many of those programs have been very
successful. We've talked about PEPFAR and others. The War
Victims Fund has been very successful.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN

You want to eliminate more than 600 positions from the
State Department, the buyouts. Reduce more than twice that
number through attrition. What are you going to do if suddenly
you find that we made a mistake, we're going to need more, not
less?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, that's what the entire redesign
exercise is about--understanding better how the work gets done.
What we've learned out of this listening exercise is our
colleagues in the State Department and USAID can already
identify a number of obstacles to them getting their work done
efficiently and effectively. If we eliminate some of those
obstacles, it's like getting another half a person because they
have their time available now to direct it at delivery on
mission as opposed to managing some internal process that's not
directly delivering on mission. I just use that as an example.
I think when this is all said and done, our objective is to
enable the people, our foreign service officers, our civil
servants, our people in our missions, foreign nationals, to
deliver on mission with greater efficiency and effectiveness,
and, in effect, we're going to get an uplift in effort to
deliver to mission.
Senator Leahy. But if you've got 600 people that are gone,
they're obviously not going to be there to help. Here it sounds
to me almost like you're spending more time figuring out who
you can fire than who you're going to have out there doing
things.
Secretary Tillerson. We're not going to have to fire
anyone. This is all being done through the hiring freeze,
normal attrition, with a very limited, if needed, because we
haven't determined whether we'll even need it, a very limited
buyout program between the end of this year and next. So there
is no firing program planned.

CUBA

Senator Leahy. The President has gone out of his way to
praise the leaders of very repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, but now it seems that
the White House wants to change our relations, which have
finally begun to improve, with Cuba, this despite the progress
we've made that has benefited Cuban entrepreneurs and our
businesses. How does this help?
You know, after a recent trip to Saudi Arabia, where women
are jailed and flogged for driving a car or leaving the house
without permission of a male relative, they get a $100 billion
sale of U.S. weapons, but somehow we have to step on Cuba. Does
that make sense?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, with respect to Cuba, we are
evaluating that policy and what our posture should be. I think
our view is that the steps that were taken over the past few
years to improve relations with Cuba, to open it up to greater
economic participation by U.S. companies and American citizens,
did not deliver a reciprocal change in policy or behavior by
the Cuban government towards human rights. There is still
political opposition to the----
Senator Leahy. You don't think so? You don't think that the
people who now have jobs in Cuba and actually have some
economic stability, they don't think it's better? As the ``Wall
Street Journal'' pointed out last week, because of our
restrictions on trade Cubans are going to Russia to get the
parts they need for their trucks and their cars and other
things. They spend the money in Russia.
I've gone to Cuba and criticized the repression. I don't
just sit here in an easy place and say, ``Oh, this is what's
happening.'' I've actually gone there. But, you know, our
President goes to Saudi Arabia to do a sword dance, we actually
have some Americans that might want to learn to salsa in Cuba.
And I don't mean that to be as flip as it might sound. The fact
is you and I can go to any country that will let us in, but
there is only one country in the world we need permission from
our own government to go to, and that's Cuba, right off our
shore, as though it's still a threat to us. We can go to Iraq
or Iran or anywhere else if they'll let us in, but not Cuba.
We'll talk more about this. My time is up. But good lord,
let's deal with reality, not ideology.
Senator Graham. Senator Moran.
I didn't think that was a question, so---- [Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. Well, I don't want to cut the--if the
Secretary wants to respond to that, out of fairness, feel free.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, I think somewhere in there,
there was a Cuba question. And as I began to----
Senator Leahy. Would you roll back what we're doing in
Cuba? What would you roll back what we're doing?
Secretary Tillerson. I think what we are examining in the
policy discussion on Cuba is there is existing law that's still
in place, Helms-Burton, that says we are not to allow or
facilitate people to allow financial support, revenue, to the
regime. As the process to open up Cuba has unfolded, it is our
view that that is happening.
If Cuban people are able to conduct business activities
with Americans and others and there is no revenue directly in
terms of ownership in these entities back to the regime, then,
you know, we think that's great. But we have a law existing
today that we feel has to be respected because that law was
intended to put pressure on the regime to address these
oppressive issues that they still have. If the Congress doesn't
want that pressure to be continued, then certainly the law can
be revisited, but our view is we're looking at, what were the
tools that were there to deal with all the four corners of
Cuba's behavior and our relationship with them?
There are some things that we and Cuba could do together
probably quite productively, and we're interested in engaging
with them, but we can't take that just in isolation. And so the
policy review is looking at all aspects of this.
Senator Graham. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DIPLOMATIC SECURITY

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us. Thank you for the
conversation that we had earlier this week. I want to focus at
least initially on the security of our diplomats and the
facilities around the globe in which they work. The budget sees
a decrease in worldwide security protection account of about
$562 million from last year. First of all, I would say I heard
you in response I think to Senator Leahy indicate that we can't
judge our priorities necessarily by the levels of spending.
I think that's an indicator, but I think the point you make
is there are other components that determine whether or not we
will be successful. I assume that it's--I know it's the shared
goal that every person who works for the State Department who
represents the United States around the globe has a safe
environment, as safe as we can provide to them.
So my question is in this case, what has changed or what
will we do different that means that our State Department
employees' safety is not diminished?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, you are correct, Senator, we've
made the safety of not just our State Department employees, but
Americans broadly, our highest priority, certainly as it
relates to our Embassy presence, our consular office presence,
and our missions around the world.
If you examine the security elements of the budget, our
budget for diplomatic security is actually up 11 percent year-
on-year. Where we have reductions has to do with some of the
construction, the buildings, part of the budget for embassies
and other facilities. Part of that we'll manage with some
multiyear commitments across 2017 to 2018, and some of this has
to do with just our ability to move projects along promptly.
We are clearly committed to the Benghazi ARB
recommendations, and I'm monitoring those carefully. We have
some gaps we need to close. The OIG has helped us identify some
of those. We're going to stay on top of those. If there were
more funds there, we would simply try to step up more activity
on some of the building and maintenance issues. So most of the
reduction is in building and maintenance efforts, which we
believe are manageable at least through fiscal year 2018.

KILLING OF MICHAEL SHARP IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. An American
citizen who was not as safe, whose parents live in Kansas,
Michael Sharp, was killed along with another U.N. investigator,
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last week, Ambassador
Haley called on the U.N. to investigate the murders of those
two individuals. Would you find it appropriate to join
Ambassador Haley in insisting that the perpetrators be
determined, the facts be discovered, and we do everything we
can to see that justice is met?
Secretary Tillerson. We have already done that through our
diplomatic mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
have called for a full investigation. To the extent we are able
to gain information in their investigation, we certainly will
make that available to you. But, yes, we have called for that
as well.
Senator Moran. And what's the response of the government?
Have they cooperated? Is there results that----
Secretary Tillerson. My understanding is investigations are
underway. What an investigation in the Democratic Republic of
Congo may entail versus the way we carry out law enforcement is
something we're trying to at least monitor and make sure we're
asking all of the right questions.
Senator Moran. The investigatory role is being carried on
by the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is not by anyone
representing the United States.
Secretary Tillerson. We have not, I would say, been able to
put in place independent investigatory authority there with the
Democratic Republic of Congo at this time. We're working with
them.

DIMINISHMENT OF U.S. INFLUENCE

Senator Moran. One of the concerns I have with this budget
is that we don't operate in a vacuum. As I talk to our military
leaders, certainly terrorism is on their list of worries.
Senator Graham gave you a long list, but our military officers
often tell me that Russia may be our--is our most--is our
greatest challenge. Others, certainly all of them will include
China on the list of concerns for our country's role in the
world. And investment in the State Department's programs, when
they're reduced, gives other countries the opportunity to
advance their causes if we leave any gap unfilled.
And so I would ask you, with this budget, what would you
expect to occur in regard to particularly China, but also
Russia, and their ability to increase their influence around
the globe, which in my view is to the detriment of the United
States and its well-being. China just last month pledged $124
billion for a new global infrastructure program. We are
reducing USAID missions and eliminating economic development
assistance to 37 countries around the globe, and the issue, in
addition to me, in addition to the humanitarian, the rightness
of the cause, is that others will take advantage of our
absence.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, we are already seeing that
happening particularly in Southeast Asia, but in parts of
Africa and elsewhere, particularly as to the rise of China. And
I think our challenge is in China's case, it is a centrally
command control economy, so when they come with not just loans,
assistance, but also companies to carry out infrastructure
projects, they get the whole package.
And so countries that enter into these arrangements--and we
are talking to these countries and cautioning them about what
they're getting themselves into in terms of getting themselves
overburdened with loan commitments to China, that when China
offers to build a railroad, build a road, build a port, they
don't do it with local employment, they bring Chinese
employment in, and then those Chinese employees never go home.
We see this happening. We're working with partners in the
region. This was a subject of discussion when Secretary Mattis
and I attended AUSMIN, our 2+2 Ministerial, last week in
Australia as well as in our conversations with New Zealand,
Singapore, and others.
One of the approaches we are exploring is whether we can
get the World Bank to also bring its mission to Southeast Asia,
bring more private equity, private sector, investment dollars
to the region and bring more counsel and advice to countries
and give them another alternative around how to finance these
projects, get more private sector involvement there.
What's required to get the private sector to engage is some
of these countries have to continue to improve their investment
climate, like Vietnam, the Philippines, and others. We're
working with them on what's necessary. And in our meetings with
the ASEAN countries, they see this threat, they see it, they
feel it. And so we do have to be there with an alternative, to
your point. You're exactly right.
We have to come with an alternative, but our alternative
can't be solely achieved through the funding available through
State or USAID. We really have to mobilize a much broader
effort, and that's how we're responding.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Graham. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to my colleague
Senator Durbin because he was kind enough to open the door for
me, which was why I got here before he did. So he was really
here at the same time.
Senator Graham. No, no, no, absolutely not. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Go ahead.
Senator Graham. Senator Durbin. No, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Your turn.
Senator Graham. Senator.
Senator Shaheen. No good deed goes unpunished, as we've
said.
Senator Graham. Have you all decided?
Senator Durbin. A Good Samaritan never goes unpunished.
Senator Shaheen. Secretary Tillerson, thank you for being
here. I'm sorry that I missed you this morning at the Foreign
Relations Committee because I was at another appropriations
subcommittee hearing.

RUSSIA

But I wanted to ask you about recent news reports that have
described a proposed trip to St. Petersburg by Under Secretary
Tom Shannon that's going to happen on June 23. And as news
reports have suggested that the purpose of the trip is to try
and discuss with the Russians how we might be able to work
together against ISIS and Syria. And last week, a State
Department spokesperson admitted that one of the things that
will be part of the conversation are the two dachas that were
seized last year in response to Russia's interference in our
elections. And I have a picture of those there, and we can see
that they are quite substantial. It's my understanding that one
of the intelligence reports suggested that these were used for
collecting intelligence by the Russians.
And I wonder if you can share with us, given Russia's
continued behavior, why we would even consider the return of
those two dachas as part of any discussions that we're having
with them.
Secretary Tillerson. Let me describe to you the nature of
our current dialogues with Russia because they're occurring at
a couple of levels. What I would call the strategic big issues,
like, ``Can we work together in Syria? How are we going to
resolve the Ukraine? How are we going to deal with sovereign
interference?'', those are being today conducted at my level
with my counterpart, the Foreign Minister, and on occasion with
access to the Kremlin.
What we have agreed to do, there is a long list of what the
Russians call ``irritants,'' we call them ``the smalls'' on our
side, a long list of things that have been problematic between
both of us for some time, and in some cases, they're just
getting worse.
You recall when I made my trip to Moscow to see my
counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and had a 2-hour meeting
with President Putin, I came out of those meetings and I said
our relationship is at the lowest level it's been since the
Cold War, and it is spiraling down. And I said the two greatest
nuclear powers in the world cannot have this kind of a
relationship. We have to stabilize it and we have to start
finding a way back.
So we segmented the big issues from this list of the
irritants. The dachas are on that list. We have things on the
list such as trying to get the permits for our consular office
in St. Petersburg. We've got issues with harassment of our
Embassy employees in Moscow. We have a list of things. They
have a list of things. I don't want to suggest to you this is
some kind of a bartering deal--it's more let's start working on
some of the smalls and see if we can solve them.
As to the dachas, these two properties have been in
ownership of the Russians dating back to the Soviet Union,
1971. They've owned these properties and have used these
properties for a very long time. They were transferred to the
Russian Federation Government for one dollar at the breakup of
the Soviet Union. We have continued to allow them to use these
properties. And they have used these properties continuously
for all that time.
President Obama, in response to the interference with the
election, expelled the 35 Russian diplomats and seized these
two properties.
Senator Shaheen. Right. I understand that.
Secretary Tillerson. What we're working through with them
in this conversation is, under what terms and conditions would
we allow them to access the properties again for recreational
purpose? We have not taken the properties from them, they still
belong to them, so we're not going to seize properties that are
theirs and remove their--but we are talking about, ``Under what
conditions would we allow you to use them for recreational
purposes?'' which is what they have asked.
We have things on our side that we're discussing terms and
conditions with them as well. So this is part of, how do we
take some of the irritants out of the relationship and
stabilize things?
Senator Shaheen. Sure. I understand that. And I don't mean
to interrupt, but my time is running. And I wonder if you could
tell me if the properties are returned, how we would ensure
that they would not be used for intelligence-gathering
purposes.
Secretary Tillerson. That's part of the terms and
conditions we're discussing with them because we've been pretty
clear to them, ``We know what you were doing there. We're not
going to allow you to continue to do that.''

FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Senator Shaheen. Thank you. As Chair Graham pointed out,
the 2018 budget proposal would reduce a billion dollars from
the PEPFAR program. And there are other policy decisions that
the State Department is making that will have an impact on
PEPFAR in addition to the funding reduction. As you know, the
State Department in May released guidelines for the
implementation of the Mexico City Policy, or the Global Gag
Rule, which for the first time ever will apply to all global
health assistance programs, including PEPFAR.
Now, study after study has shown that integrating
reproductive health and HIV treatment and prevention services
into basic primary care services leads to better health
outcomes and significant cost savings of foreign dollars, and
yet the State Department in this budget proposes eliminating
all funds for family planning.
So how will the State Department continue to move towards
integrating HIV and reproductive health and family planning in
light of the drastic cuts that are being proposed to
reproductive health funding and the restrictions that you're
imposing by the Global Gag Rule?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, first, just to be clear, the
reduction to PEPFAR is $1 billion, as was pointed out earlier.
Senator Shaheen. No, I understood that. It's the money for
the family planning also has been cut.
Secretary Tillerson. The extension of the Mexico City
Policy to all areas of health delivery was directed under
presidential executive order. And so the State Department, when
we received the executive order, began immediately to work with
all of the delivery services, including all of those in PEPFAR
and a number of the other NGO organizations and important
partners in the health delivery networks across the world.
Our assessment, we believe, is that the impact on those
service providers is going to be minimal. That is what we
believe. We're hearing from them. But to monitor that
carefully, I have said that we will have a report to me after 6
months of, how is this working? What has been the impact? And
we've been directly engaged with a number of the major private
donors, like the Gates Foundation and others, clearly working
with them to say, ``Let us know how this is impeding your
ability to deliver on the other parts of the health mandate
that we still strongly support.''
So we're obligated to implement the Presidential executive
order. We think we found a way to do that, achieve his
directive, but do it in a way that has minimal impact on our
ability to deliver and minimal impact on our ability to deliver
funding to PEPFAR and other related programs. And we will see
how that works after about 6 months of operation.
Senator Shaheen. And if I could just follow up, Mr.
Chairman, how do you define minimum impact? Because based on
information that I've seen from other international sources,
losing access to family planning services will result in 2
million more unsafe abortions, 12,000 maternal deaths, and 6
million more unintended pregnancies. So will you factor that in
as you're looking at the impact of this policy on the PEPFAR
program?
Secretary Tillerson. We will factor in those elements that
are covered by the President's executive order to ensure that
we are implementing the order and we are understanding whether
it's impacting parts of our health programs that we did not
intend by the executive order to impact.
Senator Shaheen. So you're comfortable with it impacting
women's health in the way I've just defined? That's a question.
Secretary Tillerson. We will carry it out consistent with
the President's executive order. So if certain activities and
programs are excluded because of the order, we have to exclude
those.
Senator Shaheen. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not
comfortable with that kind of impact on women's health
worldwide.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Duly noted.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CUBA

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. We do
appreciate your service. When I was first elected to Congress,
a fellow Congressman, somebody who was a great coach, Tom
Osborne, from Nebraska, one day said, ``John, if we run the
same play 50 times in a row and we don't get good results, we
probably need to do something different.'' And what he was
referring to was Cuba. And we have been doing things a little
bit differently lately, and I think getting some results.
I'm a little bit disappointed as we hear that you all are
about to reach a decision that perhaps we're going to push back
on some of the reforms that we've made and some of the
opportunities. I believe that you change the world through
relationships. And also you have to be consistent. I know that
we do business with lots of people that are certainly as bad on
the human rights fronts as the Cubans, and I could list a whole
bunch of them, I don't think we need to do that, but I think
you would agree with that.
Can you talk to me a little bit about kind of where we're
at with that and how you feel about the path going forward?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, again, as I indicated earlier,
the Cuban policy is under review. In fact, there's an
interagency review that's been underway today. I've been up
here, so my Deputy Secretary has been participating in that for
me. So I don't want to get ahead of the interagency process or
tell you I know what the final policy outcomes are going to be.
What I described earlier are some of the elements that I know
are under discussion within the interagency process.
And, again, our situation in Cuba, yes, there are many
other places around the world that have similar human rights
issues that are problematic to us and challenges to others.
Cuba has a very long history of statutory obligations placed
around it from Libertad all the way up through the most recent,
I think there are four laws that govern a higher relationship
with Cuba. As we are examining the situation, we believe it is
important that we are not advancing or advocating policies that
would put individuals or companies in violation of those laws.
If it is the view of the United States that we want to
change and redefine that relationship by removing some of the
statutory requirements, I think that's a conversation that
should happen.
I agree that one of the best ways to improve relationships
with Cuba and with other countries is through economic
activity. It's the strongest way to tie our people together. It
delivers value to people in the country, they improve their
quality of life. All of that is good. We agree with every bit
of it. What we are concerned about is not continuing to support
in any way financially a regime which, as best we can tell, has
made no change to its posture or its behavior.
Senator Boozman. I think a recent study said that there is
$6 billion worth of economic activity, 12,000 jobs. So it is
important. I think there is tremendous potential there. But the
only place I would disagree is I think you get there by
engagement. And so----
Secretary Tillerson. And just so you know, there is no
disagreement between us on that.
Senator Boozman. Yes, sir. And I think it's fair that you
brought up that you don't want to violate any laws that are on
the books now. But hopefully we can look at and work through
and continue the engagement that we've got.

FULBRIGHT PROGRAM

As an Arkansan and someone who believes, again, as we
talked about, you change the world through engagement, the
Fulbright Program has been something that we're proud of in the
State of Arkansas. We're talking about a 47 percent overall cut
there. I wish that would be something that you would look at,
too.
I was in Israel and visiting with I think he was the
Finance Minister from Palestine. This was several years ago.
And it turned out that he had been to summer school at the
University of Arkansas, went on and finished up at the
University of Texas. So we could laugh about that, the
Arkansas-Texas--he knew all that stuff. But those things are
so, so very valuable.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, we see the Fulbright Program as
extremely valuable as well. I've had conversations with former
Senator Kerry, who is very engaged. Our reduction in the
budget, as you know, the Fulbright Program also receives
private donations. So our 45 percent cut translates I think
into about a third reduction for them. We understand it will
have an impact. What we want to do is to the extent we can help
in attracting more private donations to support the program and
perhaps begin to attract donations from countries who have
benefited from the Fulbright Program as well. So it is not in
any way an indication of our view of the value of that program.
Senator Boozman. I think Mark Green is an excellent choice
for USAID, and I congratulate you on your choice there.
Secretary Tillerson. Thank you.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN

Senator Boozman. Can you talk just for a second about the
reorganization process that you're going through and commit to
working with the subcommittee to make sure that the changes
that you're in the process of doing, that they're sustainable
as we go forward?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, as I indicated, we have just
completed what I think is--having done this in the private
sector once or twice and in a big nonprofit once, there's a
process that I know has delivered for me in the past. So we
just concluded this listening effort, which will inform us and
shape how we feel we need to now attack the redesign and the
way forward. I've interviewed a couple of individuals to come
in and help me lead that effort. I think we will finalize the
listening report here in the next few weeks, and we're going to
make that available so people can see that.
Out of that report, though, there were about 13 themes that
emerged, and these were extremely valuable to begin to help us
focus on where are the greatest opportunities to remove
obstacles for people. Because that's really what this is about,
is, how do we allow people to get their work done more
effectively and more efficiently? And we will be going after
the redesign.
Some of this is internal processes, some of it is
structural, some of it are constraints that quite frankly
Congress puts on us through some of the appropriations
structures, and I understand all well intended to ensure
accountability and oversight, but it ends up adding a lot of
layers. So we're going to be getting at that.
We hope to have the way forward, the next step, framed here
in the kind of August timeframe so that we can then begin the
redesign process itself, September. I'm hoping we can have all
of that concluded by the end of the calendar year. And then
2018 will be a year of, how do we implement this now? How do we
effect the change and begin to get that into place?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Graham. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me associate myself with the chairman's opening
remarks. I thought it was a brilliant presentation that puts in
perspective why we're here today.
Senator Graham. Say that again.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, let me----
I've already said it on the record once, and that's the
only time I'm ever going to say it. [Laughter.]
No, seriously, I do respect what you said earlier.
Mr. Secretary, I come into this same room and I sit down as
ranking member on the Defense Committee. I listened to your
explanation of how a 30 percent cut is not that bad, that money
isn't the solution to the problem, you just need creative
people and innovative thinking. I never hear that when we're
talking about the defense budget. They always need more money,
more and more and more. And yet when it comes to a world that
is plagued by famine and the problems that we face, we're just
saying we really don't need money to solve problems.
It turns out my experience in life is you don't solve a
problem by throwing money at it unless the problem is lack of
money. And when it comes to the poorest people on Earth, it's
lack of money, lack of investments in these people and in their
lives.
And I take a look at some of the things that are being
suggested here. I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed at the
policy of this country now when it comes to accepting refugees
in the world. Since World War II, we've led the world in
accepting refugees from all over. Cuba. Three of our four
Hispanic Senators are from Cuban refugee families. I mean, you
go through all of the people that we've absorbed as refugees
into this country--and we know the policy of the Trump
administration opposes acceptance of refugees.

JORDAN

Thank goodness there are heroes in this world like the King
of Jordan. Currently, Jordan has absorbed 3 or 4 million
refugees in a nation of 7 million people. It is an incredible
act of kindness and charity on their part, and bravery when you
consider the political risk.
So what does this budget do to Jordan? This budget cuts by
18 percent migration and refugee assistance to countries like
Jordan. We're not accepting refugees, and we're saying to the
countries that are, ``We're going to cut your funding.'' Think
of a more creative way to feed those refugees, 1.4 million
Syrian refugees.
It just doesn't work, Mr. Secretary, for us to walk away
from our global responsibility and then to hurt those who are
accepting much more than others. How would you respond to the
King of Jordan and explain why we would cut funds to him at
this moment in history?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, I would take exception to the
comment that we're walking away from our responsibilities in
that region with all of the men and women in uniform we have
fighting and the State Department diplomatic resources we have
to get at the reason the refugees are in Jordan. And I would
tell you, in working in the region, they all understand.
Turkey, Jordan, others understand, we'd like the refugees to
stay close to their home so they can go back. Having them come
all the way to the United States doesn't--may not achieve that.
So our approach on the significant problem of refugee
migration locally is to solve the problem that allows people to
go home. We have already seen some success in the liberation of
Mosul and other cities. We hope to replicate that kind of
success in Syria, where we have come behind the military
quickly when they liberate an area, create a secure zone,
restore power and water, restore hospitals, restore schools. We
have close to 40,000 children back in school in east Mosul
already. People will come back if we create the conditions.
So we really want the refugees to return. It's not the
objective to have Jordan have to house those refugees now and
forever more.
Senator Durbin. Of course it's not, Mr. Secretary, but
thank goodness for the King of Jordan, and I hope you feel that
way about him, too.
Secretary Tillerson. I certainly do.

PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROGRAM REDUCTIONS

Senator Durbin. While we're trying to solve the problem in
Syria, and I know Americans are risking their lives in that
effort, while we're trying to solve it, this man is trying to
make sure that the people, the Syrian refugees, have something
to eat, to make sure that they have a--he told me their biggest
problem is water, they don't have enough water to accommodate
all these refugees. And we're going to cut the funding?
Let me tell you another situation, which I'm sure you're
aware of. As you go into the poorest places on Earth, what you
find sadly is a gross mistreatment of little girls and women.
It happens over and over again.
And so a fellow by the name of George McGovern, who used to
sit in this body and was a great leader in our nation before he
passed, came up with an idea. He came up with an idea of a
school lunch program. And you know who joined him in that idea?
Bob Dole. An old alliance and partnership was revived. And
here's the idea they had: if we offer a free lunch to kids in
the poorest places on Earth, we think parents will send their
little girls to school. Just basic. That's what they did. The
McGovern-Dole school feeding program. And then they add another
element to it, they gave the kids a little bag of grain to take
home from school. So the parents couldn't wait to get the
little girl off to school.
What's the difference in the poorest places in the world
between an educated and an uneducated little girl? I can tell
you what it is. The uneducated little girl will be a slave,
probably married off at an early age, probably bearing children
long before she should, and maybe those children will survive
and maybe they won't, and then we'll have overpopulation
problems. But if they finish school, the opposite is the case.
And so what did your budget decide to do to this McGovern-Dole
school feeding program? You eliminated it. Now, is that going
to make for a better world and a safer world?
Secretary Tillerson. Senator, what we are attempting to do
is to marshal forces of others. We are talking to other
countries and asking them to do more, to step in to fill in
some of the needs that Jordan has in the refugee camps, the
same in Turkey. So we are using higher convening authority to
bring to bear other resources as well.
These are some of the very difficult choices we made in
achieving a budget level that we have put forth in this budget.
None of these choices are easy, none of them. There's not a one
of them that was not difficult to make. And so I do not take
exception to anything you've said at all, and would agree. So
what we are going to attempt to do is see if we can bring other
resources to bear to either fill in, mitigate, or perhaps grow
out interest of others to address these same issues.
Senator Durbin. So our message to the world is, ``We're
stepping back. America is first and stepping back now. We're
stepping back by 30 percent in our expenditures. We're
eliminating these programs, and you are welcome to fill in,''
to the rest of the world? That is our message, the America
First message?
Secretary Tillerson. Our message is we're leaning in and
asking all of you, all of you, to step up and do more.
Senator Durbin. I think we're leaning on, we're not leaning
in, and we're leaning on the poorest people on Earth.
Senator Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you here. And I,
too, want to associate myself with the remarks by the chairman
and the ranking member regarding the State Department budget. I
do believe that cuts of this magnitude diminish our influence
overseas. It will diminish our capacity to accomplish some of
our goals. I'm all for creative reforms where the goal is a
better operating department rather than trying to hit an
arbitrary budget number that was provided to the State
Department by OMB and others. There's a big difference between
those two things.

RUSSIA

I want to talk to you a little bit about Russia and
legislation the Senate will soon take up regarding Russian
sanctions. I know that you've previously stated what every
intelligence agency has concluded, that there was Russian
interference in our elections. Is that the case?
Secretary Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes. And I'm not here to debate whether
it was a decisive intervention or not, but they interfered. And
you would also agree, would you not, that they are attempting
to interfere in the elections of many of our NATO allies, as in
the Netherlands or France.
Secretary Tillerson. It certainly appears that way.
Senator Van Hollen. It does. And so would you also agree
that Russia would prefer a weaker NATO to a stronger NATO?
Secretary Tillerson. In all likelihood, they would.
Senator Van Hollen. I think so, too. So I guess my
question, Mr. Secretary, is, do you agree with Senator Graham
and Senator McCain, and I think probably a majority of us on
this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis, that it's important to
take additional actions and sanction Russia to let them know
that you cannot interfere in our elections and just get away
with it, that the United States is not going to walk away from
that kind of attack on our democracy? Isn't that important?
Secretary Tillerson. It certainly is important, Senator,
and I think, you know, one of the challenges is how to
structure these sanctions to achieve the desired result. In the
case of the current sanctions, as you know, that are in place,
were in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, taking of
Crimea. So Russia understands what has to be done to achieve
sanctions relief on the current sanctions.
The issue and the outrageous response they should receive
for their cyber meddling around elections so we can put
sanctions in place, is what do we want from the Russians in
order for them to earn sanctions relief? I'm not suggesting we
shouldn't do it, I'm just pointing out from a diplomat's
perspective, some of the challenges.
I do think, and I've read the amendment to the Iran
sanctions bill, which is where the Russian sanctions are being
considered, and I think there are a few problematic areas
within those that I would hope would allow the diplomatic
efforts to attempt to make some progress. If we cannot make
progress, and I have told others in the Senate when we've
talked, I've had conversations with them, I may very well be
calling you and saying the time has come now to do this in
order to motivate some movement on their part.
So I understand and am supportive of having that kind of
ability. I think the question is, given where we are--and we
don't know yet whether these efforts we have in place are going
to bear fruit. Ultimately, it's going to take a little time,
but as I said earlier, I think it is important that we address
the situation and the relationship we have today, which I do
not believe is in the interest of the United States nor the
interest of stability in the world, and we can either
deteriorate it further or we can try to stabilize and improve
it, and right now, this is an effort that is in progress.
Senator Van Hollen. No, I understand, Mr. Secretary, and I
think all of us would like to see the Russians take the actions
that indicate to us that they want to be a constructive
international player, but as you know, the first challenge when
you're tackling a problem is to get the other side to admit
that they've engaged in this kind of activity. Have they
indicated to you in any of these conversations, have they
admitted they interfered in our elections in any of your
conversations?
Secretary Tillerson. I think their position and their
explanation of it is pretty public, and I've heard nothing any
different.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, that's right. I mean, now we're
in a position where they haven't even admitted it, right?
You've got Vladimir Putin talking about maybe some private
citizens in Russia, you know, played hanky-panky. We know
that's not true. We know it was a concerted effort. We've seen
it not only in the United States, but with our NATO allies. So
to even be talking about providing them access to the compound
on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, my State, or others, instead
of leaning forward and saying, ``Here is what we're going to do
unless, number one, you admit what you did; and number two,
you're going to provide us verifiable assurances that it won't
happen again,'' it seems to me we've got to lean in on that
issue.

IRAN

Let me ask you a budget-related question with respect to
the verification of the Iran agreement. We're also going to be
discussing legislation related to that agreement because on
April 18, the administration certified to the Congress that
Iran was in fact in compliance of the current agreement, isn't
that right?
Secretary Tillerson. That's correct.
Senator Van Hollen. And you would agree, would you not,
that it's in our national security interest to make sure we
have in place the ability to verify Iranian compliance with the
agreement?
Secretary Tillerson. Yes, it is, but I will also tell you
under that agreement, it's a pretty low bar.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I would beg to differ, but I
think what we should agree on, Mr. Secretary, is that the IAEA,
which monitors that agreement, should have the resources to do
it. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Tillerson. Certainly.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Well, part of your budget calls
for a 27 percent reduction to the contributions to
international organizations, and those mandatory contributions,
many of them go to fund the IAEA, which has indicated that they
need those resources to verify Iranian compliance with the
nuclear agreement. So can you tell us today that the United
States will ensure that we provide our share of the funds
necessary to make sure that they can verify compliance with
that agreement?
Secretary Tillerson. Yes. The cuts to the international
organization's budget, which, as you mentioned, touches on a
number of organizations, U.N., World Health, IAEA, how we would
distribute those is under continued discussion with the bureaus
and those agencies so that we have as best an understanding as
we have as to how that would affect them, but it is our
intention that the IAEA have all the resources it needs to
carry out its responsibilities on the compliance side of the
JCPOA.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that commitment, Mr.
Secretary. I think that's important to all of us.
Senator Graham. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham.
Thank you, Secretary Tillerson, for your service and the
chance to be with you again today. I'm struck at the list that
the chairman put up and the detailed and thorough presentation
he made about the unsettled, dangerous and difficult world in
which we currently operate and the gap with your written and
spoken presentation.

RUSSIA

I see here Russian aggression and conflict in Ukraine
relatively prominent, and I did not see that in your written
testimony or your spoken testimony. And I'm concerned about
that gap in the context of an era when we know that Russia,
from the very highest levels, intentionally interfered in our
last presidential elections, and in my view, that's only going
to stop when we stop it.
I understand we may have a difference in approach to how to
engage Vladimir Putin in Russia, but I have a concern about the
message we're sending to our vital allies. I am haunted by a
question asked of me by an Eastern European diplomat at the
Halifax Security Forum not long after the inauguration where he
said, ``How can we count on you to defend our democracy when we
don't see you defending your own democracy?''
In your confirmation hearing, you acknowledged Russia's
ongoing efforts to divide Europe from the United States and to
divide NATO and the EU within. And we discussed how you would
lead the resources of the State Department to counter Russian
propaganda through tools like Radio Free Europe, and how you
would invest in strengthening our vital allies in the region,
whether NATO or, as has been mentioned, countries like Georgia
or Ukraine that are not NATO members.
If I understand this right, your fiscal year 2018 request
for Europe and Eurasia is nearly cut in half from fiscal year
2016 by about $450 million. What is the strategy behind
decreasing support for our partners and allies in the region in
the face of a clear and growing Russian threat to their
democracies and ours?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, first let me position the
situation with Russia for you so that you understand what I am
hearing from allies, partners, large and small, and this is
without exception. I have yet to have a bilateral, a one-on-
one, a pull-aside, with a single counterpart in any country in
Europe, the Middle East, even Southeast Asia that has not said
to me, ``Please address your relationship with Russia. It has
to be improved.'' They believe worsening this relationship will
ultimately worsen their situation.
So we have been--people have been imploring me to engage
and try to improve the situation. Now, that was our approach
anyway, but I would just tell you the feedback I'm getting is,
``Please engage and see if you can improve the situation.''
With respect to the tools available to us, we do maintain a
particular emphasis on the countries that we see in Europe that
are most at risk of Russian interference in Eastern Europe. We
would like to do more in the Baltics and in the Balkans. If we
had a little more, we would do a little more there, but we have
not walked away from those.
We do want to continue to perfect more sophisticated
approaches as to how to push messages into Russian society,
obviously through social media, through broadcasts, through all
of the tools available to us, and we are going to continue to
maintain that effort to ensure we are in the conversation among
young people and others inside of Russia.
But this--I understand other countries are concerned about
Russia, they should be. And I hear about it when I talk to them
about how they feel the direct threat, whether they're in the
Baltics, whether they're in the Balkans, whether they're in
Georgia, or whether they're in other parts of the world as
well. So they express that to me, but then when we talk about
what should be done, they want us to solve it through
engagement. They do not want it to get worse because if it gets
worse, they fear it will be worse for them.
Senator Coons. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate hearing
that perspective, and we have many of the same conversations,
just with a different endpoint. In Southeast Asia, in Eastern
Europe, in the North Atlantic Alliance, I hear grave concerns
that the signals we are sending are signals of retreat and of
disengagement. Partly this is from countries, as was mentioned
by the chairman, like Jordan that critically depend on us for
support as they bear the burden and costs of a great number of
refugees. In other places, it's where either China is being
ascendant or aggressive in the South China Sea, or in the face
of North Korea, or in Eastern Europe, as you mentioned.
I just--in terms of an overall budget that is trying to
defend American interests and advance American values, I don't
see how it makes sense in an increasingly difficult and
contested world to unilaterally withdraw support from vital
allies who have chosen us and our values and our side in a
contest of ideas with Russia, China, and others.

AFRICA

Let me mention two other things before I run out of time.
As has been mentioned by others, we have people-to-people
programs like the Fulbright Scholarships that have had a big
positive impact and that elevate the reputation we enjoy in the
world. Africa is a very young continent, a very large
continent, where China is omnipresent. The Young African
Leaders Initiative is a relatively modest-in-scope program that
has had a big impact. I thought it was, again, not the choice I
would have made to cut all the educational and cultural
exchange programs in half, and YALI would be one of them. I
hope you will reconsider that because I think these are
powerful programs that connect us to parts of the world where
we benefit from a positive relationship and from, as you said,
that next generation of leaders.
Power Africa is also something that we, on a bipartisan
basis, authorized through the Electrify Africa Act. It is a way
for us to bring the deployment of private sector capital and
American expertise to Sub-Saharan Africa. Your budget proposal
allocates an 84 percent cut from the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level for this. There are a dozen other programs I could talk
about that I think improve the visibility and the scope and the
reach of our investment through diplomacy and development.
Those are two I just wanted to elevate in our conversation
today.
Let me close just by quoting an editorial that I thought
made an important point. A Senator said in this editorial, ``To
view foreign policy as simply transactional is more dangerous
than its proponents realize. Depriving the oppressed of a
beacon of hope could lose us the world we have built and
thrived in.'' This is, of course, by Senator McCain. It was
written on May 8. I would ask for unanimous consent it be
submitted for the record.
Senator Graham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

[From The New York Times, May 8, 2017]

_______________________________________________________________________

Opinion op-ed contributor

JOHN McCAIN: WHY WE MUST SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS

(By John McCain)

Washington, DC.--SOME years ago, I heard Natan Sharansky, the human
rights icon, recount how he and his fellow refuseniks in the Soviet
Union took renewed courage from statements made on their behalf by
President Ronald Reagan. Word had reached the gulag that the leader of
the most powerful nation on earth had spoken in defense of their right
to self-determination. America, personified by its President, gave them
hope, and hope is a powerful defense against oppression.
As I listened to Mr. Sharansky, I was reminded how much it had
meant to my fellow P.O.W.s and me when we heard from new additions to
our ranks that Mr. Reagan, then the Governor of California, had often
defended our cause, demanded our humane treatment and encouraged
Americans not to forget us.
In their continuous efforts to infect us with despair and dissolve
our attachment to our country, our North Vietnamese captors insisted
the American Government and people had forgotten us. We were on our
own, they taunted, and at their mercy. We clung to evidence to the
contrary, and let it nourish our hope that we would go home one day
with our honor intact.
That hope was the mainstay of our resistance. Many, maybe most of
us, might have given in to despair, and ransomed our honor for relief
from abuse, had we truly believed we had been forgotten by our
government and countrymen.
In a recent address to State Department employees, Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson said conditioning our foreign policy too heavily on
values creates obstacles to advance our national interests. With those
words, Secretary Tillerson sent a message to oppressed people
everywhere: Don't look to the United States for hope. Our values make
us sympathetic to your plight, and, when it's convenient, we might
officially express that sympathy. But we make policy to serve our
interests, which are not related to our values. So, if you happen to be
in the way of our forging relationships with your oppressors that could
serve our security and economic interests, good luck to you. You're on
your own.
There are those who will credit Mr. Tillerson's point of view as a
straightforward if graceless elucidation of a foreign policy based on
realism. If by realism they mean policy that is rooted in the world as
it is, not as we wish it to be, they couldn't be more wrong.
I consider myself a realist. I have certainly seen my share of the
world as it really is and not how I wish it would be. What I've learned
is that it is foolish to view realism and idealism as incompatible or
to consider our power and wealth as encumbered by the demands of
justice, morality and conscience.
In the real world, as lived and experienced by real people, the
demand for human rights and dignity, the longing for liberty and
justice and opportunity, the hatred of oppression and corruption and
cruelty is reality. By denying this experience, we deny the aspirations
of billions of people, and invite their enduring resentment.
America didn't invent human rights. Those rights are common to all
people: nations, cultures and religions cannot choose to simply opt out
of them.
Human rights exist above the state and beyond history. They cannot
be rescinded by one government any more than they can be granted by
another. They inhabit the human heart, and from there, though they may
be abridged, they can never be extinguished.
We are a country with a conscience. We have long believed moral
concerns must be an essential part of our foreign policy, not a
departure from it. We are the chief architect and defender of an
international order governed by rules derived from our political and
economic values. We have grown vastly wealthier and more powerful under
those rules. More of humanity than ever before lives in freedom and out
of poverty because of those rules.
Our values are our strength and greatest treasure. We are
distinguished from other countries because we are not made from a land
or tribe or particular race or creed, but from an ideal that liberty is
the inalienable right of mankind and in accord with nature and nature's
Creator.
To view foreign policy as simply transactional is more dangerous
than its proponents realize. Depriving the oppressed of a beacon of
hope could lose us the world we have built and thrived in. It could
cost our reputation in history as the nation distinct from all others
in our achievements, our identity and our enduring influence on
mankind. Our values are central to all three.
Were they not, we would be one great power among the others of
history. We would acquire wealth and power for a time, before receding
into the disputed past. But we are a more exceptional country than
that.
We saw the world as it was and we made it better.

John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) is a Republican Senator from Arizona.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter
(@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 8, 2017, on Page A21 of
the New York edition with the headline: We Must Support Human Rights.

Senator Coons. I am concerned that in a world that is
increasingly unstable and where there is a clear contest
between authoritarian capitalism and real capitalism, as a
democracy that is a capitalist society, we need to step up our
game. And I agree with increasing our defense investment, but I
think to do it without also sustaining or increasing our
investment in diplomacy and development is ill-considered, and
I really hope that we will work together to advance human
rights, to advance diplomacy, and to advance development
through this budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Tillerson, thank you for your service to our
country. Thank you for coming before this subcommittee today.

NORTH KOREA

Two months ago I led a bicameral congressional delegation
to China and Japan. In fact, it was just after President Xi was
in Florida. I was heading over to China I think that Sunday.
And we were underscoring our concerns about the threat posed by
North Korea, noting that the U.S., and I quote, year of
strategic patience is over, as was articulated by Vice
President Pence, who came there the week after we were there in
terms of in the region.
Despite international efforts to pressure Pyongyang, it
continues to conduct missile tests, nearly a dozen already this
year. While some of these tests have failed, I am concerned
that North Korea is learning from these failures. There's an
old saying, when you attend college, you learn a lot more from
the tests you fail versus the tests you ace. Meanwhile, South
Korea has delayed implementing part of THAAD, the missile
defense system.
My question is, how have the latest developments impacted
the State Department's engagement with South Korea, Japan, and
China to protect against North Korean aggression?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, as you know, the new South
Korean Government is being put into place. They have not named
all of their cabinet positions yet, but we have been in
conversations with some of their representatives, who came to
Washington, as well as maintaining a very close dialogue with
our Japanese counterparts.
So our intention--and I know the South Koreans are
committed as well to the strong trilateral partnership that we
have that confronts North Korea first and foremost, and then
ultimately at some point, at the appropriate point, engage with
others. But the pressure campaign that we've had underway now
for a few weeks, which involves obviously a requirement that
China in particular participate and participate in a meaningful
way, we believe is beginning to have some effect. It is
difficult obviously to judge precisely because we do not have
great transparency and visibility inside the regime in North
Korea, but this is a campaign that has a forward map as to how
we continue to implement and increase that pressure on the
North Koreans until we receive a clear signal that they now are
ready to engage with a different mindset about the way forward.
You could interpret the level of missile testing obviously
is quite disturbing to us. Whether that's a sign they're trying
to give to us that it's not working, whether it's a sign that
it is working, is difficult to tell, but we are monitoring all
of those tests carefully, and particularly in terms of what is
the nature of the test. And we have good alignment between
ourselves and the government of China regarding, first, the
objective, a denuclearization of the peninsula, but also we
have a good understanding between us of what actions if North
Korea went too far, what actions would cause us to be
completely aligned?
So we have further high level dialogue with the Chinese
coming up this next week, Secretary Mattis and myself, because
we want to work this both at the diplomatic level but also at
the mil-to-mil level. It's important that we manage the risk of
this quite carefully with full and open channels of
communication with the Chinese.
Senator Daines. Secretary Tillerson, I want to commend you
and the administration in the leadership that I've been seeing
in Asia. I lived in China for 6 years working for Procter &
Gamble. I was there when Kim Un Jong's grandpa signed the deal
back in 1994, and we've seen what's happened since then.
I was struck by, as you just mentioned, the change in the
engagement approach the Chinese now have. We met with Premier
Li Keqiang as well as Chairman Zhang Dejiang as they are, I
think, as you stated, changing their engagement strategy with
North Korea, and I want to thank you for your leadership in
that regard in this very important issue.
Similarly, I had feedback from the leadership in Japan with
Prime Minister Abe and his team, that our relationship with
Japan has never been better in some time. And the media doesn't
report this kind of news, but I saw it firsthand, and I want to
thank you for your steady hand of leadership in this important
area of the world.

RUSSIAN TRADE WITH NORTH KOREA

Last week, there was a press report that indicated that
Russian trade with North Korea increased by more than 70
percent in the first 2 months of this year. Can you provide
additional details on this development? And what impact does
this have on our North Korea strategy?
Secretary Tillerson. We do need Russia's cooperation and
participation. We have spoken directly to them. I spoke
directly to President Putin on the need for them to join us and
China in the pressure campaign on North Korea. We do see and
monitor Russian movements of fuel, petroleum products. They are
opening a new ferry transport system between Vladivostok and
North Korea, which is troubling.
So we're continuing the dialogue with them. I think we're
making some progress. If you noticed in the U.N. Security
Council resolution that was passed, it was passed with
unanimous approval. The Russians supported that resolution,
which imposed more sanctions on individuals and entities. In
years past, we would never have hoped that they would vote for
it. They might have abstained.
So I think the Russians, too, are beginning to understand
the threat that North Korea poses to them because if there is a
problem regionally, they will feel the effects of that. So I
think they are also beginning to recalculate their posture
towards North Korea.

ENERGY SECURITY IN EUROPE

Senator Daines. So speaking of Russian threat, I'm going to
go to the other side of the world. A few weeks ago, I visited
Norway. In fact, we were at Hammerfest, Norway. I was with
Chairman Murkowski, of the Energy Committee, as well as
Secretary Zinke, and Senator Cornyn, Senator Barrasso, Senator
Heitkamp.
While I was there, I toured one of the world's most
efficient liquefied natural gas facilities. They also have
onsite carbon capture capability. Many European countries still
depend on LNG from Russia. I was struck by the fact there are
actually 13 European countries that rely on Russia for over 75
percent of their annual LNG imports.
So the facility that we saw such as the one in Norway, the
only one in Europe, combined with U.S. LNG exports, can be
important to reduce Russia's ability to use its energy policy
to intimidate Europe.
The question is, what's the State Department doing and what
more can we do as part of a whole-of-government approach to
help Europe become less dependent on Russia for their energy
needs?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, just to clarify, Europe receives
70 percent of its natural gas supply, but it comes by way of
pipeline to Europe, because there are extensive historic
pipelines that have been there for decades. And Russia is now
pursuing the expansion of a second pipeline called Nord Stream
2 that would connect to Germany.
We have encouraged European countries and the EU to at
least subject that pipeline to the full rigors of their
regulatory process and have suggested to them it's not in their
long-term energy security interest to become more dependent on
Russian natural gas, and have pointed out that the U.S. has an
abundance of natural gas and facilities now to ship LNG to
Europe.
So we are promoting the notion that Europe needs to really
think about its total energy balance and its energy security,
and recognize how dependent they remain on Russia. So we are
having those kinds of dialogue with them.
Senator Daines. All right. Thank you, Secretary Tillerson.
Senator Graham. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know
it's been a very long day.

YEMEN

Mr. Secretary, thank you for sticking with us in both
committee processes. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate
earlier today on a small portion of the proposed arms sales to
Saudi Arabia. It was a close vote, close in part because I
think there is a worry that while there is clearly a military
strategy to assist the Saudis in their bombing campaign inside
Yemen, that there is not a political component to the strategy.
I think you answered a question that Senator Young posed
earlier today about putting pressure on the Saudis to allow
humanitarian resources to flow more freely into the country, a
country that is ravaged by famine and cholera today.
But I wonder if you might speak a little bit more in depth
about the lack of a political process. Secretary Kerry was very
deeply personally engaged in trying to bring the Iranian-backed
Houthis together with the Saudi-backed regime. He was
unsuccessful, but he got very close. And the sense is that this
administration and your Department of State has not engaged in
that political process, is not actively trying to get the two
sides to sit at the table. And part of our worry is that the
strategy now is to escalate the military conflict as a means of
trying to bring the Houthis to the table under circumstances in
which they are weaker, which might exacerbate the military
conflict.
So just explain to me, or I would love for you to talk to
the subcommittee about your views on how the U.S. reengages the
political process inside Yemen.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, thank you, Senator. And you are
right on the issue. Let me dispel the notion that we're not
engaged. I lived in Yemen for 2\1/2\ years, and so I know a
number of the people pretty well. We are engaged with really
it's the Emiratis, the Saudis, and ourselves with the Omanis
participating as well, and the U.N. We've had two or three
meetings now to talk about the way forward, including
discussions with the U.N. representative in this.
We are pursuing the political solution. But this involves
more than just the Saudis and the Houthis. It's a little more
complicated than that, and I think that's why past efforts may
have failed, there was not a recognition of all of the equities
that were involved inside of Yemen.
I want to be careful about going too far because some of
this is at a very sensitive stage and we are not talking about
it publicly yet, but we are working diligently with those
parties to put together a way forward to begin to advance a
political solution.
The focus on the Port of Hodeidah is critical because it is
the port of entry where we could begin to deliver massive
amounts of humanitarian assistance. It is controlled today by
the Houthis. The aid that has been sent in through that port we
know has--most of it has not made it to the people it was
supposed to make it to. We've been working with the U.N.
Secretary-General. We're working with both the Emiratis and the
Saudis to gain agreement over how we might gain control of that
port.
We believe we can gain control of the port under some other
third authority's control. And then the next step is we've got
to put in place a safe passage for the aid to go to make it all
the way to Sana'a and other parts of the country where the
sufferings are greatest, and it's that safe passage piece that
we're working on right now.
If we can stabilize the humanitarian situation and if we
can disrupt the elements of the conflict itself, then we think,
with some other steps that are yet--that are underway, but are
not yet taken, we think we can create conditions for a
political process to begin.
Senator Murphy. Just to clarify, are you talking about--
when you say retake that port, you're talking about a military
campaign to retake the port?
Secretary Tillerson. No. The Houthis would voluntarily turn
that port over to a third authority, not the Saudis, not the
Emiratis, and then we would gain access. Then the next step is,
how do we create the safe passage to connect the aid to the
people that need it?
Senator Murphy. How do you gain a political reconciliation
there if you're not talking to the Iranians?
Secretary Tillerson. The Iranians are part of the problem.
And again I want to be a little cautious about how far I go
given the sensitive nature of what we're trying to put together
quietly. I would just say that they are not directly at the
table because we do not believe they have earned a seat at that
table. We would like for the Iranians to end their flow of
weapons to the Houthis, in particular, flow of sophisticated
missiles to the Houthis. We need for them to stop supplying
that. And we're working with others as to how we could get
their agreement to do that.
This is extraordinarily difficult, it's more complicated
than the two or three countries people think are involved, and
it is a very difficult country in which to reach even a
political settlement, having been through two civil wars now.
So we want to take this in a manner that will be durable if we
can take it to that place.
Senator Murphy. I guess part of the struggle is figuring
out who earns a seat at the table and who doesn't. So the
Russians have earned a seat at the table with respect to the
future of Syria despite the slaughter that they have allowed to
happen, but the Iranians don't earn a seat at the table inside
Yemen.
It seems as if you have to talk to people that we disagree
with, the people that are often our adversaries, if you want to
make peace in places like that. How do we distinguish in that
way as to why the Iranians don't get a seat at the table, but
we give the Russians a seat at the table?
Secretary Tillerson. It's the role they're willing to play
from this point forward in working with us to stabilize, create
conditions for ceasefires, and create conditions for political
discussions. In the case of Syria, we have a discussion and we
have a process underway with the Russians to achieve some
stability and create conditions for the political process to
unfold in Geneva where, quite frankly, neither Russia nor we
have a seat at the table in the Geneva process, but we can be
there to influence.
In the case of Yemen, we do not have any construct today
that suggests the Iranians have any interest whatsoever in
deescalating the conflict in Yemen.
Senator Murphy. You know, I hope you'll talk to the folks,
I'm sure you have, who were subject to the negotiations last
year. They were very close to an agreement. I don't think you
can ever categorize the Iranians as being constructive, but we
were not far away. I think it's worthwhile to engage in direct
negotiation. I don't think there's any way around it if you
ultimately want to bring political resolution to that place.
Secretary Tillerson. I understand people had their own
assessments at the time.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Well, we made it. I think you acquitted yourself very well,
Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you coming to the subcommittee.
We have some requests pending to the State Department. If
you could respond to those requests reasonably soon, we'd
appreciate it.
The following items will be made part of the hearing
record:
Outside witness testimony from the American Academy of
Diplomacy, the American Foreign Service Association,
InterAction, CARE USA, International Rescue Committee, Catholic
Relief Services, World Vision, Oxfam America, 16 former four-
star generals and admirals, the U.S. Global Leadership
Coalition, the Institute of International Education, and the
Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network;
A letter from the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to Secretary Tillerson regarding the implementation of
GAO recommendations regarding Security of Overseas Personnel
and Facilities, Security Assistance, Cost Savings, Humanitarian
Assistance, and Information Technology;
Letters in support of foreign assistance from the family
and friends of Anita Datar (killed by terrorists in Mali in
2015), 225 business leaders, and 24 faith-based organizations;
A June 12, 2017 oped in Politico by Admiral Mike Mullen
(Ret) and General Jim Jones (Ret) entitled ``Why Foreign Aid is
Critical to U.S. National Security'';
A June 1, 2017 letter from the Sri Lankan Ambassador who is
deeply concerned with the proposed cuts to assistance for Sri
Lanka;
A June 12, 2017 letter from the Tunisian Ambassador who is
similarly concerned with the budget request for assistance for
Tunisia; and
A July 6, 2017 prepared statement of the Council of
International Development Companies.
Senator Graham. I'll just wrap it up. You've been very
generous with your time. I'm excited about your review of the
State Department, your listening and taking action to make it a
more efficient place. You're right, just throwing money at a
problem is never going to solve it.
Your business background is unique here, but also your
engagement in the world. You know a lot of these countries
because you lived there and you've done business. So I think
you're going to be a good representative for us, and I'm
excited about that.
This budget is just driven by an arbitrary number. It comes
out of OMB, but it basically is a result of increasing military
spending, and can't deal with entitlements, so you've got to do
what you've got to do. It's more of a shoot-and-aim budget. I'm
looking forward to your review. Then we can make more sense of
it rather than just shooting and aiming later.
Threat-based budgeting is the way to go, you're dead right.
It's just not about the money we spend, but a threat-based
budget. And reform is absolutely essential.
On the defense side, we've reformed retirement, and that
was tough. It's prospective, but it's going to save money and
it's going to be fair to the soldiers and military members, but
it's a real reform. We're going to cost-plus contracts have
been replaced by fixed-price contracts. That's been a hell of a
fight, but it's going to save money. We're taking people out of
the headquarters units and putting them out in the field
because we got too top-heavy.
We've done all that and still going to increase the defense
budget by 10 percent because after you do all those reforms,
the world is so dangerous, and the military has been hurt for
the last few years through sequestration, that even after all
those reforms, you just need more soldiers out there in the
fight. They need better equipment, they need more modern
equipment, they need to deter war, and they need to win the
wars that we're in.
Soft power. As I understand the need for increased hard
power, I do not understand how you can cut soft power by 29
percent. I'm looking forward to reform the State Department,
but I just don't believe a 29 percent reduction is ever going
to make sense given the threats we face.
I think this budget will cost influence, we're going to
lose influence, it's going to put lives at risk, and it will be
seen as a retreat, so that's why I can't support it. But I will
support you and your efforts to bring about a new, modern State
Department, listen to how we can do better with our allies.
I don't mind asking people for more money, I really don't.
Count me in, in filling those gaps. But given our role in the
world, I think the cuts that we're talking about here, we're
sacrificing influence at a time we need more. We're turning
back programs that have worked pretty well at a time when a
little more will get us over the finish line. And I don't want
to retreat from the world right now.
The last 8 years before you got in town was pretty tough.
Nobody trusted us. Everybody thought we were taking a backseat
and good luck. Leading from behind did not work. I want to
compliment you and the President for getting out and about.
Increase in military spending. You've got a hands-on approach
to almost every conflict in the world, and I left out Yemen.
Any Secretary of State having to deal with three or four of
these problems would have a load. Here's my goal, is to lighten
your load. It's to try to find out a way to save money, but
also achieve the purpose of soft power, which is protect
America. And I look forward to working with you.
You will find no better friend than this subcommittee to
reform the State Department. But we cannot sit on the sidelines
and watch the State Department be seen as retreating at a time
when we need more soft power, not less.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Rex Tillerson
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. Please describe this administration's foreign policy. How
is this foreign policy similar to, or different from, that of previous
Republican administrations?
Answer. The President campaigned on the phrase America First, and
that characterizes our foreign policy. The chief goal of American
foreign policy is to ensure the security and economic prosperity of our
people. We are also dedicated to advancing American values. We are
confident that as we continue to establish and grow relationships, we
will have opportunities to persuade other nations on issues such as
human rights, good governance, and rule of law.
America First does not mean America alone. We will continue to
maintain alliances and build new ones along the lines of shared
interest. We seek to grow our international partners' responsibility
for security and stability at regional and international levels. For
example, we have consistently asked other nations with no historic
interest in de-nuclearizing North Korea to join our peaceful pressure
campaign and apply new economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Question. Is it the intention of the fiscal year 2018 Function 150
budget request to reorient the United States away from its position as
the world's sole superpower?
How does the fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget request ensure
that American remains the sole global superpower?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget request will allow
America to remain the sole global superpower as it supports the
President's priorities to defend national security, assert U.S.
leadership, and foster opportunities for U.S. economic interests. Even
with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in
international development, global health, democracy and good governance
initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. As part of our efforts, we will
continue to partner with key allies to protect Americans and American
interests, advance bilateral partnerships, open new markets for U.S.
businesses, and promote American interests abroad, in a manner that
puts America first. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our
most important policy goals and national security interests, while
ensuring that other countries contribute their fair share toward
meeting global challenges.
Question. Are diplomacy and development essential components to our
national security framework?
Answer. Yes. Diplomacy is always the administration's preferred
option for resolving conflict and advancing our interests. We are
seeing the fruits of diplomacy right now as many nations have, at our
urging, undertaken a new responsibility for solving the North Korea
issue by imposing and intensifying diplomatic and economic sanctions.
Development programs will remain an important component of our foreign
policy; they play a key role in mitigating socio-economic circumstances
in which instability and violence often emerge and thrive.
Question. If so, how is this reflected in the Function150 budget
request?
Answer. Diplomacy and development are essential components to our
national security framework. The fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget
request for the State Department and USAID defends our national
security interests, addresses the challenges to American leadership
abroad, bolsters U.S. national security, and secures our borders. It
acknowledges that U.S. assistance must be more effective, while
continuing to advance our foreign policy and economic interests.
As I mentioned in my testimony, the fiscal year 2018 budget request
includes substantial funding for many foreign assistance and
development programs under the auspices of USAID and the State
Department.
As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to
prioritize and make some tough choices. 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.
Question. What is the administration's foreign assistance strategy?
Answer. The Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) is the overarching strategy
document for the Department and USAID. Our foreign assistance strategy
has been, and will continue to be, a completely integrated component of
the JSP. The fiscal year 2018-2022 JSP is currently under development
in accordance with the process, timeline and requirements laid out by
OMB and in the Government Performance Results Act--Modernization Act of
2010 (GPRA-MA).
Question. Who is responsible for the development and implementation
of such strategy?
Answer. The Secretary and USAID Administrator provide the overall
policy guidance. The Bureau of Budget and Planning (BP) and the Office
of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F), together with USAID's
Management Bureau (M) and Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning
(PPL), share responsibility for managing the JSP process. The
Secretary's Policy Planning Staff's (S/P) provides additional policy
guidance and prioritization among the full range of foreign policy
issues, and how those policy priorities should be articulated in the
JSP's strategic goal and objective framework. The Secretary will
approve and publish the fiscal year 2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan by
February 2018, concurrent with the fiscal year 2019 President's budget.
Question. Once confirmed, what will be the relationship between the
USAID Administrator and the Secretary of State?
Answer. According to authorities identified in the Foreign Affairs
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, the USAID Administrator reports
to and is under the direct authority and policy guidance of the
Secretary of State.
Question. What role (bilaterally and multilaterally) does the
Function 150 budget request envision for diplomacy and development in
the relief and reconstruction in ISIS-liberated areas of Iraq and
Syria?
Will the Secretary of State lead in such relief and reconstruction
efforts within the U.S. Government and international community?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget requests $5.6
billion for efforts to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations
worldwide, including $2.0 billion in Diplomatic Engagement funding and
$3.6 billion in Foreign Assistance funding. Within that total, the
budget requests $1.5 billion for Iraq and Syria. This funding will
allow the United States to support critical diplomatic efforts as well
as stabilization, demining, and reconciliation programs in Iraq and
Syria to build on and cement military gains against ISIS.
In March 2017, Secretary Tillerson hosted a Ministerial meeting for
the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS at which he announced that the
Coalition had pledged over $2 billion in humanitarian, stabilization,
and demining funding in 2017 for areas in Iraq and Syria liberated from
ISIS. With Secretary Tillerson leading within the U.S. Government, the
United States will continue to play a leading role in the Coalition's
efforts to help local partners stabilize liberated areas in Iraq and
Syria and set those areas on the path to recovery.
Question. Please clarify your views on the role of American values,
including support for democracy and human rights, in U.S. foreign
policy.
Answer. The United States is the only global superpower with the
means and the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good. Our
foreign policy actions should be guided at all times by our core values
of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human dignity. Promoting
U.S. values--such as the pursuit of democratic governance and
commitment to human rights and the freedom of religion, press, and
speech--contributes to the long-term U.S. strategy of strengthening the
international order. An example of one of the many ways we promote our
values is through our annual reports on International Religious Freedom
and Trafficking in Persons--two recently released reports in which we
both publicly highlight countries that have made progress and expose
those that continue to commit abuses.
Question. What arguments did the Secretary of State put forward to
the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) in support of additional
resources when responding to OMB's initial topline allocation for the
Function 150 budget request?
What explanation did OMB provide the Secretary of State for denying
this request?
How was OMB's initial topline allocation for the Function 150
budget request developed?
Was the Department of State or USAID an integral part of that
process?
Answer. The Function 150 budget request prioritizes the well-being
of Americans, bolsters U.S. national security, secures our borders, and
advances U.S. economic interests. Executive branch communications
between agencies and OMB regarding budget planning are deliberative and
pre-decisional in nature, but the Department and USAID work closely
with OMB on all budgetary matters.
Question. Please describe the process by which the Office of U.S.
Foreign Assistance Resources (F) established initial country-level
allocations.
What consultations occurred between F and embassies and USAID
missions abroad in the development of the initial country-level
allocations? Please describe the process and input by embassies and
USAID missions abroad into the initial country-level allocations. If
none occurred, please explain why.
When F consulted with embassies and USAID missions after initial
country-level allocations had been established, how many days were
posts give to appeal these allocations?
What were the specific criteria F used to determine whether any
appeals were justified, and were posts given reasons for acceptance or
rejection of appeals?
Did the Department of State and USAID consult with foreign
governments and implementers in developing final country-level
allocations?
When and how were foreign governments and implementers informed of
final country-level allocations?
How were CDCSs, RDCSs, and other strategic planning documents used
in the development of initial and final country-level allocations?
If such documents were not used, why not?
Answer. Every fiscal year, the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Resources (F) leads the development of the Department of State and
USAID foreign assistance budget request over a year-long process which
begins in early January of each calendar year, when each mission is
given the opportunity to submit a budget request aligned with their
strategic plans, known as the Mission Resource Request (MRR). Following
these inputs, bureaus make adjustments to the mission-level requests in
their Bureau Resource Requests (BRRs), based on regional and/or global
priorities. Department and USAID leadership then review the MRRs and
BRRs, make adjustments, and the Secretary submits a final budget
request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). While all of
those steps took place during the development of the fiscal year 2018
budget request, because of this year's Presidential Transition, the
latter stages of the process had to be modified to account for the
directional shifts in policy between the current and prior
administrations, and the limited timeframe available to develop and
finalize the budget.
The initial fiscal year 2018 foreign assistance allocation process
was informed by the topline funding levels provided to the Department
and USAID by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as well as
administration policies and priorities as laid out in the President's
Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Blueprint. In aligning available resources,
funding was prioritized based on a series of criteria including:
countries and programs most critical for defending U.S. national
security objectives and interests, asserting U.S. leadership and
influence, and fostering opportunities for U.S. economic interests;
where the assistance could be most effective or could have a
transformative impact; and where the Department or USAID assistance has
a comparative advantage.
F, in consultation with Department and USAID leadership, developed
an initial set of allocations using a variety of data and sources for
analysis, including, but not limited to functional, regional, and
country development strategies (i.e., Joint Regional Strategies (JRS),
Functional Bureau Strategies (FBS), Integrated Country Strategies
(ICS), Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS)); MRRs; BRRs;
bureau consultations; and prior year budget and performance documents.
Department and USAID bureau leadership, along with their constituent
missions, were given approximately one week to review the proposed
bureau and country allocation levels and offer any adjustments,
including proposals to shift funding across Operating Units (OUs)
within a bureau, or request additional funding for specific countries,
accounts, and/or programs. Their inputs were reviewed and considered
against the criteria outlined above and allocation adjustments were
made in consultation with Department and USAID leadership. Bureaus were
informed of the adjustments that were made and the rationale behind
them. Once bureau, country, and account levels were finalized, bureaus
and their constituent missions finalized the distribution of funding by
the Standardized Program Structure, including by sector, for inclusion
in the Congressional Budget Justification.
Once the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request was submitted
to Congress and made available to the public, the Department and USAID
began engaging with partners and foreign governments on the details of
the request.
Question. What guidance has been given to embassies and USAID
missions on engagement with respective foreign governments on final
country-level allocations?
When was such guidance issued?
Answer. Once the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request was
submitted to Congress and made available to the public, the Department
and USAID began engaging with partners and foreign governments on the
details of the request, including final country-level allocations.
Question. What communications guidance has the Department of State
provided to embassies and USAID missions on proposed assistance levels
to ensure that China and Russia do not shape America's national
security narrative?
Answer. Our U.S. embassies and USAID missions regularly receive
guidance on assistance levels, and throughout the preparation and
release of the State/USAID budget. This enables our embassies and
missions to engage foreign audiences, assert American leadership, and
project our national security narrative.
The Department informs foreign and domestic media about our
assistance programs, and educates journalists and editors on our
policies, programs and initiatives. We use digital technologies and
social media to reach a wider group of emerging influencers, including
youth leaders, public intellectuals, NGOs, and others now playing a
significant role in development and humanitarian response, along with
politics and commerce. We have invested in digital marketing and
analytics, IT infrastructure, and web services in recent years, and as
a result, we are reaching more people around the world on more
platforms than ever before in ways that reinforce core American values
of openness, transparency and innovation.
Question. Given that many foreign governments and populations first
learned of proposed cuts through local press and social media (once the
details of the budget were released), how does the Department of State
intend to control the narrative on U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. The Department of State has a critical role in crafting
America's foreign policy narrative. The decisions regarding our budget
have indeed received much press attention. America's policies have
often been the center of international attention and the Department has
been highly effective in presenting our vision to foreign audiences,
and engaging and influencing key target groups. Now, as in the past,
our intention is to use the broad spectrum of Department talent,
platforms and programs to engage friends and allies, as well as those
who are not positively disposed towards us, to project a vision of
America foreign policy that is committed to retain our leadership role,
but at a lower cost.
By engaging foreign and domestic media, we aim to educate
journalists and editors on our policies, programs and initiatives. And
we use digital technologies and social media to reach a wider group of
emerging influencers, including youth leaders, public intellectuals,
NGOs, and others now playing a significant role in politics and
commerce. We've invested in digital marketing and analytics, IT
infrastructure, and web services in recent years, and as a result,
we're reaching more people around the world on more platforms than ever
before in ways that reinforce core American values of openness,
transparency and innovation.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget request
and the manner in which the cuts were made public through local press
and social media not cede U.S. influence and narratives on foreign
policy to the People's Republic of China and Russia?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request of $37.6 billion is
consistent with the administration's top priority--America's security.
The budget includes programs that will target threats to U.S. security,
such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and strengthen the
homeland. In addition to targeting new threats, the fiscal year 2018
budget request allows for the State Department and U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) to conduct their mission more
efficiently and effectively by streamlining efforts and saving U.S.
taxpayer dollars. Despite the reductions in funding, we will continue
to lead globally on international development and humanitarian
assistance, and the budget request includes funding for many foreign
assistance programs.
We are committed to retaining our leadership role, but at a lower
cost. I am convinced that the highly skilled and knowledgeable people
of my Department will deliver the value that the American people
deserve, but more effectively and efficiently. They will get the job
done, and we will continue to lead the world. The redesign effort that
I have initiated aims to help accomplish this goal.
Question. In many countries targeted for significant assistance
cuts, other U.S. Government agencies, particularly the Department of
Defense, are not similarly planning for operational or program
reductions in fiscal year 2018. How was the Function 150 budget request
coordinated with other such agencies?
Answer. As in the past, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
is formally charged with ensuring a coordinated approach to the
administration's budget request that reflects the President's
priorities. OMB played that important role with the fiscal year 2018
budget request. Additionally, the Department continued its practice of
coordinating directly with DoD and other agencies during the budget
development. Moving forward, Secretary Mattis and I have committed our
departments to work more closely together on how we prioritize and
align our respective security sector assistance (SSA) resources in
fiscal year 2018 and beyond. We have established a new State-DoD SSA
Steering Committee that is working to ensure a coordinated approach to
our respective assistance programs. The goal is to focus on a joint
approach that determines how best to leverage resources and authorities
to advance national security priorities and partnerships in the most
cost-effective method. Together, we are in constant communication
regarding how we can best target U.S. assistance to advance the
administration's top policy priorities, such as defeating ISIS. We are
also taking steps to ensure that we can continue to closely coordinate
the development of our budget requests in the future.
Question. Did the National Security Council provide any input into
the development of the fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget request?
Answer. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is formally
charged with ensuring a coordinated approach to the President's budget
request within the Executive Office of the President as well as other
Federal agencies. OMB played this important role in the development of
the fiscal year 2018 budget request and is best positioned to comment
on any coordination with the NSC on development of the Function 150
budget request.
Question. Please provide the Committee any analysis prepared by the
Department of State, USAID, the NSC, OMB, or any other U.S. Government
agencies that demonstrates other international donors will increase
financial contributions for any decreases in U.S. assistance proposed
in the fiscal year 2018 Function 150 budget request.
Answer. Once the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request was
submitted to Congress and made available to the public, the Department
and USAID began engaging with partners and foreign governments on the
details of the request. As part of our efforts, we will work to ensure
that other donor countries contribute their fair share toward meeting
global challenges. We will continue to partner with key allies to
protect Americans and American interests, advance bilateral
partnerships, and promote American interests abroad. Focusing our
efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals and
national security interests.
Question. Does the Department of State and USAID intend to obligate
and expend all funds made available to such agencies in fiscal years
2017 and 2018?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID will obligate funds
appropriated by Congress consistent with applicable law, including the
Impoundment Control Act.
Question. Are such agencies familiar with the Impoundment Act and
the requirements of both the administration and Congress under that
Act?
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. What relationship does the Department of State and USAID
seek with the Senate Appropriations Committee?
Answer. The Department remains committed to working with Congress
on the steps we are considering to improve the ability of the
Department and USAID to achieve critical foreign policy goals. We will
be in regular communication on the redesign process with the
Department's committees of jurisdiction. The Department will continue
to work with Congress, including your staff, during the redesign
process and will notify and report on planned organizational changes
consistent with sections 7015 and 7034(l) of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017
(Division J, Public Law 115-31). As the review is still underway, it is
possible some of the planned changes might also require statutory
changes. We will work with Congress as part of or prior to the fiscal
year 2019 budget submission to pursue such statutory changes. At the
end of this process, our goal is to ensure the State Department and
USAID are better equipped to address the foreign policy challenges of
the United States.
Question. Do such agencies intend to respond to requests for
information from the Ranking Member and Minority in a timely manner,
consistent with past practices of prior Republican and Democrat
administration?
Answer. The Department and USAID continue their long-standing
practice of responding appropriately to correspondence from Members of
Congress, regardless of political affiliation.
Question. How did the administration factor in Congressional
priorities in the Function 150 budget request, such as the Global Food
Security Act?
Answer. The fiscal year 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. It also reflects the President's commitment to
rebuild our Nation's military within fiscal constraints, while working
on behalf of the American people to advance our national security
objectives and foreign policy goals.
The fiscal year 2018 request includes nearly $500 million to
support agriculture programs and implementation of the Global Food
Security Act. While working to ensure food security is an important
foreign policy goal, the request does reflect a reduction from past
years. We acknowledge that we had to prioritize and make some tough
choices. The request prioritizes the most critical U.S. national
security interests and foreign policy priorities.
Question. Did the Department of State coordinate any of recent
personnel actions--including hiring freezes and limitation on
employment of eligible family members--with other U.S. Government
agencies located in embassies and consulates?
Answer. The Department of State elected to maintain the Federal
hiring freeze while it undergoes a redesign effort, which will inform
staffing requirements. EFM hiring by other U.S. Government agencies in
overseas missions is determined by each individual agency's hiring
policies. Each agency has the ability to make its own EFM hiring
decisions.
Question. Is the Secretary of State aware of any detrimental
impacts of the hiring freeze on the requirements of those agencies?
(Other U.S. Government agencies located in embassies and consulates)
Answer. As with any hiring freeze, there was an expectation that
overseas operations could not continue ``business as usual'' and would
require prioritization of mission-critical operations that support the
Department's security, safety, and health responsibilities. The
Secretary has approved some hiring exemptions to mitigate the impact on
national security, public safety, and public health. The Department of
State has a well-established strategy for succession planning based on
an analysis of past attrition trends, and, for the Foreign Service,
based upon the flow through of Foreign Service Generalists and
Specialists up through the ranks. To the degree that attrition
increases with possible personnel reductions, we will adjust our models
to account for the changes and ensure that necessary functions are
maintained. Our newest hires will benefit over the coming months from
our redesign effort, which is focused on improving the way each of us,
individually and collectively, deliver on our State Department mission,
here and abroad.
Question. Operations and Personnel: Will the Secretary of State
approved the July entry class for new Foreign Service officers? Why or
why not?
Answer. The Department plans to offer new Foreign Service officers
placements in two A-100 classes: July 24 and September 18, 2017. We
value these talented individuals and the skills they will bring into
the Department. They also will benefit over the coming months from our
redesign effort, which is focused on improving the way each of us,
individually and collectively, deliver on our State Department mission,
here and abroad.
Question. Does the administration intend to significantly change
the organization or mission of USAID?
Answer. We are reviewing options to ensure the efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability of the United States' diplomatic and
development operations, and we have no preconceived outcomes for a
potential reorganization.
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 the
consultants heard a prevailing theme that ``Central to the hearts and
minds of the people of USAID is the critical mission they see their
organization playing in the world. There is a clarity about, and focus
on, the mission.'' These insights and others will help the Department
and USAID 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. Are there any plans to transfer functions of USAID to the
Department of State?
Answer. There are no current plans. We are reviewing options to
ensure the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the United
States' diplomatic and development operations, and we have no
preconceived outcomes or plans for a potential reorganization. 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. 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. Are there any plans to transfer functions of the
Department of State to USAID?
Answer. 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. The Department of
State (Department) 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 the Department and USAID's operations, in order
to deploy the talent and resources of the Department and USAID in the
most efficient way possible. This review has no preconceived outcomes.
The general intent for this review is to engage the Department and
USAID community to design how the agencies will function for the next
20-plus years. We look forward to keeping the Committee and others in
Congress informed throughout this process. The recommendations,
blueprints, and new vision that emerge from the redesign endeavor 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 fiscal year 2018.
Question. On what basis has the administration determined to cut
the workforces of the Department of State by 8 percent (2,000
positions) and USAID by 16 percent (570 positions), in advance of the
Secretary of State's listening tour and planned reorganization task
force?
Answer. The Secretary recently received the results of the
listening survey he commissioned. The Department is now in the process
of analyzing the conclusions of the survey and is engaged in a redesign
study. As mentioned in the Secretary's recent testimony, one of the
primary goals of the Department's efficiency review is to take a hard
look at common or overlapping missions shared by various bureaus as
well as with other USG agencies. The Secretary has stated he has no
preconceived notions in this regard, and this review will consider
whether functions and/or programs within the Department are duplicative
or very similar in nature. The results of this critical phase of the
review will inform deliberations regarding functional consolidations or
elimination. Implicit in any effort to reduce or consolidate functions
or processes is a reduced workforce level to carry them out. Given the
timing of this review, final, long-term decisions should subsequently
be reflected in the Department's fiscal year 2019 CBJ.
The Department remains committed to ensuring effectiveness of U.S.
taxpayer dollars; driving efficiencies; working hand and hand with DoD
and other agencies across the government to identify duplication of
efforts; meeting objectives within fiscal constraints; and working on
behalf of the American people to advance national security objectives
and foreign policy goals. The Department looks forward to sharing its
plans with the Congress and working together to create a more
efficient, streamlined State Department and USAID.
Question. How many political appointees remain to be identified and
employed at the Department of State and USAID?
Answer. We have identified and or employed approximately 60 percent
of the Presidential appointments that require the advice and consent of
the U.S. Senate.
Question. Given the zeroing out of assistance to a number of
countries, how many USAID missions are anticipated to close under this
request?
Answer. The budget request prioritizes and focuses foreign
assistance in regions and on programs that most advance our national
interest and the administration's foreign policy priorities. The budget
reorients our foreign assistance to the most critical priorities, which
means revisiting where and at what level we provide assistance. If no
bilateral funding is requested for a particular country, in some cases
we are leveraging prior-year funds to continue some support. In other
cases we may utilize funds from a regional line to support activities
in a particular country. Planning related to specific USAID Mission
close-outs will be addressed separately as part of the implementation
of the Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for
Reorganizing the Executive Branch and other associated processes.
Question. What criteria is the Department of State and/or USAID
developing to guide the closure of USAID missions?
Answer. The budget request prioritizes and focuses foreign
assistance in regions and on programs that most advance our national
interest and the administration's foreign policy priorities. The budget
reorients our foreign assistance to the most critical priorities, which
means revisiting where and at what level we provide assistance. If no
bilateral funding is requested for a particular country, in some cases
we are leveraging prior-year funds to continue some support. In other
cases we may utilize funds from a regional line to support activities
in a particular country. Planning related to specific USAID Mission
close-outs will be addressed separately as part of the implementation
of the Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for
Reorganizing the Executive Branch and other associated processes.
Question. In the Secretary of State's testimony the Secretary
asserts that the Department of State and USAID ``have not evolved in
their responsiveness as quickly as new challenges and threats to our
national security have changed and are changing.'' Please provide
detailed and specific evidence to justify this assertion, including a
description of ``new challenges and threats to our national security''.
Answer. Several events in recent years illustrate the State
Department's need to embrace a new level of responsiveness.
As noted in the Benghazi Accountability Review Board,
communication, cooperation, and coordination functioned collegially at
the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency,
responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. There appeared to
be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and
empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security
considerations. While we have made changes since the 2012 attacks, we
must continue to be better organized and prepared to respond to
rapidly-developing attacks perpetrated by non-state actors such as the
terrorists who perpetrated the attack.
The evolving terrorist threat continues to challenge governments
around the world to find new ways to counter an increasingly diffuse
threat. The strategy, organization, and tactics of terrorist actors are
diverse and subject to rapid change. The Department of State and USAID
must adapt to this threat in ways that challenge traditional
bureaucratic paradigms.
Equally as dangerous is the threat of nuclear-armed rogue states.
North Korea's accelerated program to develop nuclear weapons, as well
as Iran's documented nuclear aspirations partnered with their rapidly
expanding proxy armies in the Middle East, demand a re-evaluation of
whether the State Department is agile enough to respond to the
unpredictable character of these regimes.
The accelerating proliferation of digital technologies in the 21st
century presents opportunities for American leadership and prosperity
as well as first-order challenges to our national security. The
Department of State and USAID must be agile in advancing an open,
interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet; sustaining American
preeminence in the global digital economy; and developing the
international architecture to deter and counter malicious threats from
adversarial states, criminals, and terrorists.
These are just a few of the issues that necessitate a constant re-
evaluation of our ability to confront multiple challenges and, to an
ever-increasing degree, expand our engagement with non-governmental and
private sector partners.
Question. How does a significant reduction in funding, assistance
and personnel, allow the Department of State and USAID to respond any
more quickly to such challenges and threats?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request acknowledges that our
operations must become more efficient, that our assistance must be more
effective, and that our primary mission must always be advocating for
the national interests of our country. By focusing our efforts, I
believe we will be able to more quickly and effectively address the
most pressing challenges and threats posed to our national security
while ensuring that other donor countries contribute their fair share
toward meeting global challenges.
As I noted in my testimony, I have never believed, nor have I
experienced, that the level of funding devoted to the goal is the most
important factor in achieving it. With such a broad array of threats
facing the United States, the fiscal year 2018 budget request begins
the necessary work of focusing State Department and USAID efforts in
order to allow us to advance our most important foreign policy goals.
Question. To what extent, if at all, does the hiring freeze at the
Department of State affect current or future Diplomatic Security
operations?
Answer. The Department is evaluating exceptions to its hiring
freeze for specific types of positions, one of which is for those that
provide security functions. Therefore, exceptions are being evaluated
for Diplomatic Security personnel including Foreign Service special
agents --covering the full spectrum of criminal investigations (both
domestic and overseas), threat analysis, foreign service national
vetting, leadership and oversight, program administration, financial
management, anti-terrorism training, and management of the Department's
security clearance and background investigation process. With the
exception of Foreign Service special agent positions, DS is currently
working to meet these personnel requirements by re-allocating current
positions and existing vacancies.
Question. What impact, if any, will that (the hiring freeze) have
on the Department of State's diplomatic presence in high-threat, high-
risk locations?
Answer. The High Threat Programs Directorate (DS/HTP) in the Bureau
of Diplomatic Security (DS) is tasked with the direct responsibility of
protecting our people, facilities, and classified information in the
posts designated as high-threat, high-risk (HTHR), and for which the
Department has evaluated continued presence as vital through the Vital
Presence Validation Process. DS carries out this mission with a cadre
of employees through multiple hiring types stationed domestically and
overseas. These positions are critical positions that provide the
necessary support, experience, and skill sets required to carry out DS'
mission. DS is and will continue to realign resources to ensure the
most critical security functions continue without interruption.
Question. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, what is the
right balance between the security of our diplomats and effective
engagement overseas?
Answer. Increasingly, our people are called upon to live and work
in difficult and dangerous environments. We operate in these
environments out of necessity, because that is where we must be to
serve our Nation's interests. The Department continues to develop tools
and mechanisms to ensure that risk is mitigated to the greatest extent
possible and the foreign affairs community has a safe and secure
environment in which they can conduct U.S. foreign policy. The
Department is constantly responding to changes in the international
security environment and assessing the safety of our Foreign Service
personnel in response to new information.
Following the Benghazi attack in 2012, the Department instituted
the Vital Presence Validation Process (VP2), which is a mechanism to
balance the risk versus the value of our presence in some of the most
dangerous overseas operating environments. VP2 is an institutionalized,
repeatable, and transparent process that facilitates risk-management
decisions, including whether to begin, restart, continue, modify, or
cease operations at posts identified on the high-threat, high-risk
(HTHR) list.
All posts, even those that are not on the HTHR list manage risk
through the Emergency Action Committee (EAC) and their use of Decision
Points to assess potential risks to a mission and its personnel.
Decision Points are comprised of Operating Assumptions, Risk
Indicators, and Consolidated Actions to Consider. The EAC reviews
potential changes in risk that might impact the health, safety, and
security of a mission and identifies ways to mitigate those risks.
Decision points reflect events, threats, or changes in circumstances
that require a discussion by the EAC to evaluate: the possibility of
increased risk to the health, safety, and security of the mission,
private U.S. citizens, and other U.S. Government interests; and, if/how
the post should take action to respond to those changes.
The Committee on Overseas Risk Evaluation (CORE) reviews reports of
met and adjusted decision points by all posts worldwide. The CORE
ensures decision-makers are fully briefed on operational overseas
updates, and appropriate action is taken in response to posts'
requests. The CORE is comprised of members from the appropriate
regional bureau; regional bureaus' executive office; Diplomatic
Security; Consular Affairs; principals' staff; the bureaus of Political
Military Affairs, Intelligence and Research, and Public Affairs; the
Operations Center's Crisis Management Support Office; the Office of
Medical Services; and other offices and bureaus as appropriate. The
office of Crisis Management & Strategy in the Operations Center of the
Executive Secretariat chairs the CORE and is responsible for its
operations and records.
Question. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure
that the Department of State is appropriately protecting U.S. personnel
outside of official facilities?
Answer. The danger from terrorists and criminals operating outside
of our facilities is best countered by well-informed individuals who
conscientiously follow established personal security practices. The
Department makes every effort to facilitate employees' knowledge,
including contractors, of best security practices through training,
constant communication, and various off-compound security measures.
The Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) course is currently a
requirement for select posts and will be required for all personnel
assigned under Chief of Mission (COM) authority worldwide by the end of
2019. This course provides employees with practical skills to
recognize, avoid, and respond to potential security threats. Personnel
assigned to posts on the High Threat High Risk list, whether
permanently assigned or on temporary duty, fulfill additional training
requirements designed to provide participants with threat and
situational awareness training against criminal and terrorist attacks.
Additional training initiatives include the Active Shooter Awareness
Course and technical security education and training to protect U.S.
personnel on their work and personal computer systems.
In addition to providing training prior to arrival at post, all
employees receive briefings on specific security regulations,
procedures, and techniques in order to maintain a high level of
employee security awareness. Additionally, Regional Security Officers
(RSOs) issue, with the approval of the COM, security directives that
give detailed written instructions and reminders of security policies
and procedures. These directives include the Post's Travel Notification
and Transportation Policies. The policies ensure that: COM personnel
are aware of the potential security risks they may encounter while
moving about the country and, where travel notifications are required,
the RSO is aware of the whereabouts of COM personnel.
The Department also has dedicated programs to ensure the safety of
the family members for Foreign Service personnel. For example, the
Residential Security program outlines the prescribed standards for the
residences of U.S. citizen direct-hire employees and their eligible
family members. The Soft Target Program aims to improve the physical
security of schools with students in the Kindergarten through the 12th
grade levels that face heightened threats, are assessed as especially
vulnerable, or are deemed to be potentially at risk.
Question. As noted in the 2015 cost-benefit analysis for the Bureau
of Diplomatic Security's Foreign Affairs Security Training Center
(FASTC), only five venues at the Interim Training Facility (ITF) at
Summit Point, WV, were deemed operational, and only two of the five
(ranges) are government-owned real property. The remainder of
government-owned real property and structures were categorized as
necessary to newly construct or improve for continued use--both at
significant cost to the government. With that in mind, and recognizing
previously stated congressional mandate to mitigate job losses at
Summit Point, please provide a detailed plan and timeline for fair and
reasonable disposition of the real property structures at the ITF
(question submitted on behalf of Senator Shelley Moore Capito).
Answer. The Department of State has accepted a proposal from Bill
Scott Raceway (BSR), the lessor of the ITF, for the disposition of most
government-funded and/or government-owned real property structures at
the ITF, at the conclusion of the current contract and any extensions
or bridges required to complete our training and transition to FASTC in
Blackstone, VA. The Department must take a final look at FASTC
requirements and needs to further define with BSR what Container
Express (CONEX) Structures will remain behind. The Department also
needs to discuss the Quick Range, the Tactical Training Operations
Center, and miscellaneous structures in the Urban and Rural Practical
Exercise Areas before agreeing to a final disposition of these
particular items. A more detailed list and schedule will be provided as
BSR and the Department finalize disposition.
Question. Does the Department of State intend to consult with the
Senate Appropriations Committee in a timely and comprehensive manner on
proposals that seek to significantly change the organization, role, or
function of the Department of State and USAID?
Answer. The Department remains committed to working with Congress
on the steps we are considering to improve the ability of the
Department and USAID to achieve critical foreign policy goals. We have
been in regular communication on the redesign process with the
Department's committees of jurisdiction. The Department will continue
to work with Congress, including your staff, during the redesign
process and will notify and report on planned organizational changes
consistent with sections 7015 and 7034(l) of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017
(Division J, Public Law 115-31). As the review is still underway, it is
possible some of the planned changes might also warrant additional
legislation. We will work with Congress as part of or prior to the
fiscal year 2019 budget submission to pursue such statutory changes. At
the end of this process, our goal is to ensure the State Department and
USAID is better equipped to address the foreign policy challenges of
the United States.
Question. Given that proposed fiscal year 2018 funding levels were
pre-determined by OMB prior to conducting any studies on
reorganization, are the Department of State's efforts to gather
opinions through the Insigniam contract and planned task force on
reorganization simply window-dressing?
Answer. The State Department and USAID's fiscal year 2018 budget
request acknowledges that operations must become more efficient, that
assistance must be more effective, and that the primary mission must
always be advocating for the national interests of the United States.
To produce a more efficient, effective State and USAID, I commissioned
an external listening tour and study of the Department to look for ways
to ensure effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars; drive efficiencies;
work hand in hand with DoD and other agencies across the government to
identify duplication of efforts; meet objectives within fiscal
constraints; and work on behalf of the American people to advance
national security objectives and foreign policy goals. I have stated
publicly that I have no preconceived outcomes and plan to follow the
facts where they lead me; any reorganization plans will be developed
accordingly. The Department looks forward to sharing its plans with the
Congress and working together to create a more efficient State and
USAID.
Question. Did any of the individuals from Insigniam who conducted
site visits and interviews with Department of State personnel in
Colombia, Haiti, Rwanda, Austria, Thailand, Pakistan and the
Philippines have a security clearance?
Answer. Security clearances or public trust certifications were
granted to Insigniam team members, as needed, based on the level of
access to information required by each member. Members of the Insigniam
team who traveled without security clearances or public trust
certifications were escorted by appropriately cleared employees at all
times.
Question. Did any such individuals [those from Insigniam who
conducted site visits] meet with officials from other U.S. Government
agencies to understand more fully what the mission and functions of an
Embassy are?
Answer. Yes, each of the Insigniam consultants who conducted
interviews overseas met with officials from other U.S. Government
agencies to understand more fully what the mission and functions of an
Embassy are, including the needs of the interagency as they relate to
the Department of State as a service provider.
Question. Proposed operations and assistance cuts in the 1990s
adversely impacted the ability of the U.S. to respond to post-September
11, 2001 diplomacy and development requirements. Given that the past is
prologue, how is the Department of State and USAID factoring in
lessons-learned from historical cuts--including those in the 1990s--in
configurations of what the personnel requirements should be?
Answer. I recently received the results of the listening survey I
commissioned. The Department is in the process of analyzing the
conclusions of the survey and determining a way forward. As part of
that process, the Department's Office of the Historian is conducting
research into past reorganizations and reform initiatives. USAID has
also conducted an internal study of past reductions in staff and in-
country presence, including those of the 1990s, and their long-term
impacts. In addition, the Department has developed staffing models in
order to conduct staffing studies based on program requirements at any
given time. The staffing models are adjusted and refined as needed.
Question. What is the purpose of the EFM program, and who has
responsibility for the management of the EFM program at embassies?
Answer. The Department relies on a mix of employment options to
carry out its core responsibilities at our missions abroad, including
hiring qualified eligible family members (EFMs) to fill essential
security, health, and safety positions. The EFM employment program is
administered by Human Resources Offices at missions abroad. However,
worldwide policies governing the EFM employment program are created,
maintained and managed by the Office of Overseas Employment in the
Bureau of Human Resources in the Department of State in Washington, DC.
Question. What is the justification for suspending the EFM program?
Answer. The Department elected to maintain the Federal hiring
freeze through the agency-wide listening tour and subsequent agency
redesign phase. Since EFMs who are employed by the Department of State
at our missions abroad are almost always hired via appointments, which
are subject to the hiring freeze, EFMs cannot currently be hired by the
Department in our missions abroad without an exemption from the
Secretary of State. However, EFMs may continue to be hired by non-State
agencies at our missions abroad who have elected to lift the hiring
freeze.
Question. Was any analysis performed on the impact EFM program
suspension may have on operations at embassies, including for other
U.S. Government agencies? If so, please provide to the subcommittee in
a timely fashion. If no was analysis was conducted, why not?
Answer. No formal analysis was conducted in advance of the Federal
hiring freeze which was announced on January 23, 2017. As with any
hiring freeze, there was an expectation that overseas operations could
not continue as ``business as usual'' and would require prioritization
of mission critical operations that support the Department's security,
safety and health responsibilities.
Question. Is it the intention of the Department of State to
increase the costs of operations at posts abroad by canceling the EFM
program?
Answer. The Department did not cancel the EFM program. However, the
Department did elect to maintain the Federal hiring freeze through the
agency-wide listening tour and subsequent agency redesign phase. The
current agency redesign phase will consider how best to leverage the
knowledge, skills and abilities of our talented, qualified and
available EFMs as a cost effective component of the workforce.
Question. Does it make sense to have an RSO or ARSO issue badges at
posts, rather than an EFM? Please provide a cost comparison for this
specific scenario.
Answer. Most Regional Security Offices have a U.S. direct-hire
Office Management Specialist (OMS); however, when that is not possible,
cleared Eligible Family Members (EFMs) are able to perform the
essential administrative services including but not limited to printing
badges, reviewing visitor access requests, and organizing law
enforcement liaison events. This allows for RSOs and ARSOs to focus on
managing key security services, ensuring adequate oversight over high-
value items such as local guard contracts and special protective
equipment, while maintaining effective liaison with host country
security counterparts to receive timely threat information and security
assistance. Administrative support, whether performed by a Foreign
Service (FS) OMS or cleared EFM, is prudent because it permits regional
security offices appropriate time to manage and provide oversight over
all security programs at overseas posts to include important life
safety, emergency preparedness, and information security. Besides the
adverse distraction from an agent's core mission, the salary of a DSS
Special Agent is significantly higher than that of a cleared EFM.
Question. Is the Secretary of State the only individual empowered
to issue waivers for the EFM program?
Answer. Yes, the Secretary of State is currently the only
individual who has the authority to grant exemptions to the 2017 hiring
freeze which would allow EFMs to be hired abroad by the Department.
Some exemptions have been approved by the Secretary, which allowed
several missions to hire EFMs into positions that support critical
security, safety and health responsibilities at posts abroad.
Question. Is this the most pressing and productive use of the
Secretary's time?
Answer. The Secretary has a deep interest in all personnel
categories and is therefore the proper oversight authority for actions
that impact the Department.
Question. What is the justification for the proposed Economic
Support and Development Fund (ESDF), and how will the creation of this
account make more efficient and effective U.S. assistance?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request reflects a commitment
to ensure every tax dollar spent is aligned with the State Department's
and USAID's mission-critical objectives. The Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF) requested in the fiscal year 2018 budget 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 activities in the context of broader U.S. foreign
policy objectives and partnerships around the world.
Question. How does the Department of State square zeroing out
assistance to certain countries with the assertion in the Secretary of
State's letter accompanying the Function 150 budget request that ``An
optimally functioning State Department and USAID will deploy funding
that restores the leadership of the American people and allies depend
on for stability, security, and prosperity''?
Specifically, how does zeroing out assistance restore the
leadership of the American people?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request for the State Department and
USAID will allow America to continue to assert U.S. leadership, defend
national security, and foster opportunities for U.S. economic
interests. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be
the leader in international development, global health, democracy and
good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. As part of our
efforts, we will continue to partner with key allies to protect
Americans and American interests, advance bilateral partnerships, open
new markets for U.S. businesses, and promote American interests abroad,
in a manner that puts America first. 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. Should the Committee endorse the proposed cuts, does the
Function 150 budget request include plans for, and funding to
implement, a glide path or transition plan for impacted countries?
If no such plans were prepared by OMB, did the Department of State
and USAID prepare plans for a glide path or transition prior to the
submission of the budget?
What are the estimated costs for such glide paths or transition
plans?
Answer. Since 2016, guidance for Integrated Country Strategies has
required a section on Transition Planning for Foreign Assistance. As
these strategies are updated every 3 years, about a third of Embassies
have strategies that contain this planning to date. USAID Missions with
a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) have also begun to
incorporate a transition plan into their CDCS development process that
addresses USAID-managed programming. The goal of these transition
planning efforts is to explore opportunities to decrease country
dependency on U.S. foreign assistance and to encourage self-sufficiency
through programs to strengthen economic development, security, and
stability. The fiscal year 2018 budget request focuses our funds on the
most critical priorities, and these transition planning efforts will
help inform foreign assistance programming moving forward.
Question. The budget request for Foreign Military Financing Program
(FMF) includes a proposal to transition from grants to loans. Which
countries have been identified for such transitions?
Has the Department of State considered that such transitions may
result in increased arms sales to countries by the People's Republic of
China and Russia?
What analysis was prepared prior to this proposal being included in
the President's budget request?
Answer. The Department of State is planning for a partial
transition from FMF grants to loans, which we believe will allow us to
both maintain key security partnerships and provide value for American
industry and taxpayers.
Not all countries 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 Department is in the
process of conducting loan feasibility reviews on a country-by-country
basis, considering each country's importance to U.S. national security,
national budget, expected ability to fulfill the terms of a loan
agreement, and likelihood of interest.
To the extent that past grant FMF recipients are willing and able
to continue expanding or sustaining their U.S.-origin defense
capabilities through FMF loans instead of grants, the United States
will be able to reduce the amount of foreign assistance needed for
these purposes.
The Department recognizes that, in some circumstances, past FMF
recipients may also choose to seek loans or assistance from other
international suppliers, such as China or Russia. 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.
During the development of the President's budget request, analysis
was conducted by the Department, in consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget and other agencies, on how best to create savings
for the taxpayer and advance America's core interests. The
administration feels that the flexibility provided by offering both FMF
grants and loans is the most effective way to fulfill our security
commitments in a cost effective manner.
Question. Given the administration's apparent de-emphasis on
democracy and human rights promotion, how do you see programming for
Department of State and USAID changing in this area over the next 4
years?
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 the absence of the rule
of law. DRG investments are critical to addressing the societal
conditions that lead to violent extremism, radicalization, migration,
instability, and organized crime. In fiscal year 2018, DRG programs
will be targeted to promote effective, accountable, and democratic
institutions and a vibrant civil society, which create the conditions
for long-term security and stability.
Question. How is the administration incorporating values into U.S.
foreign policy toward Egypt?
Answer. We consistently incorporate our values into our
relationship with Egypt by registering our concerns with Egypt's lack
of progress on democracy and human rights. We continue to object to
Egypt's lack of fair trial guarantees, excessive use of preventative
custody and pretrial detention, trials involving hundreds of
defendants, and the use of military courts to try civilians. Moreover,
we continue to fund assistance programs that promote democratic
principles and the improvement of electoral participation by all
segments of Egyptian society, and advance principles of minority
equality and transparency in all of our activities.
We were extremely disappointed by President Sisi's signature of the
NGO law and the government's recent obstruction of access to more than
a hundred websites--including those of some of the best known news and
human rights organizations--which may close the space for civil society
groups to operate. In response, we have raised--and will continue to
raise at senior levels--our serious concerns about Egypt's policies
that challenge democratic governance, and stress the fundamental
importance of the respect for human rights, civil liberties, and the
need for a robust civil society.
Question. Egyptian President el-Sisi recently ratified a new NGO
law which would make it virtually impossible for independent civil
society organizations to operate in Egypt through restrictive
registration and funding processes. Should the repeal of this NGO law
should be a prerequisite for continued economic U.S. assistance for
Egypt? If not, why?
Answer. We were extremely disappointed by President Sisi's
signature of the NGO law. From the time parliament proposed this
legislation last November, until President Sisi approved it, we clearly
and repeatedly communicated our concerns about the law and urged the
Government of Egypt to not adopt it. We have stressed that a strategic
relationship is a two-way street that requires trust and credibility.
The State Department is evaluating how to respond. Egypt remains a
key regional actor, and none of the options come without downsides. Our
support of Egypt's stability through assistance promotes U.S. interests
in a volatile region. We have seen some progress over the last few
months: the release of Aya Hijazy, and important wins for U.S.
businesses.
We are considering all available options as we continue to press
the Egyptians at the highest levels to ensure that U.S. assistance
programs and civil society have the necessary space to operate.
Question. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Jordan expires
in fiscal year 2018, yet the budget request presupposes a funding level
of $1 billion--consistent with the existing MOU funding level. Does the
budget request purposefully undercut the ability of Jordan to engage
the Department of State to discuss assistance needs in fiscal year 2018
and beyond?
Answer. The President's request for Jordan in fiscal year 2018 is
consistent with our prior-year requests. Protecting this robust level
for Jordan's foreign assistance in the context of the reduction to the
State and USAID budget signals a strong commitment to the U.S.-Jordan
partnership. We are committed to supporting the stability and security
of Jordan, a critical partner in the region, on a range of U.S.
national security priorities. Assistance is one of the many tools we
can use in Jordan to help support the country. We remain in close touch
with the Jordanian government to discuss the numerous challenges the
country faces to ensure we properly calibrate our levels of support.
Question. Given the myriad burdens Jordan bears, are increased
assistance levels justified in the renewed MOU?
Answer. Jordan is one of our oldest and closest regional allies,
and we are committed to supporting Jordanian stability and security as
it faces a number of difficult and complex regional challenges. We
remain in close touch with the Jordanian government to ensure we can
properly calibrate our levels of support.
Question. How do you explain the administration's retreat from
multilateral organizations and fora?
Answer. The administration is committed to both an effective United
Nations and to U.S. leadership on a multilateral stage. We believe that
with focused U.S. leadership, the United Nations can better serve the
interests of peace, security, and prosperity. The United Nations
represents an important tool through which the United States can assert
its influence and seek action that might otherwise be difficult and
more expensive for the United States to pursue. However, the United
States cannot continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burden
of paying for solutions to the world's problems. Other member states
must do more to support international organizations, and the
organizations themselves must be reformed to improve their
effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency.
Question. Will such a retreat result in the loss of leadership and
leverage in implementing reforms?
Answer. The administration is committed to both an effective United
Nations and to U.S. leadership on a multilateral stage. That leadership
has been on frequent display at the U.N. Security Council and elsewhere
on crucial issues such as Syria, Iran, DPRK, and peacekeeping reform.
However, the President's budget proposal makes clear that the United
States cannot continue to bear a disproportionate share of the U.N.
budget, and that other member states need to offer greater financial
support and political muscle to propel urgently needed reforms.
Question. What premium does the Department of State place on
countering the influence of the People's Republic of China and Russia
abroad--or to put it another way, what premium does the Department
place on maintaining U.S. influence globally?
Answer. Russian and Chinese attempts to exert influence on U.S.
allies and partners are a serious concern. These two countries seek to
negatively impact U.S. interests, including by influencing foreign
populations and sowing doubts about the United States.
The Department of State works consistently to counter foreign
influence operations that undermine our national security, including
those conducted by China and Russia. From the Secretary of State to
Foreign Service Officers and career employees, the Department is
focused daily on broadening and strengthening ties between the United
States, national governments, intergovernmental organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, and individuals. The Department strives
to project and maintain U.S. influence globally.
Question. In the Secretary of State's testimony, the Secretary
asserts that ``. . . 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.'' As the
budget request eliminates funding for democracy and good governance in
Cambodia and Sri Lanka, how does the Secretary intend to lead on these
issues, particularly when democratic elements within both countries
seek to consolidate democratic gains?
Answer. We are committed to fostering democracy and good governance
in Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and beyond.
In Cambodia, support for human rights and democratic reforms
remains a long-standing U.S. priority. Working with other like-minded
countries, we have expressed concerns both publicly and privately over
a range of human rights and democracy issues, including the harassment
of civil society activists and organizations and recent amendments to
Cambodia's Law on Political Parties. Recent positive developments in
Cambodia include the release from pre-trial detention of five current
or former employees of the human rights NGO ADHOC and the peaceful,
well-executed Cambodian local council elections in June despite threats
of intimidation by the ruling party. The opposition won nearly 500
communes and approximately 43 percent of the popular vote. Embassy
Phnom Penh will monitor preparations for national elections in July
2018, which will offer Cambodia an important opportunity to demonstrate
its commitment to democratic norms. We will also continue to monitor
the trials and cases in the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of
Cambodia (ECCC) and encourage accountability for the atrocities
committed during the Khmer Rouge regime.
We worked closely with Sri Lanka to pass the 2015 Human Rights
Council (HRC) Resolution 30/1 outlining reform commitments to promote
reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka in the
wake of the 2008-2009 conclusion of its civil war. We continue to
engage Sri Lanka, civil society and our partners in the international
community on these reforms under the 2017 consensus HRC Resolution 34/
1, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, which extended until March 2019 the
timeline and oversight for the reforms agreed upon in Resolution 30/1.
We continue to push Sri Lanka to return to private owners the land its
military occupied; it has returned nearly 5,000 of the 13,000 acres
seized in the north and east to date. We consulted with the government
on its Office of Missing Persons bill, and we continue to consult on
the draft Counterterrorism Act to replace the draconian Prevention of
Terrorism Act. We supported the Consultative Task Force process, which
provides a basis for reforms moving forward, and will continue to
encourage the government and our partners to fully implement all
commitments agreed to in HRC Resolution 30/1, including establishing a
credible judicial mechanism to try alleged war crimes.
In both countries, we will continue our open dialogue with
governmental and civil society leaders, and with third countries and
multilateral partners. We will support the emerging leadership of the
two countries and encourage them to be more active in advancing
democratic values and good governance. We will also continue to hold
them accountable to their obligations under universal human rights
norms and instruments. Finally, we will sustain our multilateral work
within the U.N. system and through regional mechanisms to strengthen
human rights monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in Cambodia and Sri
Lanka to ensure democratic progress.
Question. In fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017, USAID engaged
academic and commercial expertise to develop innovative vector control
technologies to address vector-borne pathogens transmissions and avert
the spread of future infectious disease outbreaks. What type of funding
would be available in fiscal year 2018 to support vector control
programs?
Answer. USAID invests in the Innovative Vector Control Consortium
(IVCC) to support the research and development of novel insecticides
and insecticide-based tools for use in public health vector control
programs. This is an effort to directly address the emerging
insecticide resistance and to make new vector control tools available
for malaria prevention. USAID's support to IVCC leverages contributions
from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DfID and others, and is in
direct partnership with private sector companies.
While the United States will continue significant funding for
global health programs, including programs to combat infectious
diseases, other stakeholders and partner countries must increase their
financial investments in global health programs.
Question. Given the incredible success of PEPFAR since its creation
by President Bush, and how close international donors are to epidemic
control in Africa, what is the justification for a proposed $1 billion
cut to PEPFAR?
Answer. With the President's fiscal year 2018 budget, the U.S.
Government will continue to prioritize smart investments that save
lives and advance progress toward controlling the HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria pandemics.
Specifically, 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).
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.
The $1.125 billion requested for the U.S. contribution to the
Global Fund 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. What is the rationale for zeroing out $330 million in
HIV/AIDS funding for USAID in the budget request?
Answer. The President's 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
CDC) primary implementing agencies for PEPFAR, and will continue to
implement a significant share of U.S. global HIV/AIDS assistance in
this capacity.
Question. Can the Department of State ensure the Committee that the
U.S. will meet our 33 percent contribution to the Global Fund?
Answer. The President's budget includes $1.125 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. The fiscal year 2018 budget request proposes to cut
federally-funded exchange programs by more than half--justifying this
by asserting that the private sector will pick up the slack and that
there's no harm to U.S. interests. Yet, the administration has at
various times expressed that it might cut back the J-1 visa Summer Work
Travel exchange program--a private-sector program that costs no
taxpayer money. Please fully explain the rationale to cut and curtail
our engagement with emerging leaders from around the world via exchange
programs.
Answer. Educational and cultural exchange programs are undeniably
an important part of the State Department's diplomatic mission. One of
our key exchange initiatives is the Summer Work Travel program, which
is 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. We will continue to support the
private and State Department-funded exchanges in ways that best accord
with the law, advance America's foreign policy priorities, and serve
the needs of the American people.
Question. Given limited size of the J-1 Visa program, its role in
promoting cultural exchange, and the short duration of the visas, what
is the justification of including this program in the review under the
Hire American Executive Order?
Answer. The portfolio of the Exchange Visitor Program includes 13
different categories of private sector exchange. These programs are
educational and cultural in focus and fall under Fulbright-Hays
authority or other Congressional legislation that brings them under the
Exchange Visitor Program. Such programs are regulated as educational
and cultural exchanges under 22 CFR 62. They are not intended to be
labor programs, although some exchange activities may involve a work
component. Around 300,000 exchange visitors begin programs each year in
the 13 different categories of private sector exchange. Often these
exchange programs last for 3 to 4 months, as is the case with Summer
Work Travel or Camp Counselor, although they may last a number of
years, such as for College and University Students and Alien
Physicians.
Question. Will the Department of State commit to continuing to
support both federally-funded and private sector exchange programs as
key elements of America's diplomatic engagement with the world?
Answer. Both federally funded and private sector exchange programs
have proven themselves to be very important tools in our diplomatic
engagement and we will continue to support their use worldwide.
Question. Regarding the currently pending sale of F-16s to Bahrain,
it is the committee's understanding that the Department of State was
sent congressional questions requiring a response. What is the current
status of the Department's response? What is the current status of the
sale?
Answer. As you know, our security relationship with Bahrain is
extremely important, and we share many of the concerns raised by
Members of Congress. The operational and logistical support that
Bahrain provides our military is essential to the success of our
campaign against ISIS.
We will continue to stand with Bahrain in fighting terrorism, even
as we encourage the government to differentiate its approach against
violent militia groups from its response to peaceful political
opposition. We agree that promoting human rights in Bahrain and
enhancing regional stability in the Gulf are mutually reinforcing
interests, and we are committed to pursuing both efforts.
We continue to strongly encourage the Government of Bahrain to take
steps toward political reconciliation and to advance reform efforts for
the benefit of Bahrain's long-term security and our mutual interests in
regional stability. We welcome discussing the matter with you further
in an appropriate setting.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2017 included major reforms to how the Department of Defense
administers foreign military assistance, which now totals about $10
billion annually. That law reaffirmed the State Department's foreign
policy lead in relation to these assistance programs and requires
concurrence by your department for all DoD-funded aid programs. What
steps are you taking, beyond establishing coordinating committees, to
ensure that the State Department can take on this oversight role and
effectively plan, administer, and evaluate the foreign policy impact of
all U.S. military and police assistance? What additional staff or other
resources will be needed to carry out this responsibility?
Answer. The Department has longstanding mechanisms for planning,
coordinating, and evaluating security assistance, including processes
such as: the development of the Integrated Country Strategy, which
details each Mission's three year goals and objectives and provides a
framework to organize and prioritize in-country activities; the
development of the Mission Resource Request, which reflects each
Mission's annual funding request for all Department assistance
accounts; various interagency planning forums throughout the budget
cycle; and program-specific proposal review processes. In addition, the
Department adheres to evaluation policy and the Foreign Aid
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016, which requires U.S.
Government agencies to closely monitor, evaluate, and report on U.S.
foreign assistance programs.
In light of DoD's expanded assistance authorities, the Department
is working with DoD to develop processes that synchronize security
assistance planning and programming across the two agencies. This is in
addition to, as you note, a new State Department-DoD Security Sector
Assistance Steering Committee that Secretary Mattis and I have
established, which is accountable for ensuring the joint approach is
fully embraced.
I have designated the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military
Affairs as the lead coordinator for the Department in the joint
planning, development, and implementation of programs under DoD's new
Section 333 authority, which incorporates and expands on several legacy
DoD authorities that were repealed in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA.
Question. Mr. Secretary, as long as you are Secretary of State can
we count on the Department to respond in a timely manner to written
questions and other requests for information from Republicans and
Democrats on this Committee?
Answer. The Department continues its long-standing practice of
responding appropriately to correspondence from Members of Congress,
regardless of political affiliation.
Question. Can we count on you to consult with this Committee
regarding any proposed State Department reorganization that would have
policy, budgetary, or personnel implications, prior to initiating such
reorganization?
Answer. The Department remains committed to working with Congress
on the steps we are considering to improve the ability of the
Department and USAID to achieve critical foreign policy goals. We will
be in regular communication on the redesign process with the
Department's committees of jurisdiction. The Department will continue
to work with Congress, including your staff, during the redesign
process and will notify and report on planned organizational changes
consistent with sections 7015 and 7034(l) of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017
(Division J, Public Law 115-31). As the review is still underway, it is
possible some of the planned changes might also require statutory
changes. We will work with Congress as part of or prior to the fiscal
year 2019 budget submission to pursue such statutory changes. At the
end of this process, our goal is to ensure the State Department and
USAID are better equipped to address the foreign policy challenges of
the United States.
Question. The proposed cuts in the fiscal year 2018 budget request
would have real consequences for the security of our diplomats, for the
conduct of our foreign policy, for the lives of people who depend on
our assistance, and for our friends and allies. Your budget implies
that we have been throwing money away on things that don't matter.
Where is the data and the analysis to support these cuts? What facts do
you have to demonstrate that this will make Americans better off and
the world a safer place?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request includes substantial
funding for many foreign assistance programs under the State Department
and USAID, but the first responsibility of the government is the
security of American citizens, and the Department is orienting
diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that commitment. While State's
mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interests of the
American people, the primary focus will be to protect U.S. citizens at
home and abroad, and therefore the Department is making hard choices to
reduce funding for other initiatives. Even with reductions in
assistance and development funding, the United States will continue to
be the leader in international development, global health, democracy
and good governance initiatives, as well as humanitarian efforts. The
Department is confident the fiscal year 2018 budget request will allow
the Department to support 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.
Question. Secretary Mattis' quote about needing more ammunition if
the State Department doesn't get the money it needs is so relevant that
it has become somewhat of a cliche. You referenced the quote in your
confirmation hearing, and stated that ``ensuring the resources are
available to advance our foreign policy and diplomacy goals are
important and elevated to a level that even the nominee of the
Secretary of Defense has recognized.'' Did the importance of
maintaining at least current levels of appropriations for U.S. foreign
policy change? Or did you determine between January and March that
Congress has been wasting billions of dollars on frivolous operations
and programs?
Answer. The State Department and USAID budget increased over 60
percent from fiscal year 2007, reaching a record-high $55.6 billion in
fiscal year 2017. Recognizing this rate of increase in funding is not
sustainable, the fiscal year 2018 budget request reflects an effort to
ensure every tax dollar is aligned with the Department's critical
diplomatic and development mission, and that other nations should take
on a greater responsibility for meeting shared international
commitments. Operations must become more efficient, assistance must be
more effective, and the primary mission must always be advocating for
the national interests of the United States. The Department and USAID
acknowledges that we had to make some tough choices, but focusing our
efforts will allow the Department to advance the most important foreign
policy goals and national security interests, while ensuring that other
donor countries contribute their fair share toward meeting global
challenges.
Question. The administration has emphasized the need for other
countries to ``step up'' their efforts to address today's global
challenges and contribute their ``fair share''. How will cutting our
contributions convince others to do more, and what evidence do you have
that others have the ability, or the inclination, to fill the gap in
funding caused by your budget cuts?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID must advance our efforts
to engage other countries to address global challenges. As part of our
efforts, we will work to ensure that other donor countries contribute
their fair share. We will continue to engage diplomatically with allies
and partners to advance shared policy priorities and bilateral
partnerships. 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. The
budget clearly communicates that American taxpayers can no longer be
expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of these efforts. As we
work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness 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 and national security interests.
Question. You have testified that the U.S. has been doing more than
its fair share to promote global peace and security. Does that mean
that you believe 1.4 percent of the Federal budget is unfair and too
much for the world's only superpower?
Answer. The first responsibility of government is the security of
its own citizens, and this budget request highlights that priority. The
fiscal year 2018 budget request prioritizes the well-being of
Americans, bolsters U.S. national security, secures our borders, and
highlights U.S. economic interests. As we work to ensure the efficiency
and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we will have to prioritize
and make some tough choices. 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. 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.
Question. In your testimony you stated that ``We are challenged to
respond to . . . 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.'' Can you reconcile that statement with your
belief that the growth of the State Department and USAID budgets are
not sustainable and should be reduced? Why can we not afford 1.4
percent of the Federal budget to support U.S. foreign policy in an
increasingly complex and challenging world?
Answer. The State Department and USAID budget increased over 60
percent from fiscal year 2007, reaching a record-high $55.6 billion in
fiscal year 2017. Recognizing this rate of increase in funding is not
sustainable, the fiscal year 2018 budget request reflects an effort to
ensure every tax dollar spent is aligned with the Department's critical
diplomatic and development mission, and that other nations should take
on greater responsibility for meeting shared international commitments.
The Department and USAID's fiscal year 2018 budget request acknowledges
that our operations must become more efficient, that our assistance
must be more effective, and that our primary mission must always be
advocating for the national interests of our country. By focusing our
efforts, we will be able to more quickly and effectively address the
most pressing challenges and threats posed to our national security
while increasing the cost-effectiveness of our operations for the
American taxpayer.
Question. In your testimony you state that ``The first
responsibility of government is the security of its own citizens, and
we will orient our diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that commitment
. . . the State Department's primary focus will be to protect our
citizens at home and abroad.'' I agree that the security of U.S.
citizens and American personnel and facilities at home and around the
world must be a priority, but I disagree that the best way to do so is
by ceding U.S. leadership and influence abroad. What about this budget
makes Americans safer, and when can we expect to see the results?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request for the State Department and
USAID will allow America to continue to assert U.S. leadership, defend
national security, and foster opportunities for U.S. economic
interests. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be
the leader in international development, global health, democracy and
good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. As part of our
efforts, we will continue to partner with key allies to protect
Americans and American interests, advance bilateral partnerships, open
new markets for U.S. businesses, and promote American interests abroad,
in a manner that puts America first. This budget also sustains our
responsibilities for border security and protecting Federal employees
who serve under Chief of Mission authority overseas. 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. In your testimony you state that ``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.'' I agree. Increased funding
does not necessarily equal increased effectiveness. And certainly
neither does decreased funding. You have proposed to reduce State
Department staffing by roughly 2,000 positions, and the budget
eliminates development and economic programs in 37 countries. What is
more effective about this approach, and how did you arrive at these
numbers?
Answer. With such a broad array of threats facing the United
States, the fiscal year 2018 budget request begins the necessary work
of focusing State Department and USAID efforts in order to allow us to
advance our most important foreign policy goals. The State Department
and USAID's fiscal year 2018 budget request acknowledges that our
operations must become more efficient, that our assistance must be more
effective, and that our primary mission must always be advocating for
the national interests of our country. By focusing our efforts, we will
be able to more quickly and effectively address the most pressing
challenges and threats posed to our national security while increasing
the cost-effectiveness of our operations for the American taxpayer.
Question. Can we count on the State Department and USAID to
obligate and expend the funds appropriated by Congress for fiscal year
2017, and fiscal year 16 funds set to expire on October 1, 2017, in the
manner prescribed?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID will obligate funds
appropriated by Congress consistent with applicable law, including the
Impoundment Control Act.
Question. You have embarked on a restructuring of the State
Department to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Over the past 3
months, we have heard testimony from U.S. combatant commanders around
the world, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the
Secretary of Defense expressing ``unqualified support'' for the budgets
of the State Department and USAID. Yet, in addition to the 30 percent
cut for diplomacy and development, you are proposing to use millions of
dollars that was appropriated for other purposes to eliminate more than
600 positions from the State Department through buyouts, and to reduce
more than twice that number through attrition:
What if you determine that given the increasingly complex and
dangerous threats we face around the world, the State Department and
USAID need more resources, including personnel, not less? Will you then
request the additional resources? Wouldn't it make more sense to first
determine how many people and how much funding the Department actually
needs, before cutting the budget?
Answer. We can build a State Department that is more effective as
well as more efficient within the President's budget request. The
Department remains committed to ensuring effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer
dollars; driving efficiencies; working hand in hand with DoD and other
agencies across the government to identify duplication of efforts;
meeting objectives within fiscal constraints; and working on behalf of
the American people to advance our national security objectives and
foreign policy goals. As we move forward, the Department looks forward
to sharing its plans with the Congress and working together to create a
more efficient, streamlined State Department and USAID.
Question. What mechanisms are in place, or do you intend to put in
place, to ensure that reductions to personnel through attrition do not
adversely impact the ability of bureaus and offices to effectively
carry out their missions? What is the process for a bureau or office to
request authority to hire additional staff, and under what
circumstances do you intend to permit hiring?
Answer. The Department of State has a well-established strategy for
succession planning based analysis of attrition and, for the Foreign
Service, flow through of Foreign Service Generalists and Specialists up
through the ranks. To the degree that attrition increases with possible
personnel reductions, we will adjust our models to account for the
changes and ensure that necessary functions are maintained.
We do not foresee involuntary actions such as a general reduction
in force. Rather, we are targeting voluntary incentives for early
retirement or separation to ensure that any reduction does not impact
our ability to meet the requirements of our mission.
Although the Department is currently maintaining a Department-wide
hiring freeze, there is an established process for requesting
exemptions to the hiring freeze. Senior officials (Assistant Secretary
or equivalent) may seek an exemption for positions deemed critical to
the execution of functions that support the Department's security,
health and safety responsibilities.
Question. What is the justification for, and impact of, suspending
the incoming class of Foreign Service Officers?
Answer. As of June 13, the Department is unable to offer this
year's cadre of Fellows a spot in an A-100 class at this time, as has
been customary.
Question. What is the justification for, and impact of, freezing
the hiring of Eligible Family Members?
Answer. I have elected to continue the OMB/OPM hiring freeze
Department-wide while we undergo our review of aligning resources,
people, and our overarching mission, in order to deploy the talent and
resources of the Department in the most efficient way possible.
Specific hiring exemptions have been approved for EFM positions that
support critical security, safety and health responsibilities at
overseas posts.
Question. In your testimony you commit that the United States will
continue to respond to disasters and epidemics overseas. Yet the budget
reduces funding for programs intended to prevent and mitigate the
impact of such disasters, and programs intended to build food security
against the threat of famine and strengthen local health systems. What
about cutting these programs will enable you to respond more
efficiently and effectively, and when can we expect to see the results?
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.
The United States is committed to doing our fair share to respond
to humanitarian crises. With our fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2017 to date for these crises. At
the same time, 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 fiscal year 2018 includes dedicated resources to
support conflict mitigation, stabilization, and human rights and
governance programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria,
Yemen, and elsewhere.
Question. At the Defense appropriations subcommittee's fiscal year
2018 budget hearing, I asked Secretary Mattis about his views on the
proposed cuts to foreign assistance. He answered by acknowledging that
DoD may have to fill some of the gaps left by State and USAID, and that
he was willing to do so if needed. However, DoD has a dismal track
record of implementing development and economic assistance, including
in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11. Why does it make sense to have DoD
fill gaps in foreign assistance rather than provide the necessary
resources to State and USAID which are far better suited to the job?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID have indispensable roles
to play in a whole-of-government effort to address national security
challenges, working with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other U.S.
Government agencies. I am committed to fulfilling our important
mission, and I believe our fiscal year 2018 request provides us with
the necessary resources in that regard. 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 succeed in meeting
these important objectives. By being more selective and targeted with
our foreign assistance resources, I believe we can have a greater
impact and increase cost-effectiveness for the American taxpayer.
Secretary Mattis and I have committed our departments to work more
closely together on security sector assistance (SSA) efforts and
foreign assistance more broadly. We have established a new State-DoD
SSA Steering Committee that is working to ensure a coordinated approach
to our respective assistance programs. We are not seeking to transfer
responsibility for programs historically funded by State to DoD;
rather, the goal is to focus on a joint approach that determines how
best to leverage resources and authorities to advance national security
priorities and partnerships in the most cost-effective method.
Together, we are also reviewing how we can best target our assistance
to advance our top policy priorities, such as defeating ISIS.
Question. In your testimony you note that the administration is
``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.''
I agree that engagement is important. How do you reconcile that
statement with rolling back engagement with Cuba; with significant cuts
to international financial institutions, the U.N. and other
international organizations; and with reductions to bilateral
assistance programs across the world, including the elimination of
development and economic programs in 37 countries?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID must advance our efforts
to engage other countries to address global challenges. As part of our
efforts, we will continue to partner with key allies to protect
Americans and American interests, advance bilateral partnerships, and
open new markets for U.S. businesses. Even with the reductions in
funding, we will continue to be the leader in democracy and good
governance initiatives, international development, global health, and
humanitarian efforts. As I noted in my testimony, I have never
believed, nor have I experienced, that the level of funding devoted to
the goal is the most important factor in achieving it. Our budget will
never determine our ability to be effective--our people will. By
focusing our efforts, we will be able to more quickly and effectively
address the most pressing challenges and threats posed to our national
security while increasing the cost-effectiveness of our operations for
the American taxpayer.
Question. Do you plan to solicit feedback from the broader
international development community, including our implementing
partners and beneficiaries of U.S. assistance, regarding any proposed
reorganization?
Answer. Yes, State and USAID are planning on hosting a broad
stakeholder engagement and listening session, which will include
partners from the development community, in the coming weeks.
Question. The mission of the World Health Organization is of vital
importance to the health and safety of Americans and people everywhere.
Compared to a deadly air borne virus, the Ebola epidemic was relatively
easy to contain, and yet it claimed the lives of thousands of people
and cost billions of dollars. WHO has been badly underfunded for years.
How much are you requesting for a U.S. contribution to WHO in fiscal
year 2018, compared to the U.S. contribution in fiscal year 2017?
Answer. The fiscal year 2017 assessed contributions will total
approximately $112 million. An aggregate total contribution will be
determined once the fiscal year 2017 voluntary contributions are
finalized. In addition to the State Department and USAID, the Centers
for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of
Health and Human Services all contribute funds to WHO. The President's
fiscal year 2018 Congressional Budget Request did not specify amounts
of funding for contributions to WHO. While the contributions to the
International Organizations account face a significant cut in the
President's request, we have not yet determined funding levels for
individual organizations. The organization could receive fiscal year
2018 foreign assistance funds as an implementing partner for programs
and activities funded through accounts such as global health programs.
Question. International basic education assistance works. When
Exxon Mobil sets up operations around the world, it needs local
employees with the basic skills, particularly in math and science, to
be an effective part of the workforce. This means youth and children
starting out with a quality education, and that particularly girls and
women also have a chance to compete in their societies. Critical
thinking also counters violent extremism. The fiscal year 2018 budget
request would cut funding for basic education by 53 percent. What is
the justification for this reduction, and what impact do you expect
such a cut to have?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request for education is still robust,
at more than a half billion dollars--$377.9 million alone for basic
education. Our effort to streamline resources is in keeping with the
administration's priority of ensuring effectiveness and accountability
to the U.S. taxpayer. This does require some tough decisions. However,
we deeply recognize that investments in basic education creates
pathways not only for learning, but also for greater economic growth,
improved health outcomes, democratic governance, and more resilient
societies.
For that reason, USAID basic education programs are targeted on
supporting countries' achievement of specific, measurable results:
children reading and children and youth--particularly girls--accessing
safe, quality education in crisis and conflict. From 2011 to 2015,
USAID supported 151 basic education programs in 46 countries, directly
benefiting more than 41.6 million children and youth. Forty-nine
percent of basic education beneficiaries, or 20.2 million individuals,
were girls.
USAID basic education programs also invest in countries where
additional donor resources can be leveraged, another priority of the
new administration. For instance, USAID works in partnership with the
Global Partnership for Education (GPE) to strengthen country-level
cooperation of education programming. In 2015 alone, U.S. support to
GPE contributed to the construction or rehabilitation of 5,700
classrooms, provision of 12.8 million textbooks and learning materials,
and training of 147,000 teachers.
Moving forward, USAID's education strategy will continue to focus
on partnerships and initiatives with the strongest potential to improve
the lives of the children and youth.
Question. Your budget proposes to cut the Fulbright Program by
half, and to eliminate many other international exchange programs which
have strong, bipartisan support in Congress. Some of the most effective
foreign advocates for American values are graduates of Fulbright and
other U.S. cultural and educational exchange programs. I have met many
of them. Do you believe these programs are failing to produce good
results? At a time when misinformation and hostility toward the United
States is growing, why would we not increase funding for these cost-
effective programs?
Answer. The proposed cuts in Educational and Cultural Exchanges
account contained in the fiscal year 2018 State Department budget
request are part of a government-wide and Department-wide effort to
reduce costs and to prioritize our resources where they have the
greatest benefit to the American public. The State Department
recognizes the important contribution of exchange programs, such as
Fulbright, to advancing our foreign policy priorities, and the proven
effectiveness of these programs. We will make every effort to leverage
these programs and the efforts of the private sector to achieve U.S.
national goals for people-to-people engagement.
Question. In your testimony, you stated that one third of the
Fulbright budget is contributed by other governments. I am concerned
that foreign governments will reduce their contributions if the U.S.
cuts its contribution, and there is no realistic scenario in which
foreign and private contributions make up the difference of U.S. cuts
so the program is maintained at the current level, as you suggested. In
addition, your proposed cuts to the Economic Support Fund would likely
result in USAID missions in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt cutting
back the amounts they allocate to Fulbright. What evidence do you have
that if the Congress does what the President proposes, total funding
for Fulbright from all sources will not decrease.
Answer. We are looking holistically at how U.S. Government funded
efforts and the efforts of other stakeholders, including foreign
governments and the private sector, are helping to achieve our common
objectives. To sustain high priority cultural and exchange programs
like Fulbright at lower U.S. Government funding levels, we will need to
determine priority areas and countries of activity after close
consultations with the Department's regional bureaus and taking into
account the strategic interests of the U.S. Government and our foreign
policy goals. The extent to which U.S. Government funds are leveraged
with contributions from other stakeholders will also be considered.
Every effort will be made to keep exchange programs overall as robust
and cost effective as possible, in service to the American people.
Question. A January 2016 report by the State Department Inspector
General found that the Department routinely takes over 500 days to
respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Citizen groups
cite cases in which FOIA requests to State can go unfulfilled for
years. What progress has State made to resolve its FOIA backlog and
reduce the time for responding to FOIA requests, and what do you plan
to do about this in fiscal year 2018 and beyond?
Answer. The Department takes its FOIA responsibilities seriously
and has taken a series of concerted actions to improve the program.
These efforts have reduced the backlog by over 30 percent since October
1, 2015; the current backlog is approximately 15,600 cases.
The Department is developing a new process to eliminate its current
FOIA backlog on an accelerated timeframe. Concurrently, the Department
is in the process of acquiring new technical tools that will help
facilitate both resolving the Department's FOIA backlog and providing
more timely responses to requesters and the public.
Further, to ensure greater public access to Department records, the
Department is adding released records to our foia.state.gov website
every month, an effort that started in 2016. There are now over 162,000
documents available on-line for public review, which is a 40 percent
increase over last year.
Additional FOIA training is being offered to both employees who
process FOIA requests and those who generate records being requested.
There are monthly briefings on FOIA available to all Department
employees located in Washington, DC, and new remote training tools are
being created for all Department employees.
Finally, the Department has established a new internal FOIA working
group to address process and policy issues, including how to improve
from the previous year's performance.
Question. You have spoken of the importance of the United States'
work with Mexico to combat the criminal organizations responsible for
trafficking drugs to the United States and widespread violence in
Mexico. Improving security in Mexico and combatting organized crime
requires a judicial system that effectively investigates and prosecutes
crimes and corrupt-free civilian police forces that citizens trust.
According to your fiscal year 2018 budget request, assistance for
Mexico would drop by 45 percent in 2018 as compared to 2016. Why does
this make sense, and how do you plan to sustain our collaboration with
Mexican authorities to combat organized crime and strengthen Mexico's
criminal justice institutions?
Answer. We remain committed to supporting the Government of Mexico
in combatting organized crime and the movement of drugs and other
illicit goods throughout the hemisphere. The fiscal year 2018 budget
request reflects the administration's focused approach to foreign
assistance. The request for Mexico prioritizes issues that directly
impact the safety and security of the United States, by strengthening
border security and undermining the transnational criminal
organizations that traffic drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, which
are exacerbating the U.S. opioid epidemic.
The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
(INL) continues to build the capacity of Mexican civilian security and
justice sector institutions to strengthen borders and ports; disrupt
the activities of transnational criminal organizations; interdict
illegal drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines; and
disrupt illicit financial networks. Assistance will improve Mexico's
ability to bring offenders to justice by increasing the effectiveness
and professionalism of judicial institutions under Mexico's new
accusatory justice system. In support of the May 2017 U.S.-Mexico
Strategic Dialogue on Disrupting Transnational Criminal Organizations,
INL is working with the Government of Mexico to identify new
opportunities to combat transnational criminal organizations, including
disrupting their business models. We are exploring new ways to
strengthen criminal investigations of money laundering, build Mexico's
capacity to criminally prosecute and sanction financial crimes, and
work jointly on detecting and interdicting bulk cash shipments from the
United States to Mexico. The funding requested in fiscal year 2018 is
in addition to the $1.9 billion in International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement funds allocated since fiscal year 2008.
In addition, Economic Support and Development Fund assistance will
promote human rights by building the capacity of Federal and State
authorities to abide by and implement Mexico's National Human Rights
Program and the government's obligations under international human
rights treaties. Assistance at a local level will improve access to
community-level justice and victims' services. This is complemented by
assistance to civil society organizations to help promote crime and
violence prevention, rule of law, and human rights.
Question. In light of the important role of U.S. support for police
professionalization, strengthening the rule of law, and advancing
judicial reform in Mexico, what areas of assistance will you prioritize
for the State Department's future engagement with Mexico?
Answer. We continue to prioritize support for Mexico's transition
to an accusatorial criminal justice system as an integral component of
our strategy to combat transnational organized crime. A transparent,
efficient, and effective criminal justice system is essential to our
goal of dismantling transnational criminal organizations to combat the
production and trafficking of heroin and fentanyl fueling the opioid
epidemic in the United States. Disrupting criminal organizations that
traffic heroin and other drugs requires strong law enforcement and
justice institutions that can investigate, arrest, prosecute, convict,
and imprison criminals. Our support also strengthens the rule of law by
protecting due process, promoting assistance to crime victims, and
strengthening human rights.
U.S. funding supports the Government of Mexico's own priorities to
promote accountability, professionalism, integrity, and adherence to
due process among the country's 350,000 Federal, State, and municipal
law enforcement officials. As Mexico has embarked on an essential set
of reforms to its justice sector, the United States, through our
security partnership with Mexico, has provided essential support by
targeting every facet of the criminal justice system. This continues to
include training for judges, prosecutors, and curriculum support for
law schools, as well as supporting accreditation of Federal and State
forensic laboratories and certification of their personnel. The United
States also continues to provide training, technical assistance, and
equipment in support of Mexico's efforts to reform Federal and State
penitentiary systems.
The United States and Mexico have forged a multi-faceted
partnership to combat organized crime and drug trafficking and to
support Mexico's efforts to strengthen its security institutions,
enhance rule of law, build public confidence in the justice sector,
improve border security, and promote respect for human rights. Through
the Merida initiative, we will continue to direct funding to key
priorities identified jointly by our governments to complement Mexico's
investment in its own security.
Question. It is one thing for a Communist government to restrict
travel by its citizens. We might expect that. But do you believe it is
right for the government of the world's oldest democracy to tell its
citizens where they can travel and for what purposes, and to do so only
for one country which is just 90 miles away?
Answer. The Executive branch enforces U.S. law. U.S. law has
prohibited certain financial transactions and trade with Cuba for over
50 years, including travel-related transactions. Consistent with the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations promulgated by the Department of
Treasury, certain travel-related transactions may be authorized either
by a general license or on a case-by-case basis by a specific license
for travel related to 12 specified categories of activities. These
categories include educational, religious, and journalistic activities,
family visits, support for the Cuban people, humanitarian projects,
government business, public performances and competitions, activities
of private foundations or research or educational institutes,
professional purposes, export, import, or transmission of information
materials, and certain export transactions. These categories could be
subject to modification pursuant to the National Security Presidential
Memorandum issued on Cuba on June 16.
Question. Do you believe the Cuban military or other security
services pose a threat to the United States or to regional peace and
security? Have any other Western Hemisphere governments indicated that
they believe that they do?
Answer. The Cuban military poses no significant direct threat to
the United States and its regional partners. However, Cuba's security
services have previously worked contrary to U.S. interests in the
region, and the Government of Cuba provides support to Venezuelan
security services.
The countries of the region agreed to invite Cuba to the 2016
Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA), a decision that
was reached in April 2016 at a preparatory conference in Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago. While Cuba did not attend the conference, the
decision suggests the region's willingness to cooperate with Cuba on
issues of security.
Question. The White House says President Trump's reinstatement of
restrictions on travel to and trade with Cuba by Americans will help
bring freedom to Cuba, for which the Cuban people will credit President
Trump. What human rights improvements do you expect to occur as a
result of President Trump's actions, and by when do you expect to see
them?
Answer. The National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) issued
June 16 seeks to advance human rights in Cuba. The Trump
administration's policy is designed to encourage the Cuban government
to address ongoing human rights abuses, including infringement of
fundamental freedoms, and violence and intimidation against dissidents.
By restricting certain types of travel and financial transactions, the
administration's policy increases the pressure on the Cuban government
to address these human rights abuses. U.S. policy will be shaped by how
the Cuban government chooses to act toward its own people. As the NSPM
states, the White House will continue to evaluate its policies to
promote improved human rights conditions for the Cuban people, and the
United States will continue to engage with the Cuban government on
areas of national interest.
Question. You have blamed Helms-Burton and other laws for the
President's reinstatement of restrictions on travel to and trade with
Cuba by Americans--contrary to U.S. policy everywhere else in the
world. You have also strongly endorsed engagement with governments we
disagree with in order to obtain improvements in human rights. Is that
just a talking point, or would you support a repeal or modifications of
Helms-Burton in order to facilitate that engagement? If the latter,
what modifications of Helms-Burton would you recommend to facilitate
U.S. engagement with Cuba?
Answer. The National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM),
Strengthening the Policy of the United States toward Cuba, outlines the
policy of the executive branch towards Cuba. The new policy ensures
engagement with Cuba is consistent with U.S. national interests,
including advancing Cuban human rights and encouraging the growth of a
Cuban private sector independent of government control. The new policy
also reaffirms the executive branch's commitment to Helms Burton.
Question. What improvements in the standard of living of the Cuban
people do you expect to occur as a result of President Trump's
reinstatement of restrictions on travel to and trade with Cuba by
Americans, and by when do you expect to see them?
Answer. As stated in the National Security Presidential Memorandum,
issued June 16, the new Cuba policy aims to ensure engagement advances
the interests of the Cuban people and encourages the growth of a Cuban
private sector independent of government control. It does this by
directing Federal agencies to undertake various actions, including
making regulatory changes to restrict certain financial transactions
and travel. The effect of these changes will be felt over time and
constitute part of our continued engagement to improve human rights,
encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and
promote democracy in Cuba.
Question. How will you assess--with what criteria and over what
period of time--whether the reinstatement of restrictions on travel to
and trade with Cuba by Americans is helping to bring freedom to the
Cuba?
Answer. Cuban civil society, international non-governmental
organizations, and global media paint a bleak picture of repressive
conditions in Cuba. As outlined in the National Security Presidential
Memorandum, issued June 16, the President's policy is designed to
advance human rights and democracy in Cuba, while maintaining
engagement that serves U.S. national interests. The United States will
engage with Cuba to promote greater freedoms for the Cuban people, who
for decades have lived with persistent harassment, violence, and arrest
for exercising fundamental freedoms of speech and assembly.
The Department receives regular and detailed reporting from the
U.S. Embassy in Havana regarding conditions on the island. In addition,
the Department maintains close and frequent contact with Cuban civil
society and international non-governmental organizations, and closely
follows reports from NGOs, academics, and international media. We will
rely heavily on all these sources to monitor human rights conditions in
Cuba.
Question. What if any other improvements in Cuba do you expect to
occur as a result of this policy, and by when do you expect to see
them?
Answer. The National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM),
Strengthening the Policy of the United States toward Cuba, outlines the
policy of the executive branch toward Cuba consistent with U.S.
interests. The new policy gives greater emphasis to advancing human
rights and democracy in Cuba, while maintaining engagement that serves
U.S. national interests.
The policy maintains U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba; ensures
compliance with the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba; confirms support
for the economic embargo of Cuba; requires a report on whether
conditions of a transition government are present; amplifies efforts to
support the Cuban people through expansion of Internet services, free
press, free enterprise, free association, and lawful travel; and
reaffirms the end of the ``Wet Foot, Dry Foot'' policy. The policy also
ensures U.S. engagement benefits the Cuban people and private
enterprise--not the military and security services--by directing
Federal agencies to adjust current regulations to prohibit certain
direct financial transactions with listed Cuban military, intelligence,
or security services.
This continued engagement furthers national security and foreign
policy interests of the United States. While we cannot predict a
specific date by which we can expect to see such improvements in Cuba,
we will continue to craft U.S. policy to improve human rights,
encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and
promote democracy.
Question. How many, if any, additional State and Treasury
Department personnel, and at what cost in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal
year 2019, will be required to implement and enforce the President's
restrictions on travel to and trade with Cuba by Americans?
Answer. The State Department is analyzing the resource requirements
necessary to implement the National Security Presidential Memorandum
(NSPM) on Strengthening the Policy of the United States toward Cuba in
coordination with our colleagues at Treasury.
Question. What if any evidence do you have that President Trump's
policy toward Cuba will help bring freedom to Cuba or otherwise improve
the lives of the Cuban people?
Answer. As President Trump's Cuba policy makes clear, the
administration is committed to supporting the Cuban people by advancing
human rights and democracy in Cuba, while maintaining engagement that
serves the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States. To that end, the Department of State continues to pursue
diplomatic engagement, supporting and working with human rights and
democracy activists in Cuba and regional partners.
Specifically, the new Cuba policy describes the administration's
intent to support the Cuban people through the expansion of Internet
services, free press, free enterprise, free association, and lawful
travel. The President's National Security Memorandum on Cuba policy
lays out several specific steps the Department of State and other
agencies will undertake to assess the current state of U.S. Government
engagement and programming in Cuba and help further these goals.
Additionally, the Department of State is already holding preliminary
meetings to inform the work of the Internet task force we will convene
to examine the technological environment for expanding Internet access
in Cuba.
Question. The Cuban government is repressive. No one disputes that.
I have condemned Cuba's violations of human rights and I have met with
Cuban dissidents. But if Cuba were a democracy and its police were
summarily executing thousands of people suspected of drug abuse,
without any legal process, like the police in the Philippines are
today, would you recommend millions of dollars in aid for Cuba as you
are for the Philippines?
Answer. The United States supports strengthening human rights and
democratic governance, and the programs and assistance we provide
worldwide reflect that mission. We are working with the Philippines on
addressing the shared objective of preventing illicit drug trafficking,
as well as providing assistance to promote the rule of law and human
rights. We have serious concerns when those involved in the drug war
reportedly operate outside the rule of law, and we have discussed our
human rights concerns at the highest levels of the Philippine
government on multiple occasions, and raised the issue at the May 8
Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council.
In order to encourage Cuba to meet the requirements set forth in
the Libertad Act, U.S. Government programs in Cuba support the Cuban
people's desire for human rights and democratic governance. Our
programs train independent journalists to provide an alternative voice
to State-run media, equip human rights defenders to better document
human rights abuses and present reports to international fora, and send
crucial humanitarian assistance to victims of political repression and
their families.
Question. Would you support the following legislation, and if not
why not?
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or
policy, travel to and transactions incident to such travel in Cuba by
American citizens and legal residents shall not be subject to
limitations that are more or less restrictive than for such travel to
and transactions in Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, China, or
Vietnam.''
Answer. We do not agree with the general approach. A ``one-size
fits all'' approach that combines Cuba with disparate other countries
would not be helpful. Different circumstances call for different
approaches. We often face dynamic situations and ever-shifting
landscapes when formulating our foreign policy. The administration must
have the flexibility to tailor its responses to the reality on the
ground, which can vary considerably both by country and over time.
Question. Do you support, and would you recommend, similar
restrictions on travel to and trade by Americans with any other country
besides Cuba, and if so which countries and for what reasons, and if
not why not? What about Venezuela and Russia, Cuba's strongest
supporters?
Answer. The safety and security of U.S. Citizens abroad, and the
development of a strong, prosperous American economy are top priorities
of the Department of State. As such, the Department continually
evaluates potential travel and trade-related measures. Due to the
serious and mounting risk of arrest and long-term detention of U.S.
citizens, restrictions on the use of U.S. passports to travel into, in,
or through North Korea have been in effect since September 1, 2017, in
accordance with C.F.R. 51.63. Persons who wish to travel to North Korea
on a U.S. passport must obtain a special passport validation under 22
C.F.R. 51.64, and such validations will be granted only under very
limited circumstances. Currently, there are no decisions to implement
additional restrictions on travel to other countries.
Question. In 2018, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over
300,000 citizens of El Salvador and Honduras is set to expire. If TPS
is not renewed, what would be the effect on economic and security
conditions in these countries--whose combined population is 14.5
million--of a sudden influx of 300,000 unemployed people (increasing
the population by 2 percent)?
Answer. The Salvadoran and Honduran governments have been
cooperative partners in receiving their deported citizens. Each country
receives roughly 50,000 deportees a year from the United States and
Mexico.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
partners with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to
improve the capacity of the Northern Triangle governments of El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to receive and assist deported
migrants. Since 2014, USAID has provided three program contribution
grants totaling $26.8 million to IOM to help the Northern Triangle
governments improve their capacity to receive and reintegrate
unaccompanied children, families, and adults returned from the United
States and Mexico and to rebuild and renovate four repatriation
centers.
Despite ongoing efforts by the Salvadoran and Honduran governments
and current and requested U.S. assistance for the region, any increase
in deportation, would likely strain government services and hinder the
governments' ability to address serious economic problems, further
delaying job creation and successful reintegration of deported
citizens.
Question. The fiscal year 2018 request includes a 39 percent cut in
assistance to the three countries of Central America's ``Northern
Triangle,'' El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Currently, aid to
those countries supports the ``U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central
America,'' a plan begun in fiscal year 2016 to address the root causes
of migration. If we cut these violence-prevention, economic
development, workforce development, community policing, and criminal
justice reform efforts, what is the risk that violence and insecurity
will worsen and drive another wave of migrants toward the United
States?
Answer. Through U.S. assistance and engagement in Central America,
our aim is to secure the U.S. border and protect American citizens by
addressing the economic, security, and governance drivers of illegal
immigration and illicit trafficking. The President's fiscal year 2018
budget request of $460 million for Central America emphasizes continued
U.S. commitment to reducing insecurity and violence, enhancing the
business climate, and promoting improved governance in the region, all
of which is essential to supporting the safety, security, and
prosperity of Americans. This is in addition to the almost $2 billion
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2015-fiscal year 2017.
Fiscal year 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.
Question. The Inspectors General for the Departments of State and
Justice released a report recently that State and DEA employees were
involved in a cover up of a 2012 incident where a drug raid in Honduras
went wrong and four innocent civilians were killed and others injured.
The report finds that State Department employees ``failed to comply
with, and undermined, the Ambassador's Chief of Mission authority'' and
``provided inaccurate and incomplete information to Congress and the
public.'' How is State holding accountable the employees cited in the
IGs' report? What changes to policies and procedures has State
implemented to ensure that this type of non-cooperation with
investigators is not repeated, especially in cases involving loss of
life and personal injury? What specific compensation has been provided,
or is contemplated, by whom, for the Honduran victims of the Ahuas
incident?
Answer. The Department of State (DOS) has very serious concerns
with the joint report produced by the Inspectors General of the
Departments of State and Justice (OIGs), ``A Special Joint Review of
Post-Incident Responses by the Department of State and Drug Enforcement
Administration to Three Deadly Force Incidents in Honduras.'' These
concerns were raised by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (INL) in their January 17, 2017 official comments
on the draft joint report. Additionally, during the course of the joint
investigation, DOS officials asked the OIGs to address concerns over
the root cause of the interagency conflict concerning appropriate
protocols for disclosing law enforcement investigative information,
including internal agency reviews. None of these concerns were
addressed during the joint OIG investigation, nor are they reflected in
the final joint report. As a result, the lengthy and complex report
remains incomplete and factually misleading. In our view, this has
resulted in the adoption of conclusions regarding INL and Bureau of
Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) personnel that are erroneous and not
supported by the evidence.
Because the Department concluded that DOS employees did not engage
in misconduct, they were not referred for formal disciplinary action.
DOS concluded the employees did not willfully provide incomplete or
inaccurate information to Members of Congress or the public.
Coordination before and after the incidents discussed in the joint
report suffered from limited legal provisions regarding the presence of
U.S. law enforcement in foreign police operations. The Foreign
Assistance Act contemplates defensive use of force by U.S. law
enforcement personnel and the need to secure Chief of Mission approval
for their presence at foreign police operations and for carrying
firearms in country, but does not address responsibilities for post-
incident responses. Conflicting agency policies related to the
disclosure of information contributed to misunderstandings between the
participating law enforcement entities pertaining to their obligations.
This prevented the Chief of Mission from receiving information that she
had every right to receive and can be avoided in the future by clearly
delineating responsibilities in advance, particularly among law
enforcement entities. Additionally, transparency in accountability
reporting and protocols for overseas incident reporting and
investigations should be agreed upon. Unfortunately, this context was
not addressed in the joint investigation or the resulting report. The
Department earnestly believes that State employees acted in good faith
in a chaotic environment and accurately reported information as it was
made available to them at the time.
INL appreciates the report's identification of weaknesses and has
taken measures to address them. The State Department has not provided
air support to Honduran law enforcement operations since July 2012 and
all assets have been reallocated to another country program. The State
Department has provided regular and systematic reporting to Congress on
Honduras programs since 2012. There has been excellent coordination
between Federal law enforcement and the U.S. Chief of Mission since
2014.
Regarding compensation for the Honduran victims of the Ahuas
incident, the Government of Honduras provided a $200,000 grant to
INGWAIA, an indigenous NGO, to assist the families affected by the 2012
incident. INGWAIA confirms that it has disbursed all funds in support
of the following:
--Medical support for eight members of beneficiary families;
--Assessment of the current condition of all beneficiary families'
homes and purchase of materials needed for renovations;
--Delivery of food assistance and school supplies to five of the
beneficiary families;
--Support to the establishment of a bakery run by 30 women, including
beneficiary families;
--Distribution of rice seeds to 25 male heads of household in the
village, including one beneficiary household that has a rice
farm and benefited from assistance in producing and selling
rice; and
--Assistance to two beneficiary families on establishing legal title
to their properties.
Question. In a January 2017 response to a Senate QFR, you said that
you ``would also seek to review the details of Colombia's recent peace
agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should
continue to support it.'' Now that details of the agreement have been
reviewed, what is the administration's position?
Answer. The President stated in his May 18 meeting with Colombian
President Juan Manuel Santos that the United States strongly supports
Colombia's efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. We will continue
to work with the Colombian government to support its implementation of
the peace accord.
Question. Colombia is in the first months following a peace accord
with the hemisphere's largest guerrilla group. The early post-conflict
phase is fragile, and there is much to do to consolidate territorial
control, reduce coca cultivation, and ensure that violence doesn't
worsen. Why does the fiscal year 2018 budget request include a 44
percent cut in assistance to Colombia from the fiscal year 2017 level?
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 strongly supports Colombia's efforts to
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
illegal immigration.
Our budget request reflects the administration's more targeted
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. How much does State plan to spend in fiscal year 2017 and
fiscal year 2018 to support Colombia's efforts to reduce coca
cultivation, whether through forced eradication or through voluntary
eradication/crop substitution? Is it your position that the Colombian
police should resume aerial eradication, notwithstanding the ruling of
Colombia's constitutional court?
Answer. We remain deeply committed to supporting Colombian efforts
to combat drug trafficking and roll back recent increases in coca
cultivation and cocaine production. Congress directed $391 million for
U.S. assistance to Colombia in fiscal year 2017, with a particular
focus on counternarcotics.
Our fiscal year 2018 budget request reflects the administration's
focused approach to foreign assistance. We prioritized programs that
address the coca cultivation increase. The administration's fiscal year
2018 request includes an 8 percent increase from the fiscal year 2016
Actual levels for Department of State and USAID counternarcotics
programs. The fiscal year 2018 Request for International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds for Colombia counternarcotics
activities is $90.5 million, a slight increase over the fiscal year
2016 Actual level. Additionally, the fiscal year 2018 Request includes
$57.4 million in Economic Support and Development Funds (ESDF) for
USAID counternarcotics programming, a 16 percent increase above fiscal
year 2016 Actual levels. The Department will concentrate these
resources on the high priority supply reduction efforts such as
interdiction and eradication, as well as rural development programs to
improve the conditions necessary for inclusive, licit economic growth.
The choice between the various eradication methodologies is a
sovereign decision of the Government of Colombia. It is a State
Department priority to determine the most effective way to advance
shared U.S.-Colombia counternarcotics goals. We believe the best
approach to reducing narcotics production in Colombia is eradication
combined with well-coordinated, whole-of-government efforts to provide
licit economic opportunities in strategic areas of concern.
Question. Leahy Law: During your confirmation hearing you indicated
that you support the Leahy Law, which provides that if the Secretary of
State has credible information that a unit of a foreign security force
has committed a gross violation of human rights, it is no longer
eligible for U.S. assistance unless the individuals responsible are
being brought to justice. For fiscal year 2017, Congress provided $9
million to implement the law, which is labor intensive and involves
vetting tens of thousands of foreign individuals and units for U.S.
training, equipment, and other assistance. Can you assure me that you
will not reduce funding for this critical requirement? Will you permit
DRL to hire staff to replace attrition in support of this requirement?
If not, why not?
Answer. The Department will ensure that our Leahy vetting remains
timely and efficient. Vetting delays would erode our efforts to train
and equip partner security forces and thus erode our security. The
Department intends to honor use of the $9 million provided in fiscal
year 2017 to support Leahy Law objectives, including Leahy vetting
staffing requirements and information technology improvements. As with
all programs within the Department, the Department is currently
examining ways to improve performance and to carry out the mission of
the Department in the most efficient and effective manner possible to
assure the best uses of resources made available to the Department.
Question. Do you agree that the Department of State should not
license for export articles or services for a unit of a foreign
security force if there is credible information that such unit has
committed a gross violation of human rights until effective steps are
taken to bring the individuals responsible to justice?
Answer. The protection and promotion of human rights remains a key
goal of U.S. defense trade licensing, by longstanding policy and
consistent with foreign military sales provisions in the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2751 et seq.) and grant assistance
provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2151
et seq.).
The U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy specifies ``The United
States will not authorize any transfer if it has actual knowledge at
the time of authorization that the transferred arms will be used to
commit: genocide; crimes against humanity; grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949; serious violations of Common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions of 1949; attacks directed against civilian objects
or civilians who are legally protected from attack or other war crimes
as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2441.'' More broadly, the Policy requires that
arms sales take into consideration, among other factors, ``The
likelihood that the recipient would use the arms to commit human rights
abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law,
retransfer the arms to those who would commit human rights abuses or
serious violations of international humanitarian law, or identify the
United States with human rights abuses or serious violations of
international humanitarian law.'' In pursuit of these objectives, we
consider seriously whether there is credible information that a
proposed recipient unit has committed a gross violation of human rights
and whether effective steps are being taken to bring individuals
responsible for such violations to justice.
Question. How do you plan to apply the Leahy Law for purposes of
military assistance for Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan, and for other
cases that include equipment provided above the unit level?
Answer. The Department will continue to implement Leahy vetting in
accordance with the State implementation guidance. Recipients of U.S.
assistance, whether individuals or units, are entered into the
Department's International Vetting and Security Tracking (INVEST)
system, then checked against internal Embassy databases for potentially
derogatory information, including--but not limited to--allegations of
gross violations of human rights (GVHR). If no disqualifying derogatory
information is found during internal Embassy vetting, the cases are
forwarded through the INVEST system to Washington, where the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and the relevant regional
bureau conducts additional GVHR-related vetting. Nominees found to have
credible GVHR allegations against them are reported to the host
government and rendered ineligible for all U.S. assistance. Until the
host government takes effective steps towards bringing such units or
individuals to justice, no assistance, including training or material
support, is furnished to rejected nominees. Because the requirements of
the Leahy Law are so well understood at our embassies, units or
individuals known in connection with a GVHR are pre-screened for
eligibility well before entering the formal vetting system.
The Department understands that in some cases it may be difficult
to determine which specific units will receive assistance, as is the
case when assistance is used to provide items commonly used across
multiple units through a centrally managed logistics facility (e.g.,
ammunition, fuel, or boots disbursed through a central warehouse or
depot). In such situations, the Department will provide a list of units
that are ineligible for assistance under the Leahy law.
Question. How do you plan to apply the Leahy Law for purposes of
assistance for Iraqi security forces, and for militia forces allied
with the Iraqi military?
Answer. The United States provides weapons and other defense
articles and services to the Iraqi government to support its campaign
to defeat ISIS, as well as to help build a strong and effective Iraqi
military. We continue to work with the Iraqi government to ensure that
weapons provided to Iraq are used only by those for whom the weapons
were originally intended and to support investigations into any human
rights violations that are alleged to have occurred. We have informed
the Government of Iraq that we expect to ensure its armed forces fully
comply with the Law of Armed Conflict. We vet all assistance provided
to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) as we would any other country, in
accordance with the Department of State's guidelines on Leahy law
implementation. Iraqi recipients of U.S. assistance, whether
individuals or units, are checked against internal Embassy databases,
as well as open source and classified databases in Washington, for
potentially derogatory information, including--but not limited to--
gross violations of human rights (GVHRs). Nominees found to have
credible GVHR allegations against them are reported to the host
government and rendered ineligible for all U.S. assistance. Until the
Government of Iraq takes effective steps towards bringing any such
units or individuals to justice, no assistance--including training or
material support--is furnished to rejected nominees.
The United States supports Tribal Mobilization Forces (TMF) in
Anbar and Ninewa; for these forces, the Embassy vets the commanders and
units. The Embassy also takes the extra step of vetting TMF units'
tribal or political sponsors, as applicable. The United States has not
provided any assistance to the Shia Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF),
as many are linked to Iran and have numerous credible allegations of
human rights abuses. The Coalition does not provide support to groups
or forces that are designated terrorist organizations, responsible for
GVHRs, or that do not fall under the control of the Government of Iraq.
Question. You have complained about the rate of growth of U.S.
foreign assistance programs. But the amount appropriated for
international family planning/reproductive health programs has fallen
over $40 million--more than 6%--since fiscal year 2010. Currently, an
estimated 303,000 women in developing countries die needlessly each
year from pregnancy-related causes, and unsafe abortion continues to be
a major cause of unacceptably high maternal mortality rates. Yet, your
budget proposes to eliminate funding for USAID's voluntary family
planning programs, which the evidence conclusively shows prevent
unwanted pregnancies, reduce abortion, reduce child mortality, and
prevent pregnancy related deaths. Republican administrations and
Republican majorities in Congress have long supported these programs. I
recall Senator Hatfield, who once chaired the Appropriations Committee.
He was staunchly pro-life, but he was a passionate advocate for family
planning, for all the reasons I mentioned. Was he wrong? What is the
justification for eliminating this funding?
Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
USAID's global health programs. As we work to streamline efforts to
ensure efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we
acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some difficult choices.
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 the United States will continue significant
funding for global health programs, other stakeholders and partner
countries must do more to contribute their fair share to global health
initiatives.
Question. You have said that the U.S. is paying more than its fair
share of foreign assistance. In other words, apparently, that others
should pay more than they are and that the U.S. should pay less. But
when it comes to public health, experts estimate that it would cost
approximately $9.4 billion to address the unmet need for modern
contraceptive services for 225 million women in the developing world.
This number assumes that one-third of the financial resources necessary
to provide reproductive healthcare should be furnished by donor
countries and two-thirds by developing nations themselves. By applying
the U.S. percentage share of total gross national income (GNI) of the
developed world to its assigned one-third contribution to the total
funding required to address the unmet need for contraception, the U.S.
share of the cost, based on relative wealth, equals $1.193 billion.
That is twice the amount appropriated for these purposes in fiscal year
2017, and for fiscal year 2018 your budget request includes zero. How
to do reconcile that with your statements about the U.S. paying its
fair share?
Answer. The United States is by far the largest global health
donor. As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to
prioritize and make some difficult choices. 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.
Question. You propose to cut funding for assistance for refugees by
$313 million at a time when the number of refugees and internally
displaced persons is the highest it has been since World War II. The
President has also cut the number of refugees for resettlement from
100,000 to 50,000. This not only contradicts the President's claim that
the U.S. will remain a global leader, it is un-American.
Answer. The proposed proportion of the fiscal year 2018 State/USAID
foreign assistance budget requested for humanitarian assistance remains
the same as in fiscal year 2016, roughly 22 percent, and the relative
priority of these interventions has not diminished.
We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to those who
need it most. This request, in concert with fiscal year 2017 resources,
will enable the U.S. Government to respond to the major humanitarian
emergencies around the globe, including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia,
Nigeria, and South Sudan.
We will continue to ensure that we are using funds as efficiently
and effectively as possible in order to meet current and unforeseen
needs. Other donors will need to do more to assist in responding to
humanitarian crises around the world.
Question. The administration's justification is that other donors
should contribute more. Of course we want others to do more to help
refugees, but no country has the means to fill our shoes. What makes
you think that will happen, and when can we expect to see the results?
Answer. The administration remains committed to addressing the
global refugee crisis. The United States is the largest provider of
humanitarian assistance worldwide, more than $7 billion in fiscal year
2016, which provided protection, food, shelter, healthcare services,
access to clean water, and other urgent provisions to millions of
people. The present refugee crisis is global in nature, and thus calls
for a global response by governments, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and the private sector. Collective action is critical to
alleviating the plight of the over 65 million forcibly displaced people
worldwide. We have seen this dynamic at work with respect to both
public and private aid.
Question. Can you explain the rationale for eliminating the
Emergency Refugee and Migration (ERMA) account, as the fiscal year 2018
request would do? The budget justification claims that these functions
can be carried out under the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)
account, and yet that account would also be cut by 10 percent. What is
the rationale for eliminating ERMA?
Answer. We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to
those who need it most. The MRA request, in concert with fiscal year
2017 resources, will enable the U.S. Government to respond to the major
humanitarian emergencies around the globe. For several years, the MRA
account has supported emergency refugee needs. The fiscal year 2018
budget request still includes support for emergency refugee and
migration needs within the MRA account, but eliminates duplication and
streamlines support for refugee and migration needs into one account.
We will continue to ensure that we are using funds as efficiently
and effectively as possible in order to meet current and unforeseen
needs. Other donors will need to do more to assist in responding to
humanitarian crises around the world.
Question. How many refugees does the President plan to admit this
next fiscal year, and how does this compare to the historical average
since the 1980 Refugee Act?
Answer. Each year, the President makes an annual determination, in
consultation with Congress, regarding the refugee admissions ceiling
for the following fiscal year. That determination is expected to be
made prior to the end of fiscal year 2017.
Question. I have refugee constituents in my state who are waiting
to be reunited with their families through the U.S. Refugee Admission
Program. What can you assure me about the future of this program and
the prospects that my constituents will be reunited with their family
members?
Answer. Family reunification has long been a priority of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program. Currently, the Priority 3 (P-3) category
affords USRAP access to the parents, spouse, and unmarried sons and
daughters under 21of individuals of designated nationalities who
initially entered the United States as refugees or were granted asylum.
In addition, within 2 years of arrival, a principal refugee admitted to
the United States may file an I-730 petition to request following-to-
join benefits for his or her spouse and/or unmarried children under the
age of 21 who were not previously granted refugee status. These
beneficiaries are not required to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution, as they derive their status from the
refugee relative in the United States who filed the petition.
Beneficiaries of I-730 petitions may be processed within their country
of origin or in other locations.
Question. I understand that the administration is writing a report
on the fiscal impacts of refugee resettlement. Are you also factoring
in the positive economic and social contributions of refugees in your
analysis?
Answer. The Department of State, in consultation with
representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and
Budget, is working to quickly and fully implement the President's
directives in Sections 4(b) and (c) of ``The Presidential Memorandum on
Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications
for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits.'' Section 4(b) of the
Presidential Memorandum requests a report detailing the estimated long-
term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program at the
Federal, State, and local levels, along with recommendations on how to
curtail those costs. The Department of State is working diligently with
partner agencies to prepare a report that responds to the President's
request.
Question. More than 50,000 Iraqis who have close affiliations with
the U.S. Government in Iraq and who have faced risks as a result are
waiting for interviews in USRAP. How do the administration's plans for
refugee resettlement ensure that these Iraqi allies continue to have a
path to safety?
Answer. The Department of State, in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security, implements a Priority Two (P-2) Direct
Access Program (DAP) for U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, which allows certain
categories of Iraqis to apply directly to the USRAP without the need
for a referral by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
These categories include those Iraqis who worked for the U.S.
Government, U.S. military, U.S.-funded organizations closely associated
with the U.S. mission in Iraq, U.S.-based media organizations or
nongovernmental organizations, and their immediate family members.
Since fiscal year 2007, over 47,000 Iraqis have been resettled in
the United States under the P-2 DAP. The administration is committed to
ensuring the successful continuation of this priority program for
Iraqis who risked their lives and those of their families to support
U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Question. Executive Order 13769 required you to conduct a 120-day
review of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program ``application and
adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be
taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a
threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall
implement such additional procedures.'' What is the status of the
review, and what are the results?
Answer. On March 6, 2017, the President revoked Executive Order
13769 and replaced it with Executive Order 13780. Executive Order 13780
also requires the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary
of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National
Intelligence, to conduct a 120-day review of the refugee admissions
process and identify additional procedures to ensure that refugees
seeking resettlement in the United States do not pose a threat to the
United States. On March 15, 2017, the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the
Department of State from enforcing or implementing sections 2 and 6 of
Executive Order 13780. Section 6(a) of Executive Order 13780 relates to
the 120-day review of the refugee admissions process. Because this 120-
day review is enjoined by the Hawaii District Court decision, the
Department of State is not proceeding with the review at this time and
does not have any results to report.
Question. Despite the fact that the two executive orders to stop
the refugee resettlement program for 4 months were halted by a series
of court injunctions, it appears that the USCIS Refugee Corps
interviews of refugee applicants have slowed down, and delays in the
processing of security checks for refugee applicants have resulted in
clearances expiring at different times. Since each step in the security
check process is time limited, this has created setbacks and delays for
refugees in the pipeline. How is this in keeping with the court
injunctions on the refugee executive orders, as well as the
congressional intent, made clear in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus, that
funding for resettlement is to be maintained?
Answer. It is important to note that the Department of State is
only one of the Federal agencies that implements the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program. The budgets and operational capacity of the State
Department and all of our interagency partners affect the pace of
refugee admissions. The Department of State defers to the Department of
Homeland Security regarding questions about the pace of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Refugee Corps interviews and
defers to our law enforcement and intelligence agency partners
regarding questions related to security check processing.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by the President on May
5, provided full year funding for the Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration, including for the Refugee Admissions Program. Previous
limits on the number of refugees who could travel to the United States
had been put in place to operate within the budget allocated under the
Continuing Resolution. After the Consolidated Appropriations Act was
signed, the Department of State instructed its overseas partners to
schedule refugees for travel without any numerical restrictions after
they have completed the highly rigorous and necessary security vetting
and other processing. This instruction was given in conformity with
Department of Justice guidance regarding the Hawaii Court's injunction,
in consultation with our interagency partners, and consistent with our
operational capacity.
Question. Has the Department of State formally requested that the
Government of Turkey waive diplomatic immunity for the foreign
diplomats or security personnel involved in the May 16 assault against
peaceful protesters?
Answer. No, the Department has not asked for a waiver of immunity
from the Republic of Turkey. The Department of State is working with
the Department of Justice to examine the findings of the investigation
and is weighing what additional steps might be appropriate in this
context. Each case will be considered individually and our actions will
be responsive and proportional to the charges.
Question. What is the status of the administration's discussions
with the Turkish Government about the return of U.S. taxpayer-funded
equipment to the appropriate end users, or to the U.S. Government,
after Turkish security personnel confiscated the equipment in April?
Answer. The Department of State and other international donors
engaged with Turkish officials at various levels about the equipment
seized by individuals thought to be associated with a Turkish backed
police force in the northern Aleppo countryside. To date, we have been
unsuccessful in our efforts to retrieve the equipment. We, along with
our European partners, will continue to engage the Government of Turkey
on this issue.
Question. Has President Erdogan apologized or expressed any regret
for the conduct of his bodyguards?
Answer. The Department of State has no knowledge of President
Erdogan apologizing or expressing regret for the May 16 assault.
Question. President Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw
from the Paris Climate Agreement. Polls show that a majority of
Americans disagree with that decision. American scientists
overwhelmingly support the agreement. Hundreds of major U.S. business
also support the agreement, including ExxonMobil. The U.S. military
regards climate change as a growing threat to national security. Nobody
thinks the other parties to the agreement will renegotiate it to
accommodate the U.S. Now China is seen as the global leader on climate
change--which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The
renewable energy sector offers huge opportunities for U.S. industry and
U.S. jobs. You stated in testimony that you preferred for the U.S. to
remain in the Paris Climate Agreement to have a seat at the table. Now
that President Trump has announced the withdrawal of the U.S., we are
not only no longer at the table, but your elimination of funding under
the Global Climate Change Initiative guarantees that the U.S. will cede
leadership on the issue of climate change, which practically every
country in the world recognizes as a grave threat: What is the
justification for these cuts, and what funding remains in your budget
request for biodiversity, sustainable landscapes, and adaptation and
mitigation programs?
Answer. The United States will remain engaged on the issue of
climate change. The President has, however, expressed concern that
financial pledges of the previous administration were not in the best
interest of American taxpayers. The President's budget proposal
eliminates the Global Climate Change Initiative and U.S. funding for
the Green Climate Fund in fiscal year 2018. We anticipate supporting
biodiversity and other programs that may achieve sustainable
landscapes, adaptation, and mitigation objectives while advancing
broader U.S. national security interests and fostering U.S. economic
opportunities.
Question. Your budget proposes to fund only half of our assessed
contributions to international peacekeeping missions. The total amount
we provide to the United Nations for these missions pales compared to
what it would cost the U.S. military to do the job. An investigation by
the GAO found that U.N. peacekeeping missions are eight times less
expensive for American taxpayers than fielding a comparable U.S. force.
Condoleezza Rice once noted in testimony before Congress that U.N.
peacekeeping ``is much more cost-effective than using American forces.
And of course, America doesn't have the forces to do all of these
peacekeeping missions, but somebody has to do them:''
Do you agree with Secretary Rice? Which peacekeeping missions would
you urge the U.N. Security Council to cancel, and how much would it
save the U.S. Treasury?
Answer. U.N. peacekeeping is a powerful tool to address global
challenges to international peace and security. There is no question
that dollar for dollar, deploying one U.N. blue helmet is cheaper than
deploying one American soldier--though, to be fair, the level of
readiness of the majority of U.N. peacekeepers is not comparable to
that of American soldiers, nor is the level of investment in their
training or equipment. However, we are grateful that so many countries
are prepared to participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations and we
continue to invest in training and capacity building to improve
readiness levels from troop-contributing countries.
Nevertheless, we believe that peacekeeping operations can be made
more efficient and effective at fulfilling their often multi-faceted
mandates. We have invited U.N. Security Council members to join us in
evaluating each U.N. peacekeeping mission as its mandate comes up for
renewal to ensure it is appropriate to the situation in the country and
that it is advancing the Security Council's objectives.
To help guide us moving forward, we have developed five principles
peacekeeping missions should be held to: (1) missions must support
political solutions; (2) host country strategic consent is critical;
(3) mandates must be realistic and achievable; (4) clear sequencing and
exit strategies are required at all stages; and (5) missions and
mandates must be adjusted where Security Council objectives are not
achieved.
Question. If you have not yet determined which peacekeeping
missions the administration supports, and which it wants to cut, how
did you decide to request funding for only half of our assessed share?
Answer. The President's budget request sets the expectation that
the United Nations will rein in costs and that the funding burden will
be shared more equitably among members; including a cap for the United
States to contribute no more than 25 percent for U.N. peacekeeping
costs.
Question. The U.S. has been and continues to be a leader on child
health issues, both domestically and abroad. For example, in developing
countries, the U.S. partners closely with UNICEF to ensure that
children receive the support, education, and healthcare they need.
UNICEF also provides aid in crisis or conflict situations, such as in
Syria today, responding to both the immediate and long-term needs of
children. To what extent do you think the U.S. should continue to
contribute to the work that UNICEF is doing to protect the health and
welfare of children?
Answer. The President's request does not include funding for UNICEF
from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account.
However, the State Department and USAID may still contribute to U.N.
organizations such as UNICEF, if they are selected as implementing
partners to execute specific foreign assistance projects.
We are committed to supporting the critical work UNICEF does in
education and healthcare for children in developing countries and in
crisis situations through our membership on the UNICEF Executive Board.
But we must share the funding responsibility with our partners and
allies, and it is time for other countries to increase voluntary
contributions to enable UNICEF to continue its important work.
Question. What specific steps do you plan to take to protect the
rights of whistleblowers at the United Nations?
Answer. The Department takes seriously the need for robust
whistleblower protections at the United Nations and at other
international organizations. Even one whistleblower experiencing
retaliation is one too many. The Department is committed to ensuring
that staff can speak up without being afraid of retaliation at the
United Nations and other international organizations. The United
Nations continues to make progress. U.N. Secretary-General Guterres
issued a revised whistleblower protection policy as one of his first
administrative actions. The whistleblower advocacy community welcomed
the revisions as a step in the right direction. While improvements to
policy are good, effective whistleblower protection requires that the
United Nations and other international organizations consistently
implement and enforce their whistleblower protections policies.
The U.S. Missions to the United Nations and its agencies, funds,
and programs are working to promote more effective whistleblower
protections including by extending protections to contractors and
consultants, as well as ensuring that whistleblowers have appropriate
avenues to recourse.
Question. This administration argues that the U.S. assessment rate
for U.N. peacekeeping activities--which is currently just over 28.4%--
is too high. This focus on the U.S. assessment rate ignores the
significant personnel contributions made by other countries to U.N.
peacekeeping operations, including 1,100 U.N. peacekeepers who have
died in the field. Do you think personnel contributions should be taken
into account when considering the appropriate level of U.S. financial
support for peacekeeping?
Answer. Personnel contributions are an essential component of
making peacekeeping effective and an important part of burden-sharing
in U.N. peacekeeping. We also recognize that peacekeeping can be quite
dangerous and every year there are peacekeepers that make the ultimate
sacrifice. We honor their service and their sacrifice. The threat to
civilians and to U.N. personnel and equipment are considered when the
Security Council considers what troop and police ceilings to authorize.
The President's budget request reflects the administration's
commitment to reducing the United Nations' over-dependence on a single
large contributor to finance U.N. peacekeeping operations. The request
is designed to promote greater burden sharing by other countries and is
based on a U.S. contribution rate at or below 25 percent.
Question. In December 2015, the General Assembly approved the U.N.
Regular Budget, which was about $400 million less than the prior
biennial budget, and moved to reassess staff compensation in order to
save the organization more money. In addition, the U.N. has implemented
a strategy to improve the cost-efficiency of peacekeeping missions,
helping to reduce the cost per peacekeeper by 18 percent and reduce the
number of support personnel in the field by 3,000. These reforms came
as a result of the U.S. being fully engaged at the U.N. Currently,
Ambassador Haley and U.N. Secretary-General Guterres are working
closely together to push forward on further reforms to the institution,
particularly with regards to its peacekeeping missions. How do the
President's proposed cuts to U.N. funding fit into that overall
strategy? Aren't we undermining our own negotiating position by pushing
for deep cuts before Ambassador Haley's reform push has even fully
gotten off the ground? Why would any other U.N. member states, to say
nothing of our allies, support any U.S.-backed reform proposals with
the knowledge that the U.S. just plans to unilaterally reduce its
financial contributions anyways?
Answer. The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2018
reflects the U.S. commitment to remain engaged with the United Nations,
even as we seek to spur long-needed reforms and more equitable burden-
sharing among U.N. member states. By demanding fiscal discipline, the
United States is leading the effort to rethink the way that the United
Nations and other international organizations operate. The President's
budget request reinforces the expectation that the United Nations and
other international organization must become more efficient and
effective, and that Member States must agree to distribute the costs of
collective action more equitably.
Question. U.N. humanitarian agencies like the World Food Program
(WFP), U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF)
provide life-sustaining aid, including food, medical care, shelter,
educational support, and other forms of assistance to tens of millions
of people around the world affected by war and natural disasters every
year. Unfortunately, the international humanitarian system is under
extreme stress at the current moment. With more than 65 million people
having fled their homes to escape conflict or persecution, the world is
in the grips of the largest forced displacement crisis since the end of
World War II. In addition, more than 20 million people in four
countries (South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and northeastern Nigeria) are
either currently facing famine or the risk of famine. According to
Stephen O'Brien, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs,
this represents the largest humanitarian crisis since the beginning of
the U.N. Given this dire situation, why is the administration proposing
deep cuts to our international disaster and food aid programs, and what
evidence do you have that others will fill the gaps caused by such
cuts?
Answer. The United States remains committed to its role as the
world's leading humanitarian actor. Time and again, the American
people, through the actions of Congress, have exhibited a generosity
and humanitarian spirit second to none.
While the United States will continue as a global leader in
addressing humanitarian crises, we cannot do it alone. Other countries
must provide increased, predictable funding. We can only truly meet the
needs of the world's most vulnerable people if the international
community comes together to provide this support.
Question. Famine has been declared in parts of South Sudan, and
Yemen, Somalia, and northeastern Nigeria, with millions of people at
risk from starvation and disease. The main cause of food insecurity in
these countries is armed conflict. The U.N. peacekeeping mission in
South Sudan (UNMISS) is currently working to protect tens of thousands
of civilians who have been uprooted by the civil war since 2013. In
Somalia, an African Union-led peacekeeping force (AMISOM) supported by
the U.N. is working to help extend the authority of the Somali
government and fight back against al-Shabaab militants. Have you
determined what the impact would be on missions like these if the U.S.
fails to pay its full dues? If so, what is it and why is it in our
interest to reduce our payments?
Answer. Our goal is to achieve better, smarter peacekeeping
operations that are able to more effectively and efficiently address
conflicts, support political solutions, and achieve the objectives
identified by the Security Council. We have invited U.N. Security
Council members to join us in evaluating each U.N. peacekeeping mission
as its mandate comes up for renewal to ensure it is appropriate to the
situation in the country, and that the mission is advancing its
mandated objectives.
AMISOM's mandate expires in August 2017; UNMISS' mandate expires in
December 2017. We will conduct a comprehensive review of both missions
to ensure they are properly aligned with the current security and
political situation on the ground and able to achieve Security Council
mandates. We recognize that the continued presence of AMISOM and the
U.N. Support Office in Somalia are critical to stabilizing Somalia
after more than two decades of clan-fueled civil war and, more
recently, the rise of a murderous terrorist group, Al Shabaab. By
providing security and stability, AMISOM helps create the conditions
under which the Federal Government of Somalia can extend its reach and
better protect its own citizens. Security in Somalia is critical to
avoiding greater refugee flows to Kenya and Ethiopia, two countries
already struggling to house large Somali refugee populations. We are
convinced that AMISOM can improve its effectiveness and its efficiency.
Likewise, UNMISS has been instrumental in protecting more than
200,000 vulnerable civilians on its bases--one of the first ever
successful operations of this safe-haven nature. This has certainly not
been without some major challenges, including peacekeepers' failure to
keep armed South Sudanese elements from attacking a protection of
civilians site. As UNMISS continues to improve, we will assess whether
the scope and scale of the mission is appropriately configured to the
current situation in South Sudan.
Question. Some have argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the
U.N. Human Rights Council. Over the past 6 years though, we have seen a
number of positive outcomes from U.S. engagement. The Council voted to
dispatch a team to investigate human rights violations committed by
ISIS in Iraq; continues to scrutinize and bring attention to the dire
human rights situation in Iran; authorized a groundbreaking
investigation into human rights violations in North Korea; created a
mechanism to push for the prevention and elimination of child and
forced marriage, and saw a dramatic reduction in the number of special
sessions on Israel. This record of success is markedly different than
when the U.S. was not involved in the Council from 2007-2009. While the
Council still has its flaws, the overwhelming view of human rights
organizations is the U.S. should continue to engage with it. Do you
agree?
Answer. At the 35th Session of the United Nations Human Rights
Council (HRC) in June 6-23, U.S. leadership proved critical to shaping
the international response to urgent human rights situations in
Venezuela, the DRC, Syria, Ukraine, Belarus, Cote D'Ivoire, and
Eritrea. U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Ambassador Haley
attended the opening, affirmed the U.S. commitment to human rights, and
reinvigorated discussions on reform of the HRC. In a series of
engagements, she highlighted the need for the HRC to be more effective
and accountable, including by eliminating the biased agenda item
focused solely on Israel. She underscored the need for the HRC to focus
international attention and action on the worst human rights violators,
including through reforms to the Council's membership, and the need for
members to show leadership in cooperating with U.N. human rights
mechanisms. The United States joined 47 other states in signing a
Dutch-led joint statement proposing measures to improve the Council's
membership and strengthen its credibility.
At its best, the HRC calls out human rights violators and
encourages positive action. However, all too frequently, it fails to
address 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 from criticism and frustrate efforts to safeguard human
rights and fundamental freedoms. The HRC maintains a clear anti-Israel
bias, as edvidenced by the existence of Agenda Item 7.
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 for members, standing agenda, and
operations to help ensure that the world's most critical human rights
situations--regardless of where they take place--are addressed fully
and effectively.
Question. Press reports suggest that Israeli President Netanyahu
supports ending support for UNRWA and turning its responsibilities over
to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. What do you think of
this idea, and is it supported by the Israeli armed forces?
Answer. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established by U.N. General
Assembly resolution in 1949, before the creation of the UNHCR or the
adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to carry out direct relief and
works programs for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA operates under a General
Assembly mandate, and General Assembly action would be required to
terminate UNRWA's mandate or transfer its responsibilities to the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
The enduring nature of the Palestinian refugee issue--and of
UNRWA--is a result of a lack of a negotiated settlement between Israel
and the Palestinians. The status of Palestinian refugees is one of the
most sensitive final status issues facing the two parties. Efforts to
dismantle UNRWA could be viewed as an attempt to whittle away at the
refugee issue outside the context of bilateral political negotiations
and risk damaging our ability to engage credibly with both sides in
advancing peace negotiations. UNRWA's humanitarian programs, which
include providing education for over half a million Palestinian refugee
children as well as life-saving assistance for refugees affected by
conflict in Syria, make the Agency a critical partner to key allies in
the region. Without UNRWA, these services would fall to already
overburdened host governments, notably Jordan, or could create a vacuum
that would be exploited by terrorist organizations such as Hamas or
Hizballah.
Question. Israel reportedly agreed recently to the Palestinian
Authority's request to reduce electricity to Gaza, and the water
shortage there gets worse there every day. What conversations are you
having, if any, with the Israelis about the worsening humanitarian
situation in Gaza and the potential for further civil unrest and
violence?
Answer. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is a direct result of
Hamas's illegal rule. Over the last 10 years, we've seen Hamas
persistently dedicate resources to terror tunnels and military
installations over projects to support the civilian population. This
includes Hamas' refusal to fully pay for the electricity delivered to
Gaza, which helped precipitate the current crisis.
Despite the problems caused by Hamas, the United States remains a
staunch supporter of Gaza's recovery. Our assistance to Gaza, which
supports the civilian population through humanitarian assistance, the
development of water distribution networks, investments in civil
society and healthcare, and other essential programs, is supported by
the Government of Israel, which called for increased levels of donor
support to Gaza earlier this year. We are also working with the
Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, which share our
concerns about the humanitarian situation, to find new ways to support
the civilian population in Gaza without empowering Hamas.
Question. Diplomacy and development go hand in hand, but they are
fundamentally different, just as diplomats and aid workers have very
different training. In order to make our foreign aid more effective,
efficient, and accountable, I believe USAID needs autonomy, and it
should be empowered and funded appropriately to conduct its own policy,
planning, budgeting, and analysis. You have stated that the budget
proposal and the reorganization plan does not prejudge any outcomes for
USAID, but the consolidation of the Economic Support Fund and
Development Assistance accounts would likely significantly impact
USAID's management of funds. Do you disagree, and if so, how would
USAID's autonomy be preserved if the accounts were consolidated as
proposed? Do agree with me, and many others, about the importance of
preserving USAID's autonomy?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request reflects a commitment
to ensure every tax dollar spent is aligned with the State Department's
and USAID's mission-critical objectives. In an effort to streamline
accounts and ensure the most effective use of taxpayer dollars, the
fiscal year 2018 budget requests economic and development assistance
through a new, consolidated Economic Support and Development Fund
(ESDF). The streamlining of the Economic Support Fund and Development
Assistance accounts does not mean that development programs are
entirely 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.
As our redesign effort moves into its next phase, we will take the
feedback of over 35,000 employee surveys and 300 individual interviews
into consideration as we work to ensure that our funding is aligned to
our objectives. There are no predetermined outcomes.
Question. USAID's Global Development Lab (Lab) is slated for
elimination in your fiscal year 2018 budget. The Lab is designed to
bring new ideas, new partners, and new ways of thinking into
government. It ascribes to the theory that not all of the best ideas
come from within government. What is the justification for eliminating
this office?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request includes $15.5 million for the
Lab. The Lab will continue to deliver on its two part mission to
produce breakthrough innovations and transform the development
enterprise but in a more focused way. The Lab will focus on working
with Missions to take advantage of advancements in science, technology,
innovation and partnership to achieve development objectives more cost-
effectively, and to institutionalize the use of these tools,
approaches, and technologies. USAID, through the Lab and the broader
network of USAID innovation teams emerging in Bureaus and Missions,
continues to build an adaptable organization that is focused on
bringing new partners and the best ideas to the Agency to provide USAID
with a critical future-forward advantage by not only being ready for
the changing development landscape, but by helping USAID lead that
change. The tools and approaches the Lab brings to USAID remain
critical for delivering on the broader mission. In a tight budget
climate, what the Lab does is even more important, including finding
transformative solutions to accelerate development results, engaging
new actors, and taking advantage of advancements in science and
technology.
Question. Congress appropriated $990 million to address the urgent
needs of countries stricken by famine or under threat of famine. Why
haven't these funds been apportioned to USAID, and when will they be?
Answer. USAID greatly appreciates the additional $990 million in
International Disaster Assistance funds provided in the fiscal year
2017 Omnibus. We anticipate the full $990 million will be apportioned
to USAID by June 20, 2017.
USAID is committed to responding to these crises. Already this
fiscal year, the U.S. Government has provided more than $1.8 billion
toward the humanitarian needs of affected people in Somalia, Yemen,
Nigeria and South Sudan--more than the previous year. Of this $1.8
billion in humanitarian assistance, $1.48 billion is from USAID.
Question. The fiscal year 2018 budget request would eliminate
funding for the Food for Peace program and the McGovern Dole Food for
Education program that have proven their ability to improve food and
nutrition security and help lift communities out of poverty.
Additionally, it would cut funding for International Disaster
Assistance, and the Emergency Food Security Program, which can be used
to respond to emergencies with vouchers or to purchase local food where
available. What analysis has the State Department done on the impact of
these cuts in terms of lives lost and long-term costs associated with
providing humanitarian assistance where food insecurity, which could
have been mitigated through the Food for Peace program, needs to be
addressed?
Answer. USAID is committed to assisting as many people as possible
who are in need, maximizing current resources and working to leverage
assistance from other donors.
Every year, much of USAID's work involves making tough decisions
and trade-offs, and trying to determine how best to use resources,
especially in the face of ever escalating humanitarian needs.
Humanitarian funding decisions are based on need, as assessed by
international and non-government organizations, and U.S. Government
field teams, in close coordination with local governments and
implementing partners.
For example, in 2016, USAID faced a tough decision on whether to
spend food assistance funds in Syria or to address the results of El
Nino. When Germany provided an unprecedented $600 million contribution
to the U.N. World Food Program for the Syria crisis, USAID was able to
reduce the United States' food assistance contribution to Syria and use
that funding to address the drought in southern Africa.
The fiscal year 2018 request includes significant funding for
humanitarian assistance, including food assistance, disaster and
refugee program funding. In fiscal year 2018, as in previous fiscal
years, USAID will have to prioritize and undertake a process to make
choices to determine how and where to allocate emergency food
assistance, based on the latest or ongoing crises where food insecurity
is highest.
The State 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. Other donors will also need to do more to assist in
responding to humanitarian crises around the world. Making these
difficult choices must also be based on evidence and the results of
evaluations and studies pertaining to the assistance provided. It is
true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A study in
Kenya and Ethiopia by the United Kingdom's Department for International
Development estimates that, over the long-term, every $1 invested in
resilience will result in $2.90 in reduced humanitarian spending and
avoided losses as well as improved poverty, hunger, and malnutrition
outcomes. That is why USAID, across its programming, has made
significant investments to build resilience to recurrent crises.
We refer you to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding the
McGovern Dole Food for Education program, as they manage this program.
Question. 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.
For example, annual GDP losses from poor nutrition average 11 percent
in Asia and Africa. This is greater than the loss experienced during
the 2008-2010 financial crisis. We know that for an additional $10 per
child per year, we can accelerate progress toward ending malnutrition,
which will have measurable, concrete benefits on health, economies, and
well-being of entire communities and nations. But funding for nutrition
under the Global Health Programs account was requested at $78.5 million
for fiscal year 2018--a decrease of almost $50 million from recent
years. And the amount 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 for maternal and
child nutrition programs? 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)?
Answer. We have reviewed 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, other stakeholders must do more to contribute their
fair share to global health initiatives.
We are confident that this budget request will allow us to support
U.S. 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. Thanks in part to support from the United States, child
and maternal death rates have been halved since 1990. The United States
has committed to saving 15 million children's lives and 600,000
mothers' lives by 2020 as a milestone on the road to ending preventable
child and maternal deaths within a generation. Given the reductions
your budget proposes for USAID's child and maternal health programs,
will the U.S. still be able to meet this commitment?
Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
USAID and relies on investment in and linkages across health programs.
USAID is committed to averting the deaths of 15 million children and
600,000 women by 2020, by working with other partners, including most
importantly countries themselves, to mobilize additional resources and
political will to focus efforts on the most effective and efficient
interventions to prevent child and maternal deaths.
The fiscal year 2018 request includes $1.5 billion to prevent child
and maternal deaths. While the composition of USAID funding across
health programs varies year-to-year, our efforts have always relied
upon partnership with country governments and other donors, and
continued success is linked to sustained involvement by all.
Question. What specific plans do you have for supporting Power
Africa in fiscal year 2018 and beyond?
Answer. The role that Power Africa plays in addressing Africa's
needs is as clear today as when I stated in my confirmation hearing,
``Nothing lifts people out of poverty quicker than electricity.''
Access to modern, reliable, and affordable electricity services is a
cornerstone of economic development. It enables critical gains in
healthcare and education, powers business and expands employment
opportunities, and enhances public safety.
Through diplomacy, and, where appropriate, through assistance, the
State Department and USAID through the Power Africa Coordinator's
Office, will continue to promote policy reforms that will encourage
private sector investment in the African power sectors.
The fiscal year 2018 budget 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. USAID plays a critical and distinct role in global health
research and development, 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 the health of
Americans, 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 vaccines and
medicines. Despite these returns, your fiscal year 2018 budget request
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 Federal agencies:
Why does this make sense for global health or the health of
Americans, especially at a time when infectious disease epidemics are
on the rise?
Answer. The fiscal year 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.
Question. Congress worked with the George W. Bush administration to
pass the Water for the Poor Act in 2005. This law made it an explicit
part of U.S. foreign policy to provide clean drinking water and
adequate sanitation to the world's poorest people. In 2014, Congress
reauthorized that law in a bipartisan manner with the passage of the
Water for the World Act. In 2012, U.S. intelligence agencies released
an Intelligence Community Assessment on Global Water Security, which
states that ``during the next 10 years, many countries important to the
U.S. will experience water problems----shortages, poor water quality--
--that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional
tensions, and distract them from working with the U.S. on important
policy objectives''.
How will you ensure that USAID upholds its commitments to
developing and implementing a Global Water Strategy (as required by the
2014 Water for the World Act) that addresses how the U.S. will increase
access to safe drinking water and sanitation and hygiene services,
improve the management of watersheds and water resources, and mitigate
or resolve water-related conflicts?
Answer. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development, in collaboration with interagency partners,
are leading the development of a U.S. Government-wide Global Water
Strategy focused on increasing access to safe drinking water and
sanitation, improving the management of water resources, promoting
cooperation on shared waters, and strengthening water sector governance
and financing both within countries and globally. The U.S. Government
will advance these goals in targeted countries and regions by providing
technical assistance, investing in infrastructure, improving scientific
and technical capacity, mobilizing resources, engaging diplomatically,
and supporting intergovernmental organizations. The Global Water
Strategy will emphasize building public-private partnerships,
recognizing that the U.S. cannot meet this challenge alone.
Question. If the Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance
accounts are merged into an Economic Support and Development Fund, how
would you ensure that funds for water and sanitation will be equitably
disbursed to developing countries that meet the metrics of greatest
need in accordance with the Water for the World Act?
Answer. The priority country designation processes put in place
under the Water for the World Act of 2014 for fiscal year 2015, fiscal
year 2016, and fiscal year 2017 will continue, per Section 5(h) of the
Act. The Act requires that the designation of a high-priority country
be based on a set of criteria laid out in the Act (Section 5 f (1)).
These fall into four areas: (1) the level of need; (2) the opportunity
to leverage U.S. Government efforts; (3) the level of country
commitment; and (4) the likelihood of making significant improvements
on a per capita basis on the health and educational opportunities
available to women and girls. Need is assessed using global datasets on
the number and proportion of people with access to safe drinking water
and sanitation, and the rates of under-five child mortality due to
diarrheal disease. The merging of Development Assistance (DA) and
Economic Support Fund (ESF) accounts into the Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF) will not have an impact on the allocation of
funds for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH).
Question. What are you doing to address the problem of arbitrary
arrest, imprisonment and mistreatment of political opposition leaders
in Ethiopia, a recipient of U.S. economic and security assistance?
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 U.S.
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 silence dissent and limit basic rights and
freedoms; by advocating for rule of law and assisting legal defense
clinics; by supporting unhindered access to social media and sponsoring
events through our visiting speaker program; by applying Leahy vetting
to all applicable bilateral assistance programs; and by calling
publicly and privately for evidence-based investigations and
prosecutions that are free from political motivation. Embassy Addis
Ababa's Resident Legal Advisor arrived at the beginning of June and is
engaging with Ethiopian prosecutors to advance work on increased
visibility and openness of their investigations and prosecutorial
decisions to improve accountability and ethics in the justice sector.
Question. ``What are your plans for the Special Envoy for Sudan and
South Sudan? What do you believe are the ultimate goals and proper
roles of the U.S. in each country, and how do you plan to achieve
them?''
Answer. Working to resolve the humanitarian crisis in South Sudan
and civil conflicts in both Sudan and South Sudan remain policy
priorities for the administration. The Office of the Special Envoy for
Sudan and South Sudan, led by a senior Foreign Service officer,
continues to be deeply engaged on these issues and in shaping and
supporting U.S. policy, in close coordination with leadership of the
Bureau of African Affairs. The appointment of a Special Envoy for Sudan
and South Sudan, or alternatively an Africa Bureau-based Special
Representative, is under consideration by the Department in the context
of State's ongoing organizational redesign.
In recent months, we have, along with Troika partners (Norway and
the United Kingdom), encouraged the AU, the U.N., and the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to play a more active
role in convincing all parties in South Sudan to implement a cessation
of hostilities in conjunction with the resumption of an inclusive
political process.
In Sudan, our primary diplomatic objectives include establishing a
permanent ceasefire between the Government of Sudan and armed
opposition groups, leading to an inclusive political dialogue, durable
peace, and an end to Sudan's internal conflicts in Darfur and the Two
Areas (South Kordofan and Blue Nile states). We are also working to
build cooperation to counter international terrorism as well as
regional threats, and to expand access for humanitarian assistance to
civilians in Sudan's conflict areas and throughout the country. We
continue to press the Government of Sudan to institutionalize
protection of human rights and religious freedoms, and have intensified
our efforts to ensure full compliance by Sudan with U.N. Security
Council Resolutions regarding North Korea. The United States also
remains deeply engaged in supporting the African Union-mediated peace
talks, working directly with all parties to the conflicts and with
international partners to advance effort for sustainable peace.
In mid-2016, following years of limited bilateral engagement with
the Government of Sudan due to U.N. and domestic sanctions, the United
States launched a Five-Track Engagement Plan offering the promise of
sanctions relief if Sudan made sustained progress in five critical
areas of engagement: (1) counterterrorism; (2) countering the Lord's
Resistance Army (c-LRA); (3) implementing a cessation of hostilities
(COH) in Darfur and in the Two Areas (South Kordofan and Blue Nile
states); (4) ending negative involvement in South Sudan; and (5)
improving humanitarian access. Since then, Sudan has increased
counterterrorism cooperation with us; granted access for African Union
or U.S. c-LRA operations; initiated and largely respected a unilateral
COH in its conflict areas; stopped, according to our assessment,
provision of support to armed groups in South Sudan; and is working
with us to improve humanitarian access. Executive Order (E.O.) 13761,
issued in January 2017, agreed to revoke certain pre-existing sanctions
if the administration determined that Sudan sustained positive actions
in these areas over a 6-month period.
The United States retains substantial leverage to encourage Sudan's
continued cooperation in addressing U.S. priorities. Sudan is motivated
by the credible prospect of sanctions revocation and has signaled its
interest in further bilateral normalization. Sudan remains on the U.S.
State Sponsor of Terrorism List, which leaves in place restrictions on
U.S. foreign assistance, defense exports and sales, certain controls
over exports of dual-use items, and other restrictions. Several other
restrictions on Sudan remain in place, including the restrictions
prescribed by Sudan's current designation as a Country of Particular
Concern for religious freedom and sanctions imposed by E.O. 13400 on
persons connected with the conflict in Darfur. These restrictions offer
additional leverage in our efforts to encourage the Government of Sudan
to rejoin the international community and meet all international
standards in protecting the rights of its citizens.
Question. Footprint of Freedom: In your testimony, you state that
``[h]istory has shown that the United States leaves a footprint of
freedom wherever it goes.'' That sounds good, but how would you
reconcile that statement with our actions, for example, in Vietnam
during the 1960s and 70s; in Guatemala during the 1980s; in Chile
during the 1970s; in the Philippines and Indonesia during the 1960s,
70s and 80s; in Zaire during the 1980s and 90s; in Iran during the
1970s; or in Ethiopia, Egypt, Uganda, and Saudi Arabia today?
Answer. The specifics of U.S. foreign policy are always challenging
and complex--you've highlighted some of those challenges across
different administrations and over 60 years of diplomacy.
We are the only global superpower, and one with the means and moral
compass capable of shaping the world for good. Knowing your interest in
the promotion of human rights, I'm sure you will agree that our mission
should be guided at all times by our core values of freedom, democracy,
individual liberty, and human dignity.
Question. If the Saudi, Venezuelan, or Chinese governments were
behaving like the Castro government, e.g. refusing to hold free and
fair elections and arresting their critics, would the administration
recommend similar restrictions on travel and trade by Americans with
Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and China, and if not why not? What if the
same were true for the Russian, Kazakhstan, or Uzbekistan governments?
Is the administration considering recommending similar restrictions on
travel and trade by Americans with any other country, and if not why
not?
Answer. The United States engages with various governments,
including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, China, Russia, Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan on a range of issues, including democracy and human rights.
The Department has found that there is no ``one size fits all''
solution to democracy, governance and human rights questions. As the
Department constructs its policy approach, it considers the whole of a
relationship between the United States and the other country and works
to craft the most effective approach to advance human rights and
democracy under the specific circumstances.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2018 budget request propose to
reduce funding for programs to address the needs and protect the rights
of women and girls in Afghanistan, including education programs, family
planning and reproductive health programs, police training programs,
and women's leadership programs? If not, why not?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request continues to prioritize
the needs and protect the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. The
Department of State and USAID will allocate funds for specific programs
in accordance with our policy priorities and the budgetary requirements
of those programs. The human rights of Afghan women and girls,
including access to education, health, and leadership opportunities,
remain a priority in our overall efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and
protect the development gains of the last 15 years.
Since the fiscal year 2018 request for the Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF) is consistent with the fiscal year 2016 actual
level, we do not foresee any significant changes in ESDF programming
that would support Afghan women and girls. For International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement programming, the fiscal year 2018 request
will allow us to continue supporting women and girls through our
ongoing work with drug treatment centers, social service programs for
drug prevention, corrections programs for incarcerated women and female
prison officials, and women's shelters. The fiscal year 2018 request
level will require us to scale back and be more targeted with select
programs, but we will also look to transition these efforts to Afghan
institutions where possible and leverage the support of other donors to
help ensure the goals of these programs are continued.
Question. According to Freedom House, freedom in the world has been
in decline over the last decade. Meanwhile, actual spending for
Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG) programming has fallen from
$3.27 billion in 2010 to $2.27 billion in 2016. Your fiscal year 2018
budget proposes further cuts to $1.59 billion. Why does this make
sense, especially as non-democratic regimes such as Russia and China
continue to expand their influence and destabilize regions?
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.
In fiscal year 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 and
stability
As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to
prioritize and make some tough choices about our approaches and
programming. We have requested DRG funds where these programs help to
advance our most important policy priorities. It is also important to
highlight that resources do not equate to outcomes or the entirety of
our commitment to these efforts, as our ambassadors and diplomats also
advance DRG objectives in country.
Question. Strengthening civil society is critical to both
humanitarian and development assistance, especially in supporting
societies to hold their governments accountable. How will funding be
provided to support civil society in fiscal year 2018, compared to
fiscal year 2017?
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 and the political
radicalization that is linked to extremism. 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 fiscal year 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. [Please note that final allocations have not been
finalized for fiscal year 2017.] This level supports 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
support civic participation and CSO engagement with governments for
improved accountability.
Question. In a June 5th press statement entitled ``Pulling U.S.
from U.N. Human Rights Council Could Endanger Lives around the Globe'',
HRC Global Director Ty Cobb argued that: ``U.S. foreign policy must
protect and promote human rights. Turning away from the Council would
signal to brutal regimes--and all those they oppress--that the U.S. is
looking the other way. Without U.S. leadership, despotic leaders will
be emboldened to control the agenda and push their own goals.'' How do
you respond, and do you really believe the U.S. can more effectively
advocate for human rights in a new human rights body comprised solely
of like-minded governments, as you and Ambassador Haley have reportedly
suggested?
Answer. Reforms are urgently needed to strengthen the U.N. Human
Rights Council's (HRC) membership and revise its agenda. We are calling
on member states to join together in the months ahead to develop and
implement reforms to ensure that the world's most critical human rights
situations are addressed fully and effectively.
While we are concerned by the anti-Israel behavior of a number of
U.N. bodies, none is in need of reform more profoundly than the HRC.
The HRC must address its anti-Israel bias, which delegitimizes its
broader mission. Agenda Item 7 is the only perpetual agenda item that
consistently targets a single nation. At the same time, human rights
violators like Cuba and Venezuela sit on the council itself. As a
member of the HRC, the United States at times casts the only no vote
against resolutions targeting Israel. Prior to the U.S. joining the HRC
in 2009, nearly half of the country-specific resolutions adopted
concerned Israel. Since reduced to less than a quarter of adopted
resolutions, the number of resolutions targeting Israel is still far
too many. Much more needs to be done.
Whether as a member of the HRC or not, the United States will
remain steadfast in its commitment to the protection and promotion of
human rights of all persons.
Question. How is the administration, through diplomatic or other
means, encouraging President Duterte to stop the extrajudicial
executions (EJEs) of individuals suspected of drug abuse, and to
prosecute and punish those who have committed EJEs?
Answer. The United States and the Philippines have a longstanding
alliance and relationship built on shared sacrifices, common values,
and people-to-people ties. The United States works with the Philippines
to address the shared objective of combatting drug trafficking, and
supports programs that target the transnational shipment of narcotics,
strengthen the rule of law, and encourage holistic drug demand
reduction efforts.
We have serious concerns when those involved in the drug war
reportedly operate outside the rule of law. We have discussed our human
rights concerns at the highest levels with the Philippine government on
multiple occasions, and raised the issue at the May 8 Universal
Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council. We vet all security
assistance to the Philippines to ensure that funding is not provided to
individuals who have committed gross human rights violations, and
encourage our Philippine partners to conduct thorough and transparent
investigations into reports of arbitrary and unlawful killings. We will
continue to work with the Philippines on this and other issues as we
advance shared objectives in our multidimensional relationship.
Question. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. dropped millions of tons
of bombs that failed to explode. They continue to kill and maim
innocent civilians today. We also used Agent Orange and other
herbicides, which left areas contaminated with dioxin, a deadly
chemical. This subcommittee has been funding programs to get rid of the
unexploded landmines and bombs, and to clean up the areas most severely
contaminated with dioxin. This has been supported by Democratic and
Republican administrations, and it has contributed to better relations
with Vietnam and Laos. How much is included in the fiscal year 2018 for
these programs in Vietnam and Laos, and will you continue to support
these programs beyond fiscal year 2018?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request supports
war legacy programs in Vietnam and Laos. Addressing legacies from the
Vietnam War is critical to advancing cooperation with both countries.
The budget request includes up to $15 million for Agent Orange/dioxin
cleanup and $7 million for clearance of unexploded ordnance (UXO)
efforts in Vietnam and $10 million for UXO efforts in Laos.
Question. The State Department's fiscal year 2018 budget
justification says ``The fiscal year 2018 request will allow partners
to continue to meet the basic needs of the Tibetan communities in Nepal
and India, including protection and reception services for those
transiting across Nepal to India.'' For over two decades, there has
been bipartisan support in the Congress for Tibet-related programs and
we want them to continue. Do your support funding for these programs,
that have shown concrete benefit to the Tibetan people in the
preservation and promotion of their religious, linguistic, and cultural
identity, at not less than the fiscal year 2017 levels?
Answer. The United States respects China's territorial integrity,
and considers Tibet to be part of China. Consistent with the Tibetan
Policy Act, the U.S. Government remains committed to seeking to protect
the distinct religious, cultural, and linguistic identity of Tibetans;
improving the humanitarian and economic conditions of Tibetans;
improving respect for the human rights of Tibetans, including religious
freedom; and encouraging the Government of China to enter into dialogue
with the Dalai Lama or his representatives leading to a negotiated
agreement on Tibet.
While we do not have a specific funding request for Tibetan-related
programs, the administration's fiscal year 2018 budget request includes
humanitarian assistance resources that may be used by partners to
continue to meet the basic needs of Tibetan communities in Nepal and
India, including protection and reception services for those transiting
across Nepal to India. It includes funding for exchange programs that
increase engagement and mutual understanding between Tibetans and the
people of the United States. It also contains resources for programs to
advance human rights and democracy in China, which includes support for
religious and ethnic minorities. Final funding allocations will be
determined during the year of appropriation and will depend on factors
such as humanitarian appeals received and needs identified at that
time.
Question. The fiscal year 2018 budget request says ``Through the
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)'s global programs,
the U.S. Government seeks to protect and assist the world's most
vulnerable people including refugees. . . .'' Further, it says ``that
funds will address threats to fundamental rights on a global scale,
particularly in closed or closing political spaces where these rights
and vulnerable populations are threatened.'' In the case of Tibetan
refugees, the Dalai Lama has been striving to find a solution to their
situation through dialogue with the Chinese leadership. The Tibetan
Policy Act mandates that the State Department have a Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues whose ``central objective'' is ``to
promote substantive dialogue between the Government of the People's
Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives:''
Will you commit to allocating adequate funding for programs that
will encourage dialogue and a peaceful political solution to the
Tibetan issue?
Answer. Consistent with the Tibetan Policy Act, the U.S. Government
remains committed to encouraging the Government of China to enter into
dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives leading to a
negotiated agreement on Tibet; seeking to protect the distinct
religious, cultural, and linguistic identity of Tibetans; improving the
humanitarian and economic conditions of Tibetans; and improving respect
for the human rights of Tibetans, including religious freedom.
While we do not have a specific funding request for Tibetan-related
programs, the administration's fiscal year 2018 budget request includes
humanitarian assistance resources that may be used by partners to
continue to meet the basic needs of Tibetan communities in Nepal and
India, including protection and reception services for those transiting
across Nepal to India. It includes funding for exchange programs that
increase engagement and mutual understanding between Tibetans and the
people of the United States. It also contains resources for programs to
advance human rights and democracy in China, which includes support for
religious and ethnic minorities. Final funding allocations will be
determined during the year of appropriation and will depend on factors
such as humanitarian appeals received and needs identified at that
time.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy for Senator Patty Murray
Question. Nearly 3 years after the Northwest reached a regional
consensus to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, the U.S. notified
Canada of our intent to begin formal negotiations on the Treaty. Since
October 2016, we have been waiting for Canada to come to the table.
Secretary Tillerson, I urge you to proactively raise the Columbia
River Treaty at every opportunity with your Canadian counterparts. Do I
have your commitment to do that?
Answer. Yes. The Department continues to press the Canadian
government at all levels to begin negotiations on the Columbia River
Treaty regime. I recently raised the issue directly with Canadian
Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland at the ASEAN meetings in Manila on
August 7, Under Secretary Shannon raised the issue during a March 10
call with Deputy Foreign Minister Ian Shugart, and Acting Assistant
Secretary Palmieri raised it on the margins of the high-level policy
dialogue on June 1 in Ottawa. The Canadians responsible for the treaty
are fully aware of the U.S. view of the urgent need to begin
negotiations and tell us they are awaiting a negotiating mandate from
their Cabinet. Department officials are ready to begin talks with
Canada's negotiators at any time.
______

Question Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. Mr. Secretary, on May 31st, you met with Vietnamese Prime
Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc to discuss the economic relationship between
the United States and Vietnam. The related press release noted in part:
``President Trump is prioritizing engagement with Vietnam, an important
trading partner of the United States.'' The U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) 2017 report recommended that
Vietnam be designated as a country of particular concern (CPC), which
is a country that engages in or tolerates particularly severe religious
freedom violations that are systematic, ongoing, and egregious.
As part of the Trade Promotion Authority, I included an amendment
that required religious freedom to be part of trade negotiations. Have
you discussed the religious freedom and human rights violations in
Vietnam as part of your discussions with the Prime Minister? What
actions will the State Department take in response to USCIRF's 2017
recommendation on Vietnam as a CPC?
Answer. As we did during the Prime Minister's visit, we continue to
press the Government of Vietnam for progress on religious freedom and
other human rights, which we emphasize are critical to our bilateral
relationship. While we have seen some progress over the past few years,
we are troubled by the recent trend of arrests and convictions of
peaceful activists, along with the continuing detention of religious
leaders, which threatens to overshadow Vietnam's overall evolution on
human rights, including religious freedom.
Our most recent assessment was that Vietnam's actions with respect
to religious freedom, while of great concern, fell short of the
criteria for designation as a Country of Particular Concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act. We will continue to monitor the
situation vigilantly and urge the government to allow all members of
religious groups, including those groups not registered with the
government, the freedom to practice their religion. We will urge the
government to ensure its laws and actions are consistent with the human
rights provisions of its own constitution, as well as with its
international human rights commitments and obligations.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
Question. What is the State Department doing to work with
countries, such as Ethiopia or the DRC, to increase transparency and
ensure that families following all relevant laws are able to bring
adopted children home in a timely manner?
Answer. Since Ethiopia's April 2017 suspension of intercountry
adoptions, State Department officials have vigorously engaged with the
Ethiopian government to strongly advocate for a way forward for cases
in process, noting that legal adoptions or official matches have taken
place in many of those cases. On June 1, an official from the Ministry
of Woman and Children's Affairs (MOWA) told the Embassy 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 30
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. Officials have informed
the Embassy that MOWA will devise a plan allowing remaining cases to
continue to be processed. The Department continues to advocate for the
resolution of pending cases.
In 2013, the DRC suspended issuance of exit permits for adopted
children. Beginning in February 2016, the DRC convened an
Interministerial Commission, now disbanded, to review individual
adoption cases and pre-approve them for issuance of exit permits once
U.S. immigrant visas were approved. Embassy Kinshasa worked closely
with the Interministerial Commission and with the DRC's Direction
Generale de Migration (DGM) to ensure the pre-approval review of more
than 400 adoptive children. The Embassy continues to facilitate DGM
issuance of exit permits on an ad hoc basis.
To date, only seven U.S. adoption cases from the DRC remain
outstanding. The Department continues to strongly recommend against
initiating intercountry adoptions in the DRC until such time as long-
awaited family-law legislation is passed into law and intercountry
adoptions can be processed on a firm legal basis with regularized
procedures.
The Department seeks to ensure that intercountry adoption involving
children or adoptive parents in the United States take place in the
best interests of the child. We also support efforts by foreign
governments to implement safeguards that protect a child's best
interests. We believe such measures can help to protect all those
involved in an intercountry adoption. We encourage countries like
Ethiopia and the DRC to communicate with us any concerns they have
about the adoption process so that we can work together to address them
without disrupting lawful adoptions in process. In some cases, however,
countries act unilaterally to halt adoption processing for any number
of reasons. In the case of Ethiopia, to date the Ethiopian government
has not issued an official statement or policy regarding the reasons
for the suspension or how it will be implemented in the future.
Question. On May 24th, the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey
sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-occupied Mischief Reef,
according to press reports. While it was a U.S. Navy ship that
conducted the operation, the State Department serves an important role
in the overall Freedom of Navigation Program.
To what extent do you see Freedom of Navigation operations as
advancing U.S. diplomatic interests in the region?
Answer. Since 1979, the U.S. Freedom of Navigation program has
demonstrated non-acquiescence to excessive maritime claims by coastal
States all around the world. The program includes both consultations
and representations by U.S. diplomats and operational activities by
U.S. military forces. In fiscal year 2016, we conducted FONOPs
challenging excessive maritime claims of 22 coastal States, including
allies and partners. These operations are designed to protect the
rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to
all countries. U.S. forces operate in the Asia-Pacific region on a
daily basis, including in the South China Sea, and all operations are
conducted in accordance with international law.
Conducting regular FONOPs, including in the South China Sea,
reinforces our commitment to support the rights accorded to all nations
under international law. These operations also complement our
diplomatic efforts urging claimant states to refrain from reclamation,
construction, and/or militarization of features in the South China Sea
and to resolve territorial and maritime disputes peacefully in
accordance with international law, without the use or threat of force
or coercion.
Question. How is your department helping other countries to counter
propaganda?
Answer. It is critical for the United States to continue supporting
partner countries to counter terrorist propaganda. This includes
partnering voluntarily with multiple stakeholders, including private
technology companies, to counter terrorist narratives--particularly
online.
The Global Engagement Center (GEC) operates as an interagency
coordinating body within the Department charged with enhancing the
capacity of the whole-of-government approach to recognize, understand,
expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and
disinformation. The GEC's role is focused on counter-messaging and
related capacity building for foreign partners from grassroots
organizations to national governments. Additionally, the GEC has an in-
house analytics capacity which complements the products and efforts of
the rest of the Department and interagency.
The Department is engaged in a range of efforts with key partners,
including voluntary collaborative efforts with private technology
companies, civil society and non-governmental partners, to empower
credible voices overseas. These collaborative efforts include
empowering youth through ``hackathons,'' TechCamp workshops, and
university programs to develop counter-messaging campaigns, digital
literary, and critical thinking skills.
For example, the Bureau of International Information and Programs
(IIP) supports Tech Camps throughout the world, including in the Middle
East, creating interactive workshops leveraging private sector
partnerships to build digital skills and technical capacity among key
foreign influencers in civil society to counter ISIS and other
terrorist propaganda, as well as the Speakers Program that brings
American experts for short visits to share their expertise.
IIP's U.S. Speaker Program provides opportunities for U.S. experts
to engage key interlocutors in person or through virtual platforms. The
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) supports programs that
engage journalists and media makers, government officials, civil
society and religious leaders, as well as their institutions. ECA
programs build international networks that advance successful and
peaceful societies, and appreciation for American values. For example,
International Visitor Leadership Programs (IVLPs), bring U.S. CVE
practitioners from around the world to build U.S. and overseas
capacities to counter anti-American narratives, and share good and
accurate information.
Building on these kinds of activities, the Bureau of
Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism (CT) supports longer-
term capacity building for local messengers--including via the Hedayah
Center, the Abu Dhabi-based international CVE center.
Question. How is your department helping other countries deal with
the threat posed by foreign fighters returning home from the
battlefield?
Answer. The Department has helped other countries deal with the
threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) returning home from
the battlefield in a number of ways. We have worked with partners to
increase terrorist identity information sharing, strengthen border
controls and threat-based security and traveler screening, update legal
frameworks regarding FTFs, bolster investigative and prosecutorial
capacity and develop rehabilitation and reintegration efforts . Our
work to improve border security abroad also aims to stop terrorists
from reaching our shores. We have built a layered visa and border
security screening system and we continue to refine this effort,
including working closely with our foreign partners.
Through the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution
2178, our international partners have expanded the tools they use to
detect, disrupt, and prosecute returning FTFs. For example, the United
States now has information-sharing agreements with 64 international
partners to identify and track the travel of suspected terrorists. More
than 60 countries have laws in place to prosecute and penalize FTF
activities. At least 65 countries have prosecuted or arrested FTFs or
their facilitators and at least 31 countries use enhanced traveler
screening measures.
More than 60 countries, including the United States, have provided
INTERPOL information on approximately 14,000 individuals, a thousand
fold increase over the past 4 years. We are now helping countries in
Southeast Asia strengthen their connectivity with INTERPOL to take
greater advantage of INTERPOL's FTF database and its Stolen and Lost
Travel Documents system, among other mechanisms, to counter the flow of
FTFs to conflict zones and identify them in transit or upon return. We
hope to begin sharing more of our FTF information with certain
international partners through INTERPOL in the near future.
Separately, the Department of State, in partnership with the
National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Justice, is also
sponsoring regional workshops to address the challenges of ISIS's
external operations and returning FTFs from Iraq and Syria. Regional
workshops have been held in the Balkans and North Africa, and future
workshops are being planned for the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In
these workshops, regional governments collaborate on ways we can better
assess the risk posed by returnees, share strategies for disrupting
attacks directed or enabled by ISIS, and identify opportunities for
increased cooperation and capacity building to ensure we have the
tools, including rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, in place to
address the threat over the near and long term.
In addition, we work with our international partners on reducing
opportunities for recruitment and radicalization to violence by
returning FTFs who are incarcerated. The United States supports a range
of programs aimed at helping prison official develop and implement
programs and policies geared towards the management and rehabilitation
of returning FTFs.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. How does the State Department plan to promote human
rights and democracy in Cuba and Venezuela when it proposes to zero out
funds in foreign assistance for the promotion of human rights and
democracy in both countries?
Answer. We are committed to working with our partners in the region
to advance a shared vision for strengthening prosperity, security,
democracy, and the protection of human rights throughout the
hemisphere. The U.S. Government wants the people of both Cuba and
Venezuela to thrive under representative democracy. To that end, the
Department of State continues to support and engage with human rights
and democracy activists in both countries. President Trump's Cuba
policy makes clear the administration's intent to support the Cuban
people by advancing human rights and democracy in Cuba. We also will
work with partners in the region to promote peaceful solutions in
Venezuela.
As the Department of State and USAID work to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we made difficult choices in
our budget request. The fiscal year 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.
Question. How is your budget helping to improve governance and
decrease violence in Central America, especially in the Northern
Triangle countries?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2018 budget request of $460
million for Central America would fund programs that promote
prosperity, security, and governance. U.S. programs complement the Plan
of the Alliance for Prosperity, the reform initiative of the Northern
Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
To improve governance, U.S. programs and diplomatic engagement seek
to strengthen the rule of law, promote strong institutions and
government accountability, reduce impunity, support anti-corruption
efforts, improve budget management, and increase fiscal transparency.
U.S. assistance will enhance the voice of civil society in the
policymaking process and strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms such as
the United Nations International Commission Against Impunity in
Guatemala in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization for American States
Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in
Honduras (MACCIH).
To decrease violence in Central America, U.S. programs and
diplomatic engagement seek to combat transnational criminal
organizations, stem drug trafficking, enhance citizen security, reduce
gang violence, strengthen borders, and deter human smuggling and
trafficking through programs focused on capacity building, information
sharing, and professionalizing police and military institutions.
Question. In your view, are the countries of the Northern Triangle
committing sufficient resources to the initiative? To what extent have
these governments' public pronouncements and legal reforms produced
real changes on the ground?
Answer. U.S. programs complement the Plan of the Alliance for
Prosperity, the reform initiative developed by the Northern Triangle
countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in 2014. The Alliance
for Prosperity targets four main lines of action: stimulate the
productive sector, develop opportunities for their people, improve
public safety and enhance access to the legal system, and strengthen
institutions. The Northern Triangle governments committed $2.8 billion
in 2016 to the Alliance for Prosperity, and committed an additional
$2.6 billion in 2017. In 2016 and 2017, the annual Northern Triangle
investment is approximately four times the combined fiscal year 2016
and fiscal year 2017 U.S. investment in all of Central America using
fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 funds.
Through the Alliance for Prosperity and Plan El Salvador Seguro,
the Salvadoran government reports it reclaimed 1,600 unsafe public
spaces, upgraded 81 public spaces and 115 schools, and trained 21,419
teachers from January 2015 to September 2016. From June 2015 to
September 2016, it provided 23,278 computers to primary and secondary
school students.
The Guatemalan government reports it provided 1,953 computers to
promote greater connectivity in the school system and trained 8,000
youth in its Digital Talent program from January 2015 to September
2016. It dismantled 30 criminal organizations and arrested 72 gang
members for extortion as a result of joint efforts by the Public
Prosecutor's office, the Ministry of Interior, the National Police, and
the United Nations International Commission to Combat Impunity in
Guatemala during this same time period. Guatemalan authorities
restructured the tax collection agency, which added $200 million of
revenue in 2016. The Asset Forfeiture Unit of the National Police
seized $10 million in cash from drug traffickers in 2016.
From January 2015 to September 2016, the Honduran government
reports it trained 1,426 police officers at the Police Technical
Institute and 34,588 individuals benefited from the first year of the
Solidarity Bank, a program to improve key business sectors. The
Honduran Anti-Extortion Task Force also captured 226 people during this
time period.
Question. The Castro regime's support for the Maduro government's
subversion of democracy in Venezuela through repression is widely
known. Yet the previous administration gave the Cuban regime a pass for
these activities:
Do you believe the Cuban regime should be held accountable for the
subversion of democracy in Venezuela? If so, how?
Answer. The Venezuelan government is responsible for the
undermining of democratic institutions in its country. We understand
that thousands of Cuban doctors, teachers, and security personnel work
in Venezuela at the invitation of the Venezuelan government. All
countries, including Cuba, should urge the Government of Venezuela to
seek a peaceful, democratic solution to the country's crisis, instead
of supporting internal repression and authoritarianism. The United
States joins with governments across the hemisphere to call on the
Government of Venezuela to fulfill the commitments it made during the
fall 2016 dialogue process in order to establish a positive and
constructive environment in which negotiations and mediation among all
parties can take place.
Question. Free access to information is vital to independent
political thought in nations where speech and other freedoms are
limited. In our own hemisphere, there is no country where basic
political freedoms are more curtailed than Cuba:
Are the requested funds sufficient to implement the goals of the
State Department's Bureau of Information Resource Management in
countries where technology is censored?
Answer. Promoting Internet freedom is an essential part of our
approach to protecting and promoting human rights in the 21st century.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor leads the State
Department's efforts to promote Internet freedom globally through a
variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements as well as through
foreign assistance programming. Many governments have taken steps to
censor and restrict Internet access at the expense of their own
economic and social development. As a result, more than two-thirds of
the world's population now lives in Internet repressive countries.
Since 2012, Congress has appropriated $25-$35 million annually to
the State Department to support global Internet freedom programs. These
resources have enabled the Internet freedom program, including support
for anti-censorship and secure communication technologies, digital
safety training, policy advocacy initiatives, and applied research to
ensure that human rights defenders and ordinary citizens around the
world are able to safely access the global Internet. The State
Department's Internet freedom portfolio constitutes the most
comprehensive support for Internet freedom of any funder.
Question. In the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request, I am
concerned that, given the long lead-time for State Department
budgeting, the State Department wouldn't be able to react
programmatically to a collapse of the Maduro government. Where would
the funds come from and what form would they take?
Answer. The United States continues to be engaged in the situation
in Venezuela and to work with others, including the Organization of
American States (OAS), to support peaceful solutions to the political
and economic crisis in the country. The Department of State and U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) have a long history of
responding rapidly to changing circumstances in countries around the
world and will engage with our partners and the OAS to address changes
to the situation in Venezuela.
The Department and USAID have authorities and funding, subject to
availability, to provide initial support as necessary to address
immediate needs that may arise in Venezuela, including humanitarian
assistance, stabilization assistance, and democracy and human rights
programming, as appropriate.
Question. Is this budget sowing the seeds of more violence, drugs,
and migrants on America's streets by leaving empty spaces and weak
governments in Central America and South America to do the heavy
lifting?
Answer. U.S. assistance and engagement in Central America aims to
secure U.S. borders, protect American citizens, and improve U.S.
prosperity by addressing the economic, security, and governance drivers
of illegal immigration and illicit trafficking. Our engagement in the
region aims to dismantle transnational criminal organizations, combat
drug trafficking, halt illegal immigration, improve opportunities for
U.S. firms, and promote sustainable economic growth by addressing the
underlying causes of insecurity, impunity, and lack of economic
opportunity.
The fiscal year 2018 request level will enable us to focus our
efforts in areas that will have the greatest potential for
transformative impact. With the request, 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. The Department and USAID will promote
good governance, anti-corruption, and fiscal management, and implement
policies that improve economic and educational opportunities, foster
economic growth, and create sustainable livelihoods for citizens of the
region.
Question. Are their [Central America and South America] unique
needs factored into the administration's rebuilding and reintegration
plans?
Answer. The unique needs of the Central America and South America
regions, as well as the unique needs of other regions in the world,
will be considered as we move forward to implement Executive Order
13781 of March 13, 2017, which calls for each agency to submit a plan
in September to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability of that agency. The Department of State (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 20 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.
Question. Do you intend to provide elevated levels of U.S.
assistance to Central America throughout the entire 5-year plan?
Answer. During the June 15-16, 2017 Conference on Prosperity and
Security in Central America, the U.S. Government reaffirmed its
commitment to continued collaboration with the region and support for
programs that complement the Northern Triangle governments' 5-year
plan, the Alliance for Prosperity (2015-2019). The President's fiscal
year 2018 request of $460 million for Central America emphasizes
continued U.S. commitment to reducing insecurity and violence,
enhancing the business climate, and promoting improved governance in
the region, all of which is essential to supporting the safety,
security, and prosperity of Americans. This is in addition to the
almost $2 billion provided by Congress in fiscal year 2015-fiscal year
2017, putting the U.S. Government on a path to providing significant
assistance throughout the period of collaboration with the Northern
Triangle governments on their 5-year plan.
Question. In your view, is 5 years a sufficient period of time to
implement the Alliance for Prosperity? What results do you expect to
see by the end of the 5-year period? Do you foresee the Northern
Triangle countries requiring significant levels of external support
beyond the 5-year timeline?
Answer. The Northern Triangle governments continue to make progress
implementing the reforms necessary to improve the business climate,
increase tax revenues, facilitate trade, expand energy integration,
strengthen the public-private sector dialogue, combat organized crime,
improve information sharing, cooperate on migration flows, strengthen
border security, and reduce youth violence.
However, significant systemic and long-term problems remain in the
Northern Triangle, which require sustained efforts and support by the
U.S. Government, host country partners, the private sector,
international organizations, civil society, and the broader
international community to ensure continued progress. The U.S.
Government works closely with Northern Triangle governments and the
governments of the other Central American countries to align U.S.
assistance with the benchmarks and timelines of programs and priorities
of each government. Each country presents unique economic development
and security challenges. In some areas, particularly in the realm of
governance, sustained efforts over a generation will be necessary to
fully implement reforms, improve transparency, and establish rule of
law in the region.
Question. In a QFR from our Committee during your confirmation
process that asked ``Do you believe it should be a national security
priority of the United States to support Tunisia's transition to
democracy? What specifically should the United States do?'', you
answered: ``Yes, I do believe Tunisia is a strategically important
country for the United States and an important partner for us in
bringing stability to the region. I believe we should broadly engage
with Tunisia on security, economic, governance, and civil society
development.'' The State Department's fiscal year 2018 budget request,
however, zeroes out the $65 million in FMF provided to Tunisia in
fiscal year 2017, and cuts ESF [Economic Support Fund] in half to just
$40 million:
If Tunisia is a strategically important country, and an important
partner to bringing regional stability, shouldn't the United States be
fully committed to investing in its success and maintain bilateral
assistance at the previous fiscal year's level of $165.4 million?
Answer. Tunisia is an important partner, and the United States is
fully committed to investing in its success. However, as we work to
streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of U.S.
taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make
some tough choices.
The Department is shifting our approach to the funding and
provision of military assistance globally. The Department's budget
request includes $200.7 million in global Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) resources, which could support targeted FMF grants or loans to
partners such as Tunisia. Shifting some foreign military financing from
grants to loans will better leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars and still
allow qualifying partners to purchase more American-made equipment.
The fiscal year 2018 ESF level for Tunisia takes into account the
fact that the Tunisian American Enterprise Fund will have hit its total
capitalization target of $100 million, with the last $20 million
contribution provided by the United States in fiscal year 2017.
Finally, the fiscal year 2018 request also includes $14.6 million in
INCLE, NADR, and IMET funds to support our continued partnership with
Tunisia on shared security and counterterrorism priorities.
Question. This budget requests $75 million in economic assistance
to Egypt, which includes money for democracy and development programs.
Egyptian President el-Sisi recently ratified a draconian new NGO law
which would make it virtually impossible for independent civil society
to operate in Egypt through restrictive registration and funding
processes. According to the Project on Middle East Democracy, Egypt's
new NGO law will also require international NGOs to obtain ``prior
approval from the National Authority to operate in Egypt. They have to
purchase a $20,000 permit; this fee would increase by 20 percent every
5 years.'' A longstanding provision of U.S. law known as the
``Brownback Amendment'' asserts that ``with respect to the provision of
democracy, human rights, and governance activities, the organizations
implementing such assistance, the specific nature of that assistance,
and the participants in such programs shall not be subject to the prior
approval by the government of any foreign country.'' In your view, does
Egypt's new NGO law violate the Brownback Amendment by giving the
Egyptian government veto power over U.S.-funded democracy programs?
More broadly, with this new law in place, what kind of economic,
development, or democracy programming is even possible for U.S.
assistance to support in Egypt? Do you believe that repeal of this NGO
law should be a pre-requirement to the United States providing
continued economic aid to Egypt?
Answer. I am disappointed by President Sisi's signature of the NGO
law. From the time parliament proposed this legislation until President
al-Sisi approved it, we clearly and repeatedly communicated our
concerns about the law and urged the GOE to revise it. We have stressed
that a strategic relationship is a two-way street that requires trust
and credibility.
We are actively considering options on how best to address this
deeply problematic legislation, and we are watching closely development
of implementing regulations. We are moreover examining the implications
of the law for the implementation of U.S. assistance programs, and we
will continue to press the Egyptians to enable U.S. assistance programs
and civil society the necessary freedom to operate.
The Department of State and USAID implement programs consistent
with the Brownback Amendment. Many of the practical implications of
Egypt's new NGO law remain unclear, and we are trying better to
understand the law and how it might impact our programs and
implementing partners. In the meantime, we continue to make clear to
the Egyptian government that a vibrant civil society is critical for
Egypt's stability and prosperity.
Question. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus requires you to certify and
report to Congress that the Egyptian government has met a number of
benchmarks on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law before
releasing 15 percent of Egypt's military aid:
Can you tell us if the Egyptian government has released political
prisoners?
Answer. The Egyptian government periodically grants pardons and
releases prisoners. However, few political prisoners benefit from this
process. Some notable exceptions are religious dissident Islam el-
Beheiry, who received a pardon in November 2016, and Aya Hijazi, her
husband, and their colleagues, whom a court acquitted in April 2017.
Thousands of individuals remain detained on charges of violating
Egypt's Demonstrations Law, and we consistently raise our concerns
about human rights to the Egyptians at senior levels.
Question. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus requires you to certify and
report to Congress that the Egyptian government has met a number of
benchmarks on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law before
releasing 15 percent of Egypt's military aid: Is implementing laws or
policies to govern democratically?
Answer. We have not been satisfied with Egypt's progress on
democracy and human rights and will need to take any relevant
developments into account when we consider whether to proceed with the
certification or to exercise a national security waiver. Egypt is a key
regional partner and represents an important bilateral relationship,
but we are committed to ensuring that our partnership delivers on U.S.
interests and advances U.S. national security goals.
Question. After President el-Sisi signed a draconian new law
restricting civil society and reports of an escalated crackdown against
civil society organizations in Egypt, do you believe the Egyptian
government is implementing reforms that protect ``the ability of civil
society organizations and the media to function without interference''?
What examples, if any, can you provide as evidence of those actions by
the Egyptian government? What examples, if any, can you provide as
evidence of the Egyptian government violating those principles?
Answer. I was extremely disappointed by President Sisi's signature
of the NGO law, which we believe further undermines the ability of
civil society to operate independently. The law as written would impose
burdensome NGO registration and other invasive administrative
requirements. We continue to raise our concerns with the Egyptian
government at the highest levels about this law and we are actively
considering options on how best to address it.
We also remain concerned that the government subjects civil society
activists are to asset freezes, travel restrictions, and arrests. Egypt
also recently blocked access to more than a hundred websites including
some of the best known news and human rights-oriented organizations,
and the government continues to arrest activists for their social media
posts. Finally, we are discussing but have yet to reach a resolution to
the ``foreign funding case'' involving convictions against U.S.
citizens and Egyptian employees of U.S. registered NGOs.
I have raised our concerns about the deteriorating human rights
situation in my meetings with Egyptian officials in Washington and in
Cairo, and our Embassy in Cairo continually engages on these issues. We
have stressed and will continue to underscore to the Egyptians that
progress on human rights is important to Egyptian stability and to our
relations.
Question. This proposed budget would eliminate Foreign Military
Financing grants for every country in the world except for four,
including $1.3 billion for Egypt. A May 2016 report from the GAO
indicated that a lack of cooperation from Egyptian authorities
``limited U.S. efforts to verify the use and security of certain
equipment.'' Since that time, a disturbing video from April 2017 shows
members of the Egyptian military shooting unarmed detainees to death at
point-blank range in the Sinai Peninsula and staging the killings to
look as if they had happened in combat. Egyptian authorities continue
to deny access to U.S. officials seeking to verify that such equipment
is not being used to commit gross human rights violations, in
accordance with the Leahy Law:
Have your Egyptian counterparts assured you that U.S. officials
will have full access to the Sinai to make such verification? In your
view, is the Egyptian military currently in compliance with the Leahy
Law?
Answer. Egypt is struggling to defeat Islamic State-Sinai (IS-
Sinai), an ISIS affiliate, in northeast Sinai, despite a significant
increase in Egyptian military personnel there over the past year. IS-
Sinai continues to target Egyptian military, security, and government
personnel and increasingly civilians in the Sinai. We are also seeing
an increase in ISIS attacks in the Nile Valley, including the Palm
Sunday bombing of churches in the Nile Delta cities of Tanta and
Alexandria.
The Egyptian government continues to limit outside access to the
conflict area in northern Sinai, apart from official travel to
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) facilities. The government has
given limited access to U.S. officials to tour development projects in
the Sinai near the Suez Canal and the Egyptian 2nd Field Army
Headquarters on the Sinai side of Ismalyia. However, at senior levels,
the Departments of State and Defense continue to press the Egyptian
government for greater access to northern Sinai to gain better
visibility on the security challenges the Egyptians face.
The Department is deeply concerned over the video allegedly showing
extra judicial killings. Senior Department officials have conveyed
these concerns directly to the Egyptian government and urged the
Egyptians to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation, and hold
responsible individuals to account. The Department will continue to
follow developments closely from both Washington and Cairo, as well as
continue to express U.S. concerns at senior levels of the Egyptian
government.
Question. As the fiscal year 2018 budget request is still fairly
topline, would you please address whether the administration intends to
prioritize funding for programs assisting religious minorities,
including Christians, Yezidis and others, who were targeted for
genocide by the Islamic State?
Answer. Looking forward to fiscal year 2018, we will continue to
provide assistance to vulnerable populations in Iraq and Syria,
including by supporting efforts to document violations and abuses. Our
Economic Support Fund request for Iraq will include reconciliation and
accountability programming, and a point of emphasis in our proposal
review process will remain the provision of assistance to, protection
of, and advocacy for Iraq's most vulnerable populations, including
youth, women, and members of ethnic and religious minorities.
Assistance to vulnerable populations also includes helping to
create conditions for displaced individuals to safely and voluntarily
return home, and in Iraq, our support for Government of Iraq-led
stabilization and accountability efforts will continue to benefit these
populations. To date, FFS has funded $22 million of projects for the
Yazidi communities of Sinjar, Sinuni, and Rabia and $34 million of
projects for the mainly Christian communities of the Ninewa Plains.
Question. What justice mechanisms is the administration willing to
support for those victims of genocide?
Answer. As with the ongoing fight of our Coalition partners to
defeat ISIS in Iraq, the administration will work by, with, and through
the Iraqi government to help the families of victims and survivors of
ISIS atrocities obtain accountability in Iraq. Many of these victims
are members of vulnerable religious and ethnic communities who have
lived on their ancestral homelands on the Ninewa Plains for millennia.
To that end, we support the documentation of atrocities committed
by ISIS. Our Transitional Justice Global Initiative, for example,
enables Iraqi civil society to document human rights abuses;
establishes protocols and a repository that collects, organizes,
preserves, and analyzes evidence gathered to serve a wide range of
future transitional justice purposes; and connects documentation
efforts with national and local accountability efforts. Over 600
narratives have been gathered from victims and witnesses of atrocities
committed in Iraq. Narratives gathered by international civil society
organizations (such as those by the Knights of Columbus and U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum) may be used to augment these efforts. The
program is also implementing community workshops and supporting
advocacy campaigns to promote and raise awareness of transitional
justice processes, including reconciliation, reparations, and truth-
seeking, among other efforts.
We have provided technical assistance to the Iraqi government on
mass grave identification, preservation and excavation and forensic
identification of the remains contained within those mass graves. We
have also provided support for legal services to survivors of conflict-
related violence.
As another example, the United States is contributing to the global
effort to empower women and girls as leaders in the fight against ISIS.
We are helping survivors who have been freed or escaped ISIS captivity
through the Gender-Based Violence Emergency Response and Protection
Initiative, which provides funds for medical, psychological, and social
support.
Ultimately, the Government of Iraq will be responsible for holding
perpetrators of atrocities criminally accountable in domestic justice
processes. To that end, Iraq has requested additional assistance to
support domestic capacity in pursuing accountability. The United States
supports the U.K. proposal for the creation of an investigative body
that would work with the Government of Iraq to formulate mechanisms to
investigate, document, and gather evidence of atrocities perpetrated by
ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq.
Question. Is [Egypt] taking consistent steps to protect and advance
the rights of women and religious minorities, and is [Egypt] providing
detainees with due process of law?
Answer. Egypt has taken some steps to advance the rights of women
and religious minorities. This includes the new Church Construction
Law, an important first step in ensuring the equal treatment of the
Coptic Christian population. The government also finished rebuilding 78
churches burned by mob violence in 2013. Egypt has also passed
legislation restricting female genital mutilation.
Religious dissident Islam el-Beheiry was pardoned by President Sisi
in November 2016 and released. Aya Hijazi, her husband, and their
colleagues were all acquitted and released in April 2017. We are glad
to see her back in the United States. However, thousands of detainees
remain in custody and have faced violations of fair trial guarantees.
Perpetrators of violence against the Christian community regularly
escape justice through the use of extra-judicial ``reconciliation
sessions.''
However, the overall human rights situation remains troubling. As
noted in the Department's 2016 Human Rights Report, the most
significant human rights problems in Egypt were excessive use of force
by security forces, deficiencies in due process, and the suppression of
civil liberties. Lack of fair trial guarantees, excessive use of
preventative custody and pretrial detention, trials involving hundreds
of defendants without individual presentation of evidence, and the use
of military courts to try civilians remain serious problems.
Question. What was the rationale for zeroing out the $330 million
in HIV and AIDS funding for USAID? Can you ensure that the United
States will meet our contribution to the Global Fund?
Answer. The President's 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
CDC) primary implementing agencies for PEPFAR, and will continue to
implement a significant share of U.S. global HIV/AIDS assistance in
this capacity.
The President's budget includes $1.125 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. With the large proposed cuts to global health programs,
how will the U.S. keep infectious diseases--such as airborne, drug-
resistant tuberculosis and mosquito-spread Zika--under control?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request continues to support Global
Health Security by requesting to use $72.5 million in remaining fiscal
year 2015 Ebola emergency funds, which would maintain a straight-line
of support for global health security in development programs at the
fiscal year 2016 levels. The remaining balances from the Ebola response
are an appropriate source of funding for programs with an objective to
prevent and contain future outbreaks of existing or new diseases,
including Zika. 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.
While the United States will continue significant funding for
global health programs, as well as infectious diseases including
tuberculosis, other stakeholders and partner countries must do more to
contribute their fair share to global health initiatives.
Question. In your Senate confirmation hearing, you committed to
maintain U.S. leadership on combating trafficking in persons around the
world. However, the fiscal year 2018 President's budget requests only
$17,000,000 for Trafficking in Persons from the International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement Account (INCLE), a cut of almost 60 percent
from the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus, and does not include a request for
Programs to End Modern Slavery, which received $25,000,000 in the
fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2016 Omnibus.
How do you expect the U.S. Government to maintain its leadership on
this vital human rights issue with such dramatic cuts to the
Trafficking in Persons Office, which leads the United States' global
engagement to combat human trafficking?
Answer. The reduction in our fiscal year 2018 request for anti-
trafficking assistance largely reflects the administration's broader
reduction in economic, development, and law enforcement assistance. In
a constrained budget environment, difficult trade-off decisions must be
made, however the request continues support for targeted bilateral and
regional anti-trafficking programs as well as $17 million in centrally-
managed INCLE funds for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons (J/TIP) to strengthen the ability of partner governments and
civil society to prosecute traffickers, protect victims, and prevent
human trafficking. The administration has reaffirmed its commitment to
counter trafficking in persons as part of the Presidential Executive
Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal
Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. The potential ramifications of a reorganization or
consolidation of the State Department and USAID are huge and would
reverberate across the entire U.S. Ggovernment policy-making apparatus.
I'm disappointed that to date this Committee has not received any
information about the Department's internal thinking on a potential
reorganization with Congress:
In light of Congress' established role in making U.S. foreign
policy, will you commit to engaging with Congress in a real and
consultative manner, before undertaking any substantial reorganization
of the State Department or USAID?
Answer. The Department remains committed to working with Congress
on the steps we are considering to improve the ability of the
Department and USAID to achieve critical foreign policy goals. We have
been in regular communication on the redesign process with the
Department's committees of jurisdiction. The Department will continue
to work with Congress, including committee staff, during the redesign
process and will notify and report on planned organizational changes as
a result of the redesign process consistent with sections 7015 and
7034(l) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division J, Public Law 115-31). At
the end of this process, our goal is to ensure the State Department and
USAID are better equipped to address the foreign policy challenges of
the United States.
Question. I'm concerned that the large cuts to USAID and the State
Department your administration's budget proposes appear to be the
result of indiscriminate slashing of the structure or form, without
consideration of the function our people and institutions play
overseas. Was there a concerted process of determining what functions
our foreign policy apparatus should have--and what the form of the
apparatus should be to execute those functions--based on strategic
foreign policy objectives before arriving at these significantly
decreased top line budget figures? If so, can you share this underlying
analysis with this Committee?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request prioritizes
the well-being of Americans, bolsters U.S. national security, secures
our borders, and advances U.S. economic interests. The first
responsibility of our government is the security of American 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.
Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American people and
advancing our values has necessitated difficult decisions in other
areas of our budget. The State Department and USAID's fiscal year 2018
budget request acknowledges that our operations must become more
efficient, that our assistance must be more effective, and that our
primary mission must always be advocating for the national interests of
our country. Global challenges cannot be met by governments alone, and
cannot rely too greatly on the United States. The fiscal year 2018
request expects greater leveraging of U.S. dollars, along with
increased efficiency and effectiveness of each dollar. In addition, the
request expects that the private sector and countries themselves make
better use of their own investments for development.
The budget reorients our foreign assistance to the most critical
priorities, which means revisiting where and at what level we provide
assistance. If no bilateral funding is requested for a particular
country, in some cases we are leveraging prior-year funds to continue
some support. In other cases we may utilize funds from a regional line
to support activities in a particular country.
We acknowledge that we had to make some tough choices, but focusing
our efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals
and national security interests.
Question. Secretary Tillerson, when you appeared before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee for your confirmation hearing, you stated
that you would continue to support international family planning
programs, and that current funding of $607.5 million for these programs
``seemed appropriate.'' I am therefore appalled to see that the budget
request for fiscal year 2018 includes a complete elimination of funding
for international family planning and reproductive health programs. As
you know from your time at ExxonMobil, empowering women to choose the
timing and spacing of their births dramatically reduces maternal and
newborn deaths. Cutting off this approximately $600 million in funds
will result in nearly 27 million women and couples losing access to
contraceptive supplies, nearly 6 million more unintended pregnancies, 2
million more unsafe abortions and 12,000 maternal deaths. In addition
to saving lives, family planning is critical to achieving our goals
through programs focused on women's economic empowerment, HIV/AIDS,
education and counter-terrorism:
Can you explain why the administration has determined providing
family planning is not essential to our global health programs and how
you plan to address the potential lives lost by eliminating this
funding? What impact will eliminating funding for international family
planning have on U.S. development goals of ending preventable maternal
and child deaths, achieving an AIDS-free generation, and supporting
adolescent girls to continue their education?
Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
USAID's global health programs. As we work to streamline efforts to
ensure efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we
acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some difficult choices.
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. We will also continue prioritizing smart
investments that save lives and continue progress toward controlling
the HIV/AIDS pandemic through PEPFAR.
While the United States will continue significant funding for
global health programs, other stakeholders and partner countries must
do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives.
Question. 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 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. The United States is by far the largest global health
donor. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for USAID's
global health programs. As we work to streamline efforts to ensure
efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge
that we have to prioritize and make some difficult choices. 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 the United States will continue significant funding for
global health programs, other stakeholders and partner countries must
do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives.
Question. On May 15, the State Department released guidelines for
implementation of the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag
rule, which for the first time ever will apply to all global health
assistance programs, currently a total of $8.8 billion. Studies have
shown that when this policy was last in place under the George W. Bush
administration, which curtailed the work of organizations that are most
qualified to provide modern contraceptives, abortion rates rose by 20
percent.
How will the State Department monitor the impact of this policy on
women's access to healthcare, including family planning services, rates
of unsafe abortion and maternal mortality?
Answer. The State Department is working with affected agencies and
departments to collect information on the impact of the expanded Mexico
City Policy, now known as ``Protecting Life in Global Health
Assistance'' (PLGHA), on our global health programs. Interagency
representatives continue to meet regularly to assess progress and
challenges related to implementing the PLGHA policy, and USAID, HHS,
DoD, and the State Department have begun notifying implementing
partners and other stakeholders about the expanded policy. Affected
departments and agencies are also preparing for a review of the PLGHA's
effect on programs, which will provide an opportunity to recommend any
changes to the policy's implementation or scope, should they be needed
to address unintended consequences.
Question. Building off the last question, over the past 8 years, we
have continued to forge new partnerships with other foreign aid
organizations and assisted in building a robust aid infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the reimplementation and vast expansion of the Global
Gag rule will end these relationships and contribute to an aid
infrastructure that will be cobbled together by other organizations who
have to step in where the U.S. has withdrawn. Study after study has
proven undeniably that integrating reproductive health and HIV
treatment and prevention services into basic primary care services, at
the same provider, leads to better health outcomes and significant cost
savings of foreign aid dollars. The proposed elimination of funding for
reproductive health and family planning will compound the harm caused
by proposed funding cuts to HIV/AIDS services and undermine prevention
and treatment initiatives. Make no mistake, your administration's
proposed budget will have serious effects across global health programs
and will contribute to country instability:
Secretary Tillerson, how will the State Department continue to move
toward integrating HIV and reproductive health/family planning services
in light of the drastic cuts to family planning and reproductive health
funding, as well as the restrictions imposed by the Global Gag Rule?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request will allow PEPFAR to
continue prioritizing smart investments that save lives and continue
progress toward controlling the HIV/AIDS pandemic, maintain its current
level of antiretroviral treatment through direct service delivery
globally, and expand both HIV prevention and treatment services through
increased performance and efficiency gains.
PEPFAR will continue to work with USAID to assist women with HIV-
related pregnancy complications, reduce maternal deaths (including
those related to HIV), prevent new pediatric HIV infections, and treat
pediatric HIV. PEPFAR will also continue to monitor data related to HIV
services at the site level, including the impact of any new policies.
No one country alone can end the AIDS epidemic. It will take all
partners doing their part to reach this goal. The budget request once
again demonstrates that the U.S. Government continues to lead the way
thanks to the generosity of the American people. But in order to
control the HIV/AIDS pandemic, other countries and partners must step
up to contribute their fair share.
Question. Consistent with this year's budget, the administration's
budget request for fiscal year 2018 recognizes ``countering Russian
aggression and malign influence'' as one of three goals of U.S.
assistance in Europe and Eurasia (together with regional security and
stability and advancing European integration). Despite that
recognition, the administration's proposed budget would slash over 60
percent of the funding for the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and
Central Asia (AEECA) account, which serves to protect what limited
assistance the U.S. provides in post-Soviet countries. These proposed
cuts are particularly puzzling--and worrisome--in light of Russia's
sustained and growing aggression and malign interference in its
neighborhood. Secretary Tillerson, how will the State Department
approach its work in post-Soviet states in an environment of enhanced
Russian threats with significantly fewer resources? What do you imagine
the impact of these cuts would be on USAID's work in this region?
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.
Russia does not accept the post-Cold War settlement in Europe, and
is pushing back against it. With the President's fiscal year 2018
request for Europe and Eurasia, we will target our assistance to areas
where we see the greatest risk from Russian pressure 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 Russia's covert and
overt campaign 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. USAID will continue to play a
prominent role in foreign assistance programming throughout the region.
Question. As you know, I am very concerned that despite Federal
court rulings against the President's Executive Orders, the State
Department has substantially reduced the number of refugee arrivals
over the past several months. I appreciate your agency's response to my
letter inquiring about the current operating status of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program, which acknowledges that ``we are in the midst of
one of the largest refugee crises in modern history.'' In the State
Department's response to my letter, your agency indicated multiple
times that the recent lower numbers of refugee arrivals have been an
unfortunate result of ``budget constraints'' and the Department's
effort to make do with ``available funding.'' I would like some
clarification on this point, because Congress has made no cuts to
refugee funding this fiscal year and in fact included a $300 million
increase to the State Department for Migration and Refugee Assistance
in the fiscal year 2017 Continuing Resolution:
Could you please clarify what budget constraints or restrictions on
available funding the Department has faced this year?
Answer. It is important to note that the Department of State is
only one of the Federal agencies that implements the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program. The budgets and operational capacity of the State
Department and all of our interagency partners affect the pace of
refugee admissions. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by the
President on May 5, provided full year funding for the Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration, including for the Refugee
Admissions Program. Previous limits on the number of refugees who could
travel to the United States had been put in place to operate within the
budget allocated under the Continuing Resolution. After the
Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed, the Department of State
instructed its overseas partners to schedule refugees for travel
without any numerical restrictions after they have completed the highly
rigorous and necessary security vetting and other processing. This
instruction was given in conformity with Department of Justice guidance
regarding the Hawaii Court's injunction, in consultation with our
interagency partners, and consistent with our operational capacity.
Question. In fiscal year 2016, the U.S. resettled 85,000 refugees.
I'm concerned that the State Department is currently on track to
resettle thousands fewer refugees with the same amount of funding this
year. Why has the Department thus far resettled so many fewer refugees
with the same amount of funding?
Answer. As noted in the response to the previous question, the
Department of State is only one of the Federal agencies that implements
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The budgets and operational
capacity of the State Department and all of our interagency partners
affect the pace of refugee admissions. Before May 5, limits on the
number of refugees who could travel to the United States were put in
place to operate within the budget allocated under the Continuing
Resolution. After the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed on May
5, these limits were lifted. The September 2016 Presidential
Determination states that up to 110,000 refugees may be admitted to the
United States in fiscal year 2017. This language represents a ceiling
on refugee admissions--it is not a mandatory target. We are not in a
position to speculate as to the final number of refugees that will be
admitted by the end of this fiscal year.
Question. More than 60,000 Iraqis have applied for U.S.
resettlement and are currently awaiting interviews and other processing
steps. These are brave individuals who have close affiliations with the
U.S. Government and who have risked their lives and their families to
assist us. How do the administration's plans for refugee resettlement
ensure that these Iraqi allies continue to have a path to safety?
Answer. The Department of State, in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security, implements a Priority Two (P-2) Direct
Access Program (DAP) for U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, which allows certain
categories of Iraqis to apply directly to the USRAP without the need
for a referral by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
These categories include those Iraqis who worked for the U.S.
Government, U.S. military, U.S.-funded organizations closely associated
with the U.S. mission in Iraq, U.S.-based media organizations or
nongovernmental organizations, and their immediate family members.
Since fiscal year 2007, over 47,000 Iraqis have been resettled in
the United States under the P-2 DAP. The administration is committed to
ensuring the successful continuation of this priority program for
Iraqis who risked their lives and those of their families to support
U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Question. President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States
from the Paris Climate Accord deals a devastating blow to America's
global leadership with grave implications for our nation and future
generations. This action exacerbates the growing threat that climate
change poses to America's environment, economy and national security,
and undermines our relationships with key allies by sending the message
that the United States cannot be trusted to honor our international
agreements:
Secretary Tillerson, can you please describe your involvement in
advising the President on whether the United States should withdraw
from the Paris Climate Agreement?
Answer. I gave the President my best counsel, and I think it's
important to remember the United States continues to lead the world in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Question. In your capacity, what steps are you taking to reassure
our diplomatic allies that the United States can be trusted to uphold
its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
mitigate the impacts of climate change?
Answer. While the United States has signaled its intent to withdraw
from the Paris Agreement, we will remain a Party to the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and continue to uphold our
commitments in that institution. As I have said before, engagement
globally on the issue of climate change continues to be important, and
the United States will remain engaged.
Question. Clean energy presents one of the biggest economic
opportunities of this century and climate change is a major driver of
this transition. During your hearing you emphasized the role of the
private sector in advancing international development. However, the
U.S. corporate sector agrees that the President's decision to remove
the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement places American companies at
a competitive disadvantage:
Secretary Tillerson, what steps are you taking to ensure that the
U.S. does not cede its leadership role in clean energy innovation to
countries like China and Germany--both of whom remain committed to
advancing climate policy and clean energy technology?
Answer. The United States has been--and will continue to be--a
world leader in the development and deployment of next-generation
energy technology, including renewables. We will continue to do so in a
way that does not undermine the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, or
hamper our broader objective of advancing U.S. economic growth and
prosperity. American leadership in this cutting-edge field stems from
the creativity and dynamism of our private sector, and has been key to
bringing our country myriad benefits: more jobs, a safer and more
diversified energy system, reduced emissions, and new opportunities for
our communities to tailor their energy to their needs. But innovation
doesn't stop at the technologies themselves: the world also needs
innovation in financing, policies, and business models to deploy these
evolving technologies effectively, and our international partners are
coming to us to learn how it is done. We will work with our
international partners to deepen their energy security, give them the
tools to diversify their sectors to reduce their vulnerability on
single sources of energy, while opening new opportunities for U.S.
companies abroad.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. You mentioned at the June 13 hearing that your internal
review of State Department operations is not complete, and that you
remain months away from completing the review. You also mentioned that
you are planning a 4 percent reduction in the Foreign Service, and a 12
percent reduction in the Department's Civil Service work force. How did
you arrive at these specific figures before completing your review of
the Department's operations, and how is predetermining staffing cuts
consistent with a mission-driven--as opposed to a budget-driven--review
and possible redesign of the Department?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2018 Congressional Budget
Justification (CBJ) reflects the President's and my near term vision of
how U.S. foreign policy mission and program priorities will be
established and executed, with the funding and staffing resources
aligned to meet those priorities. Our mission, program, staffing, and
funding components are closely linked. The fiscal year 2018 CBJ
provides our first opportunity to tie these pieces together in a
comprehensive blueprint going forward.
As I mentioned in my recent testimony, one of the primary goals of
the Department's efficiency review is to take a hard look at common or
overlapping missions shared by various bureaus as well as with other
USG agencies. While I have no preconceived notions in this regard,
based on what I've learned from agency employees, this review will
consider whether functions and/or programs within the Department are
duplicative or very similar in nature. The results of this critical
phase of the review will inform deliberations regarding functional
consolidations or elimination. Implicit in any effort to reduce or
consolidate functions or processes is a reduced workforce level to
carry them out. Given the timing of this review, final, long-term
decisions should subsequently be reflected in the Department's fiscal
year 2019 CBJ.
The fiscal year 2018 Foreign Service reductions were developed
keeping in mind preservation of Foreign Service flow-through in our
most critical Generalist and Specialist skill categories, so that new
hires will be available to assume duties at various overseas posts.
This includes hires made under the auspices of the Rangel and Pickering
programs--both of which, we agree, are of particular importance. The
Foreign Service Generalist reductions that we envision are required to
meet our career flow through goals while transferring a significant
portion of our Consular workload to new non-career Consular Fellows
hires. For the Civil Service, we will focus our hiring efforts on those
mission critical occupations (MCOs) that provide important policy
development and program support either directly here in Washington or
in concert with our colleagues serving overseas.
We have laid out an aggressive and comprehensive timeline for
working to ensure that the Department of State carries out this
administration's foreign policy in the most efficient and effective
means possible. This takes on heightened urgency given the multitude of
complex issues requiring first rate global engagement capacity. As we
move forward, I look forward to continued collaborative consultations
with you and your colleagues.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request cuts
economic and development assistance by 44 percent, refugee assistance
by 29 percent, peacekeeping by 42 percent, global health programs by 26
percent, and funding for educational and cultural exchanges by 55
percent. However, security assistance to Egypt remains intact at $1.3
billion.
Since his ascension to power through a military coup, Egyptian
President Sisi has intensified his crackdown on dissent. Tens of
thousands of political dissidents, including American citizens and
human rights advocates, remain in Egyptian jails due to Sisi's
policies. Members of the security forces routinely torture and forcibly
disappear detainees. Police continue to arrest dozens of people who
they accuse of planning protests. However, President Trump called
President Sisi a ``fantastic guy'' when they met last September, and
said he was ``very much behind'' Sisi during their White House meeting
in April:
Congress requires you to certify that Egypt had made progress on
democracy and human rights, among other issues, before a portion of
security assistance can be released. Do you think the Egyptian
government has taken effective steps to advance democracy, release
political prisoners, and hold its security forces accountable? If so,
can you provide examples?
Answer. We have not been satisfied with Egypt's progress on
democracy and human rights and will need to take any relevant
development into account when we consider whether to proceed with the
certification or to exercise a national security waiver. Egypt is a key
regional partner and represents an important bilateral relationship,
but we are committed to ensuring that our partnership delivers on U.S.
interests and advances U.S. national security goals.
Question. A May 2016 GAO report stated that Egyptian authorities
did not fully cooperate with U.S. officials and ``limited U.S. efforts
to verify the use and security of certain equipment.'' Has the Egyptian
government provided U.S. officials with full access to its security
facilities? If not, do you believe we should continue providing Egypt
with $1.3 billion in security assistance?
Answer. The Foreign Military Financing program with Egypt underpins
the U.S.-Egypt security partnership and promotes key U.S. security
interests in a volatile region, including efforts to defeat ISIS.
In response to the GAO report, representatives from the Department
of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) conducted an
outreach visit to Egypt in November 2016 to educate Egyptian officials
on U.S. regulations concerning end-use monitoring of U.S. defense
articles sold via the direct commercial sales process and explain why
their cooperation on these checks is vital to a healthy defense trade
relationship. Following this, DDTC was able to conduct favorable and
timely checks.
However, the Egyptian government continues to limit outside access
to the conflict area in northern Sinai, apart from official travel to
Multinational Force and Observers facilities. In the summer of 2016,
the government allowed U.S. officials to tour development projects in
the Sinai near the Suez Canal and the Egyptian 2nd Field Army
Headquarters on the Sinai side of Ismalyia. At senior levels, the
Departments of State and Defense continue to press Egypt's government
for greater access to northern Sinai to conduct required end-use
monitoring.
Question. At the March 22 summit to counter ISIS in Washington, you
acknowledged the next phase in the ISIS fight requires significant
humanitarian assistance and a regional diplomatic strategy. Your words,
however, stand in stark contrast to President Trump's 32 percent cut to
the State Department and USAID budget. By cutting funding so
dramatically, I am concerned this administration is making it more
difficult to win the war against ISIS.
You have repeatedly emphasized the importance of international
burden sharing, which is a view shared on both sides of the aisle.
However, by proposing 44 percent cut to humanitarian assistance and a
27 percent cut to U.S. contributions to international organizations,
including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, President
Trump is crippling the international agencies responsible for helping
to stabilize Iraq and Syria.
As you know, the Department of State is also responsible for
generating the financial commitments of our coalition partners and
allies to counter ISIS, and must be adequately resourced to undertake
these negotiations. Furthermore, the United States must lead by
example--our coalition partners will likely take their cues from our
own contributions to the long-term fight against ISIS.
Given this administration's decreased commitment to humanitarian
and stabilization efforts in Iraq and Syria, have you been successful
in getting allies and partners to accept a greater share of the burden?
Answer. Robust support from other donors is critical for both
humanitarian response and the sustainability of stabilization
programming in liberated areas. At the March 2017 Ministerial of the
Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, Coalition members, including the
United States, pledged an additional $2.6 billion for humanitarian,
stabilization, and explosive hazards removal efforts for liberated
areas in Iraq and Syria. This was in direct response to a call put
forth by the United States to the totality of the Coalition--which
consists of 73 members--for increased assistance to further critical
initiatives and close funding gaps. Select Coalition members also added
to this figure with significant humanitarian assistance pledges during
an EU-hosted Brussels Ministerial Donor Conference on Syria 1 week
later.
The Coalition continues to respond to U.S. appeals for increased
assistance that supports stabilization, humanitarian needs, and
explosive hazards removal needs in liberated areas. Just recently, on
the margins of the Coalition's July 13 Small Group meeting regarding
humanitarian assistance needs in Iraq, Coalition partners publicly
committed more than $90 million in new assistance. At this same event
the United States announced a contribution totaling more than $119
million, and a number of other Coalition members anticipate readying
new assistance announcements in the coming weeks.
Question. Can you provide specific examples of countries that have
increased their commitments to the counter-ISIS fight to offset the
administration's proposed cuts?
Answer. Coalition collaboration to meet significant resource
demands in liberated areas continues to be impressive, and response to
U.S. calls for additional contributions continues to be robust. For
example, the European Union has increased its financial support for
educational initiatives in western Syria in order to free up United
States assistance to target needs in those areas of Syria liberated by
the Coalition-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. The EU has also provided
more than $330 million in humanitarian assistance to Iraq since 2015,
and pledged $50 million in 2017, in addition to contributions from
individual EU member states. Germany, Denmark, and Canada contribute to
the U.S.--led explosive hazards removal contract for liberated areas in
Iraq, and Germany will soon be contributing to a similar program in
Syria. Austria quadrupled its development assistance budget in 2016 in
response to a call to Coalition donors to step-up support for
stabilization activities in Iraq. Twenty-nine Coalition members
responded to the United States' call for increased commitments to
liberated areas in Iraq and Syria in advance of the March 2017
Ministerial of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS by pledging $1.5
billion in new assistance.
Question. What roles and responsibilities do you expect of our
coalition partners and allies, and international institutions, in the
counter-ISIS fight moving forward?
Answer. As the Coalition and local partners defeat ISIS in Iraq and
Syria, we will likely see ISIS attempt to regenerate globally in
vulnerable areas such as West Africa and Southeast Asia. Coalition
partners' contributions must continue to include military and
stabilization support in Iraq and Syria to defeat the remnants of ISIS,
but will also increasingly incorporate significant civilian efforts to
disrupt ISIS's external networks. Through increased information
sharing, counter-messaging, capacity building programs for border
security and law enforcement agencies, prison reform and de-
radicalization programs, and by encouraging Coalition partners to
strengthen their counter-terrorism laws, we expect to counter the
threat from a potential emergence of Global-ISIS or a virtual
caliphate. Assistance in these areas will help to achieve our long-term
goals of stemming the return of foreign terrorist fighters from Iraq
and Syria, disrupting inspired attacks by home grown terrorists,
severing ISIS financing streams, countering violent extremist
recruitment, and neutralizing the ISIS narrative.
Question. The United States has a proud tradition of providing
leadership in global health. This effort has been supported by
Democrats and Republicans for the past quarter century. Global health
programs are also supported by a broad coalition of faith groups, non-
profits and universities--and is led by USAID. Investments in global
health save lives and make America more secure. In addition to reducing
the risk that diseases will spread to the United States, global health
research creates new products and tools to combat many diseases that
affect Americans. Moreover, poverty and disease create a breeding
ground for conflict and instability--which increases terrorism and
other threats. Despite these many benefits, the administration's budget
would cut global health by 25 percent.
Does USAID still endorse its Global Health Security Agenda ``to
accelerate measurable progress toward a world safe and secure from
infectious disease threats through preventing, detecting and rapidly
responding to infectious disease threats?'' How can we hope to achieve
this goal with a 25 percent cut in funding for global health?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 request continues to support Global
Health Security by requesting to use $72.5 million in remaining fiscal
year 2015 Ebola emergency funds, which would maintain a straight-line
of support for global health security in development programs at the
fiscal year 2016 levels. The remaining balances from the Ebola response
are an appropriate source of funding for programs with an objective 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.
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.
The fiscal year 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.
While the United States will continue significant funding for
global health programs, as well as infectious diseases, other
stakeholders and partner countries must do more to contribute their
fair share to global health initiatives.
Question. PEPFAR has had an incredible impact on HIV prevention,
treatment and care programs in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, with
global success witnessed worldwide. PEPFAR has increased the number of
people on life-saving treatment every year and in doing so has curbed
the epidemic not only in Africa, but globally. Science has proven that
investment in antiretroviral treatment and HIV prevention programs have
significant impact on the epidemic in each country. The proposed 15
percent cut to PEPFAR and the Global Fund would severely harm the fight
to end the HIV epidemic. Further, reinstatement of the renamed Mexico
City policy as applied to HIV funding will only reverse advances in
providing high quality and comprehensive services:
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 have seen globally in mitigating the
impact of HIV or increase HIV-related deaths worldwide? Do you support
a rollback of the progress made through PEFPAR, a program with broad,
bi-partisan and global support, which is currently supporting nearly
11.5 million people with life-saving antiretroviral treatment and
prevented 2 million babies from being born HIV-positive?
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. The President's budget proposal asserts the U.S.
Government will continue treatment for ``all current HIV/AIDS
patients'' under PEPFAR. On its face, that sounds promising, but the
real success of PEPFAR has been its ability to increase the number of
people on treatment every year and provide critical funding for primary
prevention programs to stop people from contracting the disease in the
first place. As many have noted, simply maintaining current treatment
rolls is poor science and a poor investment of U.S. resources. If we
want to see an AIDS free generation in our lifetime, which I would hope
you would support, we must invest in additional HIV prevention programs
in addition to expanding the numbers on treatment.
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. Repeatedly, our most trusted military and national
security leaders have agreed that fighting poverty and disease is part
of a smart national security strategy, as it makes the world a safer
place. It is no coincidence that some of the world's poorest,
unhealthiest countries are also the most unstable. Even the President's
budget request says, ``the health of the world's most vulnerable
populations drives economic growth, strengthens communities, and
reduces instability that often fuels war, conflict, and extremism.''
Given that statement, I am confounded by the proposed cuts to maternal
and child health, the building blocks of strong, healthy communities.
Despite incredible progress over the past 25 years--maternal deaths cut
almost in half and 100 million children saved-- due in part to the work
of Johns Hopkins University and many Maryland NGOs, there is still work
to be done. Eliminating funding for family planning, which we know
saves lives and makes women healthier, and cutting programs designed to
keep mothers alive, able to work, able to care for their children, keep
them in school, and create productive members of society, flies in the
face of logic. If we want to help countries become self-reliant and
stable, we need more, not less, funding for maternal and child health:
How will the cuts in the President's budget request to family
planning and maternal and child health programming help keep America
safe?
Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
USAID's global health programs, 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 fiscal year
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. In fiscal year 2017, $607.5 million was appropriated for
U.S. assistance in family planning and reproductive health programs.
This funding helped 26 million women and couples take control of their
reproductive health, allowing them to plan their families by choice,
not by chance, and resulting in averting 8 million unintended
pregnancies, including 3 million unplanned births; 3.3 million fewer
abortions and the prevention of 15,000 maternal deaths. The return on
investment in family planning is undeniable, one of the best anywhere
in government, which is why I'm stunned at the President's fiscal year
2018 budget request, which cuts all funding for family planning from
USAID:
Do you feel that family planning is important to protecting the
health of women? Will you ensure that women in the developing world
have access to contraception and pre and post-natal care?
Answer. Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for
USAID's global health programs, 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 fiscal year
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.
As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to
prioritize and make some difficult choices. The United States is by far
the largest overall global health donor. 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.
Question. How many refugees does the President plan to admit this
next fiscal year, and how does this compare to the historical average
since the 1980 Refugee Act?
Answer. Each year, the President makes an annual determination, in
consultation with Congress, regarding the refugee admissions ceiling
for the following fiscal year. That determination is expected to be
made prior to the end of fiscal year 2017.
Question. We understand that the administration is writing a report
on the fiscal impacts of refugee resettlement. Can you clarify if you
are also examining the positive economic contributions of refugees in
your analysis?
Answer. The Department of State, in consultation with
representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and
Budget, is working to quickly and fully implement the President's
directives in Sections 4(b) and (c) of ``The Presidential Memorandum on
Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications
for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits.'' Section 4(b) of the
Presidential Memorandum requests a report detailing the estimated long-
term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program at the
Federal, State, and local levels, along with recommendations on how to
curtail those costs. The Department of State is working diligently with
partner agencies to prepare a report that responds to the President's
request.
Question. Can you explain the rationale for completely eliminating
the Emergency Refugee and Migration (ERMA) account, as the President's
budget request would do? The President's budget request claims that the
functions of ERMA can be carried out under the Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) account, and yet that account would also be cut by 10
percent, rather than increased by $100 million. Can you explain the
rationale for eliminating this tool of diplomacy?
Answer. We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to
those who need it most. The MRA request, in concert with fiscal year
2017 resources, will enable the U.S. Government to respond to the major
humanitarian emergencies around the globe. For several years, the MRA
account has supported emergency refugee needs. The fiscal year 2018
budget request still includes support for emergency refugee and
migration needs within the MRA account, but eliminates duplication and
streamlines support for refugee and migration needs into one account.
We will continue to ensure that we are using funds as efficiently
and effectively as possible in order to meet current and unforeseen
needs. Other donors will need to do more to assist in responding to
humanitarian crises around the world.
Question. More than 50,000 Iraqis who have close affiliations with
U.S. Government in Iraq and who have faced risks as a result are
waiting for interviews in U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). How
do the administration's plans for refugee resettlement ensure that
these Iraqi allies continue to have a path to safety?
Answer. The Department of State, in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security, implements a Priority Two (P-2) Direct
Access Program (DAP) for U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, which allows certain
categories of Iraqis to apply directly to the USRAP without the need
for a referral by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
These categories include those Iraqis who worked for the U.S.
Government, U.S. military, U.S.-funded organizations closely associated
with the U.S. mission in Iraq, U.S.-based media organizations or
nongovernmental organizations, and their immediate family members.
Since fiscal year 2007, over 47,000 Iraqis have been resettled in
the United States under the P-2 DAP. The administration is committed to
ensuring the successful continuation of this priority program for
Iraqis who risked their lives and those of their families to support
U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Question. Despite the fact that the two executive orders to stop
the refugee resettlement program were halted by a series of court
injunctions, it appears that:
--The USCIS Refugee Corps interviews of refugee applicants have
slowed down.
--Delays in the processing of security checks for refugee applicants
have resulted in different parts of these clearances expiring
at different times and since each step in the security check
process is time limited, this has created setbacks and longer
waits for refugees in the pipeline.
How is this in keeping with the court injunctions on the refugee
executive order, as well as the congressional intent, made clear in the
fiscal year 2017 CR and Omnibus funding, that resettlement is to be
maintained?
Answer. It is important to note that the Department of State is
only one of the Federal agencies that implements the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program. The budgets and operational capacity of the State
Department and all of our interagency partners affect the pace of
refugee admissions. The Department of State defers to the Department of
Homeland Security regarding questions about the pace of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Refugee Corps interviews and
defers to our law enforcement and intelligence agency partners
regarding questions related to security check processing.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by the President on May
5, provided full year funding for the Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration, including for the Refugee Admissions Program. Previous
limits on the number of refugees who could travel to the United States
had been put in place to operate within the budget allocated under the
Continuing Resolution. After the Consolidated Appropriations Act was
signed, the Department of State instructed its overseas partners to
schedule refugees for travel without any numerical restrictions after
they have completed the highly rigorous and necessary security vetting
and other processing. This instruction was given in conformity with
Department of Justice guidance regarding the Hawaii Court's injunction,
in consultation with our interagency partners, and consistent with our
operational capacity.
Question. As CEO of Exxon, you were a leader in the effort to
prevent and treat malaria. Under your leadership, Exxon was a corporate
leader in supporting international efforts to prevent and treat
malaria.
Yet the President's proposed budget reduces funding for the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, & Malaria by 17 percent from fiscal year 2017.
The White House has stated that the budget prioritizes promoting U.S.
interests and security abroad. If the goal is to advance U.S. security
and prosperity, then these cuts are confounding. The economic case is
clear: When people are healthy, they have more capacity to purchase
American goods and services. U.S. exports to developing countries have
grown by more than 400 percent over the last 20 years. Today, they
total more than $600 billion annually and are greater than U.S. exports
to China, Europe and Japan combined. Malaria-free countries have five
times greater economic growth than countries with malaria.
Secretary Tillerson, do you agree that malaria can impede business,
productivity and economic development at every stage, and can you
explain how reducing U.S. support for malaria prevention helps to
advance U.S. economic interests and prosperity?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request includes $1.5 billion
for USAID's Global Health Programs, and $322.5 million in remaining
fiscal year 2015 Ebola emergency funds, for a total of $1.8 billion.
This request supports funding for maternal and child health, including
$290.0 million for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which will complete our
country's $1 billion, 4-year commitment from fiscal year 2015-2018 and
help provide vaccinations for hundreds of millions of children in low-
resource countries. It also supports the President's Malaria Initiative
(PMI) and nutrition, as well as tuberculosis and neglected tropical
diseases.
With $250 million from the fiscal year 2015 Ebola emergency funds,
the total fiscal year 2018 request for malaria programs is $674
million, consistent with fiscal year 2016. Resources will support the
PMI comprehensive strategy, which brings to scale a combination of
proven malaria prevention and treatment approaches and integrates,
where possible, these interventions with other priority health
interventions. PMI has been instrumental in the historic 71 percent
reduction in the estimated malaria mortality rate in sub-Saharan
Africa, and has contributed globally to an estimated almost seven
million malaria deaths averted. PMI's efforts have also contributed to
historic reductions in all-cause mortality among children under five.
Further, the budget includes $1.125 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. How does cutting funds for malaria prevention advance
U.S. economic security and prosperity? Will you ensure that the United
States maintains its bipartisan tradition of leading world efforts to
eradicate malaria and other diseases?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget includes $1.5 billion for
USAID's Global Health Programs as well as $322.5 million in remaining
fiscal year 2015 Ebola emergency funds, for a total of $1.8 billion.
With $250 million from the fiscal year 2015 Ebola emergency funds, the
total fiscal year 2018 request for malaria programs is $674 million,
consistent with fiscal year 2016.
Resources will support the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI)
comprehensive strategy, which brings to scale a combination of proven
malaria prevention and treatment approaches and integrates, where
possible, these interventions with other priority health interventions.
PMI has been instrumental in the historic 71 percent reduction in the
estimated malaria mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa, and has
contributed globally to an estimated almost seven million malaria
deaths averted. PMI's efforts have also contributed to historic
reductions in all-cause mortality among children under five.
The budget also includes $1.125 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. As ExxonMobil's CEO you personally championed women as
catalysts for economic development and social change. The President's
budget request disproportionately harms women's health, with proposed
cuts to maternal and child health and a complete gutting of funding for
family planning and reproductive health. These cuts will have a
devastating impact not only on women, but on their families. When we
support families, we increase opportunities for U.S. economic
development abroad. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that ``Women
represent half of the population, but more than half of the opportunity
for growth.''
Do you agree that these cuts are shortsighted and fail to recognize
opportunities for U.S. trade and investment that are directly related
to women's health and economic development?
Answer. We recognize that countries are more peaceful and
prosperous when women are accorded full and equal rights and
opportunity.
The U.S. Department of State has a dedicated strategy on women's
economic empowerment, and we continue our work to advance gender
equality through our foreign policy. The Department's Office of Global
Women's Issues also works to combat gender-based violence, promote
women in peace and security, and empower adolescent girls. The
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is implementing
DREAMS, a public-private partnership to ensure that girls can grow into
Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored and Safe women.
Through targeted diplomatic and programmatic interventions and
activities, the Department aims to lift barriers and prevent harmful
and discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect women.
These efforts promote greater opportunities for women and girls in all
spheres--economic, political, and social--which in turn opens
opportunities for U.S. trade and investment.
Question. Why has the administration not put in place a more
aggressive secondary sanctions regime against North Korea, given your
acknowledgement that North Korea poses the greatest threat to U.S.
security? Is the administration prepared to force Chinese banks to
choose between working with North Korea or losing access to the U.S.
banking system?
Answer. We have made clear to China that it has a diplomatic
responsibility to exert much greater economic and diplomatic pressure
on the regime if it wants to prevent further escalation in the region.
We want to work with China, but we've said many times that we would not
hesitate to act alone, including by sanctioning Chinese or other third-
country individuals and entities that provide support to North Korea's
unlawful activities.
China's efforts to curtail North Korea's nuclear and ballistic
missile programs and address North Korea's sanctions evasion have been
insufficient in addressing the threat posed by North Korea. We are
committed to using targeted financial sanctions to impede North Korea's
nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to counter the grave threat
those programs pose to international peace and security. We will
continue to call on all countries to take the appropriate steps to
apply maximum pressure on the DPRK so it changes its calculus and
returns to serious and meaningful talks aimed at denuclearization.
Question. On March 13, President Trump released an executive order
calling for a comprehensive reorganization of the executive branch.
While I support reforms to improve the efficiency of government, I am
deeply concerned by reports that you preemptively plan to cut thousands
of positions at the State Department and eliminate dozens of missions
worldwide--before establishing and articulating your foreign policy
priorities. I believe these cuts would undermine America's ability to
influence events worldwide, and to tackle enormous challenges presented
by countries suffering from poor governance, extreme poverty, and
rampant corruption. That is why I recently sent a letter with Senator
Sullivan, co-chair of the Senate Foreign Service Caucus, asking you to
provide a comprehensive briefing on your proposed plans to reorganize
the State Department:
--Will you provide Senator Sullivan and me with this briefing in the
coming weeks?
--Can you explain how you plan to work with this Committee on plans
to reorganize the State Department and USAID?
Answer. Yes. The Department remains committed to working with
Congress on the steps we are considering to improve the ability of the
Department and USAID to achieve critical foreign policy goals. We will
be in regular communication on the redesign process with the
Department's committees of jurisdiction. The Department will continue
to work with Congress during the redesign process and will notify and
report on planned organizational changes consistent with sections 7015
and 7034(l) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division J, Public Law 115-31). As
the review is still underway, it is possible some of the planned
changes might also require statutory changes. We will work with
Congress as part of or prior to the fiscal year 2019 budget submission
to pursue such statutory changes. At the end of this process, our goal
is to ensure the State Department and USAID are better equipped to
address the foreign policy challenges of the United States.
Question. Do you agree with the premise that there is a link
between humanitarian crises and national security threats? How can we
ensure that the State Department and USAID are well-equipped to address
the crises we face today with a constrained 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 fiscal year 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 conflict, famine or
the threat of famine in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria,
providing more than $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2017 to date for
populations impacted by 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
robust analysis, aggressive diplomacy and targeted assistance to
resolve conflicts, promote good governance, and promote stabilization.
Our budget request in fiscal year 2018 includes dedicated resources to
advance conflict mitigation, stabilization, human rights, and
governance through diplomacy in high priority countries such as
Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Question. Have you considered the implications of cuts of this size
to humanitarian needs overseas?
How many people do you think it will affect?
What impact do you think it will have on our ability to influence
governments who are responding to humanitarian crises?
Answer. The United States is committed to doing our fair share to
respond to humanitarian crises and providing lifesaving assistance to
those who need it most. With our fiscal year 2018 budget request, we
will remain a leading contributor of humanitarian assistance. This
request focuses funding on the highest priority areas while asking our
international partners to step up their efforts and contribute more.
The proposed percentage of humanitarian funding requested as part of
the fiscal year 2018 State/USAID foreign assistance budget remains the
same as in fiscal year 2016, roughly 22 percent. The relative priority
of these interventions has not diminished.
Humanitarian funding decisions are based on need, as assessed by
international and non-government organizations and USG field teams 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 assess whether
implementing partners have the operational capacity and access to them.
Question. 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. How will you ensure that humanitarian responses--limited by the
proposed cuts in fiscal year 2018, as well as OMB's stated intention to
carry over funding from fiscal year 2017--will not lead to larger,
costlier humanitarian response in future years?
Answer. We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to
those who need it most. The fiscal year 2018 request, in concert with
fiscal year 2017 resources, will enable the U.S. Government to respond
to the major humanitarian emergencies around the globe, including
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, and South Sudan. The proposed
proportion of the fiscal year 2018 State/USAID foreign assistance
budget requested for humanitarian assistance remains the same as in
fiscal year 2016, roughly 22 percent, and the relative priority of
these interventions has not diminished.
Question. How do the budget cuts to our programs in Sri Lanka
advance our interests? Does this not simply make Sri Lanka, and other
countries in the region, more susceptible to Chinese influence?
Answer. The budget request includes bilateral security assistance
for Sri Lanka provided through Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
Demining and Related Programs (NADR) and International Military
Education and Training (IMET) funding. These resources support
activities that protect U.S. national security, secure our borders from
external threats, and maintain U.S. influence with Sri Lanka and its
armed forces.
For the sake of efficiency and greater accountability to U.S.
taxpayers, the budget request also reflects hard choices that reduce
funding. This should not be taken to mean that the United States is
less committed to Sri Lanka or our other friends and partners. To the
contrary, we will continue to lead international development, global
health, democracy and good governance, and humanitarian efforts. In
addition, we will strive to think innovatively, leverage existing and
prior-year resources, and work with governments and private sector
actors to encourage investment that empowers developing countries such
as Sri Lanka. We believe that this approach will compare favorably to
other development assistance models, particularly those that invite
dependency on loans and initiate a cycle of rising indebtedness and
vulnerability.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

God bless you. The subcommittee stands in recess until the
call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]

OUTSIDE WITNESS TESTIMONIES

[Clerk's Note.--The following testimonies were submitted to
be made part of the hearing record.]
Ambassador of Republic of Tunisia deg.
Prepared Statement of the Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia

June 12, 2017.

Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations &
Related Programs;
290 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the funds
allocated to Tunisia for the fiscal year 2017 and the United States'
ongoing support for Tunisia. This generous assistance has been critical
in reinforcing security in Tunisia. More importantly it is a message to
the Tunisian people of the United States' commitment to building a
strategic partnership with Tunisia.
However, I would like to share with you our great surprise toward
the administration's proposal in the fiscal year 2018 budget request to
eliminate Tunisia's FMF grant and cut ESF by half. Actually, the U.S.
administration' s decision to shift FMF assistance to Tunisia in fiscal
year 2018 to loans effectively places an undue burden on Tunisia at a
vulnerable time.
Please allow me to highlight the following pertinent facts that
explain the importance of this assistance in the broader fights against
terrorism and why helping and investing in Tunisia should matter:
--Since Tunisia's historic democratic transition began in 2011,
Tunisia and the United States have been committed to forging a
durable strategic partnership based on strategic interests and
shared democratic values;
--The United States has pledged to support Tunisia's democratic
transition, including deepening political, economic, and
military cooperation between our two countries.
--The United States declared Tunisia a ``Major Non-NATO Ally'' in May
2015;
--The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between our two
countries, on the occasion of the visit by the Tunisian
President Beji Caid Essebsi in May 2015, pledges to increase
support for economic, political, and military cooperation
between the United States and Tunisia. This MoU declares
support for programs aimed at reinforcing Tunisia's security,
developing its capacity to face major security challenges, and
advancing shared interests in a secure, stable and prosperous
region. It also underscores the value of FMF grants in enabling
the purchase of U.S. military goods and services;
--Tunisia has been a committed and full-fledged member of the Global
Coalition to Counter ISIS since September 2015;
--Our longstanding mutually beneficial military cooperation has
resulted in the establishment of a joint ISR (Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) in Tunisia. This achievement
is considered as an important example of the excellent
cooperation between our two countries and Tunisia's commitment
to building a truly strategic partnership;
--During the 31st Joint Military Commission, held in Washington on
May 2-3, 2017 where U.S. Defense Secretary and Tunisian Defense
Minister agreed on a ``Bilateral Country Action Plan'' (BCAP)
to boost military and security cooperation between the United
States and Tunisia over the next 5 years. Secretary Mattis and
Deputy Secretary Work committed to continuing to grow a strong
military relationship with the country;
--In recognition of the huge economic challenges facing Tunisia, and
also its progress on fighting corruption and improving civil
liberties, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) announced
a new compact for Tunisia in December 2016.
--Tunisia is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism as its
security and military forces are waging a number of complicated
missions, including border defense to protect against
infiltration from jihadists in Libya, counterterrorism
operations in urban areas to disrupt ISIS cells, and an Al
Qaeda linked insurgency on the Western border. To meet these
threats, Tunisia has worked closely with the United States to
improve readiness and capabilities. However, Tunisia is also
investing heavily in its own capabilities, prioritizing
military spending at the expense of other important areas and
making material sacrifices, despite a difficult economic
situation.
--In 2016, Tunisia allocated nearly 15 percent of its national budget
(the equivalent of more than 2 percent of GDP) to military and
security spending. This includes increased training and
Tunisian purchases of U.S. military equipment and systems,
including Black Hawk helicopters.
--Tunisia is not the only country in the region that is fighting
terrorism. But it is the only country in the Middle East and
North Africa that is fighting terrorism while transitioning
from dictatorship to a democratic system. Our commitment to
democratic principles and our shared values create the bedrock
of our long-term partnership with the United States.
Given the facts mentioned above, we kindly request your valued
mediation within Congress in order to preserve Tunisia from the
budgetary cuts, by appropriating $165.4 million for bilateral funding
in fiscal year 2018. This requested level would renew the same amount
granted for Tunisia in fiscal year 2017, of which $65 million is
designated for an FMF grant and $79 million is designated for ESP.
As we celebrate this year the 220th anniversary of the
establishment of our diplomatic relations, we are relying on your
leadership to support Tunisia's request. That support will not only
help Tunisia play its rightful role in bringing security and stability
to the region, but reaffirms the United States' firm commitment to
building a strategic partnership with Tunisia.
I am grateful for your ongoing support and leadership. I would be
delighted to meet you to discuss this in greater detail. Please accept,
Honorable Chairman, the assurances of my highest consideration and
esteem.

______

Prepared Statement of the Ambassador of Sri Lanka

June 1, 2017.
Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
290, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.

Honorable Senator Graham,

As you are aware, the 2015 presidential election in Sri Lanka
ushered a new political era that enabled a national Unity Government to
embark upon transformative political and economic reforms, paving the
way for deepening the engagement between Sri Lanka and the United
States. As a result, Sri Lanka and the United States have now
established a regular ``U.S.-Sri Lanka Partnership Dialogue''
encompassing all aspects of our bilateral relations.
As a strategically located island abutting the major sea lanes of
the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Sri Lanka values its partnership with the United
States, among others, to ensure maritime security and freedom of
navigation in the Indian Ocean for the mutual benefit of both
countries. As Sri Lanka develops into a major business hub in the Indo-
Asia-Pacific, cooperation and engagement with the United States will
become even more important.
Meanwhile, USAID has been carrying out impactful work in Sri Lanka
targeting economic growth, strengthening democratic institutions and
promoting reconciliation to consolidate post-conflict social and
political stability. Assistance, especially to the conflict-affected
regions, has served as a catalyst and force multiplier for development.
Therefore, Sri Lanka is deeply perturbed by the U.S. State Department's
proposed fiscal year 2018 budget reducing USAID led assistance to Sri
Lanka by 92 percent.
Sri Lanka's goal is to make the economy resilient, stable and
efficient to cutback dependency on foreign loans, which takes a huge
toll on the economy due to increasing debt burden. As a result of the
massive infrastructure projects undertaken by the previous government
with Chinese assistance, the debt to China is substantial. The dire
financial situation inherited by the current unity government has
placed it in a difficult position, as it needs to deliver livelihood
support to the people, who suffered during the 30 year armed conflict
which ended in 2009. Such assistance is essential for the success of
the ongoing reconciliation process.
United States assistance for Sri Lanka to provide a meaningful
peace dividend to the people and to harness its potential as a service
and business hub in the Indo-Pacific will usher further progress in the
bilateral partnership. Hence, sustaining a meaningful budget line for
USAID led assistance to Sri Lanka is critical. Programmes by USAID,
Peace Corps, MCC, which manifest U.S. support to improve the lives of
the people, and complement military to military cooperation, are
essential in the context of regional developments and to win the
confidence of the Sri Lankan people manifesting the efficacy of the
U.S.-Sri Lanka partnership.
Sri Lanka is pleased to have been selected for an MCC Compact
Programme and is looking forward to the benefits that will accrue once
project implementation commences in the years ahead. However, given the
very nature of the MCC projects, results will only be felt over time,
unlike USAID programmes.
Tangible U.S. assistance can backstop Sri Lankan leaders against
any roll back in progress and provide leverage to the United States'
interests as well. This can shrink the space available for those with
vested interests who clamour to vitiate the Sri Lanka-United States
partnership.
The European Union restored the GSP+ tariff concession facility for
Sri Lanka earlier this month, recognizing Sri Lanka's progress in
reforms since 2015. At a time the government and people of Sri Lanka
are in need of similar support, it would seem insensitive for the
U.S.--the most important partner for Sri Lanka outside of South Asia--
to curtail assistance to Sri Lanka.
60 years of development support for the fellow democracy of Sri
Lanka, indeed the oldest in Asia, must continue and even expand, as
both countries head towards the 70 year mark in diplomatic relations in
2018. Therefore, I appeal to you to lend your voice during
congressional deliberations on the fiscal year 2018 budget to support
sustaining USAID led assistance to Sri Lanka to nurture our mutually
beneficial bilateral partnership.

With my highest regards,

Prasad Kariyawasam
Ambassador
______

Prepared Statement of the American Academy of Diplomacy
Dear Chairman Graham and Senator Leahy,

Thank you for this opportunity for me to provide the perspective of
the American Academy of Diplomacy on the current State Department
Budget proposal and potential reorganization. The Academy is an
organization of the Nation's most distinguished former diplomats, both
career and non-career. It is a non-partisan, non-governmental
organization dedicated to strengthening American diplomacy.
We believe that a strong diplomacy is essential to American
security and that such a diplomacy must rest on a strong State
Department. This, in turn requires a strong Foreign Service and a
strong Civil Service. The multiplicity of American interests around the
globe from security and peace-making to protecting citizens and
promoting business demands a complex and functioning institution. And,
as even the most cursory list of interests illustrates, it is a job
done mostly overseas. It is from these basic principles that we derive
our comments on reorganization and the budget.
The Administration's Proposed Budget Injures American Security
Both reorganization and the budget must reflect value judgments
about the goals American diplomacy is organized to advance. It is in
this regard that we have the most profound disagreement with the
proposed budget, which is more likely to weaken American security than
to promote it.
Military operations take place for political purposes. It is
diplomacy that is crucial to building enduring solutions before, during
and after combat. This is a currently ongoing situation with multiple
high priority needs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We do not
understand how these tasks can be managed with a 42 percent cut in
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) from fiscal year 2017.
There can and should be debate about how much the United States
spends on humanitarian and developmental assistance. But to largely
turn our back on humanitarian needs or not even to do our part in
development seems both a moral failing and an invitation to resentment.
Our contributions to refugees and development are critical to avoid
humanitarian crises from spiraling into conflicts that would draw in
the United States and promote violent extremism.
We believe the approximately 37 percent cut in U.N. peacekeeping
funding is misguided. Peacekeeping and political missions are mandated
by the Security Council where our veto power can ensure when, where,
how many, and what kind of peacekeepers are used in a mission that
support U.S. interests. Peacekeeping forces are deployed in fragile,
sometimes prolonged, circumstances, where the U.S. would not want to
use U.S. forces. U.N. organized troops cost the U.S. taxpayer only
about one-eighth the cost of sending U.S. troops. Budget cuts of the
amounts contemplated endanger basic U.S. security interests.
Our contributions to refugees and development are critical to avoid
humanitarian crises from spiraling into conflicts that would draw in
the United States and promote violent extremism. Eliminating the
Presidentially-directed, Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
(ERMA) account and cutting the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)
are contradictory to the basic humanitarianism manifested by the Statue
of Liberty.
The proposed cuts to public diplomacy and educational exchanges
seem to us similarly misguided. This is a time when our longstanding
commitments to the institutions on which the world has relied for
security and prosperity for more than 70 years are called into doubt.
Surely part of prudent policy will be to explain our intentions and our
policies to others.
Educational exchange is one of those long term policies whose
evident merit has received broad bipartisan support over many years.
Hundreds of thousands of foreign students have studied in the United
States and gained an understanding of Americans and American culture.
This is far more effective in countering radical propaganda than social
media. The American Immigration Law Foundation estimates that 46
current and 165 former heads of government are U.S. graduates. Yet
according to USGLC the 2018 proposal of $285 million for Educational
and Cultural Exchanges (ECE) is a 55 percent reduction from 2017. These
cuts will affect almost every program. For example, the Fulbright
program will be cut 47 percent from 2017 levels. The citizen exchange
program would be cut by 58 percent. The resulting loss of international
comprehension of the United States would be a self-inflicted wound.
Chairman Graham, Senator Leahy, it is neither the purpose nor the
intention of the Academy to take positions on every aspect of the
budget. In fact, we would normally not take policy positions at all.
That we do so now is only because the drastic cuts of the proposed
budget, of which the foregoing are merely some examples, required
response.
Cuts of the magnitude proposed would be a disaster for America's
long term security that rest extensively on the strength of our
diplomacy. Where reductions must be made they should be attentive to
maintaining the long term strength of our diplomatic institutions,
especially the Foreign Service. Cut programs before people should be a
watchword because programs can more easily be rebuilt than can damage
to the preparation of staff.
Principles and Recommendations for Reorganization
The Academy does not oppose sensible streamlining and elimination
of positions in order to promote efficiency. The State Department has
gone through many reorganizations over the years and a top to bottom
look makes some sense. There are cuts and streamlining that we
recommend as well as principles to keep in mind. To turn to specifics:
Diplomacy is accomplished primarily overseas. Basically, the
overseas presence should be maintained both for its daily mission and
to position the United States to respond to crises. To take just a few
examples, when the Islamic State suddenly appeared in Mali it was our
Embassy that was able to recommend action based on knowing the
difference between terrorists and local political actors that needed
support. When Ebola in West Africa threatened a worldwide pandemic it
was our Foreign Service who remained in place to establish the bases
for and support the multi-agency health efforts deployed to stop the
disease. It is to our embassies that American citizens turn for
security and evacuation abroad. Our embassies commercial work supports
hundreds of U.S. companies and citizens in selling abroad. This
supports thousands of American jobs. Every dollar spent on this work
returns hundreds in sales. Neither America's security nor its economic
prospects can be advanced by drastic reductions to our overseas
presence and the savings from doing so are inconsequential in terms of
the Federal budget.
Effective diplomacy must maintain a strong Foreign Service. The
Congress recognized this in passing the Foreign Service Act of 1980
(the Act). One essential of a strong Foreign Service is that the annual
intake of Foreign Service personnel should not be terminated nor
drastically reduced. Unlike the Civil Service, the Foreign Service has
a flow-through up-and-out system, aligned with military practice.
Interruptions in regular Foreign Service recruitment lead to serious
personnel gaps years later. The last such break in recruitment in the
1990's is one of the reasons that the Service had too limited a
``bench'' of highly qualified senior officers in recent years; gaps,
not wars, were largely responsible for the increased hiring necessary
in the last decade. As we speak State has still not made a decision to
bring in the July entry class of Foreign Service Officers. This is a
serious mistake that will injure the Service for many years. It should
be corrected.
It is doubly serious because the Foreign Service, as up-or-out
service will lose about 300-400 FSOs and Specialists each year by
selection out for low ranking, expiration of time in class, failure to
pass over a promotion threshold or reaching the mandatory retirement
age of 65.
That said, the Department of State could be more efficiently run
and not every cut is a bad idea. There are now 54 special envoys,
coordinators, and ambassadors and 68 if one includes the various
categories of special and senior advisor. Weed-like, these offices have
proliferated. While some of the issues thus managed are important,
creating separate offices consumes hundreds of staff positions and
frequently duplicates rather than reinforces attention. Many of the
functions performed by these offices should be placed in the regular
bureaus. These positions and most of their staffs should be eliminated
except where the relevant assistant secretary believes one is needed to
conduct business for the Department. The Congress could be helpful by
taking a flexible approach to the need for these offices and whether
their tasks can be better managed elsewhere.
The Academy supports the removal of the second Deputy Secretary
position. We believe it is not needed and has led to overlap and
confusion with the other deputy. If the much larger Defense Department
can manage with one deputy, so can State.
The number of Under Secretaries has swelled in recent years.
Reductions to three or four should be considered. To manage with a
smaller number of undersecretaries, consideration should be given to
combining bureaus (and therefore reducing the numbers to be
supervised), particularly in the functional area, so that the
responsibility increases while the structure is reduced.
The number of Deputy Assistant Secretary positions also has grown
considerably. These positions can be reduced and more responsibility
pushed to office directors and their staffs.
In our view the key positions of Political and Management Under
Secretaries, the Director General and the Dean of the Foreign Service
Institute should be career Foreign Service Officers. The Director
General, a position established by the Act, should be appointed from
those that have the senior experience and personal gravitas to look out
for the long-term future of the staff needed for an effective
diplomacy.
Every administration since Truman's has faced unanticipated
interventions overseas. Because the Foreign Service is fully deployed
at all times each intervention has found State lacking in its ability
to support our interests and our military colleagues with adequate
numbers in the field. It is irresponsible to assume this pattern will
not repeat. State needs such a surge capacity. Whether this is done
through the Stabilization and Crisis Bureau (SCO), reserves, or some
other mechanism, the problem needs to be addressed.
The Civil Service needs greater career mobility. In our 2015 report
American Diplomacy at Risk we proposed one idea for an excepted service
within the Civil Service that would allow rotation, including overseas,
in return for accepting some of the requirements of rank in person,
competitive evaluation, and selection out.
These and other recommendations of the Academy demonstrate that we
support sensible reorganization. We do not support changes driven
solely to accomplish budget objectives which are seriously misguided.
As the Department's reorganization plans come into clearer focus, we
would welcome the opportunity to continue providing our views to the
Congress.

[This statement was submitted by Ronald E. Neumann, Ambassador
(retired), President.]
______

Prepared Statement of the American Foreign Service Association
Today, 9 in 10 Americans support strong U.S. global leadership.
Such leadership is unthinkable without a strong professional Foreign
Service deployed around the world protecting and defending America's
people, interests, and values. American leadership is being challenged
by adversaries who want to see us fail; we cannot let that happen. We
need to reassure our allies, contain our enemies, and assert U.S.
leadership around the globe. If the United States retreats, we leave a
vacuum that will be filled by others who do not share our values or
interests. Walking that back--reclaiming American global leadership--
would be a daunting and uncertain task, in short, a grave risk we
should not take.
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) members are over 16,600
professionals, active and retired, from the Department of State, USAID,
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Broadcasting Board of Governors. Our members spend approximately two-
thirds of their careers deployed overseas, usually in difficult and
often in dangerous places. We maintain an enduring presence at 270
embassies and consulates around the world, so Americans seeking to
navigate unfamiliar terrain--whether to study, adopt a child, or expand
an export market--have a home base to turn to, an Embassy staffed by
fellow Americans who speak the local language fluently and know how to
get things done.
AFSA is extremely grateful for the expressions of support from
members of Congress and from the public. The value of the Foreign
Service is clearer to Americans than ever. But AFSA members, who care
deeply about American global leadership, are worried. If the budget
reductions proposed by the administration are approved by Congress, we
could seriously degrade the capacity of the Foreign Service to help
sustain American leadership. As Senator Lindsey Graham, the head of the
State and Foreign Operations Sub-Committee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee (SACFO) has noted, ``A 29 percent cut means you really have
to withdraw from the world because your presence is compromised. That
may be the goal of this budget. It's not my goal. This guts soft power
as we know it.''
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have described
the Foreign Service as being among the ``most skilled, loyal, and
motivated workforces of any organization on the planet.'' We are
encouraged by these words and believe we are exactly the right national
security instrument for the moment: a corps designed to be regularly
redeployed around the world in pursuit of the President's foreign
policy priorities. Consequently, we have to ensure that our budget
priorities do not cut short our critical capabilities. If we damage
core diplomatic capability by cutting off the flow of new officers, we
risk walking off the field and forfeiting the game to our adversaries.
Diplomacy is also the most cost-effective tool in the national
security toolkit. The cost of helping to ensure a Europe whole and
free, stopping ethnic conflict in the Balkans, or making peace between
the Government of Colombia and FARC rebels pales in comparison to the
cost of sustaining a war. As the SACFO ranking member Senator Leahy
said, ``National security is not solely the mission of the Department
of Defense. The President says he prefers ``hard'' power to ``soft''
power, but the notion that ``soft'' power is weak or wasteful is
mindless. Failing to invest in America, and cutting programs that feed
millions, prevent AIDS or treat tuberculosis and malaria, will make the
world less stable, and make your job more difficult. Secretary Mattis .
. . has said if we do not fully fund the State Department, we should be
prepared to buy more ammunition for the military. That is not a trade I
am willing to accept.''
The very existence of skilled diplomats and development
professionals in our national security arsenal allows us to reject that
trade-off. For example, fighting ISIS is a top priority of this
Administration, and the Foreign Service has the skill and field
experience to help with the fight. As former Appropriations Chairman
Rogers said to Secretary Tillerson, ``We need an aggressive plan to
fight ISIS and any other enemy that wishes us harm. Secretary Tillerson
and I agree that this requires a comprehensive approach, including not
just military engagement, but also the full and responsible use of all
diplomatic tools at our disposal. While the full budget picture has yet
to emerge, we intend to work closely together over the next cycle to
ensure that the necessary resources are available to fulfill these
goals.''
The Foreign Service has regional and language knowledge, top-notch
reporting skills, and sophisticated public diplomacy capabilities. We
know how to get things done overseas--how to coax a partner overseas to
``yes'' with the lightest touch and the maximum residual goodwill. Our
annual performance ratings, by which we are rank-ordered against our
peers, are judged according to how well we met mission goals. Because
these rankings have real consequences--determining whether we are
promoted and can continue to serve, or low-ranked and forced out--they
serve as a powerful way to ensure we are responsive to the priorities
of successive administrations.
While we know the administration is focused on some core
priorities, such as fighting ISIS, protecting our border, countering
international criminal activity, and preventing the spread of
epidemics, but we still have no sense of overall foreign policy
direction. As Secretary Tillerson put it in an April town hall meeting
at State, ``if we don't know where we're going, all roads will take you
there. `` We agree and would encourage Congress to ask the
administration to provide the kind of strategic clarity that enables
the Foreign Service to do our best delivering for America, using all
our skills to the fullest and not letting them atrophy. We know from
experience that understanding the administration's game plan allows
diplomats to create the most effective means to get us where we want to
go.
The Foreign Service is modeled on the military, in particular on
the Navy. Our rigorous entry requirements and the up-or-out system
ensure high performance and accountability and keep us lean. The out in
up-or-out is real, and many if not most members of the Foreign Service
are required to leave the Service long before they are ready. This
amounts to a built-in annual reduction in force, something we accept as
part and parcel of maintaining a high-performing, accountable
workforce. But this self-renewing system depends on a steady stream of
new recruits to function. If we don't hire entry-level officers this
year, we won't have FS-1s (colonel equivalents) in 20 years. Flow-
through is critical now--and for the future.
The next year or two will be a period of clear prioritization in
the Department of State. We certainly see the case for streamlining,
which could increase diplomatic effectiveness, but it has to be done
carefully and with an eye to preserving core capability. We would like
to see our professional talent unleashed by getting rid of overly-
complex bureaucratic procedures that keep our Foreign Service checking
boxes instead of doing their jobs. Making these processes truly client-
centered would literally change lives.
We would like to partner with Congressional supporters to ensure
that today, and 15 or 20 years from now, U.S. diplomats are still on
the field, deployed around the world, protecting and promoting U.S.
interests, and working at the top of their game. We should not, in a
dangerous world, abandon the field to our adversaries.
The United States has enjoyed a position of unprecedented global
leadership in our lifetimes. This leadership was built on a foundation
of military might, economic primacy, good governance, tremendous
cultural appeal--and diplomatic prowess to channel all that power, hard
and soft, into global leadership that has kept us safe and prosperous
at home. This did not happen by chance. It was not destiny. It was
effective diplomacy.
As Secretary Tillerson said in his confirmation hearing, ``America
has been indispensable in providing the stability to prevent another
world war, increase global prosperity and encourage the expansion of
liberty.'' To continue to lead the world, America needs diplomacy, and
for effective diplomacy, we need an adequately resourced professional
Foreign Service.

Thank you.

[This statement was submitted by Barbara J. Stephenson, President.]

______

Business Leaders deg.
Prepared Statement of 225 Business Leaders in Support of the U.S.
International Affairs Budget
May 22, 2017.
Secretary Rex Tillerson,
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Tillerson,

As business leaders, we are writing to voice our strong belief in
the return on investment from the U.S. International Affairs Budget in
advancing America's economic interests overseas and supporting jobs at
home.
With 95 percent of the world's consumers outside the United States
and many of the fastest growing economies in the developing world, now
is the time to double down on America's global economic leadership.
America's diplomats and development experts help build and open new
markets for U.S. exports by doing what only government can do: fight
corruption, strengthen the rule of law, and promote host country
leadership to create the enabling environment for private investment.
Our country's investments have generated impressive results: 11 of
America's top 15 export markets are in countries that have been
recipients of U.S. foreign assistance.
Strategic investments in diplomacy and development make America
safer and more prosperous. American companies depend on robust U.S.
engagement overseas, especially in the fast growing markets in the
developing world. Our embassies and consulates around the world are
essential partners for American businesses to ensure we can compete on
a level playing field. Trade promotion programs have helped drive
American exports, which today make up almost 13 percent of America's
$18 trillion economy and support about one in five American jobs.
The State Department and USAID are increasingly partnering with
American businesses to catalyze and leverage private sector expertise
and resources to create sustainable solutions at scale on a range of
challenges such as energy, health, and agriculture. And today, host
countries themselves are driving policy changes to compete for American
investments. Moreover, America's global economic leadership also
embodies our country's values--promoting economic freedom, prosperity,
and entrepreneurship that can mitigate the drivers of violent extremism
in the world today. In today's global economy, we have a significant
opportunity to strengthen the State Department, USAID, and our
development agencies and the capacity to partner with the private
sector to address global challenges and to expand opportunity.
We are committed to working with you in your role as Secretary of
State to share our perspectives on the importance of U.S. international
affairs programs to boost our exports abroad and our jobs here at home,
and we urge your support for a strong International Affairs Budget for
fiscal year 2018.

Respectfully,

Chris Policinski
President and CEO
Land O'Lakes

Andrew Tisch
Co-Chairman
Loews Corporation

David MacLennan
Chairman and CEO
Cargill

Sarah Thorn
Senior Director, Global Government Affairs
Walmart

Caroline Roan
Vice President, Corporate Responsibility
Pfizer, Inc.
President
Pfizer Foundation

Kate Rumbaugh
Vice President, Government Relations
The Coca-Cola Company

John Murphy
Senior Vice President for International Policy
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Jim Collins
Executive Vice President
DuPont

Brad Figel
Vice President Public Affairs North America
Mars, Inc.

Connie Justice
President
Planson International

Paul Neureiter
Executive Director for International Government Affairs
AMGEN

Kathryn Reilly
Global Director Public Affairs
Aon

Tara Hogan Charles
Associate Director, Global Government Relations
Procter & Gamble

H. C. Shin
Executive Vice President, International Operations
3M

Michael Boyle
CEO
Boyle Energy Services & Technology

Bill Lane
Chair Emeritus
U.S. Global Leadership Coalition

Jeff Rowe
President of Global Seeds and North America
Syngenta

Philip de Leon
Director, Public Affairs & International Business
AGCO Corporation

Hugh Welsh
President
DSM Nutrition

Peter Tichansky
President
Business Council for International Understanding

Doug Galen
CEO
RippleWorks

David Wilhelm
Partner & Chief Strategy Officer
Hecate Energy

Pamela Venzke
Global Government Affairs & Policy
General Electric

Florizelle Liser
President & CEO
Corporate Council on Africa

Kathryn D. Karol
Vice President, Global Government & Corporate Affairs
Caterpillar Inc.

Dan Gaynor
Global Communications
Nike

Kevin Kolevar
Vice President, Global Government Affairs
The Dow Chemical Company

Laura Lane
President, Global Public Affairs
UPS

Melissa Froehlich-Flood
Vice President, Government Affairs
Marriott

Gary M. Cohen
Executive Vice President and President
Global Health and Development BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company)

Lisa Malloy
Senior Director, Global Policy Group
Intel Corporation

Kris Charles
Senior Vice President, Global Corporate Affairs
Kellogg

Ambassador Richard Holwill
Vice President, Public Policy
Amway

Jeffrey N. Simmons
President
Elanco Animal Health

Tom Halverson
CEO
CoBank

Ken Fletcher
CAO
Pike Enterprises

Peter M. Robinson
President & CEO
United States Council for International Business

Karl Jensen
Senior Vice President, National Governments
CH2M

Ward Brehm
Founder, Chairman
The Brehm Group

Chris Keuleman
Vice President, Global Government Relations
International Paper

Frederick S. Humphies, Jr.
Corporate Vice President, U.S. Government Affairs
Microsoft Corporation

Dave Adkisson
President & CEO
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

Joseph Albert
Owner
Eli H. Albert Agency

Diane Alleva Caceres
Principal
Market Access International, Inc.

Luis Arguello
President & CEO
DemeTECH

Jeremy Arthur
President & CEO
Chamber of Commerce Association of Alabama

Connie Bacon
Commissioner
Port of Tacoma

Doug Badger
Executive Director
Pacific Northwest International Trade Association

Travis Barnes
President & Founder
Hotel Tango Artisan Distillery

Gene Barr
President & CEO
Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry

Kurt R. Bauer
President & CEO
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

Lane Beattie
President & CEO
Salt Lake Chamber

Jon Bennett
Vice-President of Business Development
Catalyze Dallas

Thomas Bentley
Owner & Chairman of the Board
Bentley World Packaging

John Bernloehr
President
Consolidated Metal Products, Inc.

Carl Blackstone
President & CEO
Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce

Silvia Bonilla
Director, Small Business Development Center
Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Antonio Boyd
President
Think Tank Consulting Group, LLC

Tony Braida
Vice President
Bankers Trust Global Banking

Becky Brooks
President & Executive Director
Ruidoso Valley Chamber of Commerce

Kelly Brough
President & CEO
Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce

Cindy Brown
President
Chippewa Valley Bean

John Bruntz
President & CEO
The Boulder Company

Anne Burkett
Executive Director
North Alabama International Trade Association

Bob Burleson
President
Florida Transportation Builders Association

Jay Byers
President & CEO
Greater Des Moines Partnership

Steve Cain
President
Triangle North Carolina British American Business Council

William Canary
President & CEO
Business Council of Alabama

Ben Cannatti
Executive Director
Main Street Jobs Coalition

John Casper
President & CEO
Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce

Kip Cheroutes
President
Japan-U.S. Network, Inc.

Lalit Chordia
President & Founder
Thar Tech

Gil Cisneros
Chairman & CEO
Chamber of the Americas

Jay Clemens
President & CEO
Associated Oregon Industries

Jonathan Coffin
Vice President
VOX Global

Harvey Cohen
President
KZB, Inc.

Todd Connor
CEO
Bunker Labs

Caralynn Nowinski Collens
CEO
UI LABS

Alfonso Cornejo
President
Hispanic Chamber Cincinnati USA

Bill Cronin
President & CEO
Pasco Economic Development Council, Inc.

Joe Crookham
President
Musco Lighting

Maryann Crush
Manager
South Boston Transit Systems, LLC

Dan Culhane
President & CEO
Ames Chamber of Commerce

Yuri Cunza
President & CEO
Nashville Area Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Eric Dallimore
Owner
Leon Gallery

Sarah Davasher-Wisdom
COO
Greater Louisville, Inc.

Daniel Davis
President & CEO
Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce

Richard Dayoub
President & CEO
Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce

Ryan Deckert
President
Oregon Business Association

Connor Deering
President
Cemen Tech, Inc.

Dustin DeVries
Co-Founder, Technology Consultant
Caffeine Interactive Technologies

Brian Dicken
Vice President of Advocacy & Public Policy
Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce

Billie Dragoo
Founder & CEO
RepuCare

Steve Dust
President & CEO
Greater Cedar Valley Alliance and Chamber

Barry DuVal
CEO
Virginia Chamber of Commerce

Lauri Elliott
Chairman & Executive Director
Afribiz Group, Inc.

Jason Espinoza
President
New Mexico Association of Commerce and Industry

Joe E. Evans
Owner
Evtex Companies

Keith Evans
President
Key Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Teresa Faidley
Senior Vice President
Schaumburg Bank & Trust Company N.A.

Terry Fankhauser
Executive Vice President
Colorado Cattlemen's Association

Ronald J. Finlayson
CEO
E-Systems Corporation

Beverly Flaten
Vice President of International & Domestic Marketing
JM Grain

Henry Florsheim
President & CEO
Wichita Falls Chamber of Commerce

Michael Ford
Chairman
Mid-Atlantic District Export Council

Nathan Frampton
President
Fanimation

Stephanie Freeman
President & CEO
Dunwoody Perimeter Chamber

Jenny Fulton
Founder
Miss Jenny's Pickles

David Gessel
Executive Vice President
Utah Hospital Association

Matt Glazer
Executive Director
Austin Young Chamber of Commerce

Howard Glicken
Founder, Chairman & CEO
The Americas Group

Neel Gonuguntla
President
US India Chamber Of Commerce DFW

Dean Gorder
Executive Director
North Dakota Trade Office

Terry Grant
President, Utah Market
KeyBank

Trey Grayson
President & CEO
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

Keith Guller
CEO
Essex Industries

Dan Haley
President & CEO
Colorado Oil & Gas Association

David Hart
Executive Vice President
Florida Chamber of Commerce

Chris Henney
President
Ohio Agribusiness Association

Aaron Hermsen
Director of Business Development
China Iowa Group

Dave Hofferbert
President
Bond Technologies, Inc.

Gregory Hopkins
Partner & President
Solitude Wealth Management

Kevin Hougen
President & CEO
Aurora Chamber of Commerce

Galen Hull
President
Hull International

Thomas Hulseman
Managing Director
Metro Chicago Exports

Mark Ingrao
President & CEO
Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce

Bob Jameson
President & CEO
Fort Worth Convention & Visitors Bureau

Andrea Jett Fletcher
Executive Director
French-American Chamber of Commerce

John Kalaras
CEO
Quality Training Institute

Jeffrey B. Kendall
President
JBK Integrated Solutions, LLC

Robert Kill
President & CEO
Enterprise Minnesota

Joseph Kirk
Executive Director
Mon Valley Progress Council

Wally Kocemba
Chairman & CFO
Calhoun Companies

Katie Kruger
CEO
Denver Metro Commercial Association of REALTORS

Matt Krupp
Co-Owner
Desantis Krupp, LLC

Kitty Kurth
President
Kurth Lampe

Emily Lane
Vice President of Sales
Calendar Islands Maine Lobster

Craig Lang
President
The Prairie Strategy Group

Lloyd Le Page
President & CEO
Heartland Global, Inc.

Kirk Leeds
CEO
Iowa Soybean Association

Donna Lindquist
President
Soleil Global Communications

Lou Ann Lineham
President
Linehan Associates, LLC

Doug Loon
President
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Kevin Lutz
President
Armstrong Printery, Inc.

Kevon Makell
Founder & CEO
Seww Energy

Dr. Toby Malichi
Founder, Global Chief Executive, and Ambassador of Trade
Malichi Group Worldwide

Ron Marston
President & CEO
HCCA International

Frances Martinez
Founder & CEO
North Shore Latino Business Association, Inc.

Nick Mastronardi
Founder & CEO
POLCO

Jason Mathis
Executive Director
Downtown Alliance

Robert Mayes
CEO
Keel Point

Eddie McBride
President & CEO
Lubbock Chamber of Commerce

Sandi McDonough
President & CEO
Portland Business Alliance

Candace McGraw
CEO
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport

Larry McQueary
COO
Indy Fuel

Daniel McVety
President
Japan China Carolina

J. Patrick Michaels
Founder, Chairman & CEO
CEA Group

David Milton
Chief Supply Chain Officer
Payless ShoeSource

Mortada Mohamed
Executive Director
Texas International Business Council

Aneezal Mohamed
General Counsel, Compliance Officer & Secretary
Commercial Vehicle Group

Beau Morrow
Owner
Left Hand Design

Wilfred Muskens
President & CEO
Stevens & Lee

Ron Ness
President
North Dakota Petroleum Council

Saul Newton
Executive Director
Wisconsin Veterans Chamber of Commerce

Laura Ortega
Executive Director, International Business Council
Illinois Chamber of Commerce

Ersal Ozdemir
President & CEO
Keystone Corporation

Jerry Pacheco
President
Border Industrial Association

Jim Page
President & CEO
Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama

Richard Paullin
Executive Director
The International Trade Association of Greater Chicago

Raymond Pilcher
President
Raven Ridge Resources

Heather Potters
Chief Business Development Officer
PharmaJet, Inc.

Ramiro Prudencio
President & CEO
Burson-Marsteller Latin America

Robert Quick
President & CEO
Commerce Lexington

Laurie Radke
President
Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce

Rona Rahlf
President & CEO
Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce

Brooks Raiford
President & CEO
North Carolina Technology Association (NCTA)

Michael Ralston
President
Iowa Association of Business and Industry

Bede Ramcharan
President & CEO
Indatatech

Olga Ramundo
President
Express Travel

Josh Rawitch
Senior Vice President, Communications
Arizona Diamondbacks

Joe Reagan
President & CEO
St. Louis Regional Chamber

Jeff Reigle
President & CEO
Regal Ware, Inc.

Gene Reineke
CEO
Hawthorne Strategy Group

John Reinhart
CEO & Executive Director
Port of Virginia

Colin Renk
Executive Director
America China Society of Indiana

Sandra Renner
CEO
FasTrack Global Expansion Solutions, Inc.

Jim Roche
President
Business & Industry Association of New Hampshire

Bob Rohrlack
President & CEO
Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce

Robert Rotondo
President
Rotondo Enterprises, Inc.

Jack Roy
Owner
Jax Enterprises

David Rudd
Partner
Ballard Spahr, LLP

Rebecca Ryan
Founder
Next Generation Consulting

Mel Sanderson
Vice President of International Affairs
Freeport McMoRan, Inc.

Lydia Sarson
Executive Director
German American Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia

Joe Savarise
Executive Director
Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association

Chris Saxman
Executive Director
Virginia FREE

David Schaffert
CEO
Olympia Thurston County Chamber of Commerce

Dean Schieve
President
Victus Motion and DMD Consulting

Michael Schmitt
Executive Director
America-Israel Chamber of Commerce Chicago

Bret Scholtes
President & CEO
Omega Protein Corporation

Ralph Schulz
President
Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce

Mike Shanley
Founder & CEO
Konektid International

Stephanie Simpson
Vice President
Texas Association of Manufacturers

Bill Sisson
President & CEO
Mobile Chamber of Commerce

Nathan Slonaker
President
Columbus International Affairs Opportunity

Jim Spadaccini
CEO & Creative Director
Ideum

Bruce Steinberg
President
Relyco

Michael Strange
President
Bassett Ice Cream

Carol Stymiest
President
Canadian Business Association of North Carolina

Greg Summerhays
President & CEO
Sandy Area Chamber of Commerce

David Taylor
President
Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association

Christian Thwaites
Chief Strategist
Brouwer & Janachowski

Jon Troen
President & CEO
Mittera Group

Brett Vassey
President & CEO
Virginia Manufacturers Association

Liane Ventura
Senior Vice President
Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce

Chad Vorthmann
Executive Vice President
Colorado Farm Bureau

Chris Wallace
President
Texas Association of Business

Jeff Wasden
President
Colorado Business Roundtable

Joyce Waugh
President & CEO
Roanoke Chamber of Commerce

Cherod Webber
President & CEO
Innovative Global Supply,LLC

Ed Webb
President & CEO
World Trade Center Kentucky

Deborah Wilkinson
President
Wilkinson Global Connections

Sheryl Wohlford
Owner
Automation-Plus

Richard Yang
President
Carolinas Chinese Chamber of Commerce

Steven Zylstra
President & CEO
Arizona Technology Council

______

Prepared Statement of CARE USA
CARE USA thanks Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the administration's fiscal year
2018 budget proposal. With more than 71 years of experience in
providing emergency humanitarian assistance and long-term development
assistance in over 94 countries around the world, CARE has serious
concerns that the administration budget proposal would inflict long
term damage on our national security and global development needs. This
budget will jeopardize millions of lives, and reverse decades of
efforts to bring sustainable development, opportunity, health and
dignity to people around the world. In short, this proposed budget
would inflict human and political costs that far outweigh any potential
budget savings.
In many countries around the world, the relief, hope and skills
brought by U.S. humanitarian and development programs are often the
only direct knowledge people have of the United States. These programs
create a more stable world by providing assistance, opportunity and
tangible improvement to people's lives. Stepping back from this
leadership role would not just impact the lives of millions, it would
mark the end of the American era--the point where the United States
decisively turned its back on those most vulnerable, allowing the
exploitation of human needs to go unchecked.
While the U.S. faces its own economic challenges, shifting less
than 1 percent of the Federal budget from these programs will not solve
America's deficit concerns. Instead, such cuts would take away from
core national security investments and preventative interventions in
order to seek political gain at the expense of the world's most
vulnerable people.
Therefore, CARE urges this Committee to use its constitutional
authority to protect the International Affairs account, oppose any
disproportionate cuts to international humanitarian and development
programs, fully exercise its oversight authorities, and preserve
critical expertise within the U.S. Government.
Our Current Challenges
Our global political system is currently facing the largest
humanitarian needs we have known in modern human history, with 65
million people living in displacement, and over 30 million facing
deadly famine conditions. Unfortunately, these numbers continue to grow
every day. Conflict, extreme weather, pandemics, and natural disasters
continue to impact millions.
Despite these growing challenges, and political suggestions to the
contrary, U.S. foreign assistance programs are working:
--In many areas where the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) is implementing agricultural development and food
security programming, extreme poverty has dropped between 7 and
36 percent, child stunting has dropped between 6 and 40
percent, and more than 10 million smallholder farmers are now
able to apply new technologies and management practices.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Investing in our Shared Future: How a Confident and Capable
USAID is Building on a Proud Legacy of U.S. Development Leadership
(USAID Exit Memo, Gayle Smith, January 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Partners currently supported by OPIC are sustaining livelihoods for
nearly 1 million smallholder farmers, allowing them to grow
themselves out of poverty and creating future markets for
trade.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Exit Memo: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Elizabeth
Littlefield, January 5, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In 10 years, U.S. malaria programing has saved 6 million lives,
many of them children.\3\ Over the last 8 years, 4.6 million
children have been saved from dying of preventable diseases
because of U.S. assistance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Investing in our Shared Future: How a Confident and Capable
USAID is Building on a Proud Legacy of U.S. Development Leadership
(USAID Exit Memo, Gayle Smith, January 2017).
\4\ 5000th Baby Born at UNFPA-Supported Clinic for Refugees in
Jordon, March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In fiscal year 2016, U.S. investments in family planning and
reproductive health provided 26 million women and couples with
the tools they need to time and plan their pregnancies,
prevented 8 million unintended pregnancies, and averted 3.3
million abortions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Just the Numbers: The Impact of U.S. International Family
Planning Assistance, 2016. Guttmacher Institute, May 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globally, recent estimates show that 10.7 percent of the world's
population lives on less than U.S. $1.90 a day, down from 12.4 percent
in 2012 and 35 percent in 1990.\6\ This progress shows that the fight
against global poverty is winnable if there is sufficient political
will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ World Bank, updated October 2016. http://www.worldbank.org/en/
topic/poverty/overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many, including some within the current administration,
continue to promote a disingenuous narrative that U.S. foreign aid is
inefficient, ineffective, and of inferior quality, the evidence points
towards U.S. development programs as a leading standard in the
international community. In particular, USAID has led the way towards
more nimble, efficient, transparent, and effective systems of
addressing global poverty and its challenges. Recent changes within
USAID have resulted in huge gains towards evidence-based approaches
that seek to distill best practices and achieve sustainable,
independent development.\7\ In addition, a recent 2017 GAO study found
that USAID and the MCC's evaluations far exceeded the quality of those
conducted by other foreign assistance agencies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, 1,425 evaluations completed by USAID since 2011,
and of those completed between 2011 and 2014, 71 percent were used to
support and/or modify a project or activity. Investing in our Shared
Future: How a Confident and Capable USAID is Building on a Proud Legacy
of U.S. Development Leadership (USAID Exit Memo, Gayle Smith, January
2017).
\8\ Agencies Can Improve the Quality and Dissemination of Program
Evaluations, GAO-17-316: Published: Mar 3, 2017. Publicly Released: Mar
3, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all, the role of U.S. assistance is to help communities
become self-reliant and self-sustaining, create the conditions where
assistance is no longer needed. CARE has long supported this philosophy
and we have worked ourselves out of a job in some locations by building
the capacity of local organizations and governments to continue
programs and address their own needs.
Make no mistake, the challenges the world faces today are immense,
and the level of human need in the world is reaching record
proportions. Now is the time for the U.S. to lead in the fight against
poverty and conflict, not rescind its role or retreat into complacency.
A Proposal for a Darker Future
Despite the dire realities that face millions around the world,
threatening global stability and our own national security, the
administration's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal calls for an end of
U.S. leadership abroad through the dismantling of life-saving
international development and humanitarian programs. The proposed
budget does not support a sustainable future and ignores known
threats--brewing conflicts, potential crises, and possible disasters or
pandemics. Instead, the administration's proposal actually adds fuel to
current global fires, leaving us with a darker future. CARE, along with
a number of other implementing and advocacy organizations, have
estimated the impacts of these proposed cuts by account. The aggregate
human cost of these proposed cuts is staggering.
If accepted, the administration's proposed cuts to this critical 1
percent of the budget would be historic, making us less safe, not more.
This budget marks a dramatic departure in budgeting processes which
unifies spending on defense and development. Since 1977, increased
funding to the Department of Defense has generally been complemented by
increased support for the International Affairs account (figure 1).\9\
Past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, have understood
that development and diplomacy are critical parts of our national
security strategy. This budget proposal counters our national security
goals by threatening our country's ability to safeguard against the
desperation and instability often caused by extreme poverty and
suffering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Data obtained through the Office of Management and Budget's
historic tables.

Figure 1: Defense and International Affairs (150 Account) Spending (%
of GDP)

(in 2016 dollars)

The administration's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal includes
ending effective development programs in numerous countries,
eliminating the Development Assistance (DA) account, and significantly
reducing life-saving humanitarian assistance--including ending the
leading U.S. international food aid program, Title II Food for Peace,
which helps protect and grow food security around the world. The
administration specifically proposes a 43 percent cut to International
Disaster Assistance (IDA), which saves lives by providing emergency
food, water and sanitation in South Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria, and Somalia,
where famine is growing, and to displaced persons and refugees
everywhere. In addition, the administration demands that the IDA
account become the sole provider of emergency food assistance, without
providing any additional funding to offset those impacted by the
elimination of Title II Food for Peace programing or lessen the impacts
of remaining IDA funds having to also meet non-food needs.
Ending the Development Assistance account, and merging such
activities with reduced funding from the Economic Support Fund (ESF),
will result in a dangerous reprioritization away from long-term
development in favor of short-term political gains. The
administration's budget proposal seeks to uproot current strategies
that are in mid-progress and stop proven programs that have improved
economic conditions around the world. For example, across the 19
current Feed the Future focus counties, the administration's budget
proposal would eliminate all agricultural development activities in 8
countries, and would drastically reduce funding for an additional 9
countries.\10\ Abandoning the successful work done in these countries
would dismantle progress, disregard existing U.S. Government
strategies, and jeopardize programs authorized under the recently
passed Global Food Security Act (Public Law 114-195).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Feed the Future countries slated for elimination of
agricultural development assistance include: Liberia, Malawi,
Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Zambia, Cambodia, and Tajikistan. Feed the
Future countries slated for significant cuts include: Ethiopia (-24
percent), Ghana (60 percent), Kenya (-39 percent), Mali (-9 percent),
Tanzania (-82 percent), Uganda (-72 percent), Bangladesh (-34 percent),
Nepal (-37 percent), and Guatemala (-29 percent). As presented in the
proposed fiscal year 2018 budget tables for Operating Unit, Account,
Objective, and Program Area. Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Budget
Justification--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the proposed cuts to global health programing would
have a severe impact on women around the world--setting back their
access to healthcare, their ability to feed their families, confront
and shift the social norms that contribute to gender-based violence,
and access opportunities and economic engagement.
Implications for Women and Girls
CARE puts women and girls at the heart of development and
humanitarian efforts because our decades-long experience in the field
has demonstrated that this investment brings about meaningful,
sustainable impact. Similarly, U.S. investments in supporting women and
girls bring high returns for economic growth, well-being, and
democratic governance, which maximize the benefits gained from the
investment of United States' taxpayer dollars. If women were able to
participate in the economy equally, it would yield a 26 percent
increase in global GDP, or $28 trillion in 2025.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ McKinsey & Company. The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women's
Equality can add $12 Trillion to Global Growth: Executive Summary.
September 2015. Page ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the world's women have the role of ensuring that families
are fed, often through farming and/or food purchase supported by
livelihood activities. By supporting women entrepreneurs, small
business owners, and farmers to become more self-reliant, we create a
cascading effect beyond the women themselves, helping them lift their
families and their communities out of poverty. U.S. assistance opens up
opportunities for women and girls to access the education, skills, and
economic empowerment they need to be catalysts for broader economic
growth in their countries. Healthier economies abroad means stronger
economic trade partners for Americans, benefiting us all.
Women and girls also comprise the majority of those displaced by
conflict and natural disasters and, in this context, they are highly
vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and poor health including
malnourishment and reproductive health issues such as maternal death.
U.S. Government assistance supports women and girls in emergencies,
saves lives and, by being gender smart, can ensure efficient use of
much-needed humanitarian aid. In order to be productive members of
their communities and economies, however, women must be healthy and
safe from violence.
U.S. assistance in preventing violence against women--which affects
an estimated 35 percent of women worldwide--has a life-changing impact
on the women and girls it serves.\12\ The foreign aid the U.S. invests
in these efforts, supplemented by diplomatic engagement through our
embassies and missions abroad, ensures that creating safer, healthier
communities is a shared priority for the U.S. and partner countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ World Health Organization. Global and regional estimates of
violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate
partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. 2013. Geneva,
Switzerland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's budget proposal cuts funding for programs with
a gender component by 55 percent when comparing fiscal year 2016 to the
proposed levels for fiscal year 2018. While these funds at times
overlap with other sector funds, making it more challenging to assess
the impact, it is possible to extrapolate that potentially millions of
girls would not go to school, more girls would be put at risk for child
marriage, and--because women and girls are often the last to eat--more
girls would go hungry, placing them at increased risk for stunting,
health threats, and decreased productivity.
The administration proposes to eliminate all funding for bilateral
international family planning and reproductive health programs. Coupled
with the recent decision by the administration to halt all funding for
the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), such cuts would have
significant impacts on maternal and child health. Access to voluntary
family planning services represents the single most effective
intervention in preventing maternal and child deaths, and by
eliminating these programs, the proposed budget is endangering the
lives and health of millions of women, infants, couples, and families
around the world. There are currently 230 million women around the
world who would like to plan their pregnancies but are unable to do so.
By meeting this unmet need for contraceptive services, maternal deaths
would be reduced by over 30 percent and we could avert 1.4 million
under-5 deaths every year.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Adding it Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in
Reproductive Health, 2014, Guttmacher Institute, December 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of the decision to halt funding to UNFPA are already
being felt. In 2016, UNFPA received $69 million in funding from the
U.S. Government, which supported their work in humanitarian crises,
including the Syrian refugee response at the Zataari camp in Jordan.
Through the work of UNFPA, more than 7,000 babies have been delivered
in this camp without a single maternal death. The loss of this funding
is a matter of life or death for families in the camp, with services
for nearly 50,000 people at risk due to this funding decision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 5000th Baby Born at UNFPA-Supported Clinic for Refugees in
Jordon, March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By eliminating funding for international family planning and
reproductive health programs and stopping all funding the UNFPA, the
administration's budget would result in 15,000 maternal deaths and 8
million more unintended pregnancies.\15\ The decision to re-impose and
expand the so-called ``Mexico City Policy'' only magnifies these
potential impacts by placing further onerous and unnecessary
restrictions on countless local NGOs working to meet the health needs
of women, girls, and families. This decision further imperils work to
end preventable maternal and child death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Just the Numbers: The Impact of U.S. International Family
Planning Assistance, 2017. Guttmacher Institute, May 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARE's global work shows that when U.S. policy restricts access to
global health services, vulnerable women and children suffer the most.
We have the ability to drastically change that reality, and it is in
the United States' best interest to do so.
A Retreat from Emergencies
A record 128.6 million people are in need of life-saving
humanitarian assistance across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and even
parts of Europe. There are countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo where the prolonged humanitarian
response has stretched on for decades, while new conflicts continue to
proliferate, such as those in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and Nigeria.
Current famine conditions across Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and
Yemen mean that up to 1.4 million children are at immediate risk of
death without continued engagement by the international community. Yet,
the appeals for assistance to citizens in these countries remains
grossly underfunded, on average only funded at 35 percent of the annual
appeal.\16\ Each day without a humanitarian response at scale increases
the likelihood of widespread starvation, destabilization, and mass
displacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ OCHA. Financial Tracking Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Yemen, an outbreak of cholera has infected more than 100,000
people. Due to the ongoing conflict, the health system and civil
infrastructure, including water and sanitation facilities, have been
seriously compromised with 14.5 million people lacking access to safe
drinking water or sanitation, and 14.8 million lacking adequate
healthcare.\17\ Uganda receives an average of 2,000 refugees each day,
with a total of nearly one million refugees from South Sudan alone
since 2014.\18\ In Nigeria, only 28 percent of the funding needs have
been met to date, forcing humanitarian groups to scale back emergency
plans--cutting food to 400,000 people in areas affected by Boko
Haram.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ UNICEF. 27 Million People Lack Safe Water in Countries Facing
or at Fisk of Famine. New York, United States. 2017.
\18\ UNHCR. 2017 South Sudan Regional Revised Refugee Response
Plan. Geneva, Switzerland. May 2017.
\19\ Cropley, Ed. ``Fund Shortage Forces UN to Cut Emergency Food
Aid for 400,000 in Nigeria''. Reuters. June 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fiscal year 2017 omnibus bill, Congress answered the call of
this unprecedented need by providing generous funding for humanitarian
assistance, continuing the United States' traditional role as a global
leader and exemplifying American values, such as compassion and service
to those in need. CARE is grateful for Congressional leadership while
the world faces these unprecedented humanitarian needs.
Despite the current levels of need, the administration's proposed
budget looks to cut overall humanitarian assistance by 45 percent at a
time when needs are burgeoning.\20\ The International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) account, which funds USAID's Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA), provides lifesaving assistance to tens of
millions of desperate people a year whose lives have been torn apart by
conflicts and natural disasters. The administration's fiscal year 2018
budget proposes a 40 percent cut to OFDA's non-food humanitarian
responses, which include medicine, clean water and sanitation, and
shelter, etc.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Calculated in comparison to total fiscal year 2017 funding.
For the purposes of this calculation, overall humanitarian assistance
is comprised of the following accounts: International Disaster
Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance, Emergency Migration and
Refugee Assistance, and Title II Food for Peace.
\21\ In comparison to fiscal year 2016 funding levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If enacted, USAID would not have the resources to provide
assistance to tens of millions of vulnerable men, women and children in
urgent need.\22\ In addition, the administration's proposal to
eliminate Title II Food for Peace and only provide $1.5 billion for the
Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) within the International
Disaster Assistance Account would result in an estimated 22.6 million
people in crises losing access to lifesaving food assistance.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In fiscal year 2016, the IDA appropriation was $2.8 billion,
of which approximately 40 percent ($1.12 billion) was provided through
Food for Peace for emergency food and 60 percent ($1.68 billion) was
provided for non-food assistance such as emergency kits, tents,
medicine, etc. through OFDA. The fiscal year 2018 request for non-food
items is $1 billion, a $680 million (40 percent) reduction from the
fiscal year 2016 level.
\23\ See addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Alternative Path: Ensuring U.S. Leadership and Saving Lives
The U.S. currently leads globally by saving lives and by putting
people on a path toward self-reliance around the world. This is a role
that cannot be taken for granted. Recent gains in and efforts to
continue to improve the effectiveness, accountability and transparency
of U.S. foreign assistance means that the power to address poverty is
within our grasp and that assistance can get to those that need it
most.
Critical to this continued leadership is the continued funding and
support for the expertise of the U.S. Government and, particularly,
USAID. USAID plays a valuable and indispensable role in our own
national security, and their specific skills are critical in delivering
effective development and humanitarian programs that save lives. The
breadth of the State Department's reach in fostering strong
relationships and goodwill with partners worldwide through diplomacy
and engagement is well-known. This work is complemented by the
comprehensive work of the USAID. The Agency's technical expertise in
development and program design, as well as its reach into the most
remote corners of our globe, make its impact and capabilities for
poverty eradication unparalleled by other U.S. agencies.
The partnerships USAID attracts, through bilateral engagement with
the private sector, foreign governments, and local organizations and
implementers, allows the U.S. to respond both comprehensively and
insightfully to the challenges of poverty-reduction. The
administration's budget would decimate this critical hub of expertise
and jeopardize the gains the U.S. Government has made in discovering
and achieving best practices for development. CARE fully supports
efforts to make U.S. foreign assistance more effective and efficient.
However, such efforts must be driven by policy and best practices, and
not by budget cuts.
U.S. foreign assistance truly serves as a beacon of hope in
people's darkest time by providing life-saving relief. By addressing
underlying factors and building the capacity of communities, foreign
assistance provides those most vulnerable with options that poverty
prevents. In times like these, the United States does not retreat--the
United States leads. CARE calls on the members of this Committee to
preserve American leadership in global development and humanitarian
assistance and consider the impacts of human costs that the
administration's proposed budget would bring to communities around the
world.
______

Prepared Statement of Catholic Relief Services
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, in the spirit and words of
Pope Francis, CRS lifts our voice on behalf of ``the poorest peoples of
the earth'' with the request that you robustly fund international
poverty-reducing humanitarian and development assistance in fiscal year
2018 as enumerated below. We thank you sincerely for protecting these
accounts in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus. We will continue to work with
all of Congress to protect the nearly $60 billion in international
affairs spending in order to respond to unprecedented humanitarian need
and maintain progress to combat extreme poverty.

In The Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis wrote, ``[T]he mere fact
that some people are born in places with fewer resources or less
development does not justify the fact that they are living with less
dignity. We need to grow in a solidarity which `would allow all peoples
to become the artisans of their destiny', since `every person is called
to self-fulfillment'.'' The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
asserts, ``Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it
protects or threatens human life and dignity.'' And ``a central moral
measure of any budget proposal is how it affects `the least of these'
'' (Matthew 25). ``The needs of those who are hungry and homeless,
vulnerable and at risk, without work or in poverty should come first.''
The Church does our best to fulfill this call. In 2015 alone, CRS
partnered with the U.S. Government and religious communities to serve
more than 120 million people in 112 countries. We are part of a network
of Catholic agencies that form Caritas Internationalis. Very often,
CRS's work in a given country is implemented by local Caritas partners
with funding from several donor Caritas agencies, as well as the U.S.
Government. Private funds enable us to be nimble and innovative while
public funds enable us to scale up. Moreover, the U.S. Government's
investment further legitimizes our work.
Let there be no doubt: aid works. In Jordan and Lebanon, CRS has
worked itself out of a job: the local Caritas agencies lead in the
refugee response. When the United States stepped in to respond to the
Ebola outbreak, it was halted. One key aspect of halting Ebola was
working with local religious leaders to change local burial practices--
no small task given the religious meaning of such acts. South Korea
once received aid from the U.S. Government and is now our 7th largest
trading partner. More girls in Afghanistan attend school now, including
in rural areas where they are the first literate generation. I have had
the privilege to hear countless people thank the United States for its
generosity. Below I offer the perspective of CRS on the growing needs
for international assistance that saves lives and reduces poverty.
I. Funding for all Humanitarian Assistance accounts must remain robust.
Thank you for the emergency funding provided in fiscal year 2017 to
prevent, mitigate and respond to famine-like conditions in South Sudan,
Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen. According to recent estimates, more than
20 million people across these four countries are at risk, including
5.4 malnourished children, 1.4 million of whom are at severe risk of
death. These funds will allow us to scale up our responses. The United
Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA)
currently estimates $6.3 billion is needed to respond to these four
countries alone in 2017. And according to USAID, ``In early May, those
in need of humanitarian assistance increased from 6.2 million to 6.7
million in Somalia.'' An outbreak of cholera in three of the four
countries demonstrates the urgency of the situation and the fact that
an adequate response must extend beyond food to water and sanitation,
shelter, life-saving health services, nutrition interventions and
protection, among others.
In addition to responding to famine-like conditions, CRS is
responding to refugees around the globe, including in what has swelled
to the world's largest refugee camp, Bidi Bidi. In the last 6 months,
South Sudanese have fled into Uganda at a rate of about 2,000 per day
due to the insecurity in their country. Despite its size, the
Government of Uganda has created more freedom and integration in Bidi
Bidi than would be afforded in most refugee camps. More importantly,
the Government of Uganda considers these refugees resettled.
International NGOs are a critical part of implementing this policy.
Each household receives a 3030 meter plot and a home. CRS works to
ensure that each household has a latrine and supports vulnerable
households to transition to more permanent homes from temporary tarps.
These plots include room to grow crops, though the already arid climate
and recent climate shocks are doubly challenging for refugee
households. Because local villages are present throughout the zones of
the camp, refugees interact with the local community. CRS works hard to
employ South Sudanese refugees in response efforts, as we do with
Syrians throughout the Middle East. For example, many South Sudanese
have been chosen by members of their community as hygiene promoters. I
share these details about Bidi Bidi because it demonstrates the
potential for longer-term planning in humanitarian responses and what
can happen when refugees are seen as contributors to their host
communities. These kinds of efforts will help refugees to truly
integrate, and in many cases, reduce their reliance on international
assistance.
The critical needs of more than 20 million people facing famine-
like conditions are but a portion of the more than 70 million facing
acute food insecurity. To cut food assistance now would abandon
millions who have relied on the United States for their survival.
Furthermore, widespread displacement continues, adding to the
unprecedented 65 million already forcibly displaced, 87 percent of whom
live in the developing world. More than 5 million Syrians are refugees,
and they continue to make the treacherous journey to Europe. CRS alone
has served more than 1.3 million Syrians. As you know, humanitarian
needs span the globe: such as with the Congolese displacement and
flight into Angola which UNOCHA recently declared an L2 emergency. To
cut humanitarian assistance now would not only cost lives and make
people more vulnerable to traffickers, but also could have security
implications around the globe. The bottom line is that we must continue
to do our share to maintain humanitarian assistance for people
overseas, and we must help those countries welcoming refugees by the
hundreds of thousands by resettling at least 75,000 refugees to the
United States in fiscal year 2018. We also urge Congress to replenish
the ERMA account, which has saved lives and stabilized countries,
including most recently individuals from Sudan, Mali, and Syria. In
fact, it is CRS' judgement that it would be valuable for the U.S.
Government to support more such efforts to streamline action in urgent
humanitarian situations.
U.S. diplomacy is an absolute necessity for humanitarian access
and, ultimately, a political solution to the conflicts and violence
spurring so much flight. We urge you to maintain robust diplomacy as a
critical aspect of the United States' foreign policy tool box. And we
emphasize the important role poverty-reduction plays to manage latent
tensions which often erupt into conflict.
II. The Development Assistance account is the bedrock of integral human
development assistance, including basic education, water and
sanitation, microfinance, and agricultural development. We urge
you to maintain the funding and the independence of this
account.
The Church promotes international assistance to defend the life and
dignity of the human person. Poverty focused international assistance
promotes the common good of all peoples; fosters vibrant civic
participation in strong democracies; and expresses the solidarity of
the American people with all who are poor and oppressed. Along with
humanitarian assistance and global health, the Development Assistance
account demonstrates the best of America's values. We urge the United
States to prioritize its development and humanitarian assistance based
on need, not political nor short-term national security strategies.
While Development Assistance does often explicitly yield a national
security dividend, when used overtly as a tool for national security or
political agendas, it often loses its impact.
We also ask you to provide funding to help vulnerable communities
mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate shocks through the Green
Climate Fund and Development Assistance. The impact of climate change
on farmland and other livelihoods spurs conflict and migration. CRS
partners with a variety of donors, including USAID, to build the
resilience of small farmers to drought in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. Those investments helped many communities to cope with the
2016 El Nino-led drought in southern Africa, which has been described
as the worst in a generation. For instance, watershed restoration
projects have helped farmers in Malawi maintain access to water, even
while neighboring communities' wells and streams dried up. Also, in
Central America, we are working with farmers to introduce new farming
practices that guard against coffee leaf rust--a consequence of climate
change--while boosting coffee production.
III. Global health investments save lives, reduce suffering, and
prevent disease outbreaks the world over.
Investments in global health pay immense dividends for individuals
and their communities year upon year. The United States has been a
world-leader in saving the lives of children and mothers for the past
30 years. According to USAID, since 1990, an estimated 100 million
children have been saved, due in no small part to the U.S. investment
in Maternal and Child Health, Nutrition, Malaria and childhood vaccines
programs. CRS is concerned about the proposed cuts to these life-saving
programs, as well as proposed cuts to Tuberculosis, Neglected Tropical
Diseases and HIV and AIDS funding.
CRS is also concerned about the administration's proposal to
eliminate the Vulnerable Children account. This funding provides care
and protection to vulnerable children, particularly those separated
from their family or at risk of losing family care. The Church has long
taught that the family is the core unit of society. Vulnerable children
often end up on the street or in orphanages. Most children in
orphanages are there due to poverty and a lack of access to services or
discrimination. The vast majority--80-90 percent--of the 8 million
children living in orphanages have at least one living parent. We
believe that most children, living in a family-based system is far
preferable to an institution-based system. Research shows that living
in orphanages causes long-term impacts on children's physical,
intellectual, and psychological development. CRS' Technical Advisor
Kellie Bunkers points out, ``We need to focus on prevention. We know
that a family environment that is safe, where you have caregivers who
are dedicated to your wellbeing as a child, is the ideal.'' And it's
more cost-effective. It costs 6 to 10 times more to care for a child in
an orphanage than in a family setting.
Stephen was sent to live in an orphanage at age 5 after his mother
died. Though the young Kenyan had the basics of life in the orphanage,
he says he often felt like he didn't have an identity or belong
anywhere. ``You want a person in your life who you can depend on,'' he
says. We urge you to maintain funding for the Vulnerable Children
account as one way to keep children in their families. In Uganda, CRS
is providing case management and a suite of services to 640 vulnerable
children. Funded in part through USAID's Displaced Children and Orphans
Fund and in part through PEPFAR, this program aims to reunify and
reintegrate children from institutional care into family-based care
through programs such as parenting instruction. The Ugandan program is
part of a 5-year USAID-funded cooperative agreement we operate in 13
countries in Africa, the Coordinating Comprehensive Care for Children
grant.
IV. CRS welcomes opportunities to continue to build on improvements by
the previous two administrations to humanitarian and
development assistance.
We support a thoughtful, deliberative process by the administration
and Congress, in collaboration with implementers and other key
stakeholders, to identify constructive proposals to improve poverty-
alleviation. Implementers offer on-the-ground expertise regarding how
to cut red tape to get U.S. Government humanitarian funding to
beneficiaries more quickly; how to better partner with local civil
society organizations so that aid builds local capacity and democracy;
how to create synergies between different programs and funding sources;
and how to strengthen the U.N., to name just a few. Rapid and
significant cuts to these programs, as proposed, may well reduce the
overall quality of programs by abandoning hard-fought progress and
reducing funding for monitoring and evaluations. CRS participated in
the World Humanitarian Summit last May as part of a global effort to
make aid more efficient and effective. We committed to redoubling our
efforts, alongside the Caritas Internationalis federation and our more
than 1,500 partners, not just to deliver aid, but to end the need and
to invest in local capacities. CRS also joined 30 international
humanitarian organizations in a 3-year pledge to collectively invest
$1.2 billion in private resources to global humanitarian assistance
efforts in advance of the September 20, 2016, Leaders' Summit on
Refugees.
The former President of the USCCB, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz,
stated May 25th in the Courier-Journal: `` 'A preferential option for
the poor' is a fundamental concept in Catholic social teaching. Though
the phrase itself is only 50 years old, it derives from Jesus' Gospel
message to pay special attention to poverty. Indeed, Jesus told us that
on the Day of Judgment, God will ask us what we did for the poor,
teaching, `Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine,
you did for me.' '' American's generosity undergirds the moral
leadership reflected in that teaching, and makes America the shining
beacon on a hill.

[This statement was submitted by Sean Callahan, President and CEO.]
______

Prepared Statement of the Council of International Development
Companies--An Initiative of the Professional Services Council, The
Voice of the Government Services Industry

July 6, 2017.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Operations, and Related Programs

Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy:

On behalf of the more than 400 member companies in the Professional
Services Council (PSC), including our Council of International
Development Companies (CIDC), I write to thank you for your leadership
and recognize the Congress for including robust foreign assistance
funding in the enacted fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations
Act. The levels appropriated sent a strong and important signal that
America intends to maintain our preeminent leadership position in the
world.
We were equally heartened by the nomination of Ambassador Mark
Green as the next USAID Administrator. His prior experience in both the
executive and legislative branches will serve him well, and PSC and
CIDC urge your support for his speedy confirmation, once his nomination
reaches the full Senate.
As noted in your remarks at the June 13 hearing with Secretary of
State Tillerson, the President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget
would, if approved, present serious challenges to our national security
by dramatically cutting funding to the State Department and U.S. Agency
for International Development by a third. PSC believes that budget
levels should be based on American foreign policy priorities,
commitments and goals, and that the proposed disproportionate reduction
would be disastrous.
We attach PSC's comments on the President's proposed budget (see
attachment 1) and on the important role the contracting community plays
in carrying out our Nation's foreign policy and development objectives.
We respectfully request that, if possible, this statement be included
in the record for the June 13 hearing.
Our members and I stand ready to amplify our views at your
convenience.

Respectfully yours,

David J. Berteau
President & CEO

(ATTACHMENT 1)

Prepared Statement of the Professional Services Council
The Professional Services Council's (PSC) members comprise over 400
companies and their hundreds of thousands of employees across the
Nation and throughout the world who provide services to virtually every
agency in the Federal Government.\1\ PSC is the voice of the government
technology and professional services industry, representing the full
range and diversity of the government services sector. A significant
portion of our members focus their work almost exclusively on the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and form PSC's Council of
International Development Companies (CIDC).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For over 45 years, PSC has been the leading national trade
association of the government technology and professional services
industry. PSC's over 400 member companies represent small, medium, and
large businesses that provide Federal agencies with services of all
kinds, including information technology, engineering, logistics,
facilities management, operations and maintenance, consulting,
international development, scientific, social, environmental services,
and more. Together, the association's members employ hundreds of
thousands of Americans in all 50 States and around the globe. See
www.pscouncil.org.
\2\ CIDC companies are reflective of the overall American economy
ranging from large firms employing thousands here and overseas to one
and two-person small businesses working in the fields of food, water,
health, education, governance, and economic growth. Their efforts have
been well-documented by PSC. See our From the Field accounts of their
foreign assistance program implementation as well as CIDC's work in
monitoring and evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first made our concerns known about President Trump's fiscal
year 2018 budget after the release of the so-called initial ``skinny
budget'' in March.\3\ As PSC noted then, disproportionate cuts to the
State Department and USAID proposed in the draft budget were likely to
cause unnecessary consternation with our allies, who would view it as
American disengagement from the structures, institutions, and
commitments that have formed the bedrock of bi-partisan foreign policy
for the last 70 years. In addition, the cuts, which were maintained in
the formal budget submission on May 23, would have immediate impact on
nations around the world in the areas of security, health, nutrition,
education, sanitation, and local government accountability. PSC has
prepared a country-by-country analysis (see attachment 2) of what the
proposed cuts would look like, with many countries completely zeroed
out.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.pscouncil.org/News2/NewsReleases/2017/
PSC_Statement_on_the_Budget
_Blueprint.aspx.
\4\ See: http://www.pscouncil.org/Downloads/documents/
FY18%20Country%20By%20Country%20
Cuts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note with alarm recent comments by administration officials
in support of the fiscal year 2018 budget cuts that suggest they cannot
foresee being able to spend their fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2017
levels of appropriations.\5\ The implications of such comments create
great uncertainty with USAID's implementing partners, recipient
countries, and fellow donors. In addition, comments like these stray
too close to the constitutional issues which were the genesis of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.\6\ PSC urges
this Committee and others with jurisdiction over these issues to
monitor vigilantly those agencies covered by the 150 Account to ensure
that the full amounts appropriated by Congress are spent in accordance
with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Many Foreign Assistance appropriation accounts have a 2-year
period of availability for obligation.
\6\ The full text of can be found at: http://legcounsel.house.gov/
Comps/BUDGET.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considerable room does exist for improvement and savings that could
be achieved in our foreign assistance; however, any such reforms must
be based on reasoned and documented analysis, which has not been
provided for the proposed 32 percent cut in the President's fiscal year
2018 budget. Absent such analysis, PSC does not support the proposed
funding reduction.
There is also little analysis to support the proposal to merge the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) and Development Assistance (DA) accounts
into a comingled ESDF account. Currently ESF funds are controlled
primarily by the Department of State and DA funds by USAID. Such a
merger would conflate the short-term goals of ESF with the long-term
goals of DA. Each account has specific and very different targets and
objectives, and the considerable transparency on the activities and
obligations under each would be lost if they were merged, with no
discernable benefit. Regardless of the funding levels, PSC therefore
strongly urges that these two accounts remain separate.
There is the larger issue of whether USAID should remain a stand-
alone agency. It is true that foreign assistance should be a tool of
our foreign policy, on an equal footing with diplomacy and defense.
Development professionals at USAID have the skills needed to help other
nations create and sustain transparent governance structures, with
literate and healthy citizens, secure borders, clean water, and access
to capital and free markets. These skills do not reside in the
diplomatic corps at the State Department.
A similar idea was tried in 1999 with the merger of the U.S.
Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department. Since then,
experts on both the left and right have decried the sad state of
American Public Diplomacy that resulted.\7\ A recent in-depth study
makes an overt comparison between the USIA merger and the one now under
discussion for USAID, strongly cautioning against such a ``folly.'' \8\
In addition to preserving needed capabilities, PSC believes an
independent USAID, with a seat on the National Security Council, will
complement the voices and views of officials from the Departments of
Defense and State in future foreign policy discussions by presenting
vital, independent development insights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See April 23, 2003, Heritage Foundation: ``How to Reinvigorate
Public Diplomacy,''; November 25, 2008, Brookings ``Voices of America:
U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century.'' More background on the
USIA-State merger can be found in: December 18, 2009, Congressional
Research Service: ``U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current
Issues.''
\8\ https://www.csis.org/analysis/folly-merging-state-department-
and-usaid-lessons-usia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other proposals for short-term savings have been reported in the
news media, such as cutting the U.S. full-time Foreign Service Officers
(FSOs) corps by some 2,300 positions.\9\ History also shows that this
level of cuts would be very damaging. The results of the workforce
Reductions In Force (RIFs) that took place during the 1990s are,
according to the GAO, still negatively impacting our foreign policy
infrastructure.\10\ We should learn from the mistakes of the past and
retain the workforce needed to execute USAID programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/tillerson-proposes-2-300-job-cuts-
from-state-department-1493415265.
\10\ See June 14, 2012 GAO Report: ``Foreign Service Midlevel
Staffing Gaps Persist Despite Significant Increases in Hiring.'';
September 2009 GAO Report: ``Department of State: Additional Steps
Needed to Address Continued Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship
Posts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC's position is that the government needs to be staffed fully
with well-trained individuals to execute contracts properly, make
timely staffing decisions, offer essential technical direction, and
provide appropriate contract management and financial oversight of the
programs and contract tasks. Sufficient, capable staff ensures that the
government and the American taxpayer are getting the full value for
money from contractors and that contracts are being run in accordance
with U.S. objectives.\11\ Contracts with the Federal Government, by
definition, afford the lead agency with high degrees of management and
oversight that do not exist in other mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This has been a long-standing PSC position. As we wrote the
subcommittee on April 7, 2016, regarding the Department and USAID's
fiscal year 2017 budget: ``Our members know first-hand the impact our
limited foreign assistance funding has on bringing peace and security
to the many troubled regions of the world. Additionally, this funding
covers the Operations and Expenses (O/E) accounts for the both the
Department of State and USAID. CIDC members work on a daily basis with
the Foreign Service Officer staffs in DC and in the field with both
agencies. Given the need for more efficient grant and contract approval
and management--and the value this oversight provides to the American
taxpayer--we urge you to support the O/E account requests to at least
maintain the personnel levels that support these, often unheralded, yet
crucial, positions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one way to improve program execution, PSC has urged USAID to
revise its regulations and internal review procedures to clarify and
strengthen its procurement decisionmaking process for determining when
the use of acquisition or assistance is the appropriate choice of
instrument for each development project.\12\ The current regulations
and procedures are too vague and not helpful to the Agency's
Contracting Officers (COs) and Agreement Officers (AOs)--most of whom
have less than 5 years' experience--or to its program staff. Clearer
regulations and internal review procedures will strengthen USAID's
focus on mission outcomes and project accountability, help reduce
procurement lead time (the interval from announcing a project to making
the award), assist the agency and its implementing partners in bringing
their capabilities to the agency and to beneficiaries, and eliminate
unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements on the agency
and its implementing partners. Ensuring that USAID has the full
complement of COs and AOs, coupled with better training and mentoring
of junior COs and AOs would also contribute significantly to improving
USAID's program execution and results.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See PSC's August 22, 2016 Letter to then-Acting Administrator
of USAID Amb. Alfonso Lenhardt: http://www.pscouncil.org/
CommitteesandTaskForces/InternationalDevelopmentTask
Force/IDTF_agency_and_cong._materials/USAID_Seeks_PSC_CIDC_Comments_on_
Draft_ADS_304_Implementing_Guidance.aspx.
\13\ While USAID has made remarkable improvements to its Business
Forecast (which truly should serve as a model for the Federal
Government), PSC remains concerned that, even though PALT for
acquisition has decreased commendably and substantially over the past 4
years, dollars spent on acquisition continues to fall as a proportion
of total agency spending. See USAID's Management Bureau Office of
Acquisition and Assistance Progress Report--Fiscal Year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC members who work with the Department of State and USAID are
private sector international development companies who optimize
efficiency and effectiveness in order to realize a modest return on
their work. That is how they fund the ongoing investments that have
made them reliable, capable, and innovative partners for USAID since
the Agency's inception. Competing as enterprises on the basis of best
value is what keeps their service offerings current, efficient, and
cost effective. Competition among contractors is a hallmark of U.S.
programs throughout the Federal Government--and should remain so--
whether at NASA or the departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, or even State and USAID. In the field of international
development, contractor motives are too often questioned and intentions
impugned without due regard for the benefits of competition for
efficiency and effective results.
Contractors form an integral part of the U.S. foreign policy arena.
Many employees risk their lives every day, working in locales deemed
too dangerous for U.S. Government staff to operate, and running
programs determined by Washington to be policy priorities--the very
reason a contract was issued in the first place--because the work
needed to get done. PSC and its members companies serve Americans by
competitively bidding on work that has been deemed important and
necessary to the safety and security of our citizens. We understand and
recognize that much of this work is both time-sensitive, but also
timebound: one of the great strengths and practical rationales for
selecting a contract vehicle.
Given the proper funding in conjunction with clear achievement
benchmarks and guidance from our colleagues in the Federal Government,
contractors provide significant value for money that the American
taxpayer demands of us. PSC therefore, does not support the proposed
fiscal year 2018 budget cuts to the 150 account, does support a
separate USAID reporting to the Secretary of State, and urges
optimizing the use of private sector contractors to deliver real
results and the best value for development spending.
I am happy to address any questions the subcommittee has at any
time on the issues discussed above.

[This statement was submitted by David J. Berteau, President &
CEO.]

[Attachment 2 follows:]

ATTACHMENT 2
COUNTRY BY COUNTRY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET
[Omits PL480, FMF, IMET, INL, and NADRP]
Legend: \a\ Zeroed out in budget (100% cut); \b\ Cut greater than 30%; \c\ Cut less than or equal to 30%; \d\ Increase less than 100%; \e\ Increase equal or greater than 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global
6/21/2017 DA/ESF- GH-State Health- Peace and Governance Education Vulnerable Agriculture Trade and PSD/Econ Environment Infrastructure Disaster All All
Health (PEPFAR) USAID Security Populations Investment Opp Readiness Health Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................ \c\ -14% ......... ......... \c\ -14% \d\ 4% \c\ -9% \b\ -30% \d\ 65% \d\ 3% \b\ -36% \e\ 389% .............. ......... \c\ -14% \d\ 6%
Asia....................... \b\ -48% \b\ -46% \b\ -34% \d\ 39% \b\ -38% \c\ -30% \b\ -87% \c\ -17% \d\ 12% \c\ -18% \b\ -69% \e\ 110% \e\ 1319% \b\ -41% \b\ -31%
E&E........................ ......... \d\ 1% \b\ -38% \b\ -38% \b\ -37% \b\ -81% \b\ -84% \c\ -20% \b\ -71% \b\ -80% \b\ -92% \b\ -54% \a\ -100% \c\ -19% \b\ -61%
RBU ESAF....................... \b\ -78% \d\ 7% \b\ -45% \e\ 2821% \b\ -40% \b\ -67% ........... \b\ -62% \b\ -34% ......... \b\ -85% \b\ -49% ......... \c\ -6% \b\ -51%
LAC........................ \a\ -100% \c\ -28% \b\ -69% \b\ -36% \b\ -43% \b\ -50% \c\ -28% \b\ -45% \b\ -84% \d\ 52% \b\ -90% .............. ......... \b\ -46% \b\ -46%
ME......................... \c\ -4% \a\ -100% ......... \e\ 205% \c\ -8% \c\ -26% \b\ -32% \c\ -4% \e\ 263% \c\ -17% \e\ 549% \b\ -64% \a\ -100% \c\ -22% \d\ -1%
WCAFH...................... \b\ -76% \d\ 6% \b\ -44% \c\ -13% \c\ -20% \b\ -34% \e\ 119% \c\ -19% \b\ -42% \e\ 2970% \b\ -80% \b\ -71% ......... \c\ -24% \b\ -32%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... \b\ -34% \d\ 3% \b\ -43% \d\ 40% \c\ -21% \b\ -39% \b\ -35% \b\ -35% \c\ -26% \b\ -33% \b\ -74% \b\ -37% \b\ -85% \c\ -13% \c\ -29%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFG Afghanistan................ \c\ -14% ......... ......... \c\ -14% \d\ 4% \c\ -9% \b\ -30% \d\ 65% \d\ 3% \b\ -36% \e\ 389% .............. ......... \c\ -14% \d\ 6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangledesh................. \b\ -54% ......... ......... \e\ 655% \e\ 134% \b\ -46% ........... \c\ -20% .......... \b\ -72% ........... .............. ......... \b\ -54% \d\ 3%
Burma...................... ......... \b\ -38% \b\ -34% \e\ 256% \d\ -91% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \c\ -25% .......... \e\ 182% ........... .............. ......... \b\ -35% \c\ -22%
Cambodia................... \a\ -100% \c\ -18% \b\ -51% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -47% \a\ -100%
East Timor................. ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100%
India...................... \a\ -100% \b\ -46% \b\ -45% ......... .......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% .......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -50% \a\ -100%
Indonesia.................. \c\ -27% \e\ 352% \b\ -35% ......... \c\ -10% \b\ -51% ........... ........... .......... ......... \b\ -90% .............. ......... \c\ -21% \b\ -31%
Laos....................... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% .......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% ......... ........... .............. ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100%
Nepal...................... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \d\ 30% \b\ -43% \b\ -73% ........... \b\ -38% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -58% \b\ -53%
Asia Pakistan................... ......... \a\ -100% ......... \d\ 9% \c\ -13% \c\ -1% \a\ -100% \d\ 4% \d\ 4% \d\ 4% ........... \d\ 83% ......... \c\ -13% \c\ -4%
Papua New Guinea........... ......... \b\ -42% ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \b\ -42% ...........
Philippines................ \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -66% \d\ 0% \d\ 87% \c\ -22% ........... ........... \b\ -48% \d\ 61% \b\ -63% \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -69% \c\ -20%
Sri Lanka.................. ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Thailand................... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Vietnam.................... ......... \d\ 24% ......... ......... \b\ -76% \a\ -100% \b\ -38% ........... \e\ 215% \a\ -100% \b\ -42% .............. ......... \d\ 24% \b\ -42%
S Asia Regional............ ......... ......... ......... \d\ 83% \d\ 76% \a\ -100% ........... ........... \d\ 61% \e\ 3025% \d\ 69% \a\ -100% \d\ 41% ......... \d\ 44%
SAsia Regional............. ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... \e\ 270% ......... ......... \e\ 824%
RDMA....................... ......... \d\ 39% \a\ -100% \d\ 39% .......... ......... ........... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -80% .............. ......... \b\ -42% \b\ -72%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albania.................... ......... ......... ......... \e\ 107% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -65%
Armenia.................... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% \b\ -71% ........... \d\ 73% \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -77%
Azerbaijan................. ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Belarus.................... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... \a\ -100% ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Bosnia..................... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 30% \d\ -47% \c\ -9% ........... ........... \b\ -40% \c\ -13% ........... \b\ -38% ......... ......... \c\ -27%
Georgia.................... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -38% \b\ -40% \a\ -100% \c\ -6% \b\ -37% \c\ -21% \c\ -13% \b\ -80% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -41%
Kazakhstan................. ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Kosovo..................... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 40% \b\ -48% \b\ -76% ........... ........... \c\ -25% \c\ -21% ........... \a\ -100% ......... ......... \b\ -32%
E&E Kyrgyz Republic............ ......... ......... \c\ -30% \b\ -89% \b\ -70% \b\ -33% ........... ........... .......... \b\ -68% ........... \a\ -100% ......... \c\ -30% \b\ -68%
Macedonia.................. ......... ......... ......... \d\ 22% \b\ -40% \c\ -12% ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -31%
Moldova.................... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \b\ -46% ......... ........... ........... \c\ -29% \b\ -40% \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -47%
Serbia..................... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 11% \b\ -40% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... \c\ -21% ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -33%
Tajikistan................. ......... ......... \b\ -45% \b\ -99% \b\ -56% \b\ -96% ........... \c\ -14% \b\ -69% \c\ -27% ........... .............. ......... \b\ -45% \b\ -53%
Turkmenistan............... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Ukraine.................... ......... \d\ 1% \b\ -53% \b\ -45% \c\ -14% ......... ........... ........... \b\ -68% \b\ -93% \a\ -100% \b\ -65% ......... \c\ -9% \b\ -73%
Uzbekistan................. ......... ......... \c\ -30% \d\ 27% \d\ 41% ......... ........... ........... .......... \d\ 21% ........... .............. ......... \c\ -30% \d\ 30%
Ctr Asia Regional.......... ......... ......... \c\ -30% \b\ -32% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... \b\ -85% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \b\ -72% ......... \c\ -30% \b\ -70%
EE Regional................ ......... ......... ......... \d\ 23% \c\ -1% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... \d\ 79% \b\ -80% \d\ 61% ......... ......... \d\ 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angola..................... ......... \c\ -9% \a\ -100% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \b\ -78% ...........
Botswana................... ......... \e\ 129% ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \e\ 129% ...........
Burundi.................... ......... \c\ -27% \b\ -82% ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \b\ -57% \a\ -100%
Djibouti................... ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... .......... \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \a\ -100% \d\ 0%
Ethiopia................... \b\ -62% \b\ -35% \b\ -45% ......... \c\ -19% \b\ -70% ........... \c\ -22% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -40% \b\ -34%
Kenya...................... \b\ -73% \d\ 4% \b\ -41% ......... \c\ -13% \c\ -22% ........... \b\ -39% .......... ......... \c\ -30% .............. ......... \c\ -4% \c\ -15%
Lesoto..................... ......... \d\ 53% \a\ -100% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \d\ 34% ...........
Madasgar................... \a\ -100% \b\ -35% ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -40% \a\ -100%
Malawi..................... \a\ -100% \d\ 69% ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \e\ 114% \a\ -100%
Mozambique................. \a\ -100% \c\ -27% \c\ -22% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \c\ -27% \a\ -100%
Namibia.................... ......... \e\ 239% ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \e\ 239% ...........
ESAF Rwanda..................... \a\ -100% \d\ 9% \b\ -56% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \b\ -88% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \c\ -20% \b\ -67%
Somalia.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \c\ -15% \b\ -66% ........... ........... .......... ......... \d\ 43% .............. ......... ......... \e\ 113%
South Africa............... ......... \d\ 5% \b\ -37% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \d\ 3% \a\ -100%
South Sudan................ \b\ -33% \d\ 6% \b\ -74% ......... .......... \b\ -39% ........... \e\ 700% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -41% \d\ 48%
Sudan...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -64% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -38%
Swaziland.................. ......... \d\ 44% \a\ -100% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \d\ 24% ...........
Tanzania................... \b\ -83% \d\ 13% \b\ -58% ......... \c\ -25% \b\ -59% ........... \b\ -81% .......... ......... \b\ -81% \b\ -90% ......... \c\ -2% \b\ -75%
Uganda..................... \a\ -100% \d\ 1% \b\ -49% ......... \d\ 0% \b\ -78% ........... \b\ -72% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \c\ -10% \b\ -64%
Zambia..................... \a\ -100% \d\ 15% \b\ -32% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \d\ 6% \a\ -100%
Zimbabwe................... ......... \d\ 50% \b\ -51% ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \d\ 16% \a\ -100%
E Afr Regional............. ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... .......... ......... ........... \b\ -89% \b\ -65% ......... \b\ -78% .............. ......... \a\ -100% \b\ -70%
Sth Afr Regional........... \b\ -88% \a\ -100% ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... \a\ -100% \b\ -60% ......... \b\ -92% .............. ......... \b\ -93% \b\ -84%
Africa Regional............ \b\ -91% ......... \b\ -31% \d\ 60% \d\ 5% \b\ -43% ........... \d\ 100% .......... ......... \b\ -77% \b\ -51% ......... \b\ -48% \b\ -44%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbados................... ......... \d\ 5% \a\ -100% ......... .......... \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \c\ -28% \a\ -100%
Colombia................... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -45% \c\ -9% ......... \c\ -28% ........... .......... ......... \b\ -82% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -44%
Dominican Republic......... ......... \d\ 10% \a\ -100% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -31% \a\ -100%
Ecuador.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... -100%
El Salvador................ ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -48% \b\ -47% ........... \a\ -100% \b\ -79% ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \c\ -30%
Guatemala.................. \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -50% \b\ -38% \b\ -31% ........... \c\ -29% .......... \d\ 28% \b\ -78% .............. ......... \b\ -82% \c\ -29%
Honduras................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \c\ -26% \b\ -31% ........... \d\ 0% .......... \b\ -43% \b\ -50% .............. ......... ......... \c\ -28%
Jamaica.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
LAC Mexico..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -36% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -49%
Nicaragua.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Paraguay................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... \a\ -100% ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Peru....................... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 37% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -41%
USAID Carrib............... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Venezuela.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
CtrAmer Regional........... ......... \c\ -16% \a\ -100% ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -51% \a\ -100%
SthAmer Regional........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
LAC Regional............... ......... ......... \c\ -26% ......... \c\ -3% \b\ -67% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \c\ -26% \b\ -76%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt...................... \d\ 7% \a\ -100% ......... ......... \c\ -25% ......... ........... \d\ 0% .......... \b\ -65% ........... .............. ......... \b\ -76% \c\ -26%
Iraq....................... ......... ......... ......... \e\ 1182% \c\ -6% ......... \d\ 0% ........... \d\ 0% ......... ........... .............. \a\ -100% ......... \e\ 145%
Jordan..................... \b\ -31% ......... ......... ......... \b\ -33% \b\ -32% \d\ 67% ........... \c\ -29% \c\ -16% \e\ 233% \b\ -39% ......... \b\ -31% \c\ -19%
Lebanon.................... \c\ -12% ......... ......... \a\ -100% \d\ 8% \b\ -45% ........... ........... .......... \e\ 1273% \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \c\ -12% \c\ -26%
Libya...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 43% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \e\ 130%
ME Morocco.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -39% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... \b\ -32% ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -33%
Syria...................... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 36% \d\ 53% ......... \e\ 1500% ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \d\ 50%
Tunisia.................... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... ........... \b\ -62% \b\ -58% ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -34%
West Bank/Gaza............. ......... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 93% \c\ -5% \b\ -42% ........... .......... \e\ 650% ........... \a\ -100% ......... ......... \d\ 7%
Yemen...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -50% \d\ 20% ........... \d\ 0% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -35%
MEPI....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \b\ -87% \a\ -100% ........... ........... .......... \d\ 99% ........... .............. ......... ......... \b\ -62%
ME Regional................ \a\ -100% ......... ......... \b\ -90% \d\ 0% \b\ -36% ........... \a\ -100% \d\ 88% \d\ 88% ........... .............. ......... \a\ -100% \b\ -69%
Benin...................... ......... ......... \c\ -22% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \c\ -22% ...........
Burkina Faso............... ......... \a\ -100% \d\ 0% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \c\ -10% ...........
Cameroon................... ......... \c\ -8% \a\ -100% ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \c\ -12% ...........
Central Af Repub........... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Chad....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... ...........
Cote d'Ivoire.............. ......... \d\ 11% ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \d\ 11% \a\ -100%
DRC........................ \a\ -100% \d\ 3% \b\ -42% \d\ 77% \d\ 0% \c\ -22% \e\ 618% \e\ 400% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \b\ -33% \d\ 28%
Ghana...................... \b\ -80% \e\ 439% \b\ -43% ......... \c\ -30% \b\ -67% ........... \b\ -61% .......... ......... \d\ 0% \b\ -60% ......... \c\ -28% \b\ -59%
Guinea..................... ......... ......... \b\ -85% ......... .......... ......... ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \b\ -85% \a\ -100%
WCAFH Haiti...................... \b\ -44% \c\ -3% \b\ -36% ......... \b\ -40% \c\ -20% \b\ -67% \e\ 1150% .......... \e\ 1500% ........... \b\ -92% ......... \c\ -13% \c\ -6%
Liberia.................... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \b\ -75% ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% ......... \b\ -81% \a\ -100%
Mali....................... \a\ -100% \a\ -100% \c\ -29% \b\ -50% \b\ -34% \b\ -54% ........... \c\ -8% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -39% \c\ -28%
Niger...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... ......... \a\ -100%
Nigeria.................... \b\ -71% \d\ 7% \b\ -45% ......... \d\ 59% \d\ 60% ........... \c\ -5% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \c\ -16% \d\ 47%
Senegal.................... \b\ -83% \a\ -100% \b\ -48% ......... \c\ -20% \b\ -55% ........... \b\ -64% .......... ......... \a\ -100% .............. ......... \b\ -52% \b\ -60%
Sierra Leone............... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ......... \a\ -100% ......... ........... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \a\ -100% \a\ -100%
Ctr Afr Regional........... ......... ......... ......... \a\ -100% .......... ......... ........... ........... .......... ......... \b\ -83% .............. ......... ......... \b\ -86%
Sahel Regional............. \c\ -9% ......... \d\ 5% ......... \e\ 800% ......... ........... \d\ 25% .......... ......... ........... .............. ......... \d\ -1% \e\ 164%
W Afr Regional............. \b\ -95% ......... \a\ -100% \d\ 14% \d\ 0% ......... ........... \b\ -42% \b\ -42% ......... \b\ -80% .............. ......... \b\ -99% \b\ -38%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:

\a\ Zeroed out in budget (100% cut)
\b\ Cut greater than 30%
\c\ Cut less than or equal to 30%
\d\ Increase less than 100%
\e\ Increase equal or greater than 100%

Diverse Group deg.
Prepared Statement of a Diverse Group of National Faith-Based
Organizations in Support of the International Affairs Budget

June 7, 2017.

Hon. Thad Cochran, Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
Chairman, Chairman,
Senate Appropriations Committee, House Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510. Washington, DC 20515.

Hon. Patrick Leahy, Hon. Nita Lowey,
Ranking Member, Ranking Member,
Senate Appropriations Committee, House Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510. Washington, DC 20515.

Dear Chairs and Ranking Members,

We are a diverse group of national faith-based organizations
committed to saving lives and advancing the dignity of vulnerable and
marginalized persons and communities across the world. We support U.S.
investment in international humanitarian and poverty-focused
development assistance and peace-building programs that alleviate
suffering from hunger, extreme poverty, forced displacement,
debilitating illness, natural disasters and violent conflict.
While representing various faith traditions, we all believe that
people and nations are accountable for how we treat our brothers and
sisters at home and abroad who are vulnerable and in need. The Federal
budget is a moral document, which reflects the values of our nation. In
the rich history of our country the American people have responded with
a hand up to millions of people suffering from hunger, disease,
displacement and violence.
We believe that the international affairs budget proposed by the
administration does not reflect this moral and compassionate
commitment. Proposing to decrease funding for development assistance,
disaster assistance, food aid, migration and refugee assistance, and
the bureau of conflict and stabilization operations--compromises our
foreign policy strategy, endangers our development and peacebuilding
experts, and threatens our position in the world as a leader in global
development. It also halts the progress that we have made over the last
20 years eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.
Fortunately, Congress has continued to provide bipartisan support
for the international affairs budget, and we applaud concerns that have
been expressed in response to the administration's proposal. We urge
Congress to stand firm in its commitment to foreign assistance, and why
we join the international advocacy community in support of $60 billion
for the international affairs budget. The U.S. must remain the global
leader, committed to reducing poverty and increasing opportunity--at
home and abroad.
Most of the 150 budget is within the jurisdiction of the State and
Foreign Operations Subcommittee. As you allocate subcommittee funding
we urge you to protect these programs by providing at or above the
current fiscal year 17 levels of $53.1 billion for the SFOPS
subcommittee. Investing in life-saving peace building, humanitarian,
and poverty focused development assistance is critical for helping
create a healthier world, and generating goodwill toward the United
States.
U.S. foreign assistance investments literally mean life or death
for millions of people. Almost 800 million people still suffer from
hunger, 767 million people still live in extreme poverty, and thousands
of children die each day from preventable diseases. We are also facing
the largest combined humanitarian crisis since WWII. Currently 60
million persons have been displaced from their homes--the highest
number in decades. Famine has been declared in South Sudan, and near
famine conditions are in northeast Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen-
threatening starvation for over 20 million people within the next 6
months. Now, more than ever, we need to think about what our role is in
the world.
Again, thank you for considering our request. We look forward to
working with you in building a world of hope and prosperity for the
future of all God's children, including our own.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

1. Adventist Development and Relief
Agency
2. American Jewish World Service
3. Bread for the World
4. Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc.
5. Children's Medical Ministries
6. Christian Connections for Interna-
tional Health
7. Church World Service
8. Conference of Major Superiors of
Men
9. Disabled Children's Fund
10. Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
11. Faiths for Safe Water
12. Food for the Hungry
13. IMA World Health
14. International Aid, Inc.
15. Islamic Relief USA
16. Jewish Council for Public Affairs
17. Lutheran World Relief
18. Mennonite Central Committee, U.S,
Washington Office
19. Office of Social Justice, Christian
Reformed Church in North America
20. Presbyterian Church (USA)
21. Union for Reform Judaism
22. United Church of Christ, Justice and
Witness Ministries
23. United Methodist Church, General
Board of Church and Society
24. World Renew

______

Prepared Statement of Family and Friends of Anita Datar

March 20, 2017.

Hon. Mike Enzi, Chairman Hon. Bernie Sanders, Ranking
U.S. Senate Budget Committee Member
U.S. Senate Budget Committee

Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman Hon. Patrick Leahy, Vice-Chairman
U.S. Senate Committee on U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations Appropriations

Hon. Lindsey Graham, Chairman Hon. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Appropriations U.S. Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Operations, and Related Programs

Dear Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, Chairman Cochran, Vice-
Chairman Leahy, and Chairman Graham:

On November 20, 2015, armed terrorists killed Anita Datar, along
with 19 other innocent people, in Bamako, Mali. Anita was the only
American citizen killed in the attack. She was working in Mali at the
time carrying out activities under the U.S. President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Anita dedicated her career, and ultimately
lost her life, to advancing global public health and development,
particularly for women and children. As the family and friends of Anita
Datar, we strongly urge you to provide full funding in fiscal year 2018
for PEPFAR, the Global Fund, Maternal and Child Health, Family Planning
and other critically important public health programs and that the
United States continues to maintain it's leadership role when it comes
to global development.
Global public health and development programs make up less than 1
percent of the Federal budget and they are critical to saving lives
both here at home and abroad. These programs help stabilize other
countries and prevent conflict reducing the need to put our men and
women in uniform in harm's way. In our ever-interconnected world, when
global pandemics such as the Ebola virus or the Zika virus are
addressed before reaching our shores, Americans are safer.
As leaders of your respective committees, you have seen firsthand
the documented progress that has been made from America's leadership in
global public health. Since its introduction in 2003, PEPFAR has
supported nearly 11.5 million people with life-saving antiretroviral
treatment (ART); nearly 2 million babies have been prevented from being
born with HIV; and over 6 million orphans and vulnerable children have
been given care and support to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS. It has
been reported that countries with PEPFAR programs become more stable
and less violent compared to countries without these programs. It is
because of these gains that Anita, along with thousands of other men
and women who work to improve global public health, often leaving loved
ones behind, took such great pride in her work.
Shortly after her murder, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) dedicated a plaque in its Washington D.C.
headquarters to those like Anita who have lost their lives working with
the agency. The plaque includes the inscription from the late General
George Marshall, ``I have done my best, and I hope I have sown seeds
which may bring forth good fruit.'' The Federal contributions to global
public health and development programs are by no means sunk costs, but
rather they are sound investments that not only save lives, but they
advance America's national strategic interests.
Americans are safer and better off with strong, robust funding of
global public health and development programs. As you consider the
fiscal year 2018 budget and related appropriations bills, we strongly
urge you to fully fund PEPFAR, the Global Fund, Maternal and Child
Health, Family Planning and other critically important global public
health and development programs. As more than 120 retired three and
four-star flag and general officers from all branches of the armed
services recently stated in their letter to House and Senate
leadership, ``Now is not the time to retreat.''

Thank you for consideration.

Sincerely,

Family and Friends of Anita Datar

cc: U.S. Senator Bob Corker
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez
U.S. Senator Cory Booker
U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin
U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen

www.anitadatar.org

______

Prepared Statement of General Philip Breedlove, USAF (Ret.); General
George Casey, USA (Ret.); General Carter Ham, USA (Ret.); General James
Jones, USMC (Ret.); General George Joulwan, USA (Ret.); General Stanley
McChrystal, USA (Ret.); Admiral William McRaven, USNA (Ret.); Admiral
Michael Mullen, USN (Ret.); Admiral Eric Olson, USN (Ret.); General
John Paxton, USMC (Ret.); General David Petraeus, USA (Ret.); General
Joe Ralston, USAF (Ret.); Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.); General
Hugh Shelton USA (Ret.); Admiral James Stavridis, USN (Ret.); and
Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, USN (Ret.)

STABILITY-ENHANCEMENT INVESTMENTS AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity for us to share our testimony on a matter of monumental
importance to our country and the men and women in uniform we have been
privileged to serve.
Modern national security challenges require innovative national
security thinking. Such thinking begins with recognizing one of the
clear lessons of history: American security is advanced by the
development of stable nations that are making progress on social
development, economic growth, and good governance; by countries that
enforce the rule of law and invest in the health and education of their
own people. In short, America's interests are served by nations that
give their people hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
Conversely, American security is undermined by frail and failing
nations where hope is non-existent, and where conditions foster
radicalism, produce refugees, spark insurgency, and provide safe havens
for terrorists, criminal gangs, and human traffickers. In this light,
it is clear to us that strategic development assistance is not
charity--it is an essential, modern tool of U.S. national security.
U.S. development efforts should be respected--and budgeted--as
investments in stability enhancement. The severe cuts to the State
Department and USAID that the Administration has proposed will make
America less safe, and Congress should reject them. Not only should we
protect and properly fund the International Affairs budget, it is time
for the United States and its allies to explore bold, dedicated funding
for smart development efforts in fragile areas that build stability and
prevent future threats from emerging.
As you know, a host of international terrorist groups--al Qaeda, al
Shabaab, Boko Haram, and ISIS, among others--have taken root in highly
fragile regions and countries with shared characteristics such as
corruption and poor governance, weak institutions, high poverty and
inequality, indignity, and low quality of life for ordinary citizens.
Local populations frustrated with poor governance and lacking
meaningful opportunities to improve their lives or provide for their
families are prone to tolerate, if not actively support, extremist
groups that challenge government authority or assume the government's
role as social-service provider. To combat these groups and prevent
such areas from serving as fertile recruiting grounds, training areas,
and transit routes for violent extremists, the United States and our
allies should become much more proactive in helping address underlying
conditions that, left unchecked, invite and foment instability.
In our active duty days, we were honored to help lead the finest
fighting force in the world. This experience helped inform our solid
conviction that in the 21st century, weapons and warfighters alone are
insufficient to keep America secure. We support DoD funding increases
needed to maintain the readiness of our forces. These resources must be
complemented and supported by a robust development budget to advance
our national security objectives. Kinetic activities alone cannot
prevent radicalization, nor can they, by themselves, prevent despair
from turning to anger and increasing outbursts of violence and
instability. This has been our national experience of the last 15 years
in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the Middle East, and now in Africa.
America has always relied on our men and women in uniform when
called upon. Their faithful service, courage, and sacrifice deserves
and demands that we address and develop the strongest possible strategy
for conflict-prevention that our nation can muster. Cutting the
International Affairs budget unilaterally will have the effect of
disarming our country's capability to stop new conflicts from forming,
and will place our interests, values, and the lives of our men and
women in uniform at risk.
Congress can, and should, make America safer with a robust and
strategic Phase Zero initiative that engages the U.S. Government, non-
governmental organizations, and the private sector to synergistically
prevent conflict and promote security, development, and governance
rooted in the rule of law. Such an initiative will fill a dangerous
vacuum that military intervention alone simply can't. Proactive
conflict prevention strategies are far less expensive in terms of
resources and lives expended than reactive use of our Armed Forces.
Fighting extremist groups after they emerge as a well-trained and
well-funded entity is costlier in lives and money than preventive
efforts. It is also more difficult. Research suggests that investing in
prevention is, on average, 60 times less costly than war and post-
conflict reconstruction costs. Preventing terrorist groups from
expanding requires starving them of the oxygen on which they flourish:
hopelessness and a belief that their radical agenda can provide purpose
and meaning to the lives of their recruits.
It is clear to us that development experts under the auspices of
USAID, State Department, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and
other Federal agencies must be fully vested as part of a coherent
whole-of-government stability-enhancement strategy that will protect
America's interests in the modern security environment while minimizing
the exposure of our young men and women to harm's way.
We are part of a long history of U.S. military leaders who have
noted how much more cost-effective it is to prevent a conflict than to
end one.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired Admiral
Michael Mullen said, ``A fully-integrated foreign policy requires a
fully-resourced approach. Our troops, Foreign Service officers and
development experts work side-by-side in unprecedented and ever-
increasing cooperation as they execute our strategic programs.''
Former Supreme Allied Commander and Commander of U.S. Southern
Command, retired Admiral James Stavridis, said, ``In so many ways, the
most important deployments we make are those supporting soft power via
diplomacy and development: from our hospital ships to our humanitarian
construction battalions, this are incredibly high 'bang for the buck''
efforts supporting State and AID.''
Former SACEUR and Commandant of the United States Marine Corps,
retired General James Jones, summed up the strategic premise with a
simple but time-proven equation: stability equals development plus
security.
Helping to defeat the conditions that give rise to transboundary
dangers such as radicalism, criminality, disease, and mass-migration at
their place of origin will make America safer.
We urge you to avoid a reduction in the 302(b) allocation for State
and Foreign Operations, and to the poverty-fighting programs it funds.
We also would welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance to our
national security of non-military Phase Zero operations and
investments, and ideas for dedicated funding for development efforts in
fragile states to help build stability and to prevent future threats
from emerging.

Thank you.

General Philip Breedlove, USAF (Ret.)--Former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander, U.S. European Command

General George Casey, USA (Ret.)--Former Chief of Staff, United States
Army

General Carter Ham, USA (Ret.)--Former Commander, U.S. Africa Command

General James Jones, USMC (Ret.)--Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander,
U.S. European Command

General George Joulwan, USA (Ret.)--Former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander, U.S. European Command; Former
Commander, U.S. Southern Command

General Stanley McChrystal, USA (Ret.)--Former Commander, U.S. Joint
Special Operations Command

Admiral William McRaven, USN (Ret.)--Former Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command

Admiral Michael Mullen, USN (Ret.)--Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Former Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Eric Olson, USN (Ret.)--Former Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command

General John Paxton, USMC (Ret.)--Former Assistant Commandant, U.S.
Marine Corps

General David Petraeus, USA (Ret.)--Former Commander, U.S. Central
Command

General Joseph Ralston, USAF (Ret.)--Former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander, U.S. European Command; Vice
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.)--Former Chief of Naval Operations

General Hugh Shelton USA (Ret.)--Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Former Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command

Admiral James Stavridis, USN (Ret.)--Former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander of U.S. European Command;
Former Commander, U.S. Southern Command

Admiral James Winnefeld Jr., USN (Ret.)--Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Former Commander, U.S. Northern Command
______

Prepared Statement of the Government Accountability Office

June 5, 2017.

Hon. Rex W. Tillerson,
Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State,
2201 C St., N.W.,
Washington, DC 20520.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The purpose of this letter is to provide an update on the overall
status of the Department of State's (State) implementation of GAO's
recommendations and to call your personal attention to areas where open
recommendations should be given high priority. The government-wide
average recommendation implementation rate for the past 4 years has
been 77 percent. State's average implementation rate has been 80
percent. As of May 4, 2017, State had 135 open recommendations. Fully
implementing these open recommendations could yield significant
improvements in your agency's operations.
We would ask you to focus on 28 recommendations as being the
highest priorities for implementation. (See enclosure for a list of
these priority recommendations.) These priority recommendations fall
into the five major areas listed below.

Security of Overseas Personnel and Facilities.--Of the 28 priority
recommendations, 23 are related to security issues. Fully implementing
our 4 priority recommendations on personnel security would help ensure
State personnel are prepared to operate in dangerous situations.\1\ In
March 2014, we recommended that State take steps to ensure that U.S.
civilian personnel are in compliance with the Foreign Affairs Counter
Threat (FACT) training requirements. As of April 2017, State needs to
complete plans to monitor and verify compliance with the FACT training
requirement for permanent and temporary personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Countering Overseas Threats: Gaps in State Department
Management of Security Training May Increase Risk to U.S. Personnel,
GAO-14-360 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully implementing our 11 priority recommendations on physical
security at overseas posts will improve the safety and security of
personnel serving overseas, particularly in high-threat locations.\2\
For example, in June 2014, we recommended that State take steps to
strengthen its risk management processes associated with physical
security of diplomatic facilities. As of April 2017, State needs to
take several actions to improve its ability to identify and mitigate
risks, increase data reliability, and enhance security policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Diplomatic Security: Overseas Facilities May Face Greater
Risks Due to Gaps in Security-Related Activities, Standards, and
Policies, GAO-14-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2014); and Diplomatic
Security: State Department Should Better Manage Risks to Residences and
Other Soft Targets Overseas, GAO-15-700 (Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully implementing 8 recommendations related to transportation
security, such as those related to armored vehicles, would improve
State's efforts to manage transportation-related security risks
overseas.\3\ In October 2016, we recommended that State take steps to
enhance its efforts to manage transportation-related security risks
overseas, including improving guidance and developing monitoring
procedures. As of April 2017, State needs to create consolidated
guidance that specifies transportation security requirements and
develop monitoring procedures to ensure posts comply with State's
armored vehicle policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Diplomatic Security: State Should Enhance Its Management
of Transportation-Related Risks to Overseas U.S. Personnel, GAO-17-124
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2016).

Security Assistance.--Every year the United States provides
billions of dollars in assistance to other nations in the form of
security equipment, technical assistance, and humanitarian supplies. We
want to draw your attention to 2 recommendations to strengthen State's
human rights vetting process related to Egypt.\4\ Until State
implements these recommendations, it lacks complete vetting policies
and procedures, which puts U.S. agencies at risk of providing security
assistance to Egyptian security forces that have committed gross
violations of human rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO, Security Assistance: U.S. Government Should Strengthen
End-Use Monitoring and Human Rights Vetting for Egypt, GAO-16-435
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2016).

Cost Savings.--The U.S. Government is close to fully realizing the
cost savings from our recommendation related to foreign assistance to
Egypt. We recommended in 2015 that State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) plan for the use of $260 million
earmarked for a cash transfer that the U.S. Government decided would
not occur.\5\ State, working with the USAID, has taken steps to
repurpose most of these funds, but as of April 2017, $30 million
remains available. Given U.S. Government resource constraints, it is
important that State plan for using these existing resources, including
to potentially reduce future budget requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Egypt: U.S. Government Should Examine Options for Using
Unobligated Funds and Evaluating Security Assistance Programs, GAO-15-
259 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).

Humanitarian Assistance.--Based on our review of humanitarian
assistance delivered to people in Syria, we recommended in 2016 that
State require implementing partners to conduct risk assessments
addressing the risk of fraud.\6\ State has included related language in
a March 2017 funding agreement, but as of April 2017, two additional
agreements had not yet been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, Syria Humanitarian Assistance: Some Risks of Providing Aid
inside Syria Assessed, but U.S. Agencies Could Improve Fraud Oversight,
GAO-16-629 (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2016).

Information Technology.--In May 2016, we found that State spent
approximately 80 percent of its information technology budget on
operating and maintaining older systems. For example, 3 of State's visa
systems were more than 20 years old. The software for one of these
systems was no longer supported by the vendor, creating challenges
related to information security. State was planning to upgrade the
software to a newer version that also was not supported. As a result,
we recommended that State identify and plan to modernize or replace
legacy systems, consistent with Office of Management and Budget
guidance.\7\ We especially encourage you to give attention to any
recommendations that your Inspector General may have related to
implementing a comprehensive information security program. To assist
agencies in their efforts, we have issued work on actions needed to
improve cybersecurity and agency information security programs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Address
Aging Legacy Systems, GAO-16-468 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2016).
\8\ See, for example, GAO, Cybersecurity: Actions Needed to
Strengthen U.S. Capabilities, GAO-17-440T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14,
2017) and Federal Information Security: Agencies Need to Correct
Weaknesses and Fully Implement Security Programs, GAO-15-714
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these priority recommendations, since 1990, we have
maintained a High Risk List to call attention to government operations
that are high risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse,
and mismanagement, or that are in need of transformation.\9\ Our High
Risk program has served to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses
in areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical
services to the public. Progress has been possible through the
concerted actions and efforts of the Congress and agencies, including
within State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO, High Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While
Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, we would like to call your attention to three
government-wide High Risk areas: (1) strategic human capital
management, (2) ensuring the security of Federal information systems
and cyber critical infrastructure and protecting the privacy of
personally identifiable information--1 of the 28 priority
recommendations is related to this High Risk area--and (3) improving
management of IT acquisitions and operations. Continuing management
attention in these three areas is needed at all Federal agencies.
Regarding IT acquisitions, we have identified the need for Federal
agencies to continue to expeditiously implement the requirements of
December 2014 IT acquisition reform legislation, known as the Federal
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), and to report
all data center consolidation cost savings to OMB and address
weaknesses in their management of software licenses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FITARA was enacted into law as a part of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, Public Law No. 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D,
Sec. Sec. 831-837, 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-3450 (2014). See, for example,
GAO, Data Center Optimization: Agencies Need to Complete Plans to
Address Inconsistencies in Reported Savings, GAO-17-388 (Washington,
D.C.: May 18, 2017) and Federal Software Licenses: Better Management
Needed to Achieve Significant Savings Government-Wide, GAO-14-413
(Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your department's continued commitment to these
important issues. If you have any questions or would like to discuss
any of the issues outlined in this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., Managing Director,
International Affairs and Trade at [email protected] or 202-512-7331.
Of course, we will continue to coordinate with State's GAO Liaison,
Julianne Shinnick, and her team on all of the 135 open recommendations
to determine which of our recommendations should be closed.

Sincerely yours,

Gene L. Dodaro
Comptroller General of the United States

Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Mick Mulvaney, Director, OMB
Julianne Shinnick, State

ENCLOSURE

Department of State Open Priority Recommendations

security of overseas personnel and facilities
Countering Overseas Threats: Gaps in State Department Management of
Security Training May Increase Risk to U.S. Personnel. GAO-14-
360. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2014.
Open Priority Recommendations:
--To strengthen State's ability to ensure that U.S. civilian
personnel are in compliance with the Foreign Affairs Counter
Threat (FACT) training requirement, the Secretary of State
should monitor or evaluate overall levels of compliance with
the FACT training requirement among U.S. civilian personnel
under chief-of-mission authority who are subject to the
requirement.
--To strengthen State's ability to ensure that U.S. civilian
personnel are in compliance with the FACT training requirement,
the Secretary of State should identify a mechanism to readily
determine the universe of assigned U.S. civilian personnel
under chief-of-mission authority who are required to complete
FACT training.
--To strengthen State's ability to ensure that U.S. civilian
personnel are in compliance with the FACT training requirement,
the Secretary of State should take steps to ensure that
management personnel responsible for assigning personnel to
designated high-threat countries consistently verify that all
assigned U.S. civilian personnel under chief-of-mission
authority who are required to complete FACT training have
completed it before arrival in the designated high-threat
countries.
--To strengthen State's ability to ensure that U.S. civilian
personnel are in compliance with the FACT training requirement,
the Secretary of State should take steps to ensure that
management personnel responsible for granting country clearance
consistently verify that all short-term temporary duty U.S.
civilian personnel under chief-of-mission authority who are
required to complete FACT training have completed it before
arrival in the designated high-threat countries.

Actions Needed: State concurred with these recommendations. State needs
to take several actions to strengthen its ability to ensure that U.S.
civilian personnel are in compliance with the FACT training
requirement. For example, State officials said that they are developing
a plan to utilize various electronic systems to monitor overall levels
of compliance for assigned and short-term temporary duty personnel.
State officials also said that they are developing a plan to achieve
real-time verification of FACT training for assigned personnel using
data from its Student Training Management System. As of April 2017,
State had not completed either plan.

Managing Director: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.
Contact: 202-512-7331 or [email protected].
Diplomatic Security: Overseas Facilities May Face Greater Risks Due to
Gaps in Security- Related Activities, Standards, and Policies.
GAO-14-655. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2014.
Open Priority Recommendations:
--To strengthen the effectiveness of State's ability to identify
risks and mitigate vulnerabilities, the Secretary of State
should direct the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) to
routinely ensure that necessary waivers and exceptions are in
place for all work facilities at posts overseas.
--To strengthen the effectiveness of State's ability to identify
risks and mitigate vulnerabilities, the Secretary of State
should direct DS to develop a process to ensure that mitigating
steps agreed to in granting waivers and exceptions have been
implemented.
--To strengthen the effectiveness of State's risk management
policies, the Secretary of State should develop a risk
management policy and procedures for ensuring the physical
security of diplomatic facilities, including roles and
responsibilities of all stakeholders and a routine feedback
process that continually incorporates new information.
--To improve the consistency and data reliability of State risk
management data, the Secretary of State should direct the Under
Secretary for Management to identify and eliminate
inconsistencies between and within the Foreign Affairs Manual
(FAM), Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH), and other guidance
concerning physical security.
--To strengthen the applicability and effectiveness of State's
physical security standards, the Secretary of State should work
through DS or, in his capacity as chair, through the Overseas
Security Policy Board (OSPB) to develop physical security
standards for facilities not currently covered by existing
standards.
--To strengthen the applicability and effectiveness of the State's
physical security standards, the Secretary of State should work
through DS or, in his capacity as chair, through the OSPB to
clarify existing flexibilities in the FAH to ensure that
security and life-safety updates to the OSPB standards and
Physical Security Handbook are updated through an expedited
review process.
--To strengthen the applicability and effectiveness of State's
physical security standards, the Secretary of State should work
through DS or, in his capacity as chair, through the OSPB to
develop a process to routinely review all OSPB standards and
the Physical Security Handbook to determine if the standards
adequately address evolving threats and risks.
--To strengthen the applicability and effectiveness of State's
physical security standards, the Secretary of State should work
through DS or, in his capacity as chair, through the OSPB to
develop a policy for the use of interim and temporary
facilities that includes definitions for such facilities,
timeframes for use, and a routine process for reassessing the
interim or temporary designation.

Actions Needed: State generally agreed with these recommendations, but,
as of April 2017, State had not completed all of the actions it has
planned to address them. State needs to take several actions to improve
its ability to identify and mitigate risks, increase data reliability,
and enhance security policies. For example, State needs to complete its
efforts to track implementation of waiver and exception mitigation
strategies through the deficiencies database. State also needs to take
actions to improve the consistency and data reliability of its risk
management data. For example, State needs to complete its revision of
sections in the FAM and FAH related to physical security to ensure that
guidance concerning physical security is consistent. Lastly, State
needs to take actions to strengthen the applicability and effectiveness
of its physical security standards, including completing an update to
the FAH that specifically defines the physical security requirements
for all facilities.

Director: Michael J. Courts
Contact: 202-512-8980 or [email protected].
Diplomatic Security: State Department Should Better Manage Risks to
Residences and Other Soft Targets Overseas. GAO-15-700.
Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2015.
Open Priority Recommendations:
--To enhance State's efforts to manage risks to residences, schools,
and other soft targets overseas, the Secretary of State should
direct DS to institute procedures to improve posts' compliance
with requirements for conducting residential security surveys.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage risks to residences, schools,
and other soft targets overseas, the Secretary of State should
direct DS to take steps to clarify existing standards and
security-related guidance for residences. For example, DS could
conduct a comprehensive review of its various standards and
security-related guidance for residences and take steps to
identify and eliminate gaps and inconsistencies.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage risks to residences, schools,
and other soft targets overseas, the Secretary of State should
direct DS to develop procedures for ensuring that all
residences at posts overseas either meet applicable standards
or have required exceptions on file.

Actions Needed: State concurred with these recommendations and
described its plans to address the recommendations in a July 2015
letter to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations. As of April 2017, State needs to take actions to enhance its
efforts to manage risks to residences, schools, and other soft targets
overseas. For example, State needs to incorporate the residential
security program reporting requirement into the FAM. Furthermore, State
needs to complete its comprehensive review of security standards and
guidance for residences and take steps to identify and eliminate gaps
and inconsistencies, steps that it reported initiating in July 2015.

Director: Michael J. Courts
Contact: 202-512-8980 or [email protected].
Diplomatic Security: State Should Enhance Its Management of
Transportation-Related Risks to Overseas U.S. Personnel. GAO-
17-124. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2016.
Open Priority Recommendations:
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to create consolidated guidance for Regional Security
Officers that specifies required elements to include in post
travel notification and transportation security policies. For
example, as part of its current effort to develop standard
templates for certain security directives, DS could develop
templates for transportation security and travel notification
policies that specify the elements required in all security
directives as recommended by the February 2005 Iraq
Accountability Review Board as well as the standard
transportation-related elements that DS requires in such
policies.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to create more comprehensive guidance for DS reviewers to
use when evaluating posts' transportation security and travel
notification policies. For example, the checklist DS reviewers
currently use could be modified to stipulate that reviewers
should check all security directives for DS-required elements
recommended by the February 2005 Iraq Accountability Review
Board. The checklist could also provide guidance on how to take
the presence or absence of these required elements into account
when assigning a score to a given policy.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to clarify whether or not the FAH's armored vehicle policy
for overseas posts is that every post must have sufficient
armored vehicles, and if DS determines that the policy does not
apply to all posts, articulate the conditions under which it
does not apply.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to develop monitoring procedures to ensure that all posts
comply with the FAH's armored vehicle policy for overseas posts
once the policy is clarified.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to implement a mechanism, in coordination with other
relevant State offices, to ensure that Emergency Action
Committees discuss their posts' armored vehicle needs at least
once each year.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to clarify existing guidance on refresher training, such as
by delineating how often refresher training should be provided
at posts facing different types and levels of threats, which
personnel should receive refresher training, and how the
completion of refresher training should be documented.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to improve guidance for Regional Security Officers, in
coordination with other relevant State offices and non-State
agencies as appropriate, on how to promote timely communication
of threat information to post personnel and timely receipt of
such information by post personnel.
--To enhance State's efforts to manage transportation-related
security risks overseas, the Secretary of State should direct
DS to take steps, in coordination with other relevant State
offices and non-State agencies as appropriate, to make travel
notification systems easily accessible to post personnel who
are required to submit such notifications, including both State
and non-State personnel.

Actions Needed: State concurred with these recommendations and provided
updates in October 2016 and April 2017 describing its plans to address
them, steps it had taken to date, and expected timeframes for
completing these actions. As of April 2017, State needs to take steps
to improve guidance for security officials and the monitoring of
implementation of transportation security policies at overseas posts.
For example, State needs to create consolidated guidance that specifies
transportation security requirements and to clarify which posts are
required to have armored vehicle policies. State also needs to develop
monitoring procedures to ensure posts comply with State's armored
vehicle policy and ensure that posts discuss armored vehicle needs.

Director: Michael J. Courts
Contact: 202-512-8980 or [email protected].
security assistance
Security Assistance: U.S. Government Should Strengthen End-Use
Monitoring and Human Rights Vetting for Egypt. GAO-16-435.
Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2016.
Open Priority Recommendations:
--To strengthen compliance with the Leahy laws and implementation of
State's human rights vetting process and to help ensure that
U.S.-funded assistance is not provided to Egyptian security
forces that have committed gross violations of human rights,
the Secretary of State should determine, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense, the factors that resulted in some
Egyptian security forces not being vetted before receiving U.S.
training, and take steps to address these factors, to ensure
full compliance with human rights vetting requirements for
future training.
--To strengthen compliance with the Leahy laws and implementation of
State's human rights vetting process and to help ensure that
U.S.-funded assistance is not provided to Egyptian security
forces that have committed gross violations of human rights, as
State works to implement a revised version of the International
Vetting and Security Tracking system (INVEST) that is expected
to help facilitate equipment vetting, the Secretary of State
should develop timeframes for establishing corresponding
policies and procedures to implement a vetting process to help
enable the U.S. Government to provide a more reasonable level
of assurance that equipment is not transferred to foreign
security forces, including those in Egypt, when there is
credible information that a unit has committed a gross
violation of human rights.

Actions Needed: State concurred with these recommendations. State needs
to take additional actions to help ensure compliance with the Leahy
laws and implementation of State's human rights vetting process and to
help ensure that U.S. funded assistance is not provided to Egyptian
security forces that have committed gross violations of human rights.
As of April 2017, State had provided revised guidance for equipment
vetting in Egypt; however, it had not developed plans for implementing
these procedures more broadly.

Managing Director: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.
Contact: 202-512-7331 or [email protected].
cost savings
Egypt: U.S. Government Should Examine Options for Using Unobligated
Funds and Evaluating Security Assistance Programs. GAO-15-259.
Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2015.
Open Priority Recommendation:
--Given the significant unobligated balances of about $260 million in
the Economic Support Funds account for Egypt previously
allocated for a cash transfer that the administration has
stated it no longer intends to carry out, the Secretary of
State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
Administrator should work to develop plans for an alternate use
of these funds, in consultation with the appropriate committees
of Congress. As part of planning for these funds, State should
also consider ways that this funding could potentially be used
to offset future budget requests.

Actions Needed: State concurred with this recommendation. As of April
2017, State, working with USAID, needs to develop plans for an
alternative use for the remaining $30 million of $260 million
unobligated Economic Support Funds.

Managing Director: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.
Contact: 202-512-7331 or [email protected].
humanitarian assistance
Syria Humanitarian Assistance: Some Risks of Providing Aid inside Syria
Assessed, but U.S. Agencies Could Improve Fraud Oversight. GAO-
16-629. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2016.
Open Priority Recommendation:
--To ensure that State has a comprehensive understanding of the risks
facing its implementing partners providing humanitarian
assistance to people inside Syria, the Secretary of State
should include in its voluntary contribution agreements with
implementing partners a requirement that the partner conduct
risk assessments addressing the risk of fraud.

Actions Needed: State concurred with this recommendation and has taken
steps to implement it since our report. According to Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration officials, the Bureau has not yet
completed voluntary contributions for the other two public
international organizations conducting activities inside Syria, as of
March 2017. We will continue to track relevant Bureau funding
agreements to determine that future awards to fund activities inside
Syria contain similar language on fraud risk assessments.

Director: Thomas Melito
Contact Information: 202-512-9601 or [email protected].
information systems
Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Address Aging Legacy
Systems. GAO-16-468. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2016.
Open Priority Recommendation:
--To address obsolete information technology investments in need of
modernization or replacement, the Secretary of State should
direct the Chief Information Officer to identify and plan to
modernize or replace legacy systems as needed and consistent
with Office of Management and Budget's draft guidance,
including timeframes, activities to be performed, and functions
to be replaced or enhanced.

Actions Needed: State concurred with this recommendation. As of April
2017, State needs to plan to replace legacy information technology
systems.

High Risk Area: Ensuring the security of Federal information systems
and cyber critical infrastructure and protecting the privacy of
personally identifiable information

Director: David A. Powner
Contact: 202-512-9286 or [email protected].
______

Prepared Statement of the Institute of International Education
On behalf of the Institute of International Education, I am honored
to submit testimony in support of the Fulbright international exchange
program, which is funded by the Department of State and implemented by
the Institute of International Education. Fulbright is the flagship
U.S. Government sponsored international exchange program--supporting
Americans to study and teach English overseas, and foreign students and
scholars who contribute to U.S. universities and communities, while
furthering their scholarship. No program reaches as many corners of the
world or the United States for over 70 years.
The latest publicly available Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
report, notes that foreign governments contributed $93 million. This
represents 20.8 percent of the total $448.45 million Fulbright program
in fiscal year 2014. An additional $16.8 million was contributed by
foreign private sources. Foreign contributions of $109.9 million
represent 24.5 percent of the total program.
We are concerned that foreign governments will reduce their
contributions if the U.S. Government cuts funding. There is no
realistic scenario where foreign and private contributions can make up
the difference of U.S. cuts so that the program is maintained at
current levels. In addition, the administration's proposed cuts to
Economic Support Fund would likely result in USAID missions in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt cutting back how much they allocate to
Fulbright.
As our Nation's flagship public diplomacy program, the Fulbright
Program projects American strength, shores up allies, and advances
American values of liberty, free markets and open exchange of ideas. It
is a long-term investment in building communities and collaboration by
advancing individuals' relationships, knowledge, and leadership skills.
This is an important role for our government to invest in, as private
international exchange programs do not have the reach and bilateral
leveraging value of Fulbright.
The Fulbright Program advances U.S. national security as one of the
most effective foreign policy tools available to the U.S. Government.
Fulbright alumni have become leaders and contributed greatly to
society--including 37 current or former heads of state or government,
57 Nobel Laureates, 82 Pulitzer Prize winners, 29 MacArthur Foundation
Fellows, 16 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients, and thousands of
leaders across the private, public and nonprofit sectors. The Fulbright
Program creates an unparalleled sphere of influence--future leaders who
benefited from U.S. higher education and gained understanding of
American communities and our people. The Fulbright Program operates in
countries that are key trading partners, strengthening economic ties
and building U.S. competitiveness. The Program provides U.S. Embassies
with a platform for positive engagement with government and civil
leaders and acts as a catalyst to attract foreign students to study at
colleges and universities in every State in the Union.
From its inception, the Fulbright Program has fostered bilateral
relationships in which other countries and governments work with the
U.S. to set joint priorities and shape the program to meet shared
needs. It has benefited from bipartisan congressional support for
decades. During the last several years of pressure on the Federal
budget, Fulbright has proven its value both to the U.S. and our
relationships internationally. While there are many competing demands
and worthwhile investments for the Federal Government, the Fulbright
program should be maintained in order to connect with the next
generation of leaders from around the world, and continue to cement
America's role as the preeminent higher education destination.

[This statement was submitted by Allan E. Goodman, President and
CEO.]
______

Prepared Statement of InterAction
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer written testimony
on the President's budget for fiscal year 2018. At a time when the role
of foreign assistance in U.S. policy is being questioned, we
particularly appreciate the opportunity the subcommittee created to
better document the impacts of proposed budget cuts and policies
included in the President's budget. It is not an exaggeration to say
that the budget decisions before Congress have life-and-death
consequences for the world's poorest people.
As an alliance of nearly 190 member organizations working in nearly
every developing country in the world, InterAction reflects a diversity
of actors working across multiple development and humanitarian sectors.
We have large and small members; faith-based and secular members;
members who receive the bulk of their funding from the Federal
Government, and members who are fully funded from private sources. As
American humanitarian and development nonprofits, our members are
committed to alleviating human suffering to make the world a more
peaceful, just, and prosperous place. Therefore, InterAction's focus,
and the primary focus of this testimony, is the impact of proposed cuts
or reforms on the people whose lives are most directly affected.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This testimony includes the many insights we have learned from
our members, but the INGO sector is not monolithic. This document
reflects InterAction's perspective on the views of our community.
InterAction is not a spokesperson for any individual member
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our community is united in its grave concerns about the cuts and
proposals included in the President's budget. Examined one at a time,
the proposed cuts are painful. Taken together, they fundamentally erode
our country's ability to deploy development and humanitarian assistance
in ways that not only advance human dignity and freedom, but support
our national interests. As detailed below, the proposals in the
President's budget would reduce the transformative economic impacts
that our organizations see every day, cost lives, potentially
exacerbate instability in already troubled regions of the world, and
diminish the United States' standing and influence in the international
community.
What is especially concerning is that this proposal was made in
direct contrast to strong, sustained, and bipartisan congressional
support for international development and humanitarian assistance in
last month's fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations legislation. The
United States cannot step back from this longstanding leadership and
support without causing irreparable damage. InterAction intends to
illustrate the forms this damage would take across and in key sectors
where our members work saving and improving lives around the world.
To show the strength of support for this position, attached is a
statement from InterAction and 82 INGOs responding to the proposals
included in the President's budget, and requesting that Congress
appropriate no less than $60 billion for the international assistance
budget. This statement marks our topline concerns about the dramatic
cuts to life-saving accounts. We have also attached a letter our
community sent to Congress from 103 INGOs, endorsing robust funding for
critical poverty fighting and humanitarian accounts for the
subcommittee's consideration.
Cuts are not Synonymous with Reform
The fiscal year 2018 President's budget frequently cited reform as
the rationale for proposing substantial cuts to foreign assistance. In
several diverse sectors, accounts were consolidated, cut, and/or zeroed
out. Offices with different missions, ways of operation, and approaches
to their work were merged. Of particular note, Development Assistance
(DA) funding, which supports development programming in some of the
poorest countries so that they can provide for their citizens, was
eliminated and merged with the Economic Support Fund (ESF), which is
more often used as a tool for supporting allies and advancing specific
U.S. political interests, while simultaneously supporting individual
development programs.
U.S. foreign assistance programs can and should be made more
efficient and effective, but the scale, scope, and extent of cuts
proposed to the foreign assistance budget far outstrip any possible
efficiencies that may be found. These and other reform proposals should
be explored with a clear vision of what the U.S. is trying to achieve
in the world and made after a careful exploration and weighing of the
pros and cons of proposed changes.
Over the last 50 years, the development and humanitarian community
have learned a tremendous amount about what works and what does not in
programming and management. American diplomats, development officials,
international health workers, and humanitarians are trained
professionals with different, meaningful skills. Combining offices or
accounts with potentially competing goals and staff requirements will
reduce effectiveness more than it reduces costs. Such cuts may also
lead to costlier interventions down the road if the U.S. reduces the
priority of core investments like development assistance. InterAction
and many of our members recently signed onto the Modernizing Foreign
Assistance Network's series of guiding principles \2\ that address many
of these issues and warrant meaningful consideration by the
administration and Congress when considering steps toward reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://modernizeaid.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MFAN-goals-
principles-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the U.S. depends on a robust and independent lead
foreign assistance agency to achieve sustainable impact over the long
term. The need for holistic foreign policy based on development,
diplomacy, and defense is not in tension with an independent
development agency. It is only strengthened when development is
prioritized alongside of diplomacy and defense, rather than subsumed
underneath them. Successful development and humanitarian programs
support U.S. foreign policy interests, but they operate through
different modalities and on different timelines than diplomacy and
defense. A lead aid agency that is independent from the State
Department preserves the United States' ability to address a range of
challenges. To be effective, such an agency needs the authority to
conduct its own policy, planning, and field-based analysis to support
long-lasting economic growth and development. It should also include a
dedicated funding stream for programming, like Development Assistance.
We have seen substantive reforms achieved through strong,
bipartisan congressional effort, such as the Global Food Security Act
and Foreign Assistance Transparency and Accountability Act. It is
encouraging to see this subcommittee and Congress engage key experts
and partners implementing assistance to think through and design
reforms given their knowledge and deep involvement in programming U.S.
foreign assistance.
Basic Education
Basic education has been a bedrock of U.S. development assistance,
with strong allocations this subcommittee has made to basic education
complementing authorization proposals, such as the bipartisan
Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development (READ) Act. Each
dollar invested in an additional year of schooling generates 10 dollars
in benefits to low-income countries. Primary school enrollment rates
have tripled and global literacy rates are up 33 percent in the last 25
years.\3\ Ignoring these gains and congressional support, the
President's budget cuts basic education programming in half.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Agency for International Development, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In tangible terms, this type of reduction translates to taking away
literacy support from some 3 million elementary age children. An
additional half million young learners may not even be enrolled in
primary school.
Democracy, Rights, and Governance
This subcommittee has also indicated its clear support for
increased assistance for democracy, rights, and governance--
foundational American values. In fiscal year 2016 and 2017, Congress
specified that the administration spend no less than $2.3 billion on
democracy programs and provide $170 million for the National Endowment
for Democracy. By providing a funding floor for democracy programming,
Congress protected programming necessary to address democratic
backsliding, to consolidate gains from economic development efforts,
and to contribute to a more stable and prosperous world. Cuts to this
account would not only reduce support to like-minded reformers around
the world who are committed to freedom, equality, and individual
rights, but could undermine faith in the United States commitment to
promoting basic American values.
Account consolidations proposed in the President's budget, could
adversely affect U.S. support for Democracy, Rights, and Government
(DRG) assistance, as it has equally important diplomatic and
development contexts. The benefits of DRG assistance through USAID are
realized through reinforcing the political and social stability
afforded by good, responsive governments. This type of work is separate
from diplomatic assistance administered by DOS that tends to focus on
more specific outcomes or concerns through established, tailored
relationships. Each serves a necessary, complimentary role--with proven
results.
Environmental Concerns
InterAction is also concerned by environmental and climate
proposals in the President's budget, particularly in light of other
policy changes. Developing countries are especially vulnerable to the
effects of environmental change. Widespread impacts such as drought and
flooding events, more severe and frequent weather-related disasters,
coastal flooding, increased incidence of pests and diseases, and
political and economic instability will compromise the livelihoods of
communities across the globe. World Bank research suggests that without
action to address these issues, more than 100 million people could be
pushed into poverty by 2030.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/11/08/rapid-
climate-informed-development-needed-to-keep-climate-change-from-
pushing-more-than-100-million-people-into-poverty-by-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of this change imperil generations of development gains
and are already driving humanitarian crises, despite Congress
rightfully pushing USAID and our member organizations to achieve
greater results. Despite this, the President's budget zeroes out both
bilateral programs and U.S. contributions to the Green Climate Fund,
making development assistance in other sectors less effective.
Food Security and Agriculture
Since the establishment of Food for Peace more than 60 years ago,
the United States has been the world leader in the fight against global
hunger. InterAction thanks this subcommittee for its ongoing efforts
that have allowed the U.S. Government to further build food security
and agricultural development programs which combat global hunger and
malnutrition. Congress as a whole has shown strong bipartisan support
for these programs, including with the recent passage of the Global
Food Security Act into law in the 114th Congress.
Despite the impressive gains made over the years, more work
remains. Seven hundred ninety-five million men, women, and children
around the world struggle every day to secure the nutritious food they
need to live.\5\ The President's budget is a step back in the fight
against hunger. The President's budget would cut agricultural
development funding in half to less than $500 million, zero out Food
for Peace Title II, the McGovern Dole International Food For Education
and Child Nutrition account, and the Global Agriculture and Food
Security Program, and cut the nutrition programs in the Global Health
Program account and the Emergency Food Security Program in the
International Disaster Assistance account. These proposals would
severely hamstring efforts to help people feed their own families and
build resilience to shocks--making it more likely that the need for
emergency responses will grow. To put it simply, this budget proposal
means more men, women and children will go hungry. Specifically, based
on prior year calculations by leading international organizations, we
believe: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf.
\6\ Based on the research and calculations by a group of leading
international organizations including Bread for the World, CARE,
Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Committee, Mercy
Corps, ONE Campaign, PATH, Save the Children, and World Vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Proposed cuts to McGovern Dole could lead to some 2.9 million
individuals being cut off from nutrition, education and hygiene
programs;
--Proposed cuts to emergency food assistance could eliminate access
to lifesaving food assistance for some 22.6 million people in
crisis; and
--Proposed cuts to Agricultural development could translate to
approximately 4.4 million farmers loosing access to programs
designed to support their own growth out of poverty.
U.S. international food assistance made an enormous difference in
the lives of 48.8 million people in 2014. The Feed the Future
Initiative is implementing the Global Food Security Strategy,
partnering with a number of developing countries to lay the groundwork
for further advances in achieving food and nutrition security. Progress
in agricultural development creates resilience in the face of future
security threats while opening new markets and trading partners for our
private sector. This subcommittee's ongoing commitment to combating
global hunger is laudable, and needs to be continued rather than
diminished.
Global Health
Great strides have been made in global health. We responded to the
threat of Ebola. Transmission rates of HIV have plummeted. Maternal and
child survival rates are climbing. We are more effectively combatting
malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases. Polio is on the
verge of eradication. Yet in the face of this progress, the
administration has proposed cuts of 26 percent across global health
accounts in the Department of State and USAID--including a cut of over
51 percent to USAID programming. Additional global health funding at
the Centers for Disease Control, which comes before the Labor-HHS
Subcommittee is also in line for a cut of 29 percent.
Reducing investments in global health programs would roll back
progress made in reaching the finish line on bold global health
initiatives to which countries around the world have committed
resources and initiatives, making it that much harder for us to reach
these levels again and ultimately achieve our global health goals.
Specifically, based on prior year calculations by leading international
organizations,\7\ we believe that proposed cuts to global health
medicine could result in some 12 million fewer bed nets and 8.8 million
fewer malaria treatments reaching vulnerable populations. Proposed cuts
to the Global Fund could translate to some 299,000 fewer lives saved,
and a missed opportunity to mobilize some $675 million in other
country's own domestic investments in the health of their population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on the research and calculation of a group of leading
international organizations including Bread for the World, CARE,
Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Committee, Mercy
Corps, ONE Campaign, PATH, Save the Children, and World Vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to maximize the impact of U.S. investments and increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of initiatives worldwide, health
practitioners and U.S. health agencies have worked to integrate global
health programs and services. Therefore, unexamined reductions in
funding for individual programs would also have ripple effects for
overall global health investments.
Humanitarian Assistance
Congress has recognized the unprecedented scope of global crises.
One hundred twenty-eight million people worldwide are in need of
humanitarian assistance, including 20 million people living in danger
of famine conditions, and 65 million people who have been forcibly
displaced. Congress responded to this need for life-saving assistance
by appropriating nearly $9.5 billion dollars across accounts that
provide the bulk of U.S. humanitarian assistance in fiscal year 2017:
International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA), Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA),
and Food for Peace Title II (Food for Peace)--the last of which falls
before the Agriculture Subcommittee. This assistance saves lives, helps
mitigate global crises, and generous funding from the United States has
been leveraged to increase commitments from other nations to do their
part.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2018 cumulatively cuts the
humanitarian accounts by 44 percent. Each one receives a cut--with Food
for Peace and ERMA being completely zeroed out--with consolidated
accounts being planned to perform more functions in the face of growing
needs, but with fewer resources. A 44 percent cut will not lead to
remarkable new efficiencies. It will lead to fewer people receiving
assistance and inevitably, lives lost. Specific impacts include: an
estimated 39 million vulnerable people not receiving humanitarian
assistance through IDA (on top of the emergency food assistance cuts in
IDA mentioned previously); and 710,000 refugees in the Near East and
Africa in danger of not receiving assistance through MRA, with further
impacts due to reduced contributions to the International Committee of
the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and the
International Organization for Migration.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Based on the research and calculations by a group of leading
international organizations including Bread for the World, CARE,
Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Committee, Mercy
Corps, ONE Campaign, PATH, Save the Children, and World Vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps as alarming, the President's budget defies Congressional
intent by stating it will expand use of carryover funds from these
accounts to maintain obligation levels through fiscal year 2018. One of
the core principles of humanitarian assistance is that we respond
rapidly and adequately to people in need. Our members work around and
through extraordinary budgetary and political pressures to reach the
most vulnerable populations in the world in order to save lives. This
subcommittee has shown time and again that it understands this and has
provided funding to match the significant and pressing humanitarian
needs around the world. However, Congress has not increased funding in
these accounts to be drawn down at a later time, this funding was
increased to save lives that hang in the balance now. Some carry-over
as a hedge to meet unanticipated needs in these accounts is normal and
necessary. Deliberately withholding funding from people in need of
life-saving assistance to cover budget cuts is not. The weeks and
months that funds are withheld to more evenly spread out cuts will be
measured in lives lost waiting for assistance to arrive.
While the fiscal year 2017 omnibus included language directing OMB,
the State Department, and USAID to report on the proposed use of $990
million of humanitarian assistance to prevent, relieve, and mitigate
famine conditions across Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, that
leaves $8.5 billion in humanitarian assistance without the same
transparency. InterAction applauds efforts to increase transparency and
feels that the Appropriations Committee should provide similar
requirements across humanitarian accounts for fiscal year 2018. Such
efforts would help ensure adequate responses across humanitarian
crises, wherever they may take place.
Multilateral Accounts
Support for multilateral accounts has historically been a bulwark
of American global leadership. While these accounts support
institutions that provide important foreign assistance, they also
ensure the United States a seat at the table in international fora and
lend us credibility on the global stage. The President's budget would
damage this standing by zeroing out numerous multilateral accounts like
Contributions to International Organizations and the previously
mentioned Green Climate Fund, as well as making substantial cuts to the
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities account.
These cuts include contributions to the United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF), compounding cuts to assistance children and mothers
receive in bilateral development and humanitarian accounts. Ninety-two
percent of UNICEF's funding goes directly to programming, providing for
vaccines, antiretroviral medicines for children and mothers with HIV,
nutritional supplements, emergency shelters, family reunification, and
educational supplies.
There can and should be important discussions about reforms that
should be made to the U.N. and its operations. However, cuts to U.N.
agencies that directly support programming and peacekeeping activities
that support U.S. foreign assistance and foreign policy priorities--
often made at the behest of the United States at the U.N. Security
Council--would only undermine our own foreign policy and diminish U.S.
influence in key international processes.
Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
Congress has long recognized the importance of safe water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) inmeeting our shared poverty reduction
and global health priorities. This assistance helps improve the dignity
of women and girls worldwide, helps communities stave off life-
threatening diseases, helps children spend more time attending school
instead of fetching water, helps women and girls have safe places to
tend to their menstrual hygiene needs, and enables people to lead
healthy productive lives that allow them to invest in their local
economies. Yet one in three people worldwide still live without a
decent toilet and one in ten lack safe drinking water.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://thewaterproject.org/water-scarcity/water_stats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite widespread support, the President's budget proposes a cut
of over 40 percent to water in all accounts from fiscal year 2017
levels. The funding requested simply does not reflect the need as
outlined above, nor ongoing Congressional support for WASH policy and
programs. In fact, the proposed cuts could result in an estimated 2.2
million people losing access to safe drinking water and sanitation
facilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Based on research from field data collected from WASHCost-IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre, WASH Advocates, Millennium
Water Alliance, CARE, WaterAid America, Water.org, Wine to Water, Water
For People, World Vision, Plan International USA, Catholic Relief
Services, USAID, The World Bank, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
and other organizations, and compiled by the previously mentioned group
of international organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterAction remains grateful to Congress for its longstanding
bipartisan support and looks forward to continuing to work together on
WASH issues. In 2014, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed the Senator
Paul Simon Water for the World Act, which reaffirmed our commitment to
providing WASH to the poorest and most marginalized communities. A key
provision of the bill ensured that funding is based on need, rather
than political significance. However, the proposal to eliminate the
Development Assistance account and consolidate it with the Economic
Support Fund, threatens the intent of this law. Eliminating Development
Assistance will reduce available funds for WASH programs, and will
negatively impact how WASH projects will be carried out in the poorest
regions of the world by displacing USAID's technical expertise in the
area.
Administration of Foreign Assistance
Finally, large-scale budget cuts would have impacts on the
effectiveness and accountability critical to how foreign aid is spent.
For example, USAID has increasingly usedlarge acquisition mechanisms--
Indefinite Duration Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IDIQs)--worth
hundreds of millions and, at times, billions of dollars for assistance
programming. IDIQs are most often implemented by for profit
contractors. The use of this mechanism diverts resources from those we
seek to help into corporate profits.
On the surface, these contracts may seem to be an efficient way to
implement similar programming to multiple recipient countries. However,
these contracts sever historic ties with local nonprofits and create
transactional relationships instead of those based on values.
Importantly, the benefits from small programs designed for specific
recipients are lost in favor of a broadly applied approach. For
example, the recent Rule of Law Technical Services Indefinite Quantity
Contract launched in 2013 ended many long-standing and effective
nonprofit implemented programs in favor of corporate-led programming.
In these countries, relationships were lost as contractors entered to
provide transactional services in place of nonprofits fostering
historic relationships.
Congress and the administration can take steps to reverse the
negative impacts IDIQs by recognizing the importance of nonprofits and
the important role of an independent and engaged civil society. By
fully funding staffing requirements at USAID and the Department of
State, Congress can prevent aggressive staff cuts, which often result
in fewer officers to oversee smaller grants with implementing partners
who possess deep knowledge of the communities and contexts in which
they work. Reducing staff capacity at U.S. foreign assistance agencies
may result in the use of more contractors implementing U.S. foreign
assistance, which may prove less effective. Cuts proposed in the
President's budget will only further cement the commercialization of
development and humanitarian assistance.
Conclusion
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to submit testimony. Congress
has historically acted as the validator of worthwhile presidential
initiatives--such as PEPFAR and Feed the Future--and a check on ill-
considered cuts--for example, Congress has appropriated humanitarian
assistance above the requests of both Republican and Democratic
administrations in recent years. Our community has expressed alarm over
the President's budget and we are encouraged by the shared, bipartisan
concerns expressed throughout Congress--including by Chairman Graham
and Ranking Member Leahy. InterAction looks forward to working with
this subcommittee, Congress more broadly, and the Trump administration
to ensure that the United States continues to be a leader in
cultivating a better and more prosperous world through its provision of
foreign assistance.

[This statement was submitted by Lindsay Coates, President.]
______

Prepared Statement of the International Rescue Committee--Voluntary
Testimony
The world is facing a daunting set of simultaneous and significant
global challenges. Protracted conflict, violence against civilians, and
total disregard for the humanitarian laws of war have driven 65 million
people from their homes; famine threatens four countries and puts 30
million at risk of starvation; and United States military forces are
engaged in countering terrorism in a dozen countries from Syria to
Somalia. These challenges threaten to deepen current crises and foment
further instability if not appropriately addressed. Our response must
be strong, efficient, effective, and commensurate with the global
challenges we face, which will require continued leadership of the
United States through the foreign aid budget and its programs and
activities.
The international response to these crises is already grossly
underfunded, and the reductions included in the fiscal year 2018
foreign aid budget request would unquestionably serve to widen the gulf
between needs and available assistance. United Nations appeals
outlining the needs for the largest seven crises around the world,
which affect over 78 million people and overlap with conflicts in which
U.S. forces are engaged, have an over $10 billion funding gap so far in
2017. In the face of these challenges, cutting the U.S. foreign aid
budget as the administration has proposed--a nearly one third reduction
overall, with a 46 percent cut to development assistance, a 26 percent
cut to global health programs, and a stunning 45 percent cut to life-
saving humanitarian assistance--would shirk America's moral obligations
and be self-defeating to its strategic interests. These cuts would
translate into excruciating choices for aid organizations like the
International Rescue Committee (IRC) and for the people we serve. They
would also significantly set back U.S. strategic leadership.
The U.S. is often called upon to mitigate the threats to human
lives and U.S. security and economic concerns from unchecked conflicts,
poorly managed and chaotic migration flows, pandemics, and famines.
Resolving these crises and preventing future ones requires fully
funding the U.S. humanitarian assistance budget and addressing the
structural problems of fragile states in smarter and more robust ways,
with sustained development assistance and aligned diplomatic efforts.
It also requires living up to the United States' commitment to offer
safe haven for a portion of the world's most vulnerable refugees
through resettlement. And while we should expect other nations to do
more, it is U.S. leadership that leverages commitments from other
countries. The U.S. fiscal year 2018 foreign aid budget should match
the scale and nature of current global challenges and reflect the U.S.
Government's longstanding bipartisan commitment to shared
responsibility and the safeguarding of its own vital interests.
The IRC has a unique vantage point, serving clients across the full
arc of these crises in conflict/disaster zones, in countries of first
refuge, on transit routes in Europe, and resettling the most vulnerable
few (who are admitted via the most stringent security vetting in the
world) to start new lives in the U.S. Many of the humanitarian crises
roiling globally threaten U.S. interests in key strategic locations.
IRC and organizations like ours serve wherever there is need, including
in many locations where U.S. national security interests are at stake,
including NE Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. In many
cases, given the grave security concerns and risks on the frontlines,
we and our partners are the first responders those in crisis meet
coming out of direct conflict. We therefore understand all too well
what is at stake in cutting foreign assistance funding, and offer the
following evidence and argument against it.
Aid saves lives.--Foreign aid has clearly demonstrated
effectiveness in saving and improving the lives of people in crisis and
poverty around the world. For example, USAID's Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA) responds to 60 humanitarian crises per year
affecting tens of millions of people, and the State Department Bureau
of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) leads on refugee
assistance including through support to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). U.S. foreign assistance has helped
ensure that in 2015, 6.4 million fewer children died before their fifth
birthday than in 1990. Because of programs like Feed the Future, nearly
500 million fewer people go hungry every day. Over the last two
decades, the number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide has
been cut in half, even while the global population has increased by 2
billion people, thanks in part to U.S. assistance to promote economic
growth, stability, and opportunity.
The impact of these cuts will be swift and devastating, and will be
felt for years to come. It is difficult to estimate the full extent of
such a retreat from U.S. engagement, but at least with regard to
humanitarian needs, this budget proposal would undoubtedly cost many
human lives. According to analysis from the former head of U.S.
disaster response, under the proposed budget food aid funding would
drop from $3.5 billion in 2017 to $1.5 billion in 2018, feeding 38
million fewer people. International disaster assistance, which cover
non-food relief, would decrease from $2.5 billion to $1 billion. As a
result, USAID could lose the resources they need to reach, among
others, up to 3.3 million Yemenis, 1.8 million Syrians, 1.2 million
Somalis, 945,000 South Sudanese, and 640,000 Nigerians. Refugee
assistance through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund (ERMA) accounts would
be cut by 18 percent, meaning that an estimated 3.5 million refugees
and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) would not receive assistance
globally, including about 1 million in the Middle East and 1.1 million
in Africa. Cutting off funding to immediate life-saving healthcare,
water/sanitation services, shelter assistance, gender-based violence
treatment and psychosocial support at a time of multiple famines and
raging conflict around the world would lead to increased levels of
refugees and IDPs and greater instability.
Aid is critical to U.S. strategic interests.--There can be no
effective foreign policy without effective humanitarian policy.
Humanitarian assistance is a moral choice and a strategic necessity.
President Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick
Mulvaney, has stated that this budget request is a ``hard power budget
. . . not a soft power budget.'' But over 120 retired three and four-
star generals publicly affirmed that a one-sided defense strategy that
under-resources humanitarian and development aid is costly and
ineffective. While Commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary
James Mattis himself stated, ``If you don't fully fund the State
Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' Here's why:
The experience of civilians caught in conflict--whether their
safety, security, and basic needs are met--determines the trajectory
for the aftermath of crisis and whether the sacrifice of American lives
and resources leads to successful stability or future resurgence of
extremism. As U.S. forces drive ISIS from Mosul and Raqqa, and support
local forces fighting Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin, al-Shabaab in
Somalia, and AQAP in Yemen, humanitarian organizations like the IRC
provide immediate life-saving assistance to civilians in caught in
these conflict zones and lay the groundwork for longer-term
stabilization. Sustained support to multilateral and USAID initiatives
in delivering emergency assistance and planting the seeds of good
governance is a critical ingredient for sustained conflict resolution.
The proposed cuts to USAID and the Department of State undercut whole-
of-government efforts that senior diplomatic, development, and defense
officials have long stressed are necessary to bring stability to
conflict zones.
Humanitarian aid also supports the low and middle income countries
that collectively host 88 percent of the world's 21 million refugees.
These countries, like U.S. allies Jordan and Turkey as well as long-
term hosts like Pakistan, Kenya, and Uganda are shouldering the
responsibility of millions of refugees at cost to their own political
and economic development as well as to regional stability. Both
refugees and these countries are pushed to desperate measures:
according to an IRC survey, 65 percent of Syrian children are at least
4 years behind in math and reading skills, and many schools stretched
beyond capacity have implemented double shifts each school day. With
widespread poverty among refugees (90 percent in Jordan and 70 percent
in Lebanon), it is troubling but unsurprising that reports of child
labor have risen by 73 percent in Jordan since before the influx of
refugees. The U.S. commitment to provide humanitarian, development,
economic, and security assistance to support the protection of
civilians in countries of first refuge is also a function of
enlightened self-interest--the forced and premature return of Syrian
refugees to an unstable Syria, of Afghan refugees to an unstable
Afghanistan, or of Somalis to an unstable Somalia foments new currents
of conflict and crisis that, given U.S. interests and commitments in
these regions, draw U.S. funds and U.S. troops into further quagmires.
We are already seeing the cost of inadequate crisis response and
prevention in many areas where the IRC works. The toll is evident in
the flows of Syrian refugees to Europe, triggered in part by a halving
of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees in 2015, which pose great
risk to refugees' lives and have had profound political consequences
for Europe. It is evident in the drastic choices Syria's overwhelmed
neighbors have made to close borders, which have created humanitarian
and security challenges like the situation at the Berm, where tens of
thousands are trapped in a no-man's land between Syrian and Jordan with
little humanitarian assistance and preyed upon by violent groups. And
it is evident in the involuntary return of over 600,000 refugees from
Pakistan to an unstable Afghanistan last year--the most since 2005 and
a six-fold increase from 2015. Reducing our emergency and refugee
assistance support for frontline states will heighten these high
pressure situations.
It is also demonstrated by the fact that U.S. troops in Iraq are
working to clear some areas of terrorist groups for the third time, in
part because insufficient investment in humanitarian response,
development progress, and political reform has each time allowed
extremists (first AQI, then ISIS) to take hold. Cuts to humanitarian
budgets or development assistance will only exacerbate the situation.
Reducing funds to the IDA and MRA accounts will curtail emergency
responders' ability to respond to immediate needs for shelter, water
and sanitation, medical assistance, and psychosocial support to those
who have been living under ISIS rule. Moreover, the 83 percent cut to
Iraq's development and economic assistance funding will inhibit
essential investments to rebuild institutions and strengthen governance
systems--the kind of long-term planning for stability that needs to
happen today in order to prevent another round of fighting and mass
displacement tomorrow.
Development assistance is key to stemming global threats.--Fragile
states--the source of many threats to U.S. security like large-scale
displacement, pandemics, terrorism, arms and drug trafficking--are
characterized by weak governance, corruption, and limited growth. High-
profile arenas like Syria and Afghanistan are certainly fragile, but
the list also includes more overlooked crises like South Sudan (which
has produced over one million refugees in the last 3 months) and Niger
(one of the poorest countries on earth and a major transit point for
West African migrants headed to Europe). Resolving fragility requires
helping these states build and sustain effective institutions,
inclusive governance structures, and economies that can respond to the
needs of their people.
In past years, only 30 percent of USAID spending has been in
fragile states, half of that to just four countries. And the assistance
they do receive is often through singular interventions that do little
to build resiliency (e.g., a siloed HIV program that does not
strengthen health systems and is thus of limited use in stopping an
Ebola outbreak; or overinvestments in service delivery while ignoring
economic development and institutional reforms to support
sustainability and paths to aid independence). The administration's
ESDF request results in the elimination of traditional development and
economic bilateral assistance for 8 fragile states (Burundi, Central
African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Niger, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe,
and Thailand) and reductions of over 20 percent to 8 others (Ethiopia,
Liberia, Mali, Tanzania, Uganda, Burma, Iraq, and Jordan).
U.S. assistance helps counter unique vulnerabilities for neglected
populations, including for women and girls.--The risks women and girls
face in crisis situations are striking: 1 in 3 women worldwide
experiences some form of gender-based violence in her lifetime,
including at least 1 in 5 displaced women. Girls are 2.5 times more
likely to drop out of school during conflicts than boys, and child
marriage rates among Syrian girls have quadrupled since the onset of
the crisis, as families cope with poverty and insecurity. Already
facing economic and gender inequality, displaced women are often forced
for reasons of survival into taking low-paid, low-skilled jobs with
higher risks of exploitation.
Funding for programs with a gender component would be cut by 55
percent from 2016 to 2018. The direct decrease in gender-specific
funding would have serious consequences (e.g., 1.8 million fewer girls
would receive an education). However, the cuts to refugee and
humanitarian assistance will also disproportionately impact these
neglected populations, as, for example, 75 percent of Syrian refugees
in neighboring countries and 86 percent of South Sudanese refugees in
Uganda are women and children. The U.S. foreign assistance budget
should deepen integration of gender programming across foreign aid
accounts, shore up dedicated gender equality programs, and mandate best
practices by implementers (e.g. lighting and locks on latrine doors) to
help ensure women and girls can overcome barriers and receive the
specialized protection and programming they need.
A strong resettlement program is a critical strategic element of
U.S. foreign policy.--The proposed cuts to the foreign assistance
budget impact not only our ability to help vulnerable populations and
diminish risks abroad, but also here in the United States. The
President's fiscal year 2018 budget request for MRA proposes $410
million for the refugee admissions program, roughly $100 million less
than the estimated amount spent on refugee admissions in fiscal year
2016--another indication of the administration's intentions to
dramatically reduce and alter refugee resettlement in the coming months
and years. In addition to the lives that will be lost as a result of
this abdication of U.S. global leadership, this move sends the wrong
signal to critical U.S. national security and foreign policy allies who
are hosting vastly greater numbers of refugees. It emboldens terrorist
groups who seek to sow fear by targeting the very people they have
victimized. It deprives American communities of the talents and
contributions of these new Americans, and also keeps American families
indefinitely separated. IRC recommends the United States admit at least
75,000 refugees in fiscal year 2018.
U.S. leadership generates more commitments from the international
community.--We have seen that U.S. global leadership leverages
commitments from other countries, such as the 30 percent increase in
humanitarian funds pledged at last year's UN General Assembly, with 11
countries doubling their contributions. Additionally, 18 countries
committed to start or expand resettlement programs, roughly doubling
the number of refugees they would collectively admit. Among major
refugee-hosting nations, 17 countries committed to increase refugees'
school enrollment, and 15 host countries committed to change their laws
and policies to make it easier for refugees to work lawfully and
support themselves. Many of these changes come with significant
political tradeoffs for host nations; following through on them will
take continued global encouragement and accountability. It will be
difficult to ensure other countries uphold their commitments and shared
responsibility if the United States retracts its leadership.
Moreover, U.S. leadership and contributions through multilateral
institutions allow for greater leverage per dollar and greater global
reach than we can accomplish alone. The U.N. system has overseen
decades of unparalleled international peace. Every year, the U.N.
provides food to 80 million people in 80 countries. It vaccinates 40
percent of the world's children, coordinates responses to epidemics
like Zika and Ebola, and has virtually eradicated the crippling polio
virus. It provides life-saving assistance to the 65 million people
displaced by conflict and instability. U.N. peacekeeping efforts, too,
have been shown to shorten conflicts, prevent them from recurring, and
reduce harm to civilians. Yet the administration's request would cut
U.S. contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping and regular budget by 37
percent and 27 percent, respectively. There are undoubtedly
improvements that can and should be made to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, accountability and transparency of these critical
partners, but the consequences of these drastic cuts will fall first
and foremost on civilian lives and U.S. interests.
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs)
likewise have leading expertise in development programming, and also
have the advantage of borrowing against capital contributions on the
private market, enabling them to extend 2-5 dollars of financing every
year per each dollar invested (in a one-time contribution) by donor
countries. The MDBs have stepped up in humanitarian response as well,
mobilizing over $17 billion to support refugee-hosting countries and
fragile states while partnering with U.N. agencies to deliver emergency
famine relief in Yemen and the Horn of Africa. However, the MDBs'
effectiveness depends on continued donor support and partnership in
delivering committed contributions and aligning development strategies.
The President's budget request would cut contributions to the MDBs by
$426 million, effectively reducing our leveraged impact by up to $2.13
billion.
U.S. foreign assistance is needed now more than ever.--It is a
critical lifeline for the world's most vulnerable and the visible
expression of America's interests and values. The drastic cuts proposed
in President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget do nothing to further
either those interests or those values. Cutting foreign aid could
further set back an entire generation of people in crisis, and give
rise to additional threats against our strategic concerns. The current
global challenges we face as a nation argue for more, not less, foreign
aid, and strong U.S. leadership. The President's budget represents a
retreat from that leadership and the global actions that support
America's security and prosperity. It is a budget without strategy,
disconnected from the threats and challenges that must be contained,
and the opportunities that could be seized, to make the world safer and
more prosperous for all. The IRC calls on the U.S. Congress to
ultimately fund a robust foreign assistance budget that supports these
critical goals.

For more information, please see:
--Letters of support for U.S. foreign assistance compiled by USGLC
from over 225 business leaders, 100 Christian faith leaders,
and 120 U.S. military generals.
--Testimony by IRC President and CEO David Miliband for the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on March 15, 2017: ``Six
Years of War in Syria: The Human Toll.''
--IRC statement on the administration's fiscal year 2018 budget
request from May 23, 2017.
______

Prepared Statement of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN)
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the
Committee: On behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network,
thank you for the chance to submit written testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2018 appropriations and the importance of effective foreign
assistance. The MFAN coalition was built on the principle that foreign
assistance is an invaluable tool of foreign policy that saves lives,
promotes American values, ensures our national security, and advances
our economic interests. Fifteen years of reforms have made U.S.
assistance more effective, and to continue this trajectory MFAN urges
Congress to reject the deep and disproportionate cuts to foreign
assistance proposed by this administration and to support the following
in fiscal year 2018:
--Strengthened text requiring congressional review and consultation
throughout any reform or reorganization of foreign assistance
(bill text)
--USAID, USAID Operating Expenses, $1,362,000,000 (fiscal year 2017
total enacted level)
--USAID, USAID Capital Investment Fund, $200,000,000 (fiscal year
2017 total enacted level)
--State Department/USAID, Identifying domestic resource mobilization
partners (report language)
--State Department, Funding ForeignAssistance.gov (bill text)
--USAID, Measuring sustained results at USAID (report language)
A Strong Foreign Affairs Budget
United States leadership is critical to confronting the full range
of challenges we face around the world, making effective foreign
assistance more important than ever, even in a challenging budget
environment. We at MFAN urge you to defend American leadership by
resisting disproportionate and unprecedented cuts to poverty-fighting
foreign assistance. The Trump administration's proposed cuts to the
State Department and USAID not only threaten national security by
increasing defense spending at the expense of diplomacy and
development, it also threatens all the effectiveness gains that ensure
American taxpayers dollars are used effectively.
MFAN strongly urges Congress to reject these cuts as they would
diminish America's standing in the world, and put millions of lives at
risk. Your past leadership encourages us that you will seize
opportunities to defend these programs and make them work harder for
the American taxpayer and for people around the world.
In large part due to the leadership of this Committee and Congress,
there has been tremendous progress made in ensuring our aid dollars are
used in the most effective way possible to save lives, prevent disease,
and unlock opportunities for citizens in partner countries. Critical to
recent successes in global human development is the expertise and
resources that our development agencies--such as USAID and MCC--bring
to the table.
A Modern USAID
USAID, our lead development agency, has been transformed and
modernized over the past decade and a half. USAID specializes in the
longer-term and vitally important task of helping countries to govern
themselves well and create inclusive economic opportunity. These
development investments help minimize threats to the United States
while fostering open markets and security and trade partnerships.
Passage of recent legislation like the Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act and the Global Food Security Act have codified
reforms that improve the way USAID operates.
Given its specialized development mandate, USAID is most effective
as an independent agency focusing on development results. USAID's
independence gives appropriate visibility to the unique development
voice within U.S. foreign policy, and it enables appropriate
specialization and focus on the longer-term and fundamentally important
goals of development. Finally, USAID should continue to strengthen its
culture of accountability for results and transparency to the U.S.
public and development stakeholders. For example, a 2017 GAO study
found that USAID and the MCC's evaluations far exceeded the quality of
those conducted by other foreign assistance agencies.
A Legislative-Executive Branch Partnership to Reform Foreign Aid
MFAN applauds the Committee for including language in the fiscal
year 2017 Omnibus that requires the administration to report to
Congress on any efforts to reorganize the State Department and USAID.
MFAN urged the administration to engage Congress and the development
community on the issue of reorganization following the recent memo from
the Office of Management and Budget that calls for the submission of
draft Agency Reform Plans by June 30, 2017. We applaud the Committee
for this timely provision and for exercising its oversight role,
ensuring that no restructuring can occur without congressional
involvement.
The legislation specifically states that ``prior to implementing
any reorganization of the Department of State or the United States
Agency for International Development . . . the Secretary of State shall
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations.'' The bill also
requires that the report include several detailed analyses of any such
reorganization, including the potential impact on ``the ability to
conduct adequate monitoring and oversight of foreign assistance.''
MFAN urges the Committee to strengthen this language in fiscal year
2018 and to require, in addition to consultation with Congress and the
development community, that the administration ensure that any
reorganization effort is guided by sound principles--MFAN's Guiding
Principles for Effective U.S. Assistance--a Global Development
Strategy, and a systematic program review.
Reforms to Expand U.S. Impact
As you know, aid effectiveness depends on two powerful and mutually
reinforcing pillars of reform--accountability through transparency,
evaluation, and learning; and country ownership of the priorities and
resources for, and implementation of, development. Together, these
pillars are vital to building the capacity in developing countries that
will help enable citizens to take responsibility for their own
development. In turn, this builds new trading and security partners for
the United States.
As you prepare your fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill, we at
MFAN urge you to include the following:
1. Strengthen Congressional oversight of reforms and
reorganization. MFAN commends the Committee for enacting provisions
asserting Congress's prerogative to engage as a partner with the
Executive Branch in any reform and reorganization of foreign
assistance. MFAN urges Committee to strengthen these instructions in
fiscal year 2018 by requiring reforms to be based on: consultation with
Congress and the development community, adherence to guiding principles
of aid effectiveness, a review of U.S. assistance, and a coherent
Global Development Strategy.
2. Maintain fiscal year 2017 funding for USAID Operating Expenses
at $1.362 billion. In July 2016, the Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act was enacted (Public Law 114-191) with the unanimous
support of Congress, and requires detailed reporting on foreign
assistance spending, as well as improved systems for monitoring and
evaluation. Full funding for USAID Operating Expenses at the fiscal
year 2017 final enacted level is essential for aid effectiveness and
supports USAID's efforts to drive innovation and retain talent, oversee
program implementation, improve transparency, and evaluate results.
3. Maintain fiscal year 2017 funding for the USAID Capital
Investment Fund at $200 million. Full funding for the USAID Capital
Investment Fund at the fiscal year 2017 final enacted level is
essential for the effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance. The Capital
Investment Fund (CIF) is critical to strengthening the information
technology (IT) systems of the Agency necessary to enhance the quality
and comprehensiveness of aid data and the accountability of U.S.
foreign assistance. The CIF supports the establishment of USAID's
Development Information Solution, a modernized system to manage and
report on the agency's global portfolio.
4. Report language identifying partners for domestic resource
mobilization assistance. MFAN appreciates fiscal year 2017 and fiscal
year 2016 language in both the House and Senate reports encouraging the
U.S. Government to help countries increase domestic revenues. We
request the Committee build on these efforts by requesting that USAID,
Treasury, and PEPFAR specifically identify countries where such
assistance could better help mobilize their own financial resources and
lay a long-term path toward fiscal sustainability.
Partner countries ultimately need to raise and invest more of
their own domestic resources to address their needs in a sustainable
way. To help achieve this aim, the U.S. Government should invest in the
capacity of partner governments to enhance domestic resource
mobilization and to identify new and/or alternative sources of funding
to gradually increase their financial contribution to their own
development priorities. MFAN's ``Principles for Public Sector Domestic
Resource Mobilization'' provides guidelines to ensure that this
assistance is catalytic for broad-based economic growth and poverty
reduction.
This approach has been successful in a number of countries,
including El Salvador, where a $5.8 million USAID partnership with the
government resulted in policy reforms and capacity-building that
allowed the country to increase its revenues by $350 million per year,
with a $160 million increase in annual spending on programs for health
and education.
5. Consistent funding for the ForeignAssistance.gov website. In
2016, Congress unanimously passed the Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act (Public Law 114-191), which codifies and builds upon
the ForeignAssistance.gov website, and we thank the House and Senate
Committees' efforts to provide funding for this important resource. The
database is a critical tool for collecting and publishing aid
information for the American people and the International Aid
Transparency Initiative Registry. To ensure implementation of the
``Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act'' and improvement in
the quality and comprehensiveness of data on ForeignAssistance.gov, we
recommend that the State Department consistently fund this resource by
being permitted to use all bilateral economic assistance under title
III of the bill.
6. Report language to measure sustained results. USAID revised its
program cycle guidance in 2016 to elevate the importance of utilizing
local priorities, implementers, and resources to achieve development
gains. Although these factors are important for the long-term
sustainability of development gains, the Agency does not have a
systematic means of measuring its performance in these areas. We
request report language that supports USAID's policy and directs the
Agency to establish a method for systematically measuring its
performance achieving locally owned sustainable development.
In addition, we at MFAN applaud both the House and Senate's fiscal
year 2017 emphasis on foreign assistance transparency and
accountability. In particular, we endorse the Senate's language in the
``Monitoring and Evaluation'' section of its fiscal year 2017 report
calling for the State Department to review and publish a Report on
Monitoring and Evaluation of fiscal year 2015 Programs because ``there
are inadequate processes in place to ensure that the findings and
recommendations of evaluations inform program design, policy decisions,
and budget allocations.'' We hope that such a review will be adopted
and focus on the most current year possible.
Finally, MFAN remains concerned about U.S. foreign assistance
directed to countries via sector set-asides and presidential
initiatives that are not linked to country priorities and strategies. A
2015 USAID Inspector General audit of regional and country development
cooperation strategies (CDCSs) reported that ``Employees said the
budget often trumped local priorities, and nondiscretionary funding--
such as presidential initiatives and earmarks--drove the selection of
development objectives. In addition, budget allocations did not always
align with the CDCSs, and some objectives were not funded.'' \1\ MFAN
urges greater alignment of U.S. foreign assistance with country and
citizen-identified priorities to better ensure that development
resources catalyze durable poverty reduction and economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USAID Office of Inspector General, Audit Report No. 9-000-15-
001-P, ``Audit of USAID Country and Regional Development Cooperation
Strategies,'' February 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your work on the State and Foreign Operations
Appropriation bill and for considering these requests. Our coalition
looks forward to working with you further to advance U.S. values and
economic and national security interests by supporting a more just,
prosperous, and secure world.
______

Prepared Statement of Oxfam America
The fight against global poverty is one of America's proudest and
smartest investments. The Trump administration's proposal to cut
development and humanitarian aid by over 30 percent would have a
devastating impact on the world's most vulnerable people and threaten
the global progress that U.S. foreign aid investments have helped
create. Moreover, slashing development and humanitarian aid as proposed
in the administration's budget would severely undermine the capacity of
U.S. foreign assistance agencies to use aid effectively and with proper
accountability for results.
Oxfam is an international development and relief organization
working to create lasting solutions to poverty, hunger and injustice.
Oxfam does not take U.S. Government funding but believes that aid can
empower people in developing countries to create inclusive economic
growth, strengthen essential public services, and build just, self-
reliant societies. Oxfam has long worked to understand the conditions
and approaches to development that make foreign aid most effective.
Over the last decade, we have seen great progress--both in the
reduction of global poverty and in the way U.S. foreign assistance is
carried out. USAID has made key reforms that are helping to make U.S.
foreign aid programs more transparent, accountable, and effective in
meeting U.S. and partner country goals. Turning our backs on this
progress would be a grave mistake.
The President has proposed an overall 32 percent cut to the
International Affairs Budget, which funds two of the three key pillars
of U.S. foreign policy: diplomacy and development. These cuts would
disproportionately affect development programs, and would hit the
poorest countries hardest. President Trump has proposed deep cuts to,
and in some cases total elimination of, foreign assistance accounts
that are critical for poverty reduction including: Development
Assistance, Economic Support Funds, Migration and Refugee Assistance,
Global Health, International Development Assistance, and the Millennium
Challenge Corporation. These accounts are by no means the only ones
providing development assistance, but represent a large proportion of
the funds that go to low and lower-middle income countries where
assistance is needed most. By cutting these accounts the budget
undermines the United States' ability to promote the development of
stable, prosperous partners that share the ideals of the United States.
Additionally, the programs funded by these accounts are essential for
millions of people around the world, and make significant contributions
to ending extreme poverty--a goal which should be paramount in U.S.
foreign assistance.
These cuts will affect countries and communities in real and
significant ways. For example, in Ethiopia, where the average person
lives on less than $620 per year, and 20 percent of the population
lives in extreme poverty, the Trump administration's budget would cut
foreign assistance by 74 percent.\1\ Under this proposal 3.5 million
children would lose education support in a country where 60 percent of
adults are illiterate. Hundreds of thousands of farmers would lose
access to new technologies and American expertise through the Feed the
Future program. Millions of undernourished children would be left
without access to nutrition programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Justification Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs FISCAL YEAR 2018. p 225-230. https://
www.state.gov/documents/organization/271013.pdf. Accessed June 12,
2017. GDP per capita (current US$) Data. http://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed June 12, 2017.
Team WBD. The 2017 Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals: a new visual
guide to data and development. The Data Blog. http://
blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/2017-atlas-sustainable-development-goals-
new-visual-guide-data-and-development. Published April 17, 2017.
Accessed June 12, 2017.
\2\ ForeignAssistance.gov. Special Data Sets Performance and
Results 2015 Actual Results. http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/.
Accessed January 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration's budget envisions a foreign aid portfolio
that is focused on reducing assistance and is directed by short-term
U.S. foreign policy interests. Such a restructuring of U.S. foreign
assistance programs would undermine and politicize development programs
in a way that ignores where the needs are greatest, abandons countries
who are strong U.S. partners, and shows a lack of understanding of the
economic and national security dividends that investing in development
pays back to the United States. This strategy also completely
disregards the financial cost of cutting assistance programs, the
investments that would be wasted if ongoing projects are left
unfinished, and the long-term harm that would be done both to people
and to U.S. relationships abroad.
The administration's foreign aid budget proposal also indicates a
belief that U.S. development programs can be easily transferred under
the management of the State Department. This is not the case. While
USAID and State work closely together in countries around the world,
the State Department is not a development agency, nor should it be.
Development is a discipline that requires technical expertise and
experience in a wide variety of sectors that diplomats and other State
Department employees simply do not have. Such a restructure would
severely damage the U.S.'s ability to design, manage, and evaluate
development programs to ensure their success.
If the U.S. wants to win hearts and minds in the developing world,
doing development well is a good place to start. This means approaching
relationships from a place mutual respect--understanding and
incorporating partner country development priorities, making
investments in local institutions and structures rather than creating
parallel ones, and working in a way that ensures people at all levels
have a say in their own development. This cannot be done with a focus
only on the nations the U.S. wants to influence now, but must be done
comprehensively and with foresight. We cannot predict where the next
ISIS will emerge, which developing economy will become a major economic
player, or where the next pandemic threat will occur, but we can
minimize risk and nurture strong partnerships by supporting holistic
development in the Global South.
Development is a complex and long-term endeavor. This means that
not all gains happen over the course of a budget cycle, but require
sustained investment in effective programs to see sustainable results.
Sudden cuts to ongoing programs could erase years of progress,
essentially throwing all the money the United States has already spent
out the window. In nations that lack basic infrastructure, governance,
and strong institutions, the problem of poverty must be worked on from
multiple angles. If we invest in global health without ensuring there
is investment for education or electricity we are investing in a health
system that does not have a workforce or power to run equipment. We
can't invest in education or agriculture without investing in roads to
access schools or markets. There is not one silver bullet, and thus we
must take a holistic approach working with developing countries and
other partners to create self-sufficient futures for all.
Finally, for U.S. assistance to achieve its goals, USAID must have
the Operating Expenses necessary to use development funds
transparently, accountably, and effectively. Strong core operational
resourcing enables USAID to make sure it adapts to changing
circumstances, learns from experience, applies learning to program
design and implementation, and identifies and addresses the root causes
of poverty.
The President's budget proposal is a narrow-minded and small-
hearted reimagining of America's role in the world. Since the Second
World War, presidents of both parties have advanced U.S. interests by
working to strengthen international security, end global poverty, and
deepen diplomatic and cultural ties with people around the world. That
tradition has bolstered American leadership and helped strengthen human
rights and international cooperation to fight poverty and save lives.
It would come to an abrupt end if Congress follows the Trump
administration's callous blueprint.
Our country has a long legacy of being a leader on human rights,
humanitarian assistance, and the fight against global poverty. The
administration's budget proposal would relegate the United States to a
new legacy--one of harsh self-interest at the expense of others. That
is not what the United States stands for.
Even when we put a premium on taking care of needs at home the
United States can't opt out of the world. Our action or inaction will
inevitably have an impact on the rest of the world--the question is how
and whether the United States will rise to the challenge of leading a
global effort to confront problems that are bigger than any one nation
or society.

______

Politico MullenJones deg.
Politico Article by Adm. Mike Mullen (Ret.) and Gen. James Jones (Ret.)

[From POLITICO, June 12, 2017]

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

OPINION

WHY FOREIGN AID IS CRITICAL TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

We can't solve every foreign crisis through military action, say two
former military commanders.

(By Adm. Mike Mullen (Ret.) and Gen. James Jones (Ret.) )

In our active duty days, we were honored to help lead the finest
fighting force in the world and we strongly support an increase in
military spending to maintain the readiness of those forces. But our
experiences also taught us that not all foreign crises are solved on
the battlefield; in the 21st century, weapons and warfighters alone are
insufficient to keep America secure.
That's why we support a robust development budget to advance our
national security objectives--and we are not alone in this belief. This
week, we will join 14 other experienced former four-star generals and
admirals in submitting testimony to Congress that military power alone
cannot prevent radicalization, nor can it, by itself, prevent despair
from turning to anger and increasing outbursts of violence and
instability. Over the last 15 years, our national experience in
Afghanistan, Iraq, in the Middle East, and now in Africa has shown
clearly that development aid is critical to America's national
security.
Unfortunately, the administration's budget would cut 32 percent
from the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development and
State Department--including a cut of nearly half to development
assistance. This is exactly the wrong decision at a time when
development efforts in the world's poorest and most fragile countries
are needed more than ever. In turn, these severe cuts to USAID would
only increase the risk to Americans and to our brave military service
members. Congress should reject this dangerous path.
Strategic development assistance is not charity; it is an
essential, modern tool of U.S. national security. Foreign assistance
should be respected--and budgeted--as an investment in the enhancement
of stability in the world's most vulnerable places, not as a no-
strings-attached giveaway to poorer nations.
_______________________________________________________________________

`` Strategic development assistance is not charity; it is an
essential, modern tool of U.S. national security.
_______________________________________________________________________

American security is advanced by the development of stable nations
that are making progress on social development, economic growth, and
good governance; by countries that enforce the rule of law and invest
in the health and education of their own people. In short, America's
interests are served by nations that give their people hope for a more
prosperous and safe future.
Conversely, American security is undermined by frail and failing
nations where hope is non-existent, and where conditions foster
radicalism, produce refugees, spark insurgency, and provide safe havens
for terrorists, criminal gangs, and human traffickers with global
reach.
Fighting extremist groups after they emerge as well-trained and
well-funded entities is costlier in lives and money than efforts to
prevent such groups from forming in the first place. Research suggests
that investing in prevention is, on average, 60 times less costly than
war and post-conflict reconstruction costs. It is also more difficult.
To prevent the expansion of terrorist groups, states must deprive them
of ungoverned territory and the oxygen on which they flourish--the
belief that the terrorists' radical agenda can provide purpose and
meaning to the lives of their recruits. That can be a challenge for
Western nations, much less for developing ones with weak governance
structures.
A host of international terrorist groups--al Qaeda, al Shabaab,
Boko Haram, and ISIS, among others--have taken root in highly fragile
regions and countries with shared characteristics, such as corruption
and poor governance, weak institutions, high poverty and inequality,
widespread indignity, and low quality of life for ordinary citizens.
Local populations frustrated with poor governance and lacking
meaningful opportunities to improve their lives or provide for their
families are prone to tolerate, if not actively support, extremist
groups that challenge government authority or assume the government's
role as social-service provider. To combat these groups and prevent
such areas from serving as fertile recruiting grounds, training areas,
and transit routes for violent extremists, the United States and its
allies should become much more proactive in helping address underlying
conditions that, left unchecked, invite and foment instability.
Congress can, and should, make America safer with a robust and
strategic Phase Zero initiative that engages the U.S. Government, non-
governmental organizations, and the private sector to synergistically
prevent conflict and promote security, development, and governance
rooted in the rule of law. Such an initiative--accompanied by other
targeted reforms to our foreign assistance programs--would fill a
dangerous vacuum that military intervention alone simply cannot
address. Proactive conflict-prevention strategies are far less
expensive in terms of resources and lives expended than reactive use of
our Armed Forces.
_______________________________________________________________________

`` Proactive conflict-prevention strategies are far less
expensive in terms of resources and lives expended than
reactive use of our Armed Forces.
_______________________________________________________________________

Development experts under the auspices of USAID, State Department,
the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other Federal agencies must
be fully committed to a coherent whole-of-government stability-
enhancement strategy that will protect America's interests in the
modern security environment while minimizing the exposure of our young
men and women to harm's way.
The faithful service, courage, and sacrifice of our service members
deserves and demands that we address and develop the strongest possible
strategy for conflict-prevention that our nation can muster. Cutting
the International Affairs budget will hurt our country's ability to
stop new conflicts from forming, and will place our interests, values,
and the lives of our men and women in uniform at risk. Congress should
reject the administration's proposed cuts and instead fully fund the
international affairs budget. Our military is counting on it.

Admiral (Ret.) Michael Mullen served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff from 2007 to 2011. General (Ret.) James Jones was the commandant
of the Marine Corps and served as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe from
2003 to 2006.
______

Prepared Statement of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy: On behalf of the U.S. Global
Leadership Coalition--a network of over 500 businesses and NGOs;
national security and foreign policy experts; and business, military,
and civic leaders from across the country--thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the critical resources included in the
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill,
which help keep our Nation safe, advance our economic interests,
project our values, and uphold America's leadership role in the world.
To meet these responsibilities fully and to set the course for American
security and prosperity, I strongly urge you to support $60 billion for
the International Affairs Budget, including a strong 302(b) allocation
for the fiscal year 2018 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations
bill that maintains fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
At a time of extreme global challenges--famines of historic
proportions, a refugee crisis not seen since World War II, and the
growing threat of terrorism--we must use all the tools of our national
power to confront these complex 21st century threats.
Strategic investments in America's national security toolbox--
diplomacy and development, alongside defense--have been championed by
both Republican and Democratic administrations and Members of Congress,
military leaders, foreign policy and national security experts,
business leaders, and humanitarian and faith-based organizations.
That is why I am deeply concerned that the administration's fiscal
year 2018 budget proposes to cut funding for the International Affairs
Budget by 32 percent. A draconian and disproportionate cut of this
magnitude would take funding levels for development and diplomacy
programs back to levels not seen since 9/11 (when adjusted for
inflation), and would reduce spending on these programs as a percentage
of GDP to its lowest level since World War II.
Given today's global complexities, it is no surprise that America's
military leaders are the first to say that hard power alone is not
enough to keep our Nation safe. In February, over 120 retired three-
and four-star generals and admirals wrote to Congress urging that
resources for the International Affairs Budget keep pace with the
growing global threats and opportunities we face, arguing that ``[n]ow
is not the time to retreat.''
But it's not just our retired military heroes who are speaking out.
Over the past 3 months, we have also 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 resourcing our
diplomats and development experts. General Thomas Waldhauser, Commander
of Africa Command, testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing that, ``To protect and promote U.S. national security interests
in Africa, diplomacy and development are key efforts, and our
partnership with the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) is key to achieve enduring success.''
These senior military leaders understand that the State Department
and USAID are some of the military's most critical partners. They know
from their experience on the battlefield that when we prevent conflict
and promote stability we reduce the need for military intervention,
helping keep our servicemen and women out of harm's way.
Other civilian development agencies and programs slated for
significant cuts--such as the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP),
multilateral institutions, and international peacekeeping activities --
have been consistently highlighted by our military leaders as critical
to decreasing the need for U.S. military engagement around the world.
In addition to advancing our national security interests, for just
1 percent of the total Federal budget, the programs funded through the
International Affairs Budget are a proven return on investment for
America. Eleven out of America's top 15 export markets were once
recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. Today, we export more goods to
South Korea--our sixth largest trading partner--than the entire sum of
aid to that country over five decades. With 95 percent of consumers
outside the United States, we cannot cede America's role in the world
to others who will take advantage of our retreat. For example, China's
official development assistance in Africa alone has grown by more than
780 percent since 2003. And just last month, China pledged $124 billion
for its new One Belt One Road initiative to modernize transportation
and infrastructure, further strengthen economic ties across Asia, and
build new markets for Chinese companies across 65 countries that
account for 60 percent of the world's population.
Proposals such as those to eliminate the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA) would severely undermine America's economic competitiveness.
That is why 225 business leaders from across the U.S.--from Fortune 500
companies to local Chambers of Commerce--recently wrote to Secretary of
State Tillerson to voice their support for strong resources for the
State Department and USAID as critical to our economy and American
jobs. In the letter, they reminded the Secretary that, ``America's
diplomats and development experts help build and open new markets for
U.S. exports by doing what only government can do: fight corruption,
strengthen the rule of law, and promote host country leadership to
create the enabling environment for private investment.''
The proposed closure of nine USAID missions and the elimination of
economic and development assistance to 37 countries would effectively
lower our flag around the world and provide an opening for other
countries like China and Russia to step in, not to mention its impact
on our diplomatic corps around the world.
While these investments pay enormous dividends to the American
taxpayer, we should never forget our pride in America as the ``shining
city upon a hill.'' U.S. development and humanitarian programs save
lives, cure disease, and foster democratic values. In March, more than
100 Christian leaders from across America wrote to Congress urging them
to protect and support the International Affairs Budget and prevent
disproportionate cuts to these vital programs that bring ``hope to
poor, hungry, vulnerable and displaced'' people around the world--
calling it their ``moral responsibility.''
Today, thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush,
bipartisan support in Congress, and the American people, over 11
million lives have been saved through the President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the goal of an AIDS-free generation is
within reach.
But the story of PEPFAR and President Bush's contributions goes far
beyond budgets and resources. It is a story of game-changing reform
that has continued and grown for over a decade. After 9/11, President
Bush initiated transformational changes to our foreign assistance
programs, making them more accountable, results driven, and a force
multiplier for the American people with a focus on outcomes--lives
saved--not just inputs, or resources spent. The creation of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) put a laser focus on the
promotion of economic growth as the key to fighting poverty by setting
up partnerships with countries that demonstrate they are willing to
reform and commit to rigorous monitoring and evaluation of results.
With critical bipartisan support and leadership from Capitol Hill,
this reform effort has continued. The Obama administration built upon
this framework, taking the MCC's principles of transparency,
monitoring, and evaluation and incorporating them into USAID. Today,
the Foreign Assistance Dashboard allows Americans to see where foreign
assistance dollars are being spent. The private sector is also more
involved than ever before with America's foreign assistance programs--
serving as a catalyst, bringing expertise to the table and leveraging
private sector resources to create impactful and scalable solutions.
For example, Feed the Future partners with the private sector on
agriculture and food security, and has empowered more than 9 million
farmers and provided nutrition support to more than 18 million
children. Similarly, Power Africa, which seeks to increase electricity
in Sub-Saharan Africa, leveraged an additional $40 billion in private
sector commitments from its initial $7 billion commitment.
In March, President Trump signed an Executive order calling for a
comprehensive plan to reorganize the executive branch to improve its
``efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.'' While there is
always a need for greater reform and a drive for enhanced
effectiveness, consultation with Congress and the expertise of the
stakeholder community will be critical to ensure that new reforms build
on the progress that has been made to date and garner broad and
bipartisan support, which will be critical for such reforms to be
sustained in the future. Concerns, for example, have been raised about
proposals to merge the State Department and USAID--which would almost
certainly make our foreign assistance less rather than more effective,
as we learned years ago from the collapse of U.S. Information Agency
(USIA).
Republicans and Democrats can be proud of the legacy of strong
bipartisan support for the International Affairs Budget and the
programs it funds. In recent years, Congress has passed eight pieces of
bipartisan legislation that strengthen programs on food security,
energy, water, rights for women and girls, ending modern day slavery
and wildlife trafficking, trade, and aid transparency. Through your
leadership and with the support of colleagues across the political
spectrum, lawmakers have worked to strengthen these programs so that
they are more transparent, more accountable, and provide a greater
return on our investment than ever before.
This legacy continues in the 115th Congress, with Republican and
Democratic Members warning of the dire consequences of deep and
disproportionate cuts to the State Department and USAID. Lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle understand that investing in the International
Affairs Budget is not just the right thing to do, it is also the smart
thing to do for our national security, economic interests, and values.
In April, 43 bipartisan Senators--led by Senators Durbin and Young--
wrote to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee leadership urging
``robust funding'' for the International Affairs Budget and calling
proposed cuts ``shortsighted, counterproductive, and even dangerous.''
I share this conviction and believe that at this critical moment,
when we face complex national security threats and devastating
humanitarian emergencies, more American leadership--not less--is
needed. Let me put this in perspective with three simple numbers that
illustrate the consequences of America pulling back.

--20 million. That is the number of people facing famine this year.
We know the horrific humanitarian impact, but there is also a
frightening national security risk. The countries affected--
Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia--are some of the most
unstable in the world and harbor terrorist groups like ISIS, Al
Shabaab, and Boko Haram. Food insecurity is one of the main
drivers of instability--making the moral and national security
implications of this famine urgent.
--65 million. That is the number of displaced people around the
world--the highest since World War II--most of whom are women
and children. Not only could millions of refugees go without
food, water, and shelter, but these cuts could cripple the
economies of our frontline allies, like Jordan, creating
powerful national security concerns.
--320 million. That is the number of Americans vulnerable to the next
``Ebola'' if major cuts to global development and health
programs are approved. We know that when we invest in global
health systems around the world it makes a measurable
difference in our ability to respond to infectious disease and
prevent pandemics--just compare the response to the Ebola
outbreaks in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. While we can't always
predict what the next pandemic will be, we can bet that there
will be one.

I am grateful for your longstanding support of the International
Affairs Budget and your work to provide nearly $60 billion for these
critical programs in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
I urge your continued support for international affairs programs in
fiscal year 2018 by supporting $60 billion for the International
Affairs Budget, including a strong 302(b) allocation for the fiscal
year 2018 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that
maintains fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
On behalf of our diverse coalition of business, faith, military,
NGO, and development experts from across the country, I thank you for
your leadership. We all look forward to continuing to work with you to
advance America's global leadership through a strong and effective
International Affairs Budget--an essential ingredient to advancing
America's national interests.

[This statement was submitted by Liz Schrayer, President and CEO.]
______

Prepared Statement of World Vision
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the
subcommittee, I am submitting this testimony for your consideration on
behalf of World Vision, one of the largest faith-based organizations
working in humanitarian relief and development. But I also submit this
testimony as the former Regional Vice President for World Vision in
East Africa, a position that afforded me the opportunity to see
firsthand the impact that the State Department and USAID are having on
alleviation of poverty, injustice and suffering.
World Vision U.S. has more than one million private donors in every
State and Congressional district, partners with over 16,000 churches in
the United States, and works with a wide variety of corporations and
foundations. We are motivated by our Christian faith to serve every
child in need and their family; those of any faith, or none. We partner
with faith leaders throughout the world, equipping them to meet the
needs of their communities.
We are part of a global World Vision Partnership, which last year
implemented more than $2.6 billion in programming to help children,
families and communities through international relief, development, and
advocacy assistance. Although private donors support the foundation of
our work, the U.S. Government is an invaluable partner as we work to
achieve our broad goals for children. We leverage this partnership to
reach vulnerable children and families in nearly 100 countries around
the world, ensuring that the precious resources of the American
taxpayer are prudently used to promote and protect the well-being of
children and communities abroad.
We also use this partnership with the U.S. Government to leverage
private funding. We've successfully used grant funded programs to spur
private fundraising from both corporations and individuals and to
leverage and integrate resources in a way that ensures taxpayer dollars
go further. For example, through a partnership with MasterCard, World
Vision is working to improve humanitarian aid delivery via digital
identity and electronic payment technology, including World Vision's
Last Mile Mobile Solutions (LMMS) and the MasterCard Aid Network.
MasterCard partnered with World Vision to test both systems in the
Philippines to help micro-entrepreneurs rebuild businesses after
Typhoon Haiyan. World Vision also began using LMMS and MasterCard Aid
Network in Nepal following the earthquake to deliver a wide range of
services, food assistance and equipment. The massive cuts proposed to
the foreign assistance budget would put our ability to create these
kinds of innovative public-private partnerships at risk, even further
reducing investments in vulnerable communities.
But the biggest impact these cuts would have are on real lives and
real people. I have been on the ground in places like South Sudan,
where millions of vulnerable people--mostly women and children impacted
by the violence and crisis in that country, have fled their homes and
often have a day-to-day fight for survival. People whose lives were
turned upside-down by the violence and who fled searching for safety.
In many cases, families watched their children die along the way, but
once they reached their destination, it was often generous assistance
from the U.S. Government that allowed their remaining children to
survive. I've seen the impact the provision of health services such as
vaccinations and newborn health initiatives can have and how brave and
committed community health volunteers work tirelessly to save the lives
of mothers and children. I've seen the difference education--especially
literacy programs--can make in a child's future, and how proud and
empowered families feel when their children can read. I've seen how
peacebuilding and youth empowerment programs supported by the U.S.
Government prevent conflict and disillusionment, particularly among
young men. All of these investments serve a purpose and are in the best
interests of the United States and the American taxpayer.
Because I have witnessed positive change in the lives of people
around the world due to U.S. Government investments in relief and
development programs for over 20 years, I was extraordinarily
disappointed to see the massive cuts that the administration has
proposed for both the State Department and USAID. A 32 percent
reduction in the International Affairs Budget is misguided and short-
sighted. These are programs that foster safe, healthy and stable
societies, governments and economies around the world. There are very
few taxpayer investments that have such a long-term impact and such a
positive return.
One area of particular concern in the President's budget is the
elimination of the Development Assistance (DA) account, which becomes
part of the new Economic Support and Development Fund, but is solely
administered by the State Department. More and more we are seeing
poverty being driven to fragile states--places that face conflict,
inadequate governance, frequent disasters, and other issues that lead
to instability and a lack of resilience. The Development Assistance
account is critical in these contexts to move countries from fragility
to resilience, addressing the drivers of conflict and seeking long-
term, sustainable solutions. The administration also proposes
eliminating the Complex Crises Fund, which is flexible funding that
similarly focuses on fragile states and contexts. Both the
``consolidation'' of DA and the proposed elimination of the Complex
Crisis Fund are very troubling based on what we know the drivers of
poverty are and how fragile states and contexts can pose security risks
to the United States.
The severe cuts proposed by the administration in global health
programs is also of grave concern. Not only is funding for infectious
diseases--that have the ability to reach our own shores--cut
significantly, including funding for tuberculosis and Global Health
Security, but basic life-saving interventions to address malaria and
nutrition are also massively cut. These are investments that we know
are saving the lives of mothers and children and are supporting more
families to ensure their children are healthy enough to attend school,
enabling them to gain an education that leads to a good job in
adulthood, and allows women to be more productive in the household and
earn a livelihood as well. These programs are not handouts; they are
investments in the long term economic growth of countries that can
become U.S. trading partners and develop economies that allow them to
better provide for their own people.
Related to both maternal and child health and fragile states, the
administration also proposes to eliminate funding to quite a few
countries that are current recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. Some,
like Central Africa Republic (CAR), Sierra Leone and Niger have the
highest child mortality rates in the world. Others like Burundi, India,
Malawi, and Madagascar have extremely high rates of stunting, which has
irreversible impact on a child's ability to learn and develop. Others
are very fragile states where U.S. interests would not be served by
eliminating our country footprint. Rather than simply ``pulling out''
of our development role in these countries, we must look at how we best
leverage the work of other donors and work in partnership with them to
achieve our objectives.
We are also deeply disappointed in the administration's proposed
cuts to the humanitarian accounts. We are currently in the midst of a
significant, protracted humanitarian crisis, with the highest number of
refugees and internally displaced people around the world than we have
seen since World War II. The administration proposes cutting
humanitarian assistance by 44 percent. This would stop us in our tracks
as we respond to these crises, impacting an estimated 39 million people
who we wouldn't be able to reach with basic, life-saving assistance.
And while this subcommittee does not appropriate for many of the
food assistance accounts, they are administered by USAID and I would be
remiss if I didn't mention them in my testimony. The administration's
fiscal year 2018 budget request included a series of problematic
proposals, including: a zeroing out of both Title II, Food for Peace
(with any funding for emergency food aid shifted into the International
Disaster Assistance Account (IDA), and the McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition program.
World Vision joins with our partners and strongly opposes these
recommendations, which propose eliminating and/or severely cutting
effective, life-saving funding that helps to create a safer and more
secure world. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2018 request from the
administration includes funding for emergency food needs within the
International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, yet the administration
also proposes to reduce IDA from $3.2 billion to $1.65 billion. When
comparing the fiscal year 2018 request to fiscal year 2016, the cut to
IDA is 10 percent. Factoring in the elimination of Title II Food for
Peace (although the Food for Peace office appears to remain and
emergency food aid assumed to be now funded from IDA), the cut to IDA
when comparing fiscal year 2016 to the fiscal year 2018 request is
about 48 percent.
At a time of historic and unprecedented need, when close to 1.4
million children could die this year from famine-like conditions
according to UNICEF, we urge Congress to continue to robustly fund the
Food for Peace program (both emergency and development programs) and
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
program in fiscal year 2018. The International Disaster Assistance
account must also be funded at fiscal year 2017 levels or above which
includes the Emergency Food Security Program.
The administration's budget proposal reframes the purpose of the
International Affairs Budget, noting that ``international programs help
to advance the national security interests of the United States by
building a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world.'' The goal of
the budget appears to focus more assistance on national security-
aligned interests, as opposed to long-term development or antipoverty
initiatives, but in the view of World Vision, these are not mutually
exclusive priorities.
Lastly, as World Vision seeks to ensure greater efficiency and
effectiveness in the U.S. international development and humanitarian
assistance programs, we stand as ready partners willing to improve
foreign assistance so it saves more lives, builds resilience, and
continues to reduce levels of poverty and support global efforts to
reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. around the
world. It is important as Americans that we continue to be a part of
this global effort and remain a leader in providing support to some of
the most vulnerable populations in the world.

[This statement was submitted by Margaret Schuler, Senior Vice
President for International Programs World Vision.]