Transcripts For CSPAN Secretary Tillerson Confirms Release Of Otto Warmbier From North Korea 20170614

Sen. Corker the formulations committee will come to order. Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here. We had a discussion about the timing issue. We do have a lot of other things happening today and i would like to finish this in one round. If it isink we will do ok with you lets put six minutes on the clock. If we need to have a second round for some reason, we will. We will have a discussion about that. I think six minutes sounds if we need to have a second round for some reason, we will. Fair. I do not want to preclude a member on either side from having that second round. I would encourage our members to try to be efficient with the use of their time. Sen. Corker i want to begin by saying last night about 10 20 p. M. , we finished negotiating a russia bill to be attached to the iran bill. And we were able to gavel in the senate last night. And i just want to thank senator carden along with his staff and my staff for what i think was an incredible effort to bring balance to a bill. But to send a very strong, strong message to russia. And it was a cooperative effort between the foreign Relations Committee, but also the banking committee, which meant a number of senators end up being involved. I really do think weve ended up with a very good piece of legislation. And senator carden, i want to thank you for the way that you have worked with us. And i want to thank all the senators here for the issues that youve brought up along the way to help us make sure that we try to deal with the issues that were important to this committee. Mr. Chairman, on that point, let me just underscore the points that youve made. This was a very challenging negotiations between the banking leadership and the senate Foreign Relations leadership. And i want to thank you for the manner in which those negotiations took place. I encouraged the members of the committee to read the filed amendment. Im extremely pleased with the way that we were able to manage that negotiations. On our side, i particularly want to acknowledge senator menendez who were helpful in putting together this package. It does incorporate not only the work that this committee did on the Democracy Initiative that was passed out at this committee, but also two other bills, one that i authored with senator mccain that deals with codification of executive sanctions against russia as well as additional sanctions against russia. And that is included in the amendment. The other is a bill that was authored by senator graham that i worked with him on that provides for congressional review if the administration desires to remove any of the sanctions in regards to russia. So i really believe that we did accomplish what we set out to do, where we had initially ten democrats and ten republican senators who joined together and the chairman protected our work product and i thank him very much. I do, just because i know we have a lot here, those bills are not in this bill. Those bills are not in this bill. But some of the topics that were brought up in these bills are points that we addressed in the overall legislation we developed. But i appreciate the input of all. And well turn to the hearing. We have a number of people here in the audience. I know people are pretty passionate about issues. I dont like for anybody to be arrested. I asked him to leave a meeting and what that means is youre immediately arrested. I was able to go down and get them out of jail. But im not going to do it anymore, okay . So just be warned that if you stand up or make a noise or do something you know to be inappropriate were going to ask you to be escorted out and theres nothing i can do beyond that. So please dont do this. This is democracy in action and this is our ability to express ourselves in appropriate ways. But youre here, were glad youre here but conduct yourselves in an appropriate way. Well move to the business at hand. I want to thank secretary tillerson for being here. I want to thank him for what has been unprecedented outreach to this committee and others who have wanted to give input. I share with people all over the country that, obviously, this administration is new. Some of the approaches have been very different. But one of the things that secretary tillerson has been willing to do and wants to do and seeks to do is to get input from the committee and i appreciate that very much with all that youve got to do to organize. So thats been unprecedented. I do want to say in addition to that i know some people are going to be taking shots, thats what happens in a Budget Committee meeting, especially one like this one. I think, though, i can speak for most everyone here, ill speak for myself, and i know others feel the same way. I am very thankful that youre serving as secretary of state. I am very thankful that secretary mattis is serving as secretary of defense. I am very thankful that mr. Mcmaster is serving as National Security advisor. I just have to tell you that around the world people are thankful that you in these positions. And i think that in spite of the fact they may disagree with some of the policies that are coming forth. The fact that someone with you who is as seasoned as you are in this position gives me and a lot of people here and a lot of people around the country and a lot of people around the world a lot of comfort. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve in the capacity that you are. On that point, i will say we sat down yesterday in the middle of the russian negotiations. I took some time out to sit down with my staff. We began going through the budget that youre presenting today. After about five minutes, i said this is a total waste of time. I dont want to do this anymore. And the reason its a waste of time is i think you know that the budget thats being presented is not going to be the budget were going to deal with. Its just not. And i mean, the fact is that, you know, congress has a tremendous respect for the diplomatic efforts that are underway, the aid that we provide in emergency situations and its likely by the way, this happened with every president ial budget. Every president ial budget. This one in particular, though, is likely what comes out of congress is likely not going to resemble what is being presented today. So i felt it was a total waste of time to go through the line items and even discuss them because its not what is going to occur. So i say that with all due respect. And pointing out that really, over the last 17 years you know, our nation has been unwilling to deal with the fiscal issues we face. And so 70 of the budget is off budget. We are edhadding towards a fiscal calamity. Everyone knows it. Sees it coming and i realize that this president took an inordinate amount of cuts to demonstrate he was trying to address fiscal issues. In fairness, unwilling to address all the other issues that are driving spending so much. We understand that. Its happened on both sides of the aisle for at least 17 years. And, you know, thats kind of where we are. So until we have a person who runs for president who says theyll serve one term and theyre going to try to deal with these issues, unfortunately, were heading to a place that, to me, is a fiscal calamity. What i do appreciate about what youre doing today, and what youre doing within the department, the fact that you ran a Major Company that had the same amount of employees as the state department has, what i appreciate is what youre doing today is bringing forth a debate that weve needed to have for a long time. And that is not focusing on everything we can do but what we should be doing as a nation. I appreciate that very much. Since congress is likely to write its own Appropriations Bills and spending, what i hope well spend most of our time on, instead of taking pot shots. Although everybody will do whatever they wish, i know. I hope youll help us lay out some of the things you really think are appropriate for us to look at and different ways of approaching, whether its international organizations, which many of us support, or whether its how the state department is going to be run. We thank you for being here today. I respect you very much, i respect the role youre playing for our nation. And with that, ill turn to our Ranking Member, senator carden. Let me welcome the secretary here in order to discuss the proposed budget and other issues that are important for our National Security. I just want to make an observation before i start my formal statement. That revealing the administrations fy 18 budget in a waste of time. I know that were going to write our own budget. Yesterday, i was in a city which suffered from a major, major flood almost a year ago. And i was talking to a federal administrator there, not from state department. It was a different agency. About the tools that we need to make available for the businesses there in order to recover from that horrible tragedy. And the president s fy 18 budget for that agency would not allow the federal partner to continue providing mentoring services to the businesses. And that it was a challenge for the administrator to be able to carry this out with the instructions being given by omb in regards to budget issues. So, mr. Chairman, i dont think the fy 18 Budget Review is a waste of time. I think well write our own budget. But i do think it has a chilling impact on the state department with the career people trying to carry out their missions, believing that their supervisors have a different vision as to what is necessary to carry out that mission. We meet at a challenging time for the state department and for our nation. Mr. Secretary, we meet at a time of deep and mounting concern regarding the tone, substance and trajectory of your administrations Foreign Policy. 70 years ago this month, George Marshall delivered a speech that helped cement his reputation as a key architect of the post war efforts to build a liberal International Order. He was present at the creation. My concern today quite frankly, is that your Administration May go down in history as being present at the destruction of that order we have worked so hard to support and that has benefitted our security and prosperity and ideals. Im deeply concerned with the direction that President Trump appears to intend on taking our country and the world with it. Indeed, no matter where we look around the world today, it seems that americas interest and values in the International System is under threat and under pressure. Most troubling, much of the recent pressure is coming not only from external forces and foes, but also from the president of the United States and from your administration. I cannot tell you how devastating the president s decision to walk away from the paris accords was, not only to our allies abroad, but to also to many americans. The decision to abdicate americas leadership sent shockwaves around the globe, raising concerns about our fundamental engagement as a stakeholder in the International Order that the United States has worked so hard to help build and lead over the past seven decades. I truly believe that Climate Change will be a defining issue for our generation, not just environmental or security issue or even an economic issue, although theyre all those. But a moral issue in which our success or failure as stewards of a nations interests and shapers of global interests will rise or fall. In your confirmation hearing, you said in response to one of my questions i think its important that the United States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around and how to address threats of Climate Change which do require a global response. No one country is going to solve this alone. End quote. Well, today we find we have left our seat at the table. And shredded the efforts of the International Community to respond to Climate Change. And we stand alone. When President Trump repudiated the paris, he repudiated our partners in the International Community, indeed the very idea of an International Community. It was to quote from an oped penned by t along. Colleagues. Your let me give you one practical example. You couldnt remove the ambassador on trafficking because thats set up by statute. New era of mutual cooperation, the success of bipartisan administrations effectively put america first. Oreturn to the old era proposing a budget that would abruptly terminate key investments in dozens of countries, we find america isolated, alone and last americas leadership and engagement in global issues and with Global Leaders is perhaps more vital today than ever before. There is simply no substitute for president ial commitment for American Leadership and engagement. Risks undermining key tools that enable the United States leadership in the world. I am concerned that your administrations approach does not place america first, but rather leaves america alone and places our interest and values at risk your it our positions as leaders of the free world is at risk. The ideas of a democracy as a force of diplomacy, as a multiplier and development of a catalyst for change are being significantly challenged. Is now being undermined. Including by the president himself, who hurls insults at the mayor of london following a terrorist incident. Russia and china appear to be elevated to privileged positions ahead of our allies and a new game of power politics, while trees with allies like australia and the republic of korea are subject to bullying. The leaders of each of the philippines and others who commit devastating human rights offenses are impressive are russia has attacked our democracy, illegally and invaded eastern ukraine. As i said before, democracy does not defend itself. We, those of us on this dais, those of us in this room must defend democracy in the notion of Good Governance. Americansat the derive strength from its value and we must never retreat from the core concept. Yet in a speech earlier this year, that we can divorce our values from our policies, you suggested such a retreat. The deep cuts to International Affairs spending in your Budget Proposal is an approach to american for desta Foreign Policy that is nothing but a devastating assault on American Interest in valleys. What is most perplexing to me is that defense secretary mattis made it clear that it is critically important to Development Assistance insecurities. Assistance gn approach thatwise will endanger americans here at home. For those cuts in the state department suggested by you would undermine our ability to renew and revise our leadership and leave us less safe and less an increasing and complex work unable to advance our ideals or to secure prosperity. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and views on how this advances our interest and values around the world. But i can to you that my starting point is to be prepared to work with democratic and likeminded republican colleagues to make sure that nothing remotely close to this budget is enacted by congress. Thank you, sir. I know youry, since just made an announcement before you began your opening comments, we july like to go ahead and share with us what has just occurred and then do your . Pening statement some of you may have seen a press release before i arrived. The department of state have from north american korea. He is en route home to be reunited with his family. We continue our discussions with the north korean regime regarding the release of the three other american citizens that have been detained. We have no comment on mr. Wormbiers condition out of respect a him and the family. That was the statement that was released. Very good. We look forward to your questions and comments. Inc. You for being here. You can begin with that, if you would. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this request for fiscal year 2018. As we all know, americas 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 americas interest every day, 24 7, 365 days a year. That mission is unchanged. However, the state department and usaid, like many other institutions here and around the world, have not evolved in the responsiveness as quickly as new challenges and threats to our National Security have changed and are changing. We are challenged to respond to a postcold war world set in motion new global dynamics. In a post9 11 threatsresenting you never seen before, enabled by technological tools that we have been illprepared to engage. The 21st century presented many evolving challenges to u. S. National security and economic prosperity. We must develop active responses to protect and advance the interest of the American People. A broad array of threats facing the United States, the fiscal year 2018 budget request of 37. 6 billion aligns with the administrations objective of making americas security our top priority. Of first responsibility government is the security of its own citizens and we will orient our diplomatic efforts effort. Ulfilling that while our mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interest of the American People. Primarye departments focus will be to protect our citizens at home and abroad during our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty and human dignity. The conviction of our countrys founders is enduring good that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unnamed inalienable rights. As a nation, we hold high the aspiration that all will one day experience the freedoms we have known. In our young administrations Foreign Policy, we are motivated by the conviction that the more we engage the security and prosperity, the more we will have the opportunity to shape the human rights conditions in those nations. History has shown that the United States lees leaves a foot print of freedom wherever it goes. Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American People 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. In funding,ductions we will continue to be the leader in international development, global health, democracy, and good garden Good Governance initiatives as well as human minute here and efforts. If natural disasters or epidemics strike overseas, america will respond with the care and support it always has. I am convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to offer americas helping hand to the world. Request also reflects a commitment to ensure every tax dollar spent is aligned with the departments and usaids critical objectives. Focus efforts on missions that deliver the greatest value and the opportunity of success for the American People. Statement the state Department Budget 2007,sed over 60 from 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 seeks to align the Core Missions of the state department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also the interest of the American People, including responsible stewardship of the publics money. I know there is intense interest and prospective state department you and usaid redesign efforts. We just completed information collecting through a survey that was made available to everyone usaid state and colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were completed. Person listening sessions with approximately 300 individuals to obtained 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 our to have a clear view of 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. For our listening sessions and subsequent evaluation of our organization are the same as those that i stated in my confirmation hearing before our Foreign Policy. We will see the world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the American People, follow the facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves and others accountable. We are still analyzing the feedback we have received and we expect to release the final findings of the survey soon. From all of this, one thing is certain. Im listening to what my people tell me are the challenges facing them and how we can u. S. Ce a more effective state department and usaid. We will work with it we will work as a team and with the congress. Throughout my career, i have never believed nor have i ever experienced by 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 in 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. The u. S. Ident that state department and usaid will continue to deliver results for the American People. Thank you for your time. Im happy not to answer your questions. Thank you. I will use a portion of my time. If you could, since there will be an appropriations process underway soon, when do you your thoughts together on how the state department itself will be reorganized . As i indicated, we just completed an important listening phase. Ive had an initial readout. I will get a final report. I am interviewing a couple of individuals who will come in and help us now with the next age, which is the redesign effort itself, which will involve the colleagues in the state department and usaid. That effort likely will have that framed over the course of the summer. The effort itself will likely get underway sometime in august, september timeframe, when we have the pathway forward, the process, how we want to engage our colleagues, how we want to get at various elements and themes that emerged from the listening session. Some of this is work process. Some of it is how we handle people. Some of it is how decisions are made. It is a very broad set of issues. We have to map out how we want to get to each of those. But the work itself will start toward the end of the year. Hopefully, we will have some clarity around what that looks like by the end of this year, this year. R early next year, we will begin and limitation. This calendar year. Theo as we move through appropriations process, we will likely not have the benefit of that effort. I know it is sometimes hard for state Department Employees to speak truth to power when people are sitting there talking about the future, and sometimes their future. Can you give us an general contours of what, as you are talking with folks, what you are hearing from them relative to the actual state Department Operations . Several themes emerged. Is therarching theme extraordinary dedication and patriotism of the men and women in the state department and usaid, and why they undertake a career like this. That is a strength we will build upon. What weve heard from a number is they are dedicated to this Broad Mission of representing americas interest around the world. The from time to time, not just now, but historically as well, there have been mixed messages within the department, between the department and usaid, between the state department and Embassies Missions themselves. So clear indication of how the defined. S there are significant layers. Layering of work processes and approvals required to deliver on mission. Some of these are imposed by state Department Procedures and rules. Some of them are imposed by the congress and how appropriations and programs are established and approved. All well intended, to monitor and ensure we are delivering on what we are asked to deliver. But it does create a number of duplicative layers that create real obstacles for people to deliver on mission. And it adds cost, obviously. We also heard anything they do not feel that people are held accountable for their work in the state department, that poor performers are not dealt with. People in the state department know who is getting a work done and who is not getting the work done. Whendemoralizing to them they see that we dont deal with those who are not delivering on the responsibilities. That gets to how we praise performance, how we give people feedback, how we work to improve their performance. So we have a number of Human Resources processes that we believe can be improved, and a number of leadership areas that need to be addressed. So most of the themes have to do and this was the nature of what we wanted to engage people with. Not is this the right objective or the right organizational boxes. Tell us how you get your work done, we get in the way of getting your done, and what frustrates you. We have no preconceived notions going in. It would have been very easy to approach this, take the organization chart, start collapsing boxes, start making a flatter in an uninformed way. I dont have any number in mind as to what the efficiency will be, whether it will be 10 , 25 , 30 . We will let the redesign drive what those efficiencies will be. That is my experience in doing this in very large organizations, both of the private sector and in the nonprofit sector, where i have taken his more approach. At the end taken a similar approach. Lets let the work of the redesign drive that and not go in and say i am looking for 20 . Because those generally are not sustainable changes than. Much of that weekend deal with with a state Department Authorization. We are moving along and we have a meeting today, but many of the things you addressed, i know in the last administration, they began to see the state Department Authorization process as a tool for them to help call to get the department to run better. I will reserve my final 30 seconds for an interjection at some point. I want to follow up on this reorganization and or desire to make sure you work with congress on that. I think the chairman raises a good point. Working on the state department other asian authorization, we may have views that are consistent or not consistent. We are the policy arms. The appropriators will pass a budget. That budget may be consistent or in consistent with the way you are moving forward. And we dont have that update we have asked for an update and i understand you are in a my staff nor myself have been given any briefings on how the organization is coming along. They give you one practical example. You couldnt remove the ambassador because that is set up by statute. You couldnt remove the ambassador on trafficking because thats set up by statute. But you could remove the ambassador on gender issues because thats not set up by statute. Congress may want to weigh in now to let you know we want an ambassador on gender issues. If we dont have that close working relationship its going to be difficult to get an agreement on how this committee operates or the Appropriations Committee operates consistent with what youre trying to accomplish. Well, first, senator, we welcome the input at all times on the wishes of congress, what your priorities are. As you point out, we have a large number of special envoys, special representatives. I think theres some 70 plus of them. We what we have done is, obviously, those that are required by statute, weve left incumbents in place if they wanted to continue. So all of those that require us to have someone in the job, some people are double hatting, theyre doing two jobs at this point. But weve left this alone. As i said, be very easy to go ahead and tell you were going to collapse all of this into bureaus, but that would be prejudging an outcome. Im trying to get input on this. Understand, congress and previous congresss have spoken on these by statutes. Weve had traditions of strong support for particular functions. I agree with you that that needs to be looked at. But if you do it in isolation of working with us, were going to have a collision. We have no intention of doing it in isolation. I hope im giving you a sense of where we are. My concern is the train is leaving the station in regards to the appropriations bill and the authorization bill and your process wont conclude a lot of these issues until after those trains have departed. Weve got to get better input as to your thinking as we move through this process. I think perhaps the difference in how were thinking about this just what people think about things differently. The effort that were undertaking is to institutize change so it stays and we capture now and forevermore these i think i understand i understand were working a fiscal year budget and i know its hard for people to know where to fund we want to give you the authority you need to run your agency asficient efficiently as you can. How you put a spotlight on different priorities is something the congress has some strong views. We welcome that. Thats why we set up we welcome that. Let me ask you quickly, i had a hard time finding in the budget, you were pretty committed about, am i missing something . Well, in all of the in particular whether its in Development Areas or in Law Enforcement areas, we have looked carefully at countries at particular focus. Weve done our best our ability to continue those efforts. In the triangle country areas of Central America through the initiatives there and other initiatives were working collaboratively with the department of Homeland Security and others to maintain our efforts towards strengthening Law Enforcement, strengthening the judicial system. Strengthening the courts ability to prosecute corruption. Weve made progress down there. We do not want to lose the momentum. We have looked in particular areas of the world where that has been a and we see the opportunity to capture lasting gains. Were trying to make sure we dont give ground to any place we have current efforts underway. Were looking at also ways to execute on that mission by bringing others in, seeking other contributors, finding other ways to enable that. In regards to the paris agreement, you heard my opening statement. Did you change your view on that . Or is this a matter that was just a political decision made by the administration . My view never changed, senator, from what i shared with you. It was run from an interagency process. I will tell you that the president was quite deliberative on the issue and took some time to make his decision, particularly after he had heard from european counterparts. My views were heard out. I respect that the president heard my views, but i respect the decision hes taken. I appreciate that. Thats pretty clear. And i can understand. I want to ask one more question if i might, that is as you heard from the chairman and from me, we have reached an agreement in regards to a russian sanction bill that will be considered on the floor later this week. We had deferred Committee Action pending your input as to whether there was any positive progress with your discussions with russia as to either their reductions and their affirmative attacks on our Democratic Institutions, their views in regards to syria and ukraine. Is there any positive message you can report back to us . We have a large place mat of difficult issues with the russians you just cited a number of them. As ive said our relationship is at an all time low and its been deteriorating deteriorating further. Or our objective is to stabilize that. Were working to see if we can establish that theres a basis for reestablishing some type of working relationship with the russian government that is in our interest. There are efforts underway in syria specifically. Those are, i would say progressing in a positive way, but it is far too early process to say whether theyre going to bear fruit. Thank you, mr. Chairman. At liberty there, because of the way that today is going to go, im going to hold firm to time here, if we could. Senator, gardner. Thank you, secretary tillerson for your service and time today. Yesterday i noted that secretary mattis declared that north korea was the most urgent threat to National Security facing the United States. I share your assessment that north korea is the top National Security concern for the United States and exerting maximum pressure is the only way to force this regime to peacefully denuclearize. Two weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit with the new south korean government. I hope in the coming weeks theyll decide that the june summit is an opportunity to strengthen the u. S. Republic of korea alliance. I want to draw you and my colleagues attention to two reports that have recently come out. The first report was a report released by an independent organization named c 4 ads. It reported over 5,000 Chinese Companies that are doing business with north korea. These Chinese Companies are responsible for 7 billion in trade with north korea which represents 90 of north koreas total global trade. Moreover, the report found that only 10 of these Companies Control 30 of chinese exports to north korea in 2016 alone. One of these companies, one, just one those companies, controlled 10 of total imports from north korea. Some of these companies were found to have satellite offices here in the United States. The second report i want to highlight was a report released by the Royal United Services institute in the uk last week. Not a single report of the sanctions against north korea currently enjoyed Robust International implementation. In february of 2017, the u. N. Panel of experts assessed pyongyangs networks overseas were increasing in scale, scope and sophistication. Do these reports undermine the administrations claim that we are exerting maximum pressure on pyongyang . I think they shed a significant amount of light on how complex and difficult applying pressure to north korea is. But what we are doing is were calling on everyone, obviously the Chinese Government, were calling on governments around the world theres not a bilateral discussion i have with any government anywhere in the world, whether its in eastern europe, southeast asia, or central and south america that we do not talk about their relationship with north korea and asking them to examine all of these ties. Even when they say we only have 5 million worth of business, i say make it 2 million. We are at least at this stage making clear to people around the world in governments what the u. S. Policy and position is. The report that you cite, which i have not had an opportunity to read in detail but i am familiar with it. I think does illustrate just how sophisticated and complex getting at north koreas sources of revenue are. Thats why were also working with china and russia to pressure more on how commodities are delivered into north korea because that is very visible. The intricate Financial Networks that they have established around the world are challenging. But theyre not impossible to address. Were working closely with the treasury department, we can substantiate because we dont want to take inadvertent action against someone that were not confident is violating these sanctions. We are moving. The approach is we reveal this to the host government. We say to them, we have this information, were confident with this information, were going to ask you to deal with this within your own country. So that were not to the extent possible, interfering with their own ability to manage this. But weve also told them if you do not deal with it or if you do not want to deal with it, we will certainly be willing to deal with it ourselves. Were in a stage where were moving into this next effort of are we going to have to in effect, start taking secondary actions. Because countries that weve provided information to either have not or are unwilling to, dont have the ability to do that. But i think you have highlighted how challenging this is. Thats why were going to have to move to work with others to begin to deny north korea basic needs Like Crude Oil supplies, Petroleum Fuel supplies, things that are fairly at least they are easier, i dont want to say theyre theyre easier to monitor whether were getting cooperation with people or not. Would you support an iranstyle global embargo on north korea Getting International support to deny things like petroleum and other exports into north korea. Clearly wed have to work very closely and carefully with their two principle suppliers which is china and russia. If china and russia says were never going to vote for a global embargo. Thats historically been their position for reasons i think we all understand, then it would be ineffective. Do you believe that china is living up to the agreements they have made in conversations with President Trump . Do you believe theyre living up to what they said they would do as it relates to north korea . I will tell you its uneven at this point. Trade has increased 40 in the Fourth Quarter alone between china and north korea . Some of that was prior to our conversations with the chinese. They have taken steps, visible steps we can confirm. We are in discussions with them about entities inside of china. Is there a timeline for those discussion and sanction . We have another high level dialogue with the chinese next week. This is going to be the first topic on the agenda. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Good timing, senator menendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a prefatory remark, as the longest serving member of this committee presently, i can tell you that budget hearings are never necessarily about budgets. And theyre not about pot shots. Getting to the truth about what an administrations views and policies are is a search for the truth. And an understanding. And i know that there is an attempt to gloss over the administrations budget as its dead on arrival. But a budget is a statement of values. And the administration has put forth a budget for the state department that i dont think shares american values. So in that context, im particularly concerned, mr. Secretary, and we appreciate you being here today, about the cuts to programs that support democracy, human rights and Good Governance. While our support for democratic governments, independent media and the rights of people to freely express themselves and organize are rooted in the core values that shape this great country, our support for these program overseas is not solely in pursuit of lofty ideals. History has proveren that over the long term, governments around the world with strong Democratic Institutions that respect the human rights of all their citizens are more stable, more prosperous, more resilient to the tentacles of radicalization and instability. Ultimately they make better partners for the United States. This administration, despite statements to the contrary, seems to have deemed democracy and human rights low priority for our american Foreign Policy. The administration has requested 31 less money for democracy, human rights, and governance programs. Furthermore when heads of state from countries who have a long and visible history of repressing human rights make official state visits, human rights seem nowhere on the president s agenda. So im appalled that you have completely zeroed out, zeroed out the democracy assistance account. As brave citizens continue to risk their lives advocating freedoms we enjoy here. This sends a message that the United States is no longer on their side. It withdraws American Leadership around the world, pushing the door open for russia and china to increase their scope of influence. There is a direct connection between repressive actions domestically and adversarial actions abroad. The russian government this week continued a long tradition of detaining peaceful opposition protesters. This is the same russia that violated International Order by invading and occupying ukraine. At your confirmation hearing, you stated, our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging American Leadership needs moral clarity. Our values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. My question is simple. Does this Administration Believe that support of democracy and human rights is a reflection of American Leadership and values . A simple yes or no would be appreciated. Yes. How can you say that then when the budget completely zeros out assistance for democracy assistance . There are other mechanisms and other parts of the budget where we continue to remain engaged with countries that are dealing with interference or repressive regimes, certainly areas of Central Europe that are being threatened. We have insured that we can maintain our engagement there in parts of africa. There are countries we have had to withdraw the support. These are some of the hard choices that i mentioned in terms of where do we put the dollars we have to best use where we are making progress. If this is a core value. The threats are the greatest. This is a core value of our Foreign Policy, ultimately zeroing out its account doesnt speak to that core value. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the russia sanctions that the senate is about to vote on, first of all, do you believe that the iran sanctions bill, which has been out there for some time, is on the senate floor. Do you believe the administration will support that legislation . I have not had a conversation directly with the president as we have not reviewed that in the interagency discussion. What would be your advice to him . I think it looks pretty good to me. So i think you are going to find it receptive. I dont want to speak on behalf of the president or the inneragency process. What about russian sanctions that have been agreed to . I have been reviewing those as they have emerged in the last 24 hours. I think with respect to russia and the chairman and i have had discussions about this and others who have called to inquire, i think what we would like is the flexibility to turn that heat up when we sense that our efforts with russia, whether it be in syria. We have engagement that is they have asked for us to engage with them on ukraine. So we have some channels that are open where we are starting to talk and i think what i wouldnt want to do is close the channels off with something new. They have done plenty already that they should be responding to. Finally, you said in your confirmation hearing that slavery and Human Trafficking have to be addressed and america has to lead. The president s budget calls for a drastic 68 cut in funding for the state departments antitrafficking efforts. How is it we fight modern slavery when you make that type of cut . We have to target the areas where we see the greatest risk and the greatest opportunity to achieve some subccess but also engage other countries in multilateral approaches which we are doing in our transcriminal organizations, initiative with mexico, thats targeted at elicit narcotics and Human Trafficking and other elicit trade. We have to take new approaches that engage other countries who should share our same objectives for their part of the world. Then, we will move and try to engage others elsewhere and keep the effort underway with the resources we have. Call on others to do more as well. Mr. Chairman, we changed the budget in a way that reflects the values. I know in this particular case, the chairman is very passionate about that. I appreciate that point. Welcome, mr. Secretary. I want to commend you and the dedicated Public Servants of the state department for securing the release of an American National from north korea. I also want to applaud the Trump Administration for your effort to inform our Development Assistance. To help inform that, on may 30th, senator shaheen and i announced we are cochairing a center for strategic and International Studies on reforming and reorganizing u. S. Development assistance. We brought together a Bipartisan Group of Top Development experts, former bsh andush and Obama Administration officials. Retired senior officials, former members of the National Security council staff. Our goal is to provide recommendations to you regarding what optimal reform and reorganization looks like, something you have spoken to. You are deeply interested in. We want to provide you some actionable steps that this administration can take working with congress. Weve already met twice. Well be meeting a number of other times. Our plan is to issue a report in midjuly. So well have a work product very soon. Would you be willing, secretary tillerson, to meet with me, senator shaheen and some of these panelists to discuss the findings of this task force, the recommendations we put forward to improve the effectiveness, the efficiency, and the accountability of our nations Development Assistance . Sec. Tillerson certainly. We would welcome the perspective of the group that you just described. We are also reaching out to former Foreign Service officers, retired ambassadors to get them involved as well in terms of helping inform this initiative and effort. Yes, we certainly would welcome the opportunity to do that and to have some others who are going to help us with this exercise also participate in that. I think it would be useful. Great. So well look forward to sitting down with you and the others we mentioned. Thank you so much. As you know, mr. Secretary, we are seeing a heartbreaking humanitarian crisis in four countries nigeria, somalia south sudan and yemen. Famines,alled four humanitarian crisis. You may recall that on march 20 three i handed you a letter signed by 10 members of this Committee Asking the department of state to implement an urgent and comprehensive diplomatic surge to address political obstacles that are preventing the delivery of food and humanitarian supplies to these countries, each of which have their own complexities and challenges. Since then, this committee has passed my resolution, Senate Resolution 114, calling for the very same thing. Sadly, in the meantime, the humanitarian situations in many of these places have only gotten worse. Can you provide this committee with an update of what specific steps the department of state has taken to address the political obstacles that are preventing the delivery of food and medicine in these four countries . Sec. Tillerson we have had discussions with the United Nations people as well to get their perspectives. We have worked with some other partners in the region and on this issue, we are trying to elicit participation by others, have others bring their own capacity as well. As you point out, in all these countries, the situation is quite dynamic. And the circumstances on the ground shift and move back and forth on us, which makes delivery of humanitarian assistance all the more difficult to read we have more work to do, obviously, in this regard. And we have more work to do with partners, who have influence as well. To you like to get back with more details on the circumstances there. They are extremely challenging because of the situation on the ground that is contributing to the famine itself, as you well know. It is not entirely driven by just mother nature. It is driven by the conflict situations in which we are dealing with as well. So, very complex. Sometimes quite challenging to make a significant difference in each of these four countries. One area where frankly i see some low hanging fruit, as it were, is yemen. Arguably, the greatest humanitarian crisis of the four countries. Roughly 20 Million People will be facing near death circumstances, either through starvation or lack of medical attention. Thousands, we can anticipate, will be infected with cholera. The situation goes on and on, no one need for me to lay out the parade of horribles in my limited time. I have been working on this issue very directly for some time, trying to engage the administrations interest and attention on the matter. You visited with the Saudi Foreign minister this morning. You, of course, know the Saudiled Coalition is engaged in a regional conflict there. There is a civil war in yemen. I think there is a real opportunity to mitigate some of the suffering while increasing, furthering u. S. National security interests in that region. Were there any specific steps that you asked of the saudis this morning with respect to improving the humanitarian situation in yemen . For example, there are four cranes in the major port of hodeida in yemen where 80 of the incoming food and other supplies are typically delivered. Those cranes, pay for in large measure by u. S. Taxpayer dollars, have not been delivered. Was that or anything else brought to the Foreign Ministers attention, sir . Sec. Tillerson on the yemen situation, i have been in discussions with the crown prince of the emirates with him and the saudis. The issue in the port of hudaida is controlled by the huthi rebels. How do get the aid delivered and not have it stolen . We are working on how to open up a secure delivery mechanism. We are actively working it. I am very familiar with the situation with the cranes. We are very familiar with the situation of turning the operation of the port over to perhaps the United Nations. We are working through all of these in a very specific way to ensure if we deliver aid, it ends up to the people that need it. I have some comebacks regrettably, i am out of time, which is how this works. I will yield back. Sec. Tillerson i am happy to continue this with you offline. Please call me. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I appreciate you pursuing these issues prior to todays vote. I know you have had conversations about that and look forward to that outcome. Thank you, senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman very much. I appreciate, mr. Chairman the regular order that you have created here so we can question the secretary on the state Department Budget. I wish that there was regular order to deal with the Health Care Bill. I wish that the Republican Leadership was having open hearings, public input, so that this Massive Health care bill which is being constructed clandestinely, could be seen by the American Public and every member of the senate before it is brought out to the senate floor. It could lead to 23 million americans losing their health insurance, people losing their opioid coverage for illnesses in their own families. It is just absolutely wrong. This is the way the senate should operate. What they are doing with that Health Care Bill is absolutely wrong. We are going to have to continue to elevate that issue. Mr. Secretary, i want to follow up on what senator gardner said. This story is in the washington. Ost today about c4ats a company that is the together a report called risky business, which tries to find the links between the china government and its companies in the north korean government. It has identified a key component. Companies that if they were targeted could potentially , cripple the networks, because they are so intertwined with links right into the United States of america. It could go a long way towards choking off this global, illicit finance system which the north , koreans have constructed. They are centralized, limited, vulnerable. I really recommend this report to you, mr. Secretary. I think that this is where we should be going. There has been a 37 increase year over year in trade between china and north korea. There is no way they are going to respond to our request that they negotiate on the Ballistic Missile and nuclear question unless they feel the pain of the noose tightening around their economy. This report today is a blistering, scalding indictment of the lack of true enforcement of trade between china and north korea with actual financial benefits to flow to individuals and companies in the United States. I just strongly recommend that you become very familiar with this. I think it goes right to the core of what we have to be concerned with. Comes in fromyl china, mexico and from mexico. In the United States, unbelievably, 59,000 people died from overdoses. In massachusetts, 2000 people died from fentanyl in their system. If that was multiplied out by the whole country, that would be 70,000 americans who died from fentanyl. Precursor chemicals come from china, are moved to mexico, and then the mexican gangs bring them up into the United States. This, for me, is the real terror on the streets of our country, this opioid epidemic. Given the scope of the tragedy, the Trump Administration has proposed a 32 cut to the bureau of International Narcotics control and Law Enforcement is absolutely unacceptable. It just shows instead of prioritizing an issue that goes right to the heart of what people are concerned about, where they want our state department, where they want our Law Enforcement to begin, instead, we see this dramatic undermining of the effort to stop these lethal drugs. Can you talk about why there would be a 32 cut, mr. Secretary, given the epidemic of fentanyl coming in from china and mexico . Sec. Tillerson i could not agree more with your assessment of the seriousness of the threat of fentanyl, as well as other illicit narcotics. We have underway as a result of secretary kelly and mines first bilateral visit to mexico city one of the issues we had on our discussion early on was this trafficking that occurs either from mexico or certainly through mexico. I told my mexican counterparts it is time to stop playing small ball. We have to Start Playing large ball. We have followed that up with two additional bilaterals. One most recently held here. We are mapping out a different way of attacking the issue in a supply chain, value chain mechanism. Where are things produced and manufactured, how are they marketed and delivered. Clearly, there are parts to all of that they own, parts of it we own together. Certainly, the part that we own is how do we get ahead, why we while we are the demand center for this . We brought in health and Human Services to work with us in this effort, as well. Have you raised this issue with your counterpart in the Chinese Government . Sec. Tillerson we have discussed with the Chinese Government, yes. You raised a yourself . Sec. Tillerson in my discussion with the chinese, i have talked to them about the illicit drug flow coming out of china. Fentanyl specifically . Sec. Tillerson yes. Obviously, they say, yes, it is a serious problem. Yes, they will crack down on that as well. I think it is too early to tell what efforts and whether that is producing anything. We are going to keep it in our dialogue with the chinese that we need you to work on your source of supply in this with this particular additive, this fentanyl additive, which is deadly. A kilo of heroin costs 6,000. It can be sold for 80,000. A kilo of fentanyl can be sold for 1. 5 million. The chinese and mexican governments are rational actors. They are moving in that direction. Unless you get a positive response from the chinese and mexican government, we have to escalate this up to the top of the issues our country expects the Trump Administration to deal with. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for that point, senator isakson. First of all, thank you for the great job. I dont say that in a pandering way. Your First Six Months have been very impressive. I appreciate the first trip you took with the president. The leadership you have shown the state department we are , fortunate to have you in place. Thank you for doing what you are doing. Having reorganized a Large Company on the scale of a Small Business but not a Large Company on the scale of exxonmobil, you are in the unenviable position of answering budget questions in regards to the budget for the future. If anything, if we could have fy19 in front of us instead of 18, the questions would be totally different. You dont get to do it that way. Your statement to senator carter, i dont think the train has left the station yet dont , prejudge us and give us a chance to do the job. You made a great statement in your prepared remarks when you said the budget will not determine our effectiveness, our people will. I think the way you are approaching the reorganization of the department and getting the facts before you take any steps will serve well the reorganization that does take place in the state department of the future. With that said, the hiring freeze that is currently in place has had an impact on the state departments hiring of new Foreign Service officers is that , not correct . Sec. Tillerson as of today, senator, we are about up foreign 54 Service Officers from the start of the year, about 0. 5 . The effect will come later as what we are doing is just allowing normal attrition to bring the numbers down. As we look forward, we know we have got to continue to replenish our Foreign Service officer corps. So we are still interviewing people and as we look ahead, we will probably be looking at a one to three kind of replacement. The Foreign Service, if we look further out, i think we have said this publicly, by the end of fiscal 18, we think we will be down about 8 overall on permanent state department, Foreign Service, Civil Service. Foreign service is only going to be down about 4 . Civil servants are going to be down about 12 . It is being managed in a deliver way, but being very mindful of not diminishing the strength of our Foreign Service officers. I dont want to see you get to a position where we had a brain drain we couldnt make up for. These people are important to the visibility of america overseas. Sec. Tillerson indeed. Secondly, was there a freeze on relatives of employees of the state department . Sec. Tillerson employee state Department Family members that are eligible to be hired in mission, we have a waiver process in place for that. I have approved a number of them. The freeze does extend to all of those, in answer to your question. Where we have Critical Missions like in iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, where we really need these positions filled by family members that are willing to go to those tough locations, i have been providing waivers in those circumstances. Thats why i raised the point. Those people have invaluable experience that nobody else has. A reason to have a willingness to serve that nobody else would have as well. So they would be valuable to the state. Sec. Tillerson indeed. One example of whats been read into the budget by some people when they have seen consolidation of departments and responsibilities without the future result is you have the Economic Support Fund and the Development Assistance account merged into one fund without any change of the authorization for the fund. A new name called the economic support and development fund. Will our 2019 show the results of the mergers, not just in terms of financially but reauthorization for the departments . You are not just going to redo the budgets but restructure the departments and the mission too, i assume . Sec. Tillerson that would be the intent coming out of this redesign. As all of you well know, we have a number of bureaus that have common missions, some of them have overlapping missions. Not true just within the state department, but we have that with other agencies, as well. This exercise is also to identify where we have overlapping missions with defense, agriculture, department of commerce. Where do we have opportunities to achieve delivery on mission . Perhaps more effectively because there is a common greater coordination. All of that is yet to come. It that is why i said, i do not want to foreclose anything at this in other words, the point. Train hasnt left the station. Stay tuned. Sec. Tillerson please get on the train with us. We need everybody on the train. Thank you for your service. Thank you, sir. Senator murphy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, mr. Secretary. I want to echo the comments and concerns of Ranking Member carden. To many of us and to many people who follow u. S. Foreign policy, the withdrawal of American Leadership from the world in the first several months of the Trump Administration looks deliberate. Whether it be a proposed 32 cut to your department, which represents us in some of the most important forums in every country around the world, whether it be the decision to back out of the most Important International agreement that has been entered into over the course of the last decade or , whether it be this decision, deliberate or not, to keep assistant secretary and deputy secretary positions unstaffed for a longer time than any of us can remember in any Previous Administration. It has resulted in some fairly dramatic statements by leaders around the world, not the least of which was chancellor merkel who said upon President Trumps first foreign trip, the culmination of it, she said that the times in which we can count on others are somewhat over, as i have experienced in the past few days. This decision to take a big step back from u. S. Leadership, it does seem deliberate. It does seem intentional. I can understand that that certainly could be a strategy to telegraph to the rest of the world that they need to make their own plans, that they need to form their own alliances and they wont simply be able to rely on us. Let me ask you that question. Is this a deliberate strategy . Should our allies start making plans that rely less on u. S. Leadership and u. S. Support . Sec. Tillerson senator, i take a completely counter view to the way you have interpreted the president s actions and what the administration has had underway in discussions with many of our longstanding allies and friends. I think we are really leaning in to u. S. Leadership to make it clear to these longstanding allies, and very important allies, and friends of ours, that america has been leading for a very long time. The American People have been reaching in their pockets and paying for their leadership for a very long time. We are going to continue to be in this leadership role but you , our allies, must do your part. You must do your share. I think as a realistic and honest examination of what the American People have been asked to do, relative to what some of our allies and partners have been asked to do, there is a lack of alignment there. I think what our approach is, and i think and i would tell you my interpretation of chancellor merkels remark was for her to say to the german people, you need to understand we are going to have to do more than we have been doing, because we have that responsibility now. We should not look to america to carry us on their backs every step of the way. Thats part of the conversation that we have been trying to stimulate. Every leader has to express it to their own people in their own way. Nato is a perfect example. You are well aware of the demands we have been making of nato members. Secretarygeneral stoltenberg has thanked us for taking this position. Nato has never seen a response from other countries because of the pressure put on others. It is an open, honest conversation we are having with our friends and allies about how are we going to share this burden . We all carry the burden. We are not going to set the burden down. We are not going to walk away. We have to talk about how we are going to carry this burden going forward, because the world has changed. The world has changed dramatically. I want to switch to a question about whats happening in syria today, just to get you on the record. In the last 30 days, the United States has come into conflict with Syrian Forces with forces aligned with the assad regime and with his iranian proxies three different times. We have taken offensive action against those forces. Let me ask you this has the Administration Made a decision to actively contest territory inside syria with the assad regime . What legal authorization is the Administration Using to take action against the Syrian Regime or against iranian proxies inside syria . Sec. Tillerson i dont want to get into detail since we are in an unclassed environment here. Our mission and our purpose and reason for being in syria is unchanged. We are there to defeat isis. All of our efforts are focused on defeating isis, denying them of their caliphate. As you know in iraq and syria, it is a coordinated effort. We are making tremendous progress in denying isis their caliphate and chasing them down the lower Euphrates River valley. That is the objective. That is why we are there. Would you agree there is no legal authorization to wage war granted by the administration by congress to wage war against the assad regime or against iranian proxies . Sec. Tillerson i would agree with that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I do want to say that this work period we planned to deal with an amf. I thank everybody for their interest in that. Senator . Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wish senator markey had stated, i understand the memo went out to all that they are supposed to raise health care. I dont know what that had to do with our hearing today. Senator markey raised health care. I should respond to him briefly, if i might. Breast inting his righteous indignation, trying to resolve this mess called obamacare, the stuff is not getting out. I would remind him that 3,000 pages of that complex legislation was dropped on my desk 30 minutes before we voted on. At voted on it, in the middle of the night. He is right, we should have substantially more work on it than doing in the middle of the night, like happened with obamacare. Or we are going to wind up with the same mess. Secretary tillerson, i have been very impressed with your service. There was a lot of criticism of the president over a lot of things but particularly when he , appointed you because of the , fact that you didnt come out of whats traditionally been diplomatic circles. I can tell you that seeing you work in the months has been a real pleasure when you have been on board. You have certainly picked this up. As you know, this is not runofthemill stuff when youre dealing with diplomatic circles. Thank you for your service. Thank you for doing that. We are very proud of you. It isnt just me. On my service here and the intelligence committee, i deal with people from other countries all the time. You are getting high marks wherever you put footprints on the ground. Thank you for your service. Senator murphy brought up the comments by Angela Merkel about the comments that she made about people taking care of themselves. I want to ask you a question. I have been here over the last eight years meeting with people , from other countries. They were incredibly frustrated by our leading from behind and or, doing nothing i guess, is what it was. After the president pulled the trigger twice, which you never hear about in the media anymore. Once in syria after the use of chemical weapons and then again in afghanistan after one of our s. E. A. L. S got killed, you never there was a marked change of the attitude of particularly our allies and some that arent particularly allies of ours. Indeed, i met with some after that, the syrian episode. Some were positively giddy about the fact that america was back. Are you finding the same thing as you travel around the world . Sec. Tillerson senator, i am. I think all of our allies and friends appreciate decisiveness, even if we make a decision they may not like or agree with, they appreciate decisiveness so it is clear where we are going. They certainly on the security front and in our shared battle against isis and counter terrorism, our moves have been very welcome. I find our relationships to be quite strong. My discussions with my counterparts, whether they are foreign secretaries, Foreign Ministers, it is very open, very frank about where we are agreeing, where we are not. There is a real common sense that the u. S. Ally relationships are stronger today. We have our differences. We express them in different ways. There is clarity greater clarity to where we are going today than there has been in some time. Thats what i hear. I hear the same thing. That decisiveness that you talk about has given be them in my judgment a lot stronger confidence in what they can expect of us. I saw confusion and real troubling view from their point of view during the last eight years. It has changed markedly since those two events that nobody ever talks about. Are you aware of any reports of use of chemical weapons in syria since that episode . Sec. Tillerson none that we are aware of, but we are watching it closely. Thank you. I would assume it wouldnt take a Rocket Scientist to figure out if we can drop 97 of them on a dime in one of their airfields, we can probably put one down the chimney in damascus somewhere . Would that be something some reasonable person might conclude . Sec. Tillerson we just like to know who is sitting next to the fireplace. Lastly, mr. Tillerson, those of us that sit on this committee, and for that matter on intelligence committee, one of the things, and this is not something that is a huge part of this budget. There is money that goes to assistance to the palestinian north authority. Palestinian authority. The payments that have been made over the years from some of that money to them Palestinian Liberation Organization that they use to pay families of suicide bombers, thats like grating on a blackboard as far as a lot of us are concerned. I am sure thats on your radar. I realize that there are other sides of that as far as those payments into the west bank or into gaza but this is something that really galls on us. Anything you can do about that would be greatly appreciated. Sec. Tillerson well, let me assure you, senator, it was discussed directly when president abbas made his visit with his delegation to washington. The president raised it. I had a much more bilateral a detailed bilateral later that day with him. I told him, you absolutely must stop making payments to family members of, quote, martyrs. It is one thing to help orphans and children. But when you designate the payment for that act, that has to stop. They have changed their policy. I have at least been informed they changed that policy and their intent is to cease the payments to the family members of those that have committed murder or violence against others. We have been very clear with them that this is simply not acceptable to us. It is certainly not acceptable to the American People. And mr. Abbas probably has something to say about the west bank but you get deep in the gaza, i dont know how much influence he has there. Sec. Tillerson in gaza, we are working with others who have provided assistance and funding into gaza. Much of which is, as you know, to relieve the humanitarian problem, rebuilding homes, hospitals, schools. There is always a lot of leakage of that money. We are working carefully with others as to how do you help. The Israeli Government is supportive of stabilizing gaza by providing these type of humanitarian actions. We cant have the money leaking into the hands of those that would commit violence with it. Thank you for the job you are doing with it. I want to thank you for bringing up the taylor force issue. I want to say to the committee, it is my hope that before we go home for august recess that we will have passed that committee, a taylor force like piece of legislation to address that issue. Thank you for raising it. Thank you, secretary tillerson for your service and the chance to be with you again. We will be together later today at an appropriations subcommittee. In this context, i will focus on some narrow questions about state department functioning and authorization. Let me just broadly say my predecessor in the seat, former vicepresident biden often said, dont tell me what you value. Show me your budget and ill tell you what you value. I am gravely concerned that the proposed deep cuts to Development Assistance and diplomacy suggests we dont value diplomacy and development as tools of Foreign Policy at a time when we badly need them and need more of them. I think the growing threat we have seen, the attack on our democracy by russia, the destabilizing acts of north korea and their Nuclear Program and the worlds worst humanitarian and refugee crisis since the Second World War call for us to invest more in humanid refugee crisis since the second call for us to invest more in diplomacy. I will just that this afternoon. Ares my understanding you nearly done conducting a review of the whole state department. Soon can we expect nominations for the six regional positions . Atretary tillerson we are about 50 in terms of undersecretaries, assistant secretaries in terms of people identified. Names are being submitted so they can work their way through the process, but also, for a lot of people, they have to get this paperwork behind them, and i would tell you, that is no small challenge. As a check on the status of various people we have recommended and nominated to the white house, i am finding the paperwork is slowing them down. In my own case, i had the hiring tople help me get i had hire a people to help me get mine done. Most people cannot hire eight people. It takes a long time. We have a process. There trying to get candidate a list of people useful to talk to and then we make a decision and submit them. This is a pretty active process. It is when i sit down with the people helping me court made it every 10 days just to see where are we, make decisions on other people. Maybe theyto folks, dont want to do it after all. It is moving. That is where we are. It is my hope and expectation we will work on a bipartisan basis to confirm candidates to come forward. I am concerned on the effect on our embassies around the world. It may not be the top of the news. It affects whether we can coordinate policy. I make my best efforts to visit with midlevel Foreign Service officers, the Civil Service folks who run the department, and i am concerned about the impact on morale. Concern i have is diversity. As part of the hiring freeze, i understand the current fellows were told that these classes were on hold indefinitely and this is one of the premier programs in the Foreign Service and has served as a key tool for developing diversity. Indicate an important lacked of attention to diversity. How do we move forward on diversity initiatives taken by Previous Administrations that effort . Hy of continued secretary tillerson i will followup, senator. I delete dont think we have frozen the pickering programs. Let me follow up with you because i do not think there is a full freeze in place. Understanding my is they are being asked to make difficult choices while they are waiting for an entrylevel class and you can imagine how someone could find it difficult to take another job while waiting and indeterminate an indeterminate period for an opening in the state department. Whos one of the senators salmonto address conditions and your fy 18 carryover funds. Why were these funds obligated in the year that they were appropriated by congress, which is 16 and 17. And what is the longterm goal . I am concerned about impoundment and whether these funds needed and whether oron not these funds might, instead, be reprogrammed or returned. Secretary tillerson first, let me thank the congress for the big plus up in 2017. In recognition, as you point out of some serious challenges around the world, i think senator, our attention is to get the deployed in a way that the food shows up. I think what you are seeing is how difficult it is to execute on some areas. Having the funds are certainly appreciated and needed. But then we have to be able to deliver, working with other aid agencies and working with the situation on the ground to have the aid reach those most in need. Our expectation as we reflect it, just wanting to be completely transparent with everyone, is that we are pushing that out as quickly as we can effectively do that. We are going to have some carryover as a result of the plus. I think when we get around it, it is a broader budget question as to it is difficult to execute a 55 billion budget for the organization. So the statement that, show me your funding and ill show you your level of commitment, i do not agree with. Funding does not equal results. Show me your results and ill tell you your commitment. Thats what we are trying to get the folks in the state department. What are the results . Ill tell you what i need to deliver on those results and giving me a pot of money and suggesting that that confirms our success and our commitment is just simply, i have to take exception to that. I have never had that experience anywhere. Senator coons mr. Secretary, we that once money, is obligated, we also have an obligation to spend it in the most efficient way possible. I dont think it is an either or conversation. The chairman and i have looked to find ways to improve the delivery of food assistance. Having this funding was in the accounts to believe it was a way to streamline it more efficiently. I didnt mean to suggest simply spending shows our values. Spending efficiently proves our values. Cutting without reasonable justification, at a time of record famine, i have some difficulties with. I look forward to our further conversation about how we can be more efficient and effective in our support of development and diplomacy. Secretary tillerson i agree with delivering through the ida program. We believe that is also more effective as well. Chairman corker we look forward to working with you. 52 8 million 5 million to 8 million a day, 5 million to 8 million a day could be fed if we would break down the funding. The same amount of dollars, not a penny more. Think about that. 5 million to 8 Million People a day. Thank you for that. Senator rubio. Senator rubio thank you for coming. How is it going . [laughter] you could have been hhs, health and Human Services. You could have answered all the Obamacare Questions today. I want to start with the asian continent news, i guess today or , yesterday about a 4. 5 billion cut to radio free asia. That comes on the heels of what i hope you are aware of, an article in the wall street journal from may 23 about an interview in the mandarin language broadcast with a Chinese Investment tycoon, the Chinese Government got very upset about this interview. They issued a red notice on interpol to try to wrap him up and the like. Then, there was a dispute within the voice of america, this interview was cut short. The person who conducted the interview, sasha gong, whoible was thei believe was the head of the person who conducted the gong, was theha head of the mandarin broadcast is on suspension. There is this fight internally. The first question, the combination of the cuts and the interview, you could assure us here today that our efforts to improve relations with china have nothing to do with the budget cut and or the directive that was given to this reporter to cut the interview short . Secretary tillerson to my knowledge, it had nothing to do with our relations with china. Senator rubio would you be supportive of an i. G. Investigation into this dispute thats occurring within that branch between the head of the voice of america and this particular reporter. Secretary tillerson i would like to get a greater understanding myself but if it would seem there has been anything improperly done, we should call for one. Senator rubio the concern is we can not allow geopolitical pressures from china to influence our ability to broadcast the truth, particularly in that language, in mandarin. Obviously, we want to understand whether that is what would happen or not. Secretary tillerson strongly agree, strongly agree. Senator rubio obviously, you have heard from a lot of the members here about the budget situation. I get it. We have got to do better. We have to get more bang for our buck in terms of the money we invest in foreign aid and engagement. I am a big believer in foreign engagement. It has paid extraordinary dividends. It is always important to remind people when it comes to foreign aid, it is less than 1 or about 1 of our budget. Some people think it is 25 or 30. It has brought real success. South koreas economy 35, 40 years ago was smaller than north korea. Today, it is the 11th largest economy, the strongest american ally, a vibrant democracy. Nothing illustrates that better than the famous google earth picture of the darkness on the north korean side and all the light on the south korean side. One of the best news stories from that engagement is planned colombia. A state that was on the verge of failure, thanks to extraordinary bravery and courage and ini. V. By u. S. Support. President santos visited here a few weeks ago. It has always been my preference and inclination to be helpful because of the importance of our colombia. Hip with i left openminded despite that the colombian people rejected a peace deal. I have tried not to opine about internal matters because they are an ally and democracy. He comes to washington. After the visit, im more concerned than i was before he came for a couple points. The first is, i remain concerned about the creation of the special Legal Framework in their peace deal that basically puts the farc on par with the colombian government in terms of prosecuting people. It basically means some of the people that were working with us to destroy these drug gangs and gorilla groups could be on trial for working with us. We put the farc on equal footing , and not to mention they now become a political party. Im concerned about them stopping extraditions. As of the latest count, about 60 members of the farc are potentially wanted for extradition because they violated our laws. They have pushed at one point to delist the farc as a terrorist organization. Which they should always be on that list. And the one that is really concerning is this massive surge in cocaine production over the last year and a half which perfectly coincides with president santos decision to suspend aerial eradication. Which he chalks up to not wanting to spray in national parks, but i just advise him when he keeps saying that to members of congress that know better, that may have been an element of it, but that is not entirely the rational. They stopped it because they didnt want to upset the peace deal with the farc. I raise all this because they are now coming back for additional money to help imlimit implement all these things we have concerns about. The peace deal belongs to the sovereign nation to colombia. Our willingness to fund it and participate depends on the conditions we lay out. I wanted to get your sense where we are in that process, what those conditions are and in particular the delisting of the farc, the release of the criminal simone trinidad, who is in federal prison, and the aerial eradication. Why should the american taxpayer be paying for a deal that is flawed and could potentially undo the progress of plan colombia . Secretary tillerson all of the flaws that you have identified and the peace plan that they have, we would agree with. I think we see it the same way. We have had discussions with them. As you point out, it is a question of how far do we want to go in trying to interfere with or condition or in any way undo the plan that they have arrived at and the agreement they have arrived at with the farc. I would comment on the spraying of the fields. We had a long discussion about this. The numbers are just eyepopping in terms of whats happened with the acreage under cultivation in particular. They indicated they had in some sense created this problem of their own because they had been paying farmers to get out of production of cocaine fields and the supply field and convert to other. They have halted that program while they were in the mid of these talks. The farmers planted more acreage to get more payments. So we have told them, we have got to get back to the spraying. We have to get back to destroying these fields. They are at a very bad place now in cocaine supply to the United States and the president talked to president santos directly about that. So we are going to work with them in how do we address that particular issue . In the other issues, it is a question of how heavily we want to condition our support to them in terms of making changes to a Peace Process that they have put together. And understanding would that completely unwind it . What are the consequences . Share all of the concerns you have. We have highlighted those concerns. Very troubling to us. We were on a great track. It kind of came off the track with the vote and this is where we are. Chairman corker thank you. Very good. Good exchange. Senator udall. Senator udall thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary, for being here today. I think everyone on this panel can agree that among our greatest National Security threats, our Nuclear Proliferation from north korea as well as remnants of the aqkahn group in iraq among in iran, among others. Just yesterday, secretary mattis made it clear by stating the most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security is north korea, end quote. Given the importance of countering this threat, i would expect the state department to prioritize nonproliferation in programs that support antiterrorism. Yet the budget the president has presented to the congress for consideration does the opposite. Instead of robustly funding these programs, this budget puts americans at risk by cutting the nonprolive raugs and nonproliferation and defunding that account for 333 million. Based on your personal review, have you directed the state department to deemphasize these areas . Is the official state Department Position that these accounts are no longer a priority . Secretary tillerson no, senator, we are not in any way deemphasizing this. As you point out, we agree north korea is the greatest threat. That is why, if you look back at the early stages of the administration, that was the first Foreign Policy area we dealt with at the state department, was north korea. That process continues, as you well know. I think in terms of our activities that you just listed, some of those we are working with the Defense Department on areas of Budgeting Authority they have, how do we coordinate the most effective deployment of the Resources Available to us to achieve common objectives. We are not looking for their money to supplant our money. We have, between secretary mattis and i, have developed a very, very close process between our two relevant bureaus as to how we are putting our funds that are available to work. What fund do they have in the same geographic locations where they are trying to achieve a similar objective. How do we manage that in a way that it continues to allow us to address the issues that you are discussing there. We have not deemphasized the threat of nonproliferation. We have other parts of the world that this is a serious concern to us and are developing policy approaches there. These are just some of the difficult choices that have been made in where to take certain budget reductions. Senator udall mr. Secretary, would i like to move to our own hemisphere here. The u. S. Chamber of commerce and its support for engaging kuma and during its launch of the u. S. Cuba Business Council stated, we are facing a historic opportunity to support a vital and growing cuban private sector, one that is defined by entrepreneurs whose expanding effort show that the spirit of Free Enterprise is already taking hold in the country. In fact, multibelieve states have already inked trade agreements increasing Business Opportunities for rural and urban areas alike. The cuban people, themselves, including those that host tourists from the United States either in air b bs have gained entrepreneurial experience and have gun the workbegun the work to pull themselves out of poverty. Do you believe we should continue these efforts or return to the failed policies of the cold war . Secretary tillerson what you have described is the sunny side of the relationship, it is all positive, great, and good. There is the dark side. That is that cuba has failed to improve its own human rights record, political opponents continue to be imprisoned. Dissidents continue to be jailed. Women continue to be harassed. So what we have to achieve in approaching cuba is if we are going to sustain the sunny side of this relationship, cuba must absolutely must, begin to address its human rights challenges. Within that sunny side of the relationship, there are troubling elements to us that bring the relationship into conflict with existing statute obligations. That is that as were developing these business relationships, and as we are enjoying the benefits on the economic and development side, are we inadvertently or directly providing Financial Support to the regime . Our view is we are. The question is, how do we want to deal with that . How do we bring that back into compliance with long standing statutory obligations . We are examining that and we would love to keep the sunny side and would love to keep it in compliance with existing statues for this that continues to be a very oppressive regime. Senator udall mr. Secretary, should the United States make it easier or harder for u. S. Companies to engage in cuba to improve abscess to the internet . Do you believe as many on this committee do that access to the internet is an important part of creating a modern and just society including supporting entrepreneurs and finally will you build on efforts from the Previous Administration to help u. S. Companies do business in cuba . Secretary tillerson we do support greater access to the internet, not just for the commercial economic reasons but we also think it is an important way people have access to voices of freedom and democracy and greater visibility. So we are supportive of that. We are supportive of continued Economic Development as long as it is done in full compliance with our existing statutes to not provide Financial Support to the regime. Thats the focus of our current policy review. Senator udall this isnt a question. Just a final comment. If that us the sole test on Financial Support from the regime and if they are getting money from Small Businesses an everything, it just seems to me we are headed down a path of once again closing down the abilities of these private businesses and air b bs and pieces and a lot of others to be out there and making a living and developing the private sector. As long as i have been working on this issue opening up, we have seen half a Million People working there in the private sector. If the test is going to be, do they give a single dime to the government, then we get ourselves in a situation where we go back to the old cold war policy, which i think has been a real failure. Secretary tillerson senator, i know you are not suggesting that we encourage private companies to violate the law. It does require perhaps a more thorough discussion among the congress and the accountability that weve all talked about that we want to see in the department. I look forward look forward to that senator and welcome it. Chairman corker closing comments . Yes. Beould ask that the budget included in the record. Chairman corker without objection. I have two documents, one is testimony for the record, another human impacts. Be made part of the record . Chairman corker without objection. Chairman,rdin mr. With regard to sen. Coons , there has been a historic challenge in the department of state that predates your stewardship attracting a diversified workforce. This committee has weighed in on it. With had legislation on it. Inave introduced legislation this congress. I would urge you with regard to fellows, that has been one of the bright spots in the state department and your personal attention to allow that process to continue would be very important. The second observation the chairman has made the suggestion goyou have also, as we through the reorganization of the state department, i would give you one other suggestion. Proposes eliminating support of usaid. There is a cut their which we will leave aside, but the organizational aspect is something of interest to our committee. I think that these are areas where we can Work Together to give you the kind of accountability we have all talked about that we want to see department. Secretary tillerson i look forward to that, senator. Chairman corker in my closing, i just want to say there are things that i really do think that there are things that prevent the state department from functioning as well as it could that we can help with and i leaned over in a side conversation with senator cardin and i know that youve all been in briefed us both and briefed our staff as to how things were moving along but we do look forward to working with you in that regard but for this year in particular people are going want to be very engaged in that in a way that i think we began to see the opportunities last year but this year see tremendous opportunities in working with you in that regard. On the food aid component if i could, it is you know, the American Farmer generally speaking, these are people that patriotic, care about other people, proud of what they do and as ive talked with them about what were doing in food aid i get a response of disbelief. They are unaware, totally unaware that people who represent them here have forced u. S. Commodities to be used when its only one half of 1 of their entire output to be used in places that you cannot get u. S. Commodities to. Senator coons referred to uganda. In some cases it takes six , months, believe it or not when , people are starving to get u. S. Commodities to these places, 50 has to be shipped by these maritime entities that it cost 40 more for us to do it that way. I appreciate the comments you made by ida and some of the things that we can do. I would just ask with all the things that you have going, that you sit down with secretary purdue also because i think as we talk to the Grassroots Farmers out there again theyre in disbelief that we have a program that for the same amount of dollars could feed 5 to 8 million more people a year, and although people who purport to represent their interests are keeping that from happening. If you could make that happen, i would appreciate it. I know were planning to do the same. And secondly, i know this friday the president is going to be laying out cuba policy. I know senator udall asked some questions about it. Can you give us some of the gen contours you see shaping up relative to what that policy is going to be . Senator, it is still in an interagency review going on actually today. My deputies handling it for me since im here, but i think the general approach, if i can say that is to allow as much of this continued commercial and engagement activity to go on as possible because we do see the sunny side as ive described it. We see the benefits of that to the cuban people and to ultimately restoring somehow down the road getting to some point a normalization, but on the other hand, we think we have achieved very little in terms of changing the behavior of the regime in cuba and its treatment of people and it has little incentive today to change that and, in fact, our concern is they may be one of the biggest beneficiaries of all of this, which is again promotes the continuance of that regime. So we are examining how the past policy was implemented, how it was described to others so that what were people told, what assurances were given, but we think it is important that we take steps to restore the intent of the hellsburg legislation burden legislation which was to put pressure on the regime to change and that pressures been largely removed now. How do we reengage on that and still allow much of the sunny side of whats been done to be preserved. There are other areas of important diplomatic issues regional that we want to engage with the cuban regime on because we think there may be some areas of common interest if we can establish what this relationship is going to be. So the policy takes all of these things into consideration. Chairman corker look, i was down there not long ago and, you know, the americas always felt if it could do more business with folks then that would help pave the way towards western values, capitalism, democracy and those kinds of things. On the other hand, the obis it a the obstinates obstinance that the government has its almost like an ingrained in them that whatever it is the United States wishes for them to do and human rights and other activities, they are not going to do just to demonstrate that the revolution is still alive, still calling whats happening down there a blockade. I look forward to engaging some this week with you and others on what we may do on friday and i understand the rub and i do hope we end up with a policy that overtime will cause the cuban people themselves to be able to reach their aspirations. Its a country that has incredible potential, like venezuela with a terrible government system thats held people back for years yet very intelligent, well educated folks that could be in a very different place standard of living wise if the policy would ever get right. Thank you for being here today. I think its been a great hearing. Were going to keep the record open until thursday for written questions. I know you have a lot of responsibilities but to the effect you can answer those fairly promptly, we appreciate it. You have any other comments youd like to make. Thank you and the meeting is adjourned. [indiscernible] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] were budget hearings today. Tillerson is back on capitol hill today to testify about the 2018 budget request. He is at the House Foreign Affairs Committee Live at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Veterans Affairs Secretary takes questions from members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee about the 2018 budget and plans to modernize the pa the the a the v. A. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up, done buyer will discuss his efforts to revoke President Trumps Senior Advisor theushners security chance of convening congress for the purpose of changing the constitution. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 00 eastern this morning. Join the discussion. This weekend, book tv on cspan2 features a Panel Discussion on race in america. Easternday at 5 15 p. M. Moderated by april ryan. Knee. Of at mamas these two ladies, i remember the new young lady watching them march for us when we didnt have voices. Basically let us know that we count anytime when many of us are not at the table. What did chilly chisholm say, if you dont have a seat at the table, bring a full and chair. Also the author of five dollars and a pork chop sandwich. And the author of how exceptional black women lead. In the author of they cannot kill us all. And julianne malveaux. Sunday at 1 15 eastern, historian David Mccullough speaks with Charles Gibson about his collection of speeches on american principles. I am beginning to think about the great president s down the years who have been avid readers of history, many of them wrote history, including john kennedy. Even those who didnt have the benefit of a College Education like harry truman read history all their lives. And realized that it is essential to the role of a leader, whether it is the presidency or leadership of any kind, not cause and effect. History matters. Xcode to book tv. Org for the complete we can schedule. Defeatednate narrowly 53 to 47 legislation that wouldve brought arms sale to saudi arabia agreed to by President Trump in may. Image was introduced paul rand by rand paul. Pursuant to the arms export