Transcripts For CSPAN3 Secretary Tillerson Pushes Back Against Charge Of Recless And Radical... 20170623

He talked about foreign aide and stratsagies dealing with russia, north korea, and cuba. Held before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, this is two hours. The subcommittee hearing will come to order. Our hearing today is on the president s fiscal 2018 funding request and budget for the department of state. Id like to welcome our witness, secretary of state tillerson. After Opening Statements from myself and Ranking Member, well hear from the secretary and accept your written testimony and anything youd like to tell us personally. So this is going to be a little bit longer than normal. This is a very important issue for the country, a passion of mine. And serk secretary tillerson, i like the way you represent our country. I think you have a style thats pretty good for the world as it is today. Youre a man of few words, but i think when you talk people listen. Your view of north korea is just beginning to penetrate. Just met with the chinese. I think theyre getting your message. So in terms of your style and your attitude toward the job, i very much appreciate it. As to the budget, were here today because the budget balances in ten years. We need to increase defense spending. But once you do that, then if youre not going to deal with intitles, then you have to go to nondefense discretionary funding to find the off sets. And this account gets pretty much devastated. Im not blaming you. Im not blaming anybody. I just want the country to know i think this budget request is in many ways radical and reckless when it comes to selfpower. And i look forward to working with you, mr. Secretary, to find a better budget but also to find a better state department. You just got there, been there for a few months. A year from now, i think youll have a better idea of how the state department can be reformed. Lets give it a good once over, see what works, what doesnt, how many people we actually need. All of that is long over due. I welcome that kind of analysis. But basically today is a number thats driven by increase defense spending, and this account gets pretty hard. I dont think as a result of the juteny of how the state Department Works as much as budget pressure given from increased military spending. So the first chart i have is to my right. If you dont fund the state department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition. General mattis, and i think we have other generals cutting the International Affairs budget. Well place our interest, values, and lives of our men and women in uniform at risk. Heres the point. I believe after 42 trips to iraq and afghanistan, were never going to win this war by killing terrorists alone. There has has to be a soft power connection, the terrorists offer a glorious depth, and we must offer a hopeful life. And we must be had included to form a better life for those that are having to choose between terrorism and modern thoughts. So i believe as the generals do if you dont believe me, listen generals that the state Department War on terror is just as important to me as any war on power we have. So how much do we spend on soft power . We spend 1. 4 . So a lot of people think foreign aide is about 25 of what we spend, but compared to hard power, we spend a very small amount on soft power. And that 1. 4 includes things beyond just traditional soft power. So i want the country to know if you eliminated the state department, you would not even begin to move the debt needle. The question is it if you cripple the state department, its not to me about debt but American Values being impeded. So look at gdp on defense and nondefense. So what you see is that the gdp owned hard powers about 3 of gdp on soft powers. So rounding areaa. And this chart shows you were going downward dramatically on soft power and upward on hard power. So comparison of dod state Department Work force. How many people do we have in the hard power world and soft power world . Okay, you see over here the numbers of state usid, which is very small percentage. And we have well over a Million People in uniform. So if you believe soft power is important are and the generals tell me you do, look at the balance. So heres what i would suggest. We do need more hard power because sequesttration has hurt hard power. But youre going to have a hard time telling me soft power can withstand a 25 cut. International affairs historically, look here. Look at the big drop in 2018. Plus up in 2017, the worlds gone to hell in a hand card. Now, our response to increase hard power, which i agree with. But a 29 reduction in hard power in 2018 doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Just look at that drop and say given the role as we know it and according to the generals, not lindsey graham, is this wise . I really dont think so. Indices security funding, we all remember bengazi. Look at this reduction in securities. Given the threats i see, now is not the time to decrease Embassy Security funding unless youre going to close embassies, and im not sure now is the time to be closing a lot of embassies. Cuts to hiv aides one last thing. Heres what the bengazi cut told us. The mission of the state department to the world is smaller or larger . Then it comes to the need, not just the initial number. As a republicanb im proud of president 43 bush who came up with a program called pether supported by almost democrat. President obama continued this. And as you can see in the return on the dollar for the pepvar program has been absolutely astounding. Millions of Young Africans are alive today because of the pepvar program. Mothers to child aids transmission went down by 40 . Were beginning to turn the corner. Were not there yet, but there are five countries that are going to be selfsufficient. And this budget cuts beby a billion dollars when were inside the 10yard line. I could give numbers what it means to the program, but hundreds of,000s of people will not be treated by this budget cut. I think its just penny wise and foolish. There are currently 65. 4 Million People displaced worldwide. Thats the highest in maurn history. Now, what role does the state department play in this . 20 Million People are currently at risk of famine. So you have famine and you have man made wars and disasters. Look at what were doing with assistance. Were cutting itats a time when Disaster Needs assistance needs are at an alltime high. Intertralgs Disaster Assistance and food aide by 3. 4 billion, 77 below the 2017 numbers. The terrorists love this. The terrorists hate the idea that an american shows up with some food and an education. From a terrorist point of view, this is really a recruiting tool. From an American Point of view, weve got to fix this problem. Because if we cut back, other people will follow. And youve got to pay now or pay later. Youve got to deal with these people now or end up killing them later with the young people become terrorists. So got a real problem with that one. Georgia, not my neighbor georgia, the country. For a record, i like the people in georgia. Georgia is fighting in afghanistan without any caveats. Theyre one of the few countries that go to afghanistan foopartner with our soldiers and do whatever weve asked them to do. Theyve died in fairly large numbers. They have absolutely no restrictions on their force. They help us in afghanistan when we cant afford to lose. Their neighbors are pretty tough hombres, their russians. What signal are we sending to georgia when we cut their assistance 66 at a time when russia is on the prowl and we need more help in afghanistan, not less. This just really is the wrong message to our friends and certainly the wrong message to russia. I am at a loss at why we would cut aid to georgia given what russia is doing in the region now. And im at loss why we would want to send a signal to a people that are sending their troops in without any conditions. Small place. Its within 20 miles of sealanes that carry over two thirds of the worlds Oil Shipments and half of the container cargo. Chinas a big player there. We just ened a 26year conflict. Its in our interest to have a line that close to the world shipping lanes. China is a competitor. And unfortunately were reducing our assistance to sri lanka as china going all in. This is a question to you, mr. Secretary. I think you ran some of the best businesses in the world, youre a smart guy but heres whats on your plate that i can think of. Isis, youre going to beat them militarily but if you dont have a plan after, war going to lose again. How do you hold it . So defeating isis permanently has to have a hold and build strategy thats for usaid and all your smart people come into play. Gutter, got 10,000 airman and soldiers there. For god sakes, we cant let this get out of hand, so youre going to be pretty busy with gutter. Russia, dont have time to talk about whats on your plate with russia. Its a lot. Youll be at the table trying to find a way to put syria back in action to make sure the wart doesnt start again and lebanon and jordan dont fall because of endless war. Part of those resources will be you and your talented people who will go in there and help the Syrian People deal with the devastation. North korea. I like whats youre doing in north korea. I dont think were out of the woods yet, so youre going to be a busy guy. 65 Million People displaced on your watch. By the way, the war in afghanistan, we need more soliers, and i think the president s going to give the generals what they want. But we also need to make sure the solars sacrifice is not forsaken because she better have a plan to rebuild those areas we lost from the taliban once we take them back or were going to lose them again. So thats where your people come in. If you had nothing else to do but that, that would be a full job. Good luck. The ukraine, does seem to be getter better to me. China, i really like what youre doing with china and north korea. President trumps not going to allow them to get a missile dinner at homeland. But chinas tough. 20 Million People impacted by famine. And they tell were going to start the Peace Process all over again. Youre the man. Youre going to do all that and cut the budget by 29 . Thank you for coming. Well, i was going to be tough. But what ill start off by saying is like he said, i agree with senator graham. Weve worked together on this subcommittee for a long time, part of the time hes been chairman, spart of the time hes been chairman. But usually the bills been brought out of here. Weve gotten virtually a unanimous vote that republicans and democrats usually cared about. Let me just read a few passages from a may 25th, guest column from the new york times. Colon powal who served as cheefl of staff under president gorge h. W. Bush and secretary of state under president george w. Bush. He wrote leading the world in advance in a cause of peace, responding when disease and disaster strike, lifting millions out of poverty, and yearning for freedom. This calling is under threat. Administrationss proposal to slash approximately 30 from the state department and foreign assistance budget signals an american retreat, making us far less safe. Proposal to bring resources for our civilian resources for a third at what we spend at the right of Ronald Reagans peace through the years. It would be international irresponsible to stress our friends and inkushlg our enemies undermining our own economic and National Security interest. The idea of putting America First requires withdrawal from the world is simply wrongheaded. He goes onto speak of his own experience. And many thought the it end of the cold war is a retrieval. It isnt. Do we really want to slash the state department at such a perilous moment . No. We were saying talking about make america great, but were stepping aside. Were letting other countries come in, fill vacuum, and making the other states relevant. Id like to think our values are the relevant ones, not other countries. I want to know why you disagree. Obviously you do disagree but secretary powal, why you believe ambitions cutting million ofs dollars for programs and our best interest, i would ask consent of the chairman, put the powal article in the record. No objection. Secretary powell also said that many had assumed the cold wars end would allow us to retreat from the world but cuts came back to haunt us. As tensions rose in the middle east, africa, the korean peninsula, and elsewhere. It also rierss resource affective in power to dip mats and aide wukers. But i think general powell has said and much have said, much of the world has looked to the United States for leadership. Were walking away with that leadership. We go around talking about look at the huge amount of money we spend on foreign aide. Per capita bases, a lot of countries spend more. Why would we give up that influence . Would that make us safer . Why would we want to let one of their totalitarian regimes expand their influence rather than our influence . Does that make us safer . Does it make us safer if we allow academics to expand around the world . Does it make us safer to the refugee crisis happening . Does it make us safer if we pretend we can go fortress of america, and not in love with it in saudi arabia, sent so many people to fly airplanes into the twin towers. Weve faced a terrible we face a terrible terrorist attack, one of the worst ervin this country by an american in the city. But saudsys coming in here, saudi citizens, we cant be fortres america. We face problems at home. Of course i use Oklahoma City as an example. I we face problems from abroad. Those who came from saudi arabia and destroyed the twin towers. So i dont need to give you a speech, but i want you to know that i agree with the chairman, and we have very strong views on this. Ms. Secretary, the floor is yours. Thank you for coming. Thank you, chairman graham, Ranking Member lahue. 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 uuusai that mission is unchanged. However the state department and usaid like many institutions here and around the world have not invaefbled to the responsiveness as clickly securities threats are change said and are changing. We were challenging to response to it in a post 9 11 world that characterize themselves by historic threats. The 21st century has already provided many evolving challenges to National Security and economic prosperity. We must develop spjss to protect and advance the interest of the American People. With such a broad threat facing the United States the budget kbs of 35. 6 billion aligns with the administrations objective of making security our top priority. It first responsibility of government is its oof its citizens. The state departments primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home and abroad. Our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human dignity. Conviction of our countrys founders is inenduring but all men are endowed by their creator by certain ailiable rights. As a nation we hold true the aspiration that one dale our child will the more we will have opportunities to shape the human rights conditions in those nations. History has shown that the United States leaves a footprint of freedom wherever it goes. Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American People and advancing our values has necessitied different decisions in the year of our budget. The 2018 budget request includes financial standing from many programs under the office of usaid and the state department. But we have made choices to redu reduce funding of other initiatives. But we will continue to be the leader in internalks government, Global Health, democracy and human answers. I can convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to offer americas helping hand to the world. This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure every tax dollar thats spent is aligned with the usaid request and objectives. The request focuses on missions which deliver the greatest value and opportunity of ques for the American People. The state department and usaid budget increased over 60 from fiscal year 2007, reaching an alltime high of 55. 6 billion in fiscal year 2017. Recognizing that this rate of increase in funding is not sustainable, the fiscal year 2018 budget request seeks to align the Core Missions of the state department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also represents the interest of the American People including responsibility of the money. Over 35,000 surveys were completed. And we also held inperson listening sessions with approximately 300 individuals to obtain their perspective on what we do and how we do it. I met with dozens of team members who spoke canned dudley about their experiences. From this feedback, were able to get a clear overall view of our organization. We have no perceived outcomes and the fwelz and direct of the the state department are not coken exercises. The principles and subsequent evaluation of our organization are the same as those which i stated in my confirmation hearing for foreign policies. We will see the world, what it is, follow the facts where they lead us and hold ourselves and others accountable. We are still analyzing the feedback we received. And we expect to release the findings of the survey soon. From all of this one thing is certain. I am listening to what my people tell me are the challenges facing them and how we can produce a more efficient state department and circumstancesaus. Through my career i have never believed or ever experienced that the level of funding important to a goal is the factor to achieve it. Our people will determine our ability to be effective. My colleagues at the state department and usaid are our greatest resource. I am confident that the u. S. State department and udaid will tone to deliver results for the American People. I thank you for your time, and im happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Well do seven minute rounds. And one, i look forward to your kefrt to restorm the state department, get the feedback, and come to us and say this is what we can do, without this is what we can do more of. So between 2007 and 17, would you say the world is more dangerous or less the. The world is changing and its in a difficult place today. So if weve been spending more for the last ten years, its probably for good reason. And i would say increasing defense spending by 10 is absolutely long overdue. Do you supports the president s budget to increase hard power by 10 . I do. Do you believe that others at soft power is an integral part of our National Securities strategy . Without question. So weve got the general construct that soft power and hard power is important. I dont understand reduce soft power by 21 , but well work through this. As far as addressing situations as they emerge lets put the chart back up. Theres currently 65. 3, four countries, more than 20 Million People are currently at risk of famine. Why would we reduce areas in this area given the threats that have arraysed . Senator, i think we are addressing these areas is talk about why people are displayest placed and why people need the relief from famine. In severe areas of fanlen, theyre related to confliktd areas. What we have done in this budget is put the emphasis on the funds we do have available on where the problems lie. And so in terms of orresources to attack the defeat isis campaign and how we put in place zones of stability and restore areas to some norm alsy, will find the conditions such that they will want to return home. And so a lute of our deisis effort is conducted really for conditions. In the areas of fallin relief we do appreciate additional money that congress offerered up in 2017. We are delivering that money to where it is needed, the food and an avenuen and in a fish way, we can. So how do we attack the famine need in yemen is we have to find the solution to yemen that aloz us to deliver the a 2, though. So i look at these as an integrated problem not simply as one item here, one item there. And i look at it as threatbased funding. I just dont see how given the displacement of many people and no end in site that 77 of reduction and Disaster Assistance is because of threats we face all over the world well just agree to disagree. Georgia, what do we tell our friends about reducing our aide by 67 given the threats they face and the georgias threats democracy over all and National Security interest . Well, ive had two meetings with the georgians already and the president had the opportunity to meet with them as well. When i talked to had garn was and what thad like to see us dude is moremic trade acpicket b b. Do they agree with these reductions. Their concern of o on these reductions did not up in our conversations. I think what i would convey to you, senator, is at some point as we have helped these countries get on their feet and become successful, we would expect the requirements of ra to be reduced. And i think georgia would be the first to tell you how proud they are theyve developed. Theyve developed security and to battle threats with russia. Well, ive been contacted by the people in georgia, and theyre just absolutely floored. They say what more do you want us to do . Many of the threats coming from georgia to russia justify reductions of 66 , but i just dont agree with you. I just think its the worst sig nal to through to an alley. The hiv aids, why are we cutting it by a billion dollars . The Program Available are to sustain hiv treatments in 11 countries, to continue to take that conclusion. As patients rolloff of those rolls new treatments to be made viable. I agree with you there may be five or six countries if youre going to be selfsufficient. Its just pennywise and pound foolish. So the bottom line here is a threatbased budgeten the soft power side would not resebl what is presented in my view. I humbly disagree with you. Just look at what youve got to do here. The money were reducing to Disaster Relief is going to show up more terrorists. Pullic back from georgia at a time when theyre still under siege from the russians is going to reward russia and punish allies. Its going to create a perception i dont want to create. Tbillian dollars coming out of hiv means less treatment for a people thatats a time when they actually need it. If weve spent more its because the threats to this country require us to spend more. At the end of the day, its a small amount of money given their return. Im a pretty hawkish military kind of the guy. The people out there willing to fight, god bless you all. Im just worry about cuts to Embassy Security. I know we can do better than this, and were constrained by artificial spending numbers that are going to change. So thank you for representing our country, taking a job, leading a comfortable life to do whats on this board. Senator lee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We only have a few minutes here, so i think you can assume therell be other questions as we send to you and written questions. Do we have your assurances theyll be answered . Yes, sir. Whether they come fromens or democrats. Im happy to answer any questions. Im happy to take a phone call from anyone at any time. Thank you. Youve sought to senator graham alluded to this. You sought to reassure our allies that the u. S. Would be global leader. With this budget cutting money for diplomacy and development by an average of 30 , china and russia are expanding in those areas. Does that allow us to have influence or does it allow them to go ahead of us in influence . Well, senator, i think we have to devise new ways to respond to a rising china and respond to a troubling russia. And that long list of challenges on that board over there have been around for a while. The level of responding weve been carrying out hasnt solved them. I go back to my view that i dont think the money we spend the necessarily an indicator of our commitment. I think how we go about it, and weve got to take some new approaches to begin the address some of these very daunting challenges. The aide and the support and what we can bring to the issue is important. Im not in any way diminishing that. But i dont i think if we equate the budget level to have some level of commitment or some level of expected success, i think were really undercutting and selling short peoples intellectual capacity to bring different approaches to these problems. Well, i would know when secretary mattis talks about cutting our budget, your budget, that we should buy him more bullets. That kind of got our tangz. Youre talking about money weve spent. Is every Program Going to work . Of course not. But ive worked with president s of both parties, both president bushes, for example. The War Victims Fund has been very successful. A number of these things have allowed us to be. But the product of some of these cuts make sure ive got these right. 30 cut for diplomacy and development. Millions of dollars appropriateerated for other purposes. You want to eliminate one in 600 positions for the state department to buy outs. Reduce more than twice that number to attrition. What are you going to do if suddenly you find that whoops, we made a mistake here, were going to need more not less . Well, thats what the entire redesign exercise is about. Its understanding better how the work gets done. What wave learned out of this listing exercise is our colleagues in the state department, usaid, can already identify a number of obstacles to them. If we eliminate some of those obstacles its like getting another half louis person because they have their Time Available now to direct it at mission as opposed to managing some internal process thats not directly delivering on this. Im just using it as an example. I think when this is allicides and done our objective is to enable our people, foreign fascial nationals toosh to deliver on mission with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Thats a good point to put on a power point presentation. But if youve got 600 people that are gone, theyre obviously not going to be there to help. It sounds like to me almost you spend more time figuring out who you can fire than who youre going to have out there doing things. Were not going to have to fire anyone. Tis is all being done through the normal freeze, higher attrition because we havent determined or needed, a very limited buy out program between the end of this year and next. So there is no firing program planned. Let me go into policy things. The president is going to have his way to praise the leaders of very impressive regimes. In saudi arabia, egypt, russia, turkey, philippines. But now it seems that the white house wants to change our relations which have finally began to improve with cuba. This despite the progress weve had with cuba as benefitting cuba entrepreneurs and our businesses. How does this help . You know, after a recent trip to saudi arabia where women are jailed and flogged for driving a car or leaving the house without permission or without a relative, they get a hundred billion dollar sale of u. S. Weapons, but somehow we have to step down on cuba. Does that make sense . Well, with respect to cuba, we are evaluating that policy and what our posture should be. I think our view is that the steps that were taking over the past few years to improve relations with cuba, to open it up to greater parpg by companies and american citizen did not deliver a reciprocal change in policy or behavior by the cuban government towards human rights. Theres still political opposition you dont think so . You dont think the that people who now have jobs in cuba and now have some economic stability, they dont think its better . I realize a number of those people now as the wall street journal put out last week, because of our restriction on trade, theyre going to russia to get parts on their cars and other things. Russia is getting involved to step in. We havent been. And were saying that and ive gone to cuba and criticized repression. I dont just sit here in an easy place here and say oh, this is whats happening. Ive actually gone there. But we have our president go to saudi arabia to do a sword dance, when we have americans do the saulsa dance in cuba. I dont mean that to be quite as flippant as it might sound. The fact is you and i can go to every country, and theyll let us in. But theres only one question in the world we need permission from our government to go and thats cuba. Were quite sure. Wa we can go to north korea or iraq or iran or anywhere else, if theyll let us in. But not cuba. Frankly, well talk more about this. My time is up, but good lord. Lets deal with reality, not rhetoric. Senator muran. I didnt think that was a question so go ahead. If the secretary wanted to respond to it out of fairness, feel free. Well, i think that somewhere in there there was a cuba question. And as i began to would you roll back what we were doing . I think what we are examining on the policy discussion on cuba is there is existing law thats still in place that says we are not to allow our facilitate people to allow Financial Support revenue to the regime. As the process to open up cuba has unfolded, it is our view that that is happening. If cuban people are able to conduct Business Activities with americans and others and theres no revenue directly in terms of ownership in these entities back to the regime, great but we have a law existing today, that we feel has to be respected because that law was intended to put pressure on the regime to address oppressive issues that they still have. If the congress doesnt want that pressure to be continued, they certainly the law can be revisited. Our view is were loorking at what were the tools that were there to deal with all the four corners of cubas behavior and our relationship with them. There are some things that we in cuba can do together probably quite productively and were interested in engaging with them. But we cant take that just in isolation. And so the policy review is looking at all aspects of this. Senator moran . Thank you, mr. Chairman, mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us, thank you for the conversation we had earlier this week. I want to focus initially on security of our diplomats and the facilities around the globe in which they work. The budget sees a decrease in worldwide Security Protection account of about 562 million from last year. Is there first of all, i would say i heard you in response, i think to senator leahy, indicate that we cant judge our priorities necessarily by the levels of spending. I think thats an indicator, but i think the point you make is theres other components that determine whether or not we will be successful. I assume that its the, i know its the shared goal that every person who works for the state department who represents the United States, around the globe, has a safe environment, as safe as we can provide to them. My question is in this case, what has changed or what will we do different that means that our state Department Employees safety is not diminished . Well are you correct, senator, weve made the safety of not just our state Department Employees, but americans broadly our highest priorities, certainly as it relates to our embassy presence, our Consular Office presence and our missions around the world. If you examine the security elements of the budget, our budget for Diplomatic Security is actually up 11 . Year on year. Where we have reductions has to do with some of the construction, the buildings part of the budget for embassies and other facilities, part of that will manage with some multiyear commitments, across 17 to 18. And some of it has to do with our ability to move projects along promptly. We are clearly committed to the benghazi arb recommendations and are monitoring those carefully. We have some gaps we need to close, the oig has helped us identify some of those, were going to stay on top of those. If there were more funds there, we would simply try to step up more activity on some of the building and maintenance issues, so most of the reduction is in building and maintenance efforts. Which we believe are manageable at least through fiscal year 18. Mr. Secretary, thank you an american citizen who was not safe, whose parents live in kansas, michael sharp, was killed along with another american in the democratic republic of the congo. Last week Ambassador Haley called on the u. N. To investigate the murders of those two individuals. Would you find it appropriate to join Ambassador Haley in insisting that the perpetrators be determined, the facts be discovered and we do everything we can to see that justice is met . We have already done a that through our Diplomatic Mission in the democratic republic of congo and called for a full investigation. To the extent we are able to gain information on their investigation, we certainly will make that available to you. But yes, we have called for that as well. And whats the response of the government . Have they cooperated . Is there results that my understanding is that investigations are under way, what an investigation in the democratic republic of congo may entail versus the way we carry out Law Enforcement is something were trying to at least monitor and make sure were asking all the right questions. The investigatory role is being carried on by the democratic republic of congo. This is not by anyone representing the United States . Weve not i would say been able to put in place, independent Investigative Authority there with the democratic republic of congo at this time. Were working with them. One of the concerns i have with this budget is this we dont operate in a vacuum. As i talk to our military leaders, certainly terrorism is on their list of worries. Senator graham gave you a long list. But our military officers often tell me that russia may be, is our most, is our greatest challenge. Others, certainly all of them will include china on the list of concerns for our countrys role in the world. Investment in the state departments programs, when theyre reduced gives other countries the opportunity to advance their causes if we leave any gap unfilled. So i would ask you with this budget what would you expect to occur in regard to particularly china, but also russia. Their ability to increase their influence around the globe, which in my view is to the detriment of the United States and its wellbeing. China just last month pledged 124 billion for a new Global Infrastructure program. We are reducing usaid missions and eliminating economic assistance to 37 countries around the globe. And its at issue, in addition to me is in addition to the humanitarian, the rightness of the cause, is that others will take advantage of our absence. Well we are already seeing that. Happening particularly in Southeast Asia. But in parts of africa and elsewhere. Particularly in the rise in china in chinas case it is a centrally command control economy. When they come with economic, not just loans, assistance, but also companies, to carry out infrastructure projects, they, they get the whole package. And so countries that enter into these arrangements and we are talking to these countries and cautioning them about what theyre getting themselves into in terms of getting themselves overburdened with loan commitmentses to china. That when china offers to build a railroad, build a road, build a port, they dont do it with local employment. Bring chinese employment in. And then those chinese employment never goes home. We see this happening, were working with partners in the region. This was a subject of discussion when secretary mattis and i attended osmen, our 2 plus 2 ministerial last week in australia, as well as in our conversations with new zealand, singapore and others. One of the approaches we are exploring is whether we can get the world bank to also bring its mission to Southeast Asia. Bring more private equity, privatesector investment dollars to the region. And bring morality tiff to how to finance these projects. Whats required to get the private sector to engage is some of the countries have to continue to improve their investment climate. Like vietnam, the philippines and others. Were working with them on whats necessary. And in our meetings with the asean countries, they see this threat. They see it, they feel it. And so we do have to be there with an alternative to your point. Youre exactly right. We have to have an alternative. But our alternative cant be solely achieved through the funding achieved through the state or u. S. Aid. We have to mobilize a much broader effort and thats how were responding. Senator shane . Mr. Chairman ill refer to my colleague senator durbin. He with a was kind enough to open the door for me, which is why he got here before i did. No, absolutely not. Senator durbin . No good deed goes unpunished. A Good Samaritan never goes unpunished. Secretary tillerson, thank you for being here. Im sorry that i missed you this morning at the Foreign Relations committee. Because i was at another appropriations subcommittee hearing. But i wanted to to ask you about recent news reports that have described a proposed trip to st. Petersburg by undersecretary tom shannon thats going to happen on june 23rd. As a news reports have suggested, that the purpose of the trip is to try and discuss with the russians how we might be able to Work Together against isis in syria. Last week at a state Department Spokesperson admitted that one of the things that will be part of the conversation is two dhakas that were seized last year in response to russias interference in our elections. And i have a picture of those. And we can see that theyre quite substantial. Its my understanding that one of the intelligence reports suggested that these were used for collecting intelligence by the russians. Dachas. I wonder if you could share with us given russias continued behavior, why we would even consider the return of those two dachas as part of any discussions that were having with them. Let me describe to you the nature of our current dialogues with russia. Because theyre occurring at a couple of levels. What i would call the strategy big issues like can we Work Together in syria. How are we going to resolve the ukraine. How are we going to deal with cyberinterference. Those are being today conducted at my level with, my counterpart, the foreign minister, and on occasion with access to the kremlin. What we have agreed to do, there is a long list of what the russians call them irritants. We call them the smalls on our side. A long list of things that have been problematic between both of us for sometime. And in some cases theyre just getting worse. Youll recall when i made my trip to moscow to see my counterpart, foreign minister lavrov and had a twohour meeting with president putin, i came out of those meetings and i said, our relationship is at the lowest level its been since the cold war and it is spiraling down. I said the two greatest Nuclear Powers in the world cannot have this kind of relationship we have to stabilize it and we have to start finding a way back. So we segmented the big issues from this list of what i call the irritants. The dachas are on the list, we have things on the list such as trying to get the permits for our Consular Office in st. Petersburg. Weve got issues with 0 our harassment of our employees in moscow. We have a list of things, they have a list of things. I dont want to suggest to you this is some sort of a bartering deal. Lets start with the smalls to see if we can solve them. As to the dachas, these two properties have been in the ownership of the russians dating back to the soviet union. 1971, theyve owned and used these properties for a very long time. Were transferred to the Russian Federation government for 1 at the breakup of the soviet union. Weve continued to allow them to use these properties. And they have used these properties continuously for all that time. President obama in response to the interference with the election. Expelled the 35 Russian Diplomats and seized these two properties what were working through with them in this conversation is, under what terms and conditions would we be, would we allow them to access the properties again for Recreational Purposes . Weve not taken the properties from them. They still belong to them. So were not, were not going to seize properties that are theirs and remove their but we are talking about under what conditions would we allow you to use them for Recreational Purposes. Which is what they have asked. We have things on our side that were discussing in terms of conditions with them as well. So this is part of how do we take some of the i understand that. Stabilize things. And i dont mean to interrupt. But my time is running and i wonder if you could tell me if the properties are returned, how we could insure that they would not be used for intelligencegathering purposes . Thats part of the terms and conditions were discussing with them. Weve been pretty clear to them. We know what you were doing there. Were not going to allow you to continue to do that. Thank you. As the chair, chair graham pointed out, the 2018 Budget Proposal would reduce billiondollars from the pepfar program. And there are other policy decisions that the state department is making that will have an impact on pepfar in addition to the funding reduction. As you know, the state department in may released guidelines for the implementation of the mexico city policy or the global gag rule. Which for the First Time Ever will apply to all Global Health assistance programs, including pepfar. Now study after study has shown that integrating Reproductive Health and hiv treatment and Prevention Services into basic primary Care Services leads to Better Health outcomes and significant cost savings of foreign dollars. And yet, state department in this budget proposes eliminating all funds for Family Planning. So how will the state department continue to move towards integrating hiv and Reproductive Health and Family Planning in light of the drastic cuts that are being proposed to Reproductive Health funding and the restrictions that you are imposing by the global gag rule . Just to be clear, the reduction to pepfar is 1 billion as pointed out earlier. Its the money for the Family Planning, also has been reduced. The extension of the mexico city policy to all areas of Health Delivery was directed under president ial executive order. So the state department, when we receive the executive order, began immediately to work with all of the delivery services, including all of those in pepfar and a number of the other ngo organizations and important partners in the Health Delivery networks across the world, our assessment we believe is that the impact on those Service Providers is going to be minimal. That is what we believe, were hearing from them. But to monitor that carefully, i have said that we will have a report to me after six months of how is this working, what has been the impact. And weve been directly engaged with a number of the major private donors like the Gates Foundation and others, clearly working with them to say let us know how this sim paiding your ability to deliver on the other parts of the Health Mandate that we still strongly support. We think we found a way to do that. Achieve his directive, but do it in a way that has minimal impact on our ability to deliver and minimal impact on our ability to deliver funding to pepfar and other related programs and we will see how that works after about six months of operation. And if i could just follow up, mr. Chairman. How do you define minimum impact . Because based on information that ive seen from, from other international sources, losing access to Family Planning services will result in two million more unsafe abortions, 12,000 maternal deaths and 6 million more unintended pregnancies, will you factor that in as youre looking at the impact of this policy on the pepfar program . We will factor in those elements that are covered by the president s executive order to insure that we are implementing the order and we are understanding whether its impacting parts of our Health Programs that we did not intend by the executive order to impact. So youre comfortable with it impacting Womens Health in the way ive just defined . Thats a question. We will carry it out consistent with the president s executive order. If certain activities and programs are excluded because of the order, we have to exclude those. Well mr. Chairman im certainly not comfortable with that kind of impact on Womens Health worldwide. Thank you. Duly noted. Senator boozman . Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you, mr. Secretary for being here and we do appreciate your service. When i was first elected to congress a fellow congressman, somebody who is a great coach, Thom Osbourne from nebraska one day said john if we run the same play 50 times in a row and we dont get good results, we probably need to do something different. And we have done, what he was referring to was cuba. We have been doing things a little bit differently lately. I think getting some result. Im a little bit disappointed as we, as we hear that you all are about to reach a decision that perhaps were going to push back on some of the reforms that weve made and some of the opportunities i believe that you can change the world through relationships. And also you have to be consistent. I know we do business with lots of people that are certainly as bad on the human rights fronts as the cubans, i could list a whole bunch of them. I dont think we need to do that. I think you would agree with that can you talk to me a little bit about, about kind of where were at with that . And how you feel about the path Going Forward . Again as i indicated earlier, the cuban policy is under review in fact theres an interagency review thats been under way today. Ive been up here so my deputy secretary has been participating in that for me. So i dont want to get ahead of the interagency process or tell you i know what the final policy outcomes are going to be. What i described earlier are some of the elements that i know are under discussion within the interagency process. Our situation in cuba, yes, there are many other places around the world that have similar human rights issues that, that are problematic to us and challenges to others. Cuba has a very long history of statutory obligations placed around it from libertat to the most recent, think theres four laws that goffin our relationship with cuba. As we have, are examining the situation. We believe it is important that we are not advancing or advocating policies that would put individuals or companies in violation of those laws. If it is the view of the United States that we want to change and redefine that relationship, by removing some of the statutory requirements, i think thats a conversation that should happen. Cy agree that one of the best ways to improve relationships, with cuba and with other countries. Is through economic activity. Is the strongest way to tie our people together, it delivers value to people in the country. They improve their quality of life. All of that is good. We degree with every bit of it. What we are concerned about is not continuing to support in any way financially a regime which as best we can tell has made no change. To its posture or its behavior. I think a recent study says theres 6 billion worth of economic activity, 12,000 jobs, so it is important. I think theres tremendous potential there. The only place i would disagree is i think you get there by engagement. Just so you know, theres no disagreement between us on that. I think its fair. You brought up, you dont want to violate any, any laws that are on the books now. Hopefully we can look at and work through the engagement that weve got. As arkansas aren. You change the world through engagement. The fullbrigt something is that were talking about in arkansas. I wish that would be something that you would look at, too. I was in israel and visiting with the i think he was the finance minister from palestine. This was several years ago. It turned out he being to Summer School at the university of arkansas. Went on and finished up the university of texas. So we can laugh about that. The arkansas, texas, he knew all that stuff. But those things are so valuable. We see the Fullbright Program as extremely valuable as well. Ive had conversations with former senator kerry, who is very engaged. Our reduction in the budget, the Fullbright Program also receives private donations so our 45 cut translates into about a third reduction for them. What we want to do is to the extent we can help, and attracting more private donations to support the program and perhaps begin to attract donations from countries who have benefitted from the Fullbright Program as well. It is not in any way an indication of our view of the value of that program. I think mark green is an excellent choice for usaid. Can you talk just for a second about the reorganization process that youre going through. And commit to working with the committee to make sure that the changes that youre in the process of doing, that theyre sustainable . And as we go forward . As i indicated we have just completed what i think is, having done this in the private sector, once or twice and a big nonprofit once, theres a process that i know has delivered for me in the past. We just concluded this listening effort which will inform us and shape how we feel we need to now attack the redesign and the way forward. Ive interviewed a couple of individuals to come in and help me lead that effort. I think you know we will finalize the listing report here in the next few weeks, were going to make that available so people can see that. Out of that report, though, there are about 13 themes that emerged that are extremely valuable to help us focus on where are the greatest opportunities to remove obstacles for people. How do we allow people to get their work done more effectively, more efficiently. We will be going after the redesign. Some of this is internal processes, some of it is structural. Some of it are constraints that quite frankly Congress Puts ones through some of the proerks structures and i understand all well intended to insure accountability and oversight. But it ends up adding a lot of layers. So were going to be getting at that. We hope to have the next step framed, here in the kind of august timeframe. So that we can then begin the redesign process itself. September. Im hoping we can have all of that concluded by the end of the calendar year. And then 18 will be a year of how do we implement this now . How do we effect the change and begin to get that into place. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Let me associate myself with the chairmans opening remarks, i thought it was a brilliant presentation that puts into perspective why were here today mr. Secretary, let me ive already said it on the record once and thats the only time im ever going to say it i do respect what you said earlier. Mr. Secretary i come in the same room and i sit down as Ranking Member of the defense committee. I listen to your explanation of how a 30 cut is not that bad. That money isnt the solution to problem, you just need creative people and innovative thinking. I never hear that when were talking about the defense budget. They always need more money, more and more and more and yet when it comes to a world thats plagued by famine and the problems we face, were just saying we dont need money to solve problems. It turns out my experience in life is you dont solve a problem by throwing money at it unless the problem is lack of money and when it comes to the poorest people on earth, its lack of money. Lack of investments in these people and in their lives. And i take a look at some of the things that are being suggested here. I am embarrassed at the policy of this country now when it comes to accepting refugees in the world. Since world war ii weve led the world in accepting refugees from all over, cuba, three of our four hispanic senators are from cuban families. You go 32 all of the people that weve absorbed as refugees in this country. And we know the policy of the Trump Administration opposes acceptance of refugees, thank goodness there heroes in this world like the king of jordan currently jordan has absorbed three or four million refugees in a nation of seven Million People. It is an incredible act of kindness and charity on their part and bravery when you consider the political risk. So what does this budget do to jordan . This budget cuts by 18 migration and refugee assistance to countries like jordan. Were not accepting refugees, were saying to the countries that are, were going to cut your funding. Think of a more creative way to feed those refugees. 1. 4 million Syrian Refugees. It just doesnt work, mr. Secretary. For us to walk away from our global responsibility. And then to hurt those who are accepting much more than others. How would you respond to the king of jordan and explain why we would cut funds to him at this moment in history . I would take exception to the comment that were walking away from our responsibilities in that region. With all of the men and women in uniform we have fighting and the state Department Diplomatic resources we have to get at the reason the refugees are in jordan. I would tell new working with the region, they all understand turkey, jordan, others understand, we like the refugees to stay close to their homes so they can go back. Having them come all the way to the United States, doesnt may not achieve that. So our approach on the significant problem of refugee migration locally is to solve the problem that allows people to go home. We have already seen some success. In the liberation of mosul and other cities, we hope to replicate that kind of success in syria. We have come behind the military quickly when they liberate an area, create a secure zone, restore power and water, restore hospitals reerks store schools, we have close to 40,000 children back in school in east mosul already. People will come back if we create the conditions. So we really want refugees to return. Its not the objective to have jordan, have to house those refugees now and forever more. Of course its not, mr. Secretary. Thank goodness about the king of jordan. While were trying to solve the problem in syria and i know americans are risking their lives in that effort. While were trying to solve it, this man is trying to make sure that the Syrian Refugees have something to eat. To make sthur that they have a place he told me their biggest problem is water. Dont have enough water to accommodate all these refugees. And were going to cut the funding . Let me tell you another situation, which im sure youre aware of. If you go into the poorest places on earth, what you find sadly is a gross mistreatment of little girls and women. It happens over and over again. And so a fellow by the name of George Mcgovern who used to sit in this body and was a great leader in our nation came up with an idea, he came up with an idea of a school lunch program. And you know who joined him in that idea . Bob dole, an old eye lines and partnership was revived. Heres the idea they had. If we offer a free lunch to kids in the poorest places on earth, we think parents will send their little girls to school. Just basic. Thats what they did. The Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program. And to add another element to it . They gave the kids a little bag of grain to take home from school. So the parents couldnt wait to get the little girl off to school. Whats the difference in the poorest places in the world between an educated and an uneducated little girl . I can tell you what it is, the uneducated little girl will be a slave. Probably married off at an early age. Probably bearing children long before she should. And maybe those children will survive and maybe they wont and then well have overpopulation problems, but if they finish school, the opposite is the case. What did you budget decide to do to this Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program . You eliminated it. Is that going to make for a better world and a safer world . Senator, while we are attempting to do is to martial forces of others, we are talking to other countries and asking them to do more. To step in, to fill in some of the needs that jordan has and the refugee camps, same in turkey. So we are using our convening authority to bring to bear other resources as well. These are some of the very difficult choices we made in achieving a budget level that we have put forth in this budget. None of these choices are easy, none of them. Theres not a one of them that was not difficult. To make. So i do not take exception to anything you said. At all and would agree. So what were, what were going to attempt to do is see if we can bring other resources to bear to either fill in, mitigate or perhaps grow out interest of others to address these same issues. So our message to the world is were stepping back, americas first and stepping back now, were stepping back by 30 in our expenditures, were eliminating these programs and youre welcome to fill in to the rest of the world . That is our message, with the americafirst message . Our message is were leaning in and asking all of you, all of you to step up and do more. I think were leaning on. Were not leaning in and were leaning on the poorest people on earth. Senator van hollen . Thank you, mr. Chairman and welcome, mr. Secretary, good to have you here. I want to associate myself of both the remarks of the chairman and Ranking Member regarding the state department budget. I do believe that cuts of this magnitude diminish our influence overseas. It will diminish our capacity to accomplish some of our goals, im all for creative reforms. Where the goal is a better operating department, rather than trying to hit an arbitrary budget number that was provided to the state department by omb and others. This is a big difference between those two things. I want to talk to you a little bit about russia and legislation the senate will soon take up regarding russian sanctions. I know that youve previously state stated what every Intelligence Agency has concluded there was russian interference in our elections, is that the case . Yes. Ill not here to debate whether it was a decisive intervention or not. But they interfered. You would also agree, would you not that they are attempting to interfere in the elections of many of our nato allies, as in the netherlands or france . It certainly appears that way. It does. Would you also degree that russia would prefer a weaker nato to a stronger nato . In all likelihood, they would. I think so, too. I guess my question, mr. Secretary, is do you degree with senator graham and senator mccain. I think probably a majority of us on the committee on a bipartisan basis, that its important to take additional actions and sanction russia to let them know that you cannot interfere in our elections and just get away with it. That the United States is not going to walk away from that kind of attack on our democracy. Isnt that important . It certainly is important, senator and i think one of the challenges is how to structure these sanctions to achieve the desired result. In the case of the current sanctions in place, were in response to russias invasion of ukraine taking of crimea. So russia understands what has to be done to achieve sanctions relief on the current sanctions. The issue and the outrageous response, they should receive, for their cybermeddling around elections if we, so we can put sanctions in place, what do we want from the russians . In order for them to earn sanctions relief . Im not suggest week shouldnt do it. Im just pointing out from a diplomats perspective, some of the challenges. I do think ive read the amendment to the iran sanctions bill, which is where the russian sanctions are being considered. I think there are a few problematic areas within those that i would hope would allow the diplomatic efforts to attempt to make some progress. If we cannot make progress and i have told others in the senate when weve talked, had hfs with them i may very well be calling you and saying, the time has come now, to do this, in order to motivate some movement on their part. I understand and am supportive of having that kind of ability, i think the question is given where we are, sand we dont yet whether these efforts in place are going to bear fruit ultimately its going to take a little time. But as i said earlier, i think it is important that we address the situation and the relationship we have today which i do not believe is in the interest of the United States, nor the interest of stability in the world, and we can either deteriorate it further, or we can try to stabilize and improve it and right now this is an effort that is in progress. I understand mr. Secretary. And i think all of us would like to see the russians take the actions that indicate to us that they want to be constructor, constructive international player. But as you know, the first challenge when youre tackling a problem is to get the other side to admit that theyve engaged in this kind of activity. Have they admit theyve had interfered in elections . I think their position and explanation of it is pretty public and ive heard nothing any different. Thats right. So mr. Now were at a position where they havent even admitted it. Youve got Vladimir Putin talking about maybe some private citizens in russia. Playing hanky panky. We know it was a concerted effort. Weve seen it not only in the United States but with our nato allies. So to even be talking about providing them access to the compound on the Eastern Shore of maryland, my state or others, instead of leaning forward and saying heres what were going to do unless number one you admit what you did and number two, youre going to provide us verifiable assurances that it wont happen again. It seems to me we got to lean in. On that issue, let me ask you a budgeting related question with respect to verification of the iran agreement. Were going to be discussing legislation related to that agreement. Because on april 18, the Administration Certified to the congress that iran was in fact compliance of the current agreement. Isnt that right . Thats correct. You would agree that it its in our National Security interest to make sure we have in place the ability to verify iranian compliance with the agreement . Yes, it is, but i would also tell you under that agreement its a pretty low bar. I would beg to differ but i think what we should agree on, mr. Second, is that the iaea which monitors that agreement should have the resources to do it, wouldnt you agree with that . Certainly. Okay. Well part of your budget you know calls for a 27 reduction to the contributions to International Organizations. And those mandatory contributions. Many of them go to fund the iaea. Which is indicated that they need those resources. To verify iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement. Can you tell us today that the United States will insure that we provide our share of the funds necessary to make sure that they can verify compliance with that agreement . The cuts to the International Organizations budget which as you mentioned touches on a number of organizations. U. N. , world health, iaea. How we would distribute those is under continued discussion with the bureaus, and those agencies. So that we have as best an understanding as we have as to how that would affect them. But it is our intention that the iaea have all the resources it needs to carry out its responsibilities on the compliance side of the jcpoa. I appreciate that commitment, i think thats important. Thank you secretary tillerson. Im struck at the list that the chairman put up in the detailed and thorough presentation he made about the sun settled and dangerous and difficult world in which we currently operate. And the gap with your written presentation and spoken presentation. I see russian aggression and conflict in ukraine rel tantly prominent and i did not see that in your written testimony or your spoken testimony. Im concerned about that gap. We know that russian intentionally interfered in our elections, thats only go to stop when we stop it. I understand we may have a difference of approach of how to engage Vladimir Putin in russia, but ive got a concern about the message were sending to our vital allies. Im haunted by a question asked of me by an Eastern European diplomat at the Halifax Security Forum not long after the inauguration where he said how can we count on you to defend our democracy, when we dont see you defending your own democracy. In your confirmation hearing you acknowledged russias ongoing efforts to divide europe from the United States. And to divide nato and the eu within. We discussed how you would lead the resources of the state department to counter russian propaganda through tools like a Radiofree Europe and how would you invest in strengthening our vital allies in the region, whether nato or countries like georgia or ukraine that are not nato members. If i understand this right, your fy 18 request for europe and youre asia is nearly cut in half from fy 16 by about 450 million. What is the strategy behind decreasing support for our partners and allies in the region in the face of a clear and growing russian threat to their democracies and ours . First let me position the situation with russia so you understand what i am hearing from allies. Partners, large and small. This is without exception, i have yet to have a bilateral, a oneonone, a pullaside with a single counterpart in any country in europe, the middle east, even Southeast Asia that has not said to me, please address your relationship with russia it has to be improved. They believe worsening this relationship will ultimately worsen their situation. People have been imploring me to engage to tryteam prove the situation. That was our approach anyway. I would tell you the feedback im getting is please engage and see if you can improve the situation. With respect to the tools available to us. We do maintain particular emphasis on the countries that we, that we see in europe that are most at risk. Of russian interference in Eastern Europe we would like to do more. In the baltics and in the balkans. If we had a little more, we would do a little more. But weve not walked away from those. We do want to continue to perfect more sophisticated approaches as to how to push messages into russian society. Obviously through social media, through broadcast, through all of the tools available to us. And were going to continue to maintain that effort, to insure were in the conversation among young people and others inside of russia. But this i understand other countries are concerned about russia. They should be. I hear about it when i talk to them about how they feel theyre in the direct threat whether theyre in the baltics, balkans, whether theyre in georgia or whether theyre in other parts of the world as well. So they express that to me, but then when we talk about what should be done, they want us to solve it through engagement. They do not want it to get worse, because if it gets worse, they fear it will be worse for them. Well mr. Secretary i appreciate hearing that perspective. We have many of the same conversations. Just with a different endpoint. Southeast asia, Eastern Europe and the north atlantic alliance. I hear grave concerns that the signals we are sending are signals of of retreat and of disengagement. Partly this is from countries, mentioned by the chairman, countries like jordan that critically depend on us for support as they bear the burden and costs of a great number of refugees. In other places its where china is being ascendant or aggressive, South China Sea in the face of north korea or Eastern Europe. In terms of an overall budget that is trying to defend american interests, sand advance American Values, i dont see how it makes sense in an increasingly difficult and contested world to withdraw support from allies who have chosen us and our values and our side in a contest of ideas with russia, china and others. Let me mention two other things before i run out of time. As has been mentioned by others, we have peopletopeople programs like the fullbright scholarships that have had a big positive impact and elevate the reputation we enjoy in the world. Africa is a very young and large content where china is omnipresent. The young africas leaders frish tiff is a relatively modest in Scope Program thats had a big impact. I thought it was again not the choice i would have made, to cut all the educational Cultural Exchange programs in half. And yali would be one of them. I hope would you reconsider that. Because these are powerful programs that connect us to parts of the world where we benefit from a positive relationship and from as you said, that next generation of leaders. Power africa is also something that we on a bipartisan basis that we authorize through electrify africa act. American expertise to subsarahan africa. Your bust proposal allocates an 84 cut from the fy 16 enacted level for this. There are a does other programs i could talk about that i think reduce the visibility and the scope and reach of our investment through diplomacy and development. Those are two i wanted to elevate in our conversation today. Let me close just by quoting an editorial that i thought made an important point. A senator said in this editorial. To view Foreign Policy as simply transactional is more dangerous than its proponents realize. To it could weaken a world we have built and thrived in. This was by senator mccain. I ask for unanimous consent it be submitted for the record. Im concerned in a world that is increasingly unstable, where there is a clear contest between authoritarian capitalism and real capitalism, a democracy that is a capitalist society, that we need to step up our game, sand i agree with increasing our defense investment. Think to do it without also sustaining or increasing our investment in diplomacy in development is illconsidered, i really hope that we will Work Together to advance human rights, to advance diplomacy and to advance development through this budget. Secretary tillerson thank you for your service to this country. Two months ago i led a bicameral congressional delegation to china and japan. In fact it was just after president xi was in florida. I was heading over to china. That sunday. We were underscoring our concerns about the threat posed by north korea. Noting that the u. S. And i quote a year of strategic patience is over as was articulated by Vice President pence who came there the week after we were there in terms of the region. Despite International Efforts to pressure pyongyang it continues to conduct missile tests. While some of these tests had failed, im concerned that north korea is learning from these failures. Theres an old saying when you attend college you learn a lot more from the tests you fail versus the tests you ace. Meanwhile south korea has delayed implementing part of that. The Missile Defense system. My question is how the lightest developments impacted the state departments engagement with south korea, japan and china to protect against the north korean aggression. As you know, the new south korean government is being put into place, they have not named all of their cabinet positions yet. But we have been in conversations with some of their representatives who came to washington. As well as maintaining a very close dialogue with our japanese counterparts. So our intention, i know the south koreans are committed as well to the strong Trilateral Partnership that we have that confronts north korea first and foremost. And then ultimately at some point at the appropriate point engage with others. The Pressure Campaign that weve had under way now for a few weeks. Which involves obviously a requirement that china in particular par and participate in a meaningful way, we believe is beginning to have some effect. It is difficult, obviously to judge precisely, because we do not have great transparency and visibility inside the regime and north korea. This is a campaign that has a forward map as to how we continue to implement and increase the pressure on the north koreans until we receive a clear signal that they now are ready to engage with a different mindset about the way forward. You can interpret the level of missile testing obviously as quite disturbing to us. Whether thats a sign theyre trying to give to us that its not working, whether its a sign that it is working. Is difficult to tell. But we are monitoring all tests carefully. Particularly in terms of what is the nature of the test. We have good alignment between ourselves and the government of china regarding first the objective, a denuclearization of the peninsula. But also we have a good understanding between us of what actions if north korea went too far, what actions would have caused us to be completely aligned so we have further highlevel dialogue with the chinese coming up this next week, secretary mattis and myself. We want to work this both at the diplomatic level and the milltomill level. Its important we manage the risk of this quite carefully, with full and open channels of communication with the chinese. Secretary tillerson i want to commend you and the administration in the leadership that ive been seeing. I lived in china for six years, working for proctor gamble. I was there when kim ill juns grandma signed the deal in 84. I was struck by the change in engagement approach. The chinese have. We met with prepare li ku chang. They are changing their engagement strategy with north korea. I want to thank you for your leadership in that regard in these very important issue. Similarly i had feedback from the leadership in japan with Prime Minister abe and his team which our relationship with japan has never been better in some time. The media doesnt report this kind of news, i saw it firsthand and i want to thank you for your steady hand of leadership in this important area of the world. Last week there was a press report that indicated that russian trade with north korea increased by more than 70 in the first two months of this year. Can you provide Additional Details in this development. And what impact does this have on our north korea strategy . Im sorry. We do need russias cooperation and participation. We have spoken directly to them. I spoke directly to president putin. On need for them to join us in dhooin and pressure on the north korea. We do see and monitor russian movements of fuel, ped liam products. They are opening a new ferry transport system between vladivostok and north korea which is troubling. Were continuing the dialogue with them. I think were making some progress, if you noticed in the last u. N. Security council resolution, that was passed, with, it was passed with unanimous approval. The russians supported that resolution. Which imposed more sanctions on individuals. And entities. In years past we would never have hoped that they would vote for it. They might have abstained. So i think the russians are beginning to understand the threat that north korea poses to them if theres a problem regionally, they will feel the effects of that. I think they are beginning to recalculate their posture todays north korea. So speaking of russian threat im going to go with the other side of the world. Few weeks ago i visited norway. We were at hammer fest norway. I was with chairman rakowski, the energy committee, as well as secretary zinki and senator cornon, senator brass 0 everyone a and senator heitkamp. I toured one of the worlds most efficient liquefied natural gas facilities. Many European Countries still depend on lng from russia. Struck by the fact there are 13 European Countries that rely on russia for over 75 of their annual lng imports. So the facility that we saw such as one in norway, the only one in europe combined with u. S. Lng exports gave can be important to reduce russias ability to use Energy Policy to intimidate europe. The question is what is the state department doing with the whole of government approach to help europe become less dependant on russia for its energy needs . To clarify, europe receives 70 of its natural gas supply, but it comes by way of pipeline through europe. Because our extensive historic pipelines that have been there for decades. And russia is now pursuing the expansion of a second pipeline called north stream 2 that would connect to germany. We have been in countries and the eu to at least subject that pipeline to the full rigors of their regulatory process. And have suggested to them its not in their longterm energy surt skurt interest to become more dependant on russian natural gas. And have pointed out that the u. S. Has an abundance of natural gas and facilities now to ship lng to europe. So we are promoting the notion that europe needs to really think about its total Energy Balancing and its Energy Security and recognize how dependant they remain on russia so we having are those kinds of dialogues with them. Thank you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, i know its been a long day, mr. Secretary, thank you for sticking with us in both committee processes, we had a vote on the floor of the Senate Earlier today. On a small portion of the proposed arms sales. It was a close vote, close in part. I think there is a worry that while theres clearly a military strategy, assist the saudis in their bombing campaign, inside yemen, that theres not a political component to the strategy, i think youve answered a question that senator young posed earlier today. About putting pressure on the saudis to allow humanitarian resources to flow more freely into the country, a country that is ravaged by famine and cholera today. But i wonder if you might speak to a little more indepth about the lack of a political process. Secretary kerry was deeply engaged in trying to bring the Iranianbacked Houthis together with the saudibacked regime. He was unsuccessful. But he got very close, and the sense is that this administration and your department of state is not engaged in that political process. Is not actively trying to get the two sides to sit at the table and part of our worry is, that the strategy now is to escalate the military conflict as a means of trying to bring the area under circumstances in which they are weaker which might exacerbate the military conflict. So just explain to me, or i would love for to you talk to the committee about the political processes inside yemen. Are you right on the issue. Let me dispel the neegs were not engaged. I lived in yemen for two and a half years. We are engaged with its the emirates, the saudis and ourselves with the omanis participation. Weve had two or three meetings now to talk about it. With the u. N. Representative in this. We are pursuing the political solution, but we are, this, this involves more than just the saudis and the houthis, its a little more complicated than that, and i think thats why past efforts may have failed with the nation of all the equities that were involved inside of yemen. I want to be careful about going too far because some of this is, at a very sensitive stage and were not talking about it publicly yet. But we are working diligently with those parties to put together a way forward to begin to advance it. The focus on the port of houth data, it is the port of entry where we could begin to have massive amounts of humanitarian assistance. It is controlled by the houthis, the aid that has been sent in through that port we know has most of it has not made it to the people it was supposed to make it to. Weve been working with the u. N. Secretarygeneral, were working with both the emirates and the saudis to see how we might gain control of that port. We believe we can gain for the aid to go to make it all way to other parts of the country where the suffering is greatest. Its that safe passage piece were working on right now. If we can stabilize the humanitarian situation and if we can disrupt the elements of the conflict itself, then we think with some other steps that are yet underway but not yet taken, we think we can create conditions for a political process to begin. Just to say, retake that port youre talking about a military campaign so the military campaign can retake the port . No that they will voluntarily turn that port over to another authority, not the saudis, then we would gain access. So the next step will be how do we create a passage to direct the aid to the people that need it. How do you gain a political can youre not talking to the iranians . The iranians are and again i want to be call your attentut far i go. I would just say that they are not directly at the cable because we do not believe they have earned a seat at that table. Wed like for the the iranians to end their flow of weapons to the hit tuesdays and particular flow of sophisticated missiles to the hit tuesdays and we need for them to stop supplying that. This is an extraordinarily difficult or complicated than the two or three countries people think are involved and it is a very difficult countries in which to reach a political settlement, having been through two civil wars now. So we want to take this in a manner that it will be do you remember rabble if we can take it to that place. Part of the struggle is firing out who earns a seat at the table and who doesnt. So the russians have earned a seat at the table with respect to the future of syria, despite the slaughter they have vowed to happen, but the iranians dont earn a seat at the table inside, it seems you have people we disagree with, people who are often or adversaries if you want to make peace in a place like that. How do we disdistinguish in a way that the russians are given a seat at the table but not the iranians . Its the role thai willing to take on and work it. Ive had conditions for cease fires in the of syria. We have a discovery reports jurnds way with the returns to acheech some stability and create conditions for the political process to unfold in geneva where quite frankly neither russia or we have a seat at the table under that process but we can be there to influence. In the case of yemen, we do not have any construct today to suggest the iranians have any interest whatsoever in deescalating the conflict in yemen. I hope youll talk to the folks, im sure you have, who are subject to the negotiations thats close to an agreement, i dont think you can every categorize the iranians as being constructive but we were not far away. I think its worthwhile to engage in i dont think theres any way around it if you want to bring political resolution to that place. I understand. People had their own assessments at the time. Thank you. We made it. I think you yourself very well secretary, appreciate you coming to the committee. We have some requests pending to the states department. We have six outside witnesses testimony, wed like to make for the record. Letter from the gao, three letters from a family that lost a loved one in monthly. Admiral mullens at peace and sir land ka and the budget. This im excited about your review of the state department rkts your listening and taking action to make it a more effect place. I the problems were never going to solve it. I think your business background is unique. But your adjustment over the world you know the countries because youve lived there. Im excited about that. This is driven by an arbitrator number. Its basically a result of increasing military spending and you cant deal with entitlements so you got to do what you got to do. Its more of a shoot and aim budget. Im looking forward to your review then we can make sense of it rather than shooting and aiming later. Threat basis where to go, its not just about the money we spend but a threat base budge. On the defense side weve reformed a retirement, and that was tough but its gone save money and be fair to the soldier and military members. Contracts have been replaced by ore contracts, thats been a hell of a fight thats gone save people money. We take people out of head units and put them out in the field. Weve done all that and still going to increase the defense budge by 10 because after you do all those reforms, the worlds so anxious and the militarys been hurt in the last four years, even after those reforms you just need more soldier out there in the fight. They need better equipment, more modern equipment, they need terror tars and win the wars that were in, soft power. As i understand the need for increased hard power, i do not understand how you can cut soft power to 29 . Im looking forward to forming the state department but i do not ploef 29 giving the threats we face. I think this budget will cost influence, gone put lives at risk and it will be seen as a retreat so thats why i cant support it. But i will support you in your efforts to bring the modern state department, listen to how we can do better more money i really dont. Count me in in filling those gaps. Given our role in the world, i think the cuts were talking about here were sacrificed influence at a time we need more. Were turning back on programs a little more over the finish line. The last eight years before you got in town was pretty tough. Nobody trusted us. Everybody thought we were taking a back seat and good luck. Leading from behind did not work. I want to compliment you and the president for getting out and about. You got a hands on approach for every conflict in the world, i left out yemen. Any secretary of state rkts three or four of these problems would have a load. Heres my goal is to lighten your load, try to find out a way to save machine but also achieve the purposes protect america and i look forward to working with you. Youll find no better form the state department. But we cannot sit on the sidelines and watch the state department at a time when we need more soft power not led. Until call of the chair. The organizations annual survey of side, scope and cost of the federal regulation. About a peace on dealing with the threat of north korea. And democracy now host, amy goodman will discuss republicans efforts for Affordable Care act. Washington journal Live Saturday morning. Join the discussion. Announcer in 1979 c pan was created by a Public Service by American Television companies and its provider. Scene of the accident next a house hearing on the impact about Prescription Drug injury. Then secretary rick perry have a Senate Hearing, after that Homeland Security secretary Jonathan Kelly on Global Threats and later a Senate Hearing on the navys budget. Now doctors and legal experts discuss drug injury advertisements hearing by the justice. The hearing looks at how the ads impact patient care and the doctorpatient relationship. This is an hour and 15 minutes