The men and women that not only protect us, but all across this country, protect not only communities across the country, but men and women around the world protecting who we are. You know, i have stated this previously in committee. A world led by American Leadership is a better world and we can see that if we look back on the second half of the 20th century and the post world order. American leadership, leading with our values, with our morals has created a better world and most around the world recognize that. Thats really been predicated on a Foreign Policy plaink that s has plank that has three legs. Certainly our defense, but also development and diplomacy. And my concern with this budget is it cuts off two of those legs on that stool. That stool is going to collapse. It devastates the diplomacy and development budget. I know its not your budget, mr. Secretary. But as members of congress who have a responsibility for setting priorities, et cetera, i have grave concerns and can talk about a number of areas that i find very, very troublesome in this budget. Im going to focus im a physician by training with the Public Health and Global Health background. I have some real deep reservations about, you know, some of the cuts to our Global Health. Development. Some of the developments to usaid, particularly 15 cut to maternal and child health programs. That is very worrisome to me. The impact that those cuts potentially have around the world. I think america is a great nation, but a great nation leads by our values and our morals and we dont withdraw from the world. So, you know, my concern is if those cuts go into effect, the number of women that potentially will suffer, the number of women that will potentially die, i think some of the cuts with regards to a potential billion dollar reduction from pet far, the zeroing out of Family Planning funds are going to have devastating impacts. I watched and read the testimony and the question of the colleague across the capitol, senator shaheen, you know, discussing the extension of the mexico city policy and heard your answer to that, that your office would be studying the impact of the extension of the global gag rule. Can you give us assurances that in that six month time frame when you get that report back if we are seeing adverse impacts that you would make recommendations to reverse that policy. Thank you for the attention to that particular matter. I cant commit to you that i would seek a reversal of that policy. As i explained to congresswoman i mean to senator shaheen yesterday, our implementation of the policy was structured in a way that engagement with a number of our Health Partners to mitigate any effect on delivery of their activities. We said we would do a six month check to see if it is impacting them. And one provision i left out in my response to her yesterday, if it is impacting any particular areas of our health care that we did not intend to impact then in consultation with the secretary of hhs, i as secretary of state can issue waivers and allow the funding to continue. The reason we want to do the six month check what impact is it having. Will you commit to providing us the results of that report . And what you find at that six month check . Wed be happy to share that. Great. I also have real reservations about the impact of pet far. It has been a remarkable program, saving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives in africa. And i think president bush would suggest that that is his proudest accomplishment. I would like to hear further commitment as we look at how we engage in Global Health around the world with partnerships and i understand that its our responsibility to evaluate each program that we have limited resources and limited funds. But i would like to have this commitment that were going look at how we work with nonprofits around the world. How we work with allies and other countries around the world to continuing relieving suffering. That is a fundamental element of our approach to how we manage the reductions even with these cuts. The 1 billion cut to pet far we will be the leader in Health Issues and thats recognized as a Model Program that should be replicated elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you, well, were going now to mr. Paul cook, vice chairman of the committee of california. Good to see you again, mr. Secretary. I missed some of the testimony and i hope im not being redundant. But i wanted to talk about the muslim brotherhood, the impact in qatar and quite frankly turkey and the strained relationship and how it is so difficult to find out one day you have an ally, next day you might have an adversary. And i know thats got to be very, very challenging with the saudis and what has happened in the past few weeks as well as the ongoing political situation in turkey. Which affects the whole middle east and our policy. If you could address that, i would appreciate it. I talked to you i think last week about the same thing. But secretary mattis had some input on it monday night and its one which is doesnt necessarily have a military solution but this is going to be right youre going to be right in the eye of the storm. Our relationship with turkey is extremely important to the United States. Its also extremely important to nato, to europe and clearly we are concerned about the evolution of events particularly since the coup attempt in turkey. I have travelled to ankara obviously president erdogan has been here, so our level of engagement with turkey is at a high level of communication and engagement. And where we have the issues of concern were talking about those discussing them. Clearly they have some issues with how were executing our military plans in syria to defeat isis. We are concerned about their engagements with russia, the European Union is concerned about the relationships. Turkey sits in an extremely important place geographically and geopolitically. So its an important relationship. It is quite complex right now. Our objective is not to worse than relationship but find ways to reengage and strengthen it so we can have some influence over the choices they are making, particularly with respect to freedoms within the country. To continuing their role and their construct as a democracy. Thank you. I yield back. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Secretary, i would ask you if you would to your thought about waivers for the mexico city policy in answer to my friend and colleague dr. Barra. I would hope that you would not go that route. That would have the perverse impact of incentivizing foreign nongovernmental organizations to be noncompliant with the mexico city policy. I would point out to my colleagues that back in 1985 after Ronald Reagan first announced the city policy at the u. N. Conference in mexico city, hence its name, there were large numbers of ngos that said we are not going to comply. I offered the amendment in 1985 which passed. I fully expect well have it all out. Legislative battle on the floor again which i would wlk a policy that seeks to hold harmless unborn children in our foreign aid. We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that are harmed and its violence against children. Abortion is violence against children and also has consequence in the negative for women. And the mexico city policy as you know so well thats three exceptions, rape, incest and life of the mother which track whats Ronald Reagan did and george w. Bush did and bush one when he initiated the policy as well. When i offered the amendment on the floor, they said none of the groups are going to accept it. Tend of the day, all but two accepted it. And that was, ippbf based out of london and a group international. They all accepted it. So i would encourage you, waivers would be an incentive to a foreign, nongovernmental organization. Again, american taxpayers through the polling have shown clearly that they do not want our foreign aid subsidizing and enabling the killing of unborn children overseas or anywhere else. Thats why the Hyde Amendment enjoys such strong support. We go now to lois frankel of florida. Thank you. I think today is a day where we all recognize our common humanity as my thoughts are with my colleagues and the other folks impacted by this shooting. So im going to ill try to be kind and gentle. Im always kind and gentle, arent i . So in a very kind and gentle way, want to say that i i am sad to say that i think your budget is inhumane and dangerous. I dont want to turn this into an abortion fight at all. I just want to counter my colleague who i respect very, very much and just say that women having full access to reproductive choice and chair is it imperative for them to have a full and productive life. Im going to move on. I wanted to mention i remember the president said i think he said he inherited a mess in talking about international affairs. So its, to me, its very perplexing that he inherits a mess and then you come in with a budget with almost a onethird cut in state department activities. Over 120 retired four star generals sent the letter opposing the cuts saying this is not the time to retreat. Secretary mattis, when he was commander of u. S. Central command, says if you dont fully fund the state department, then i need to buy more ammunition. I guess this is the trump doctrine. He is putting billions of more dollars into ammunition and cutting as mr. My colleagues said before, two of the legs of our National Security which is the diplomacy and development. I want to focus on what i think is one of the crown jewels of our Development Efforts and that is our Global Health investments. Every year almost 80 Million People from other countries visit the United States. This was in 2016. And americans took more than 77 Million International trips. We have hundreds of thousands of military living overseas. So u. S. Global assistance helps not only to protect people in other countries but it protects the United States. I hope you agree that the Health Initiatives help keep countries stable. One of my colleagues mentioned famine. If you have disease and famine, you have inhumane conditions, it promotes not only people trying to escape the country but it destabilizes countries and creating an environment for terrorism. George bush, one of his great achie achievements is pepfar. Yet the president s budget cuts. This the global fund which controls the spread of malaria and t. B. And hiv, also that is getting cut by 225 million. I know people say well, you know, why should why should we care what is happening in these other countries . I think thats going to the question i want to ask you which is this. Mr. Secretary, why should we care about diseases in other countries . Well, congresswoman, i think you just gave the explanation for why we should care. I do not then how can i i know were focused on the cuts. I think its important to also focus on how much we still will be committing and spending towards these diseases, towards our Global Health efforts. Were not zeroing health out. These were difficult choices that we that were made in the budget. We do believe that we can attract others. And enable continuation of the programs. There is no stepping back from our commitment on pepfar to the countries. Were going to fully make the commit me commitments on our aids program and fulfilling our five year pledge. We dont intend to abandon our efforts or abandon our view of how important these issues are. Thank you, mr. Secretary. To mr. Lee zeldon of new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary, for being here. A few questions. I want to ask about iran. Has iran i guess there is a lot of agreement that iran has violated the spirit of the jcpoa. Have you seen any evidence that iran has violated the letter of the jcpoa . Ill await to see if they found any specific violations. I read the entire jcpoa for myself. I can understand this spirit and intent. Quite frankly, it is a poorly constructed agreement. The bar for irans compliance is pretty low. So it should not come as a surprise to people that theyre able to comply. It is not that difficult for them to comply. Having said that, we intend a rigorous application of the compliance requirements and a rigorous confirmation from the iaea that they are complying. The whole spirit and intent question is one that obviously is always open to interpretation by both sides. And importantly, remember the jcpoa is a multilateral agreement. So we have partners, i would say that, were on our side of the table. Best i can tell. They will have their interpretation of that as well. It was not a treaty or executive privilege, it was an agreement that we didnt asked for a signature on z the administration recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel . The administration has not expressed a specific view in that regard. I believe strongly that administration should recognize jerusalem as the unquestionable capital of israel. Will the administration eventually move the American Embassy in israel to jerusalem . That decision is under evaluation by the president. Obviously, hell have to make a decision coming up on whether to extend the final excision on that or not. He has not made that decision to my knowledge. And the president was absolutely correct during the campaign when he had stated his position and intent then of moving the embassy and i would encourage him to go with the instinct and followthrough with that pledge. What do you think about the foreign aid we provide to the Palestinian Authority . I think our engagement with them and making clear on expectations on how aid is utilized, one thing id like to clarify from this mornings hearing several times in the question people suggested our support to the Palestinian Authority was increasing next year. That is inaccurate. And to remind everyone, our aid does not go directly to the Palestinian Authority. It is given to them by way of israel. They work closely with them as to how that money is delivered and for what purposes it is delivered. I would offer whatever the United States cant do to the Palestinian Authority legally, we should also have a position that we also cannot do for the Palestinian Authority indirectly. I cosponsor the taylor force act. I know a number of my colleagues and the house and senate do as well. I believe its now one that has bipartisan support over on the senate side. I know we should better leverage the aid provided for the Palestinian Authority which includes providing certifications that the palli Palestinian Authority is not insighting violence. And in the taylor force act, the palestinians are not only insighting violence on the part to target innocent israelis but theyre doing so to target americans as well. Its with that strong bipartisan sense that we have taken the position with the Palestinian Authority and n. A very unequivocal way. You take care of this yourself or someone is going to take care of it for you. Those are the words that i have used with them. And you have strongly stated that its included recent statements where you have mentioned that president brought this up with abbas that you had received assurances. It is in the news today that there are palestinian officials pushing back on your position that the Palestinian Authority has agreed to stop providing the payments to financially reward terror. I wish you the absolute best as secretary of state in your pursuit here. Id love to talk you to further about those efforts moving forward in the weeks, months, and years ahead. Thank you for being here and your testimony. Obviously cooperation between congress and state department is important but im concerned over what looks like a lack of cooperation within the executive. The policy of the white house and the state department has not been completely aligned over the last several months. President trump took to twitter to praise the blockade. As you attempted to form an international he cou International Coalition to isolate north korea, President Trump called north Korean Leader a smart cookie and said hed be honored to meet him. Hurting your efforts. Your efforts to assure our european and asian allies of our commitment to our alliances have similarly been undercut by the white house and the president. It was reported that when Prime Minister netanyahu and President Trump stood up at their press conference and approached the idea of a one state solution instead of a two state solution that you were in an airplane. And that state department was not part of those discussions. So how can americans and allies arent world have confidence in your worth in, the state departments position and most of all that it represents what President Trump believes. Congressman, there is no gap between the president and myself or the state department on policy. There are differences in terms of how the president chooses to articulate elements of that policy. In the instance of the qatar example you gave, i made a statement, the state department, they attended that with the president of romania and with President Trump and he made the statement in the rose garden, i was involved in writing his comments in the rose garden to reflect the strong message he wanted to send which was not just to qatar but to everyone, to all countries, to stop the funding, stop the killing, stop teaching your young people hate. That is the way he wanted to deliver it. He wanted to deliver a very strong message. But theres no daylight between he and i. I hear you. Jared kushner has been given a big portfolio with respect to Foreign Affairs. Who is responsible for the Foreign Affairs of our country . Is it the department of state and yourself or mr. Jarrod kush naern the white house . It is the department of state and myself and that has been reconfirmed by the president to me on multiple occasions. Then and i guess and partst reason i ask these questions, i was in february in japan and south korea. En that was the biggest question people had. When we look to the United States, who speaks for the president reliably . Whose word can we trust . I know you can understand how important that is for our allies and also for our adversaries. So why would the state department be left out of any discussion about one of our most important policy issues whether youre going to have a one state solution or a two state solution . You can see how that is quite strange and bizarre. I think that came out of the bilateral private meeting between the president and Prime Minister netanyahu. What the president is indicating is that that whatever approach the two sides, the palestinians and israelis want to take to achieve a peace accord, we will support. And i think what he was saying is were prepared, and he is prepared to put his shoulder to the wheel to see if we can move a process along and hes going to be unconstrained to exploring any and all alternatives. The alternatives everyone pursued for many years and have not produced a result. I think these are some of the changes that people have a difficult time understanding. Lets explore everything. Let me make one last comment. First, i dont mean it as a knock on your leadership or record of the department. I think that you have been put in a very difficult position and its not just yourself, its other members of the cabinet. They essentially will make a statement, believing what they believe to be the president s position only to have the president go on twitter or otherwise make a contradictory statement. Even more unsettling for allies who are not in the United States and have no other indicators by what they but then what they hear on the news. So we would just ask, i would just ask for i guess more thoughtfulness from the executive branch on how they approach these things. So we go now to mr. Ted yoho of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Appreciate you being here. As we talked the other day about ten years ago there were it 25 conflicts around the world today there is over 75. There are certainly no shortages of great challenges in the world. But with the challenges come great opportunities. So i see great things in store for you, for our nation, and hopefully for the world. And i feel some of the colleagues here arent accepting the fact that were 20 trillion in debt and austerity measures are coming. You know, we have reports of where were going to be in five to six years. Were looking at puerto rico and greece and we dont want to go there. And so we do have to reform some of the programs and that leads to the current budget. That we continue the program that work and get the results. We get the results that were looking for. And get rid of the programs that arent working. Were in the drc with chairman royce. I remember sitting there at the table with the ministers and were going around and talking about things. And i asked the people at that table and keep in mind we have given hundreds of billions of dollars. What do you do for your social programs . And they asked me, what do you mean . I said well, feeding the hungry, housing, health care. He goes, we have you. Those arent good programs. And we need to reform those and we need to put pressure on those kind of countries. You know, the comment that President Trump said make America Great again, put america first, i truly believe in that. And i think its taken out of context because the only way we can become great, we can become first at whatever we do is to look out for the partners that were working with and that comes through the diplomacy in your agency and i have a lot of confidence in your business sense. I watched you sibs ynce you cami know were in separate branches of government. Look at this committee or, you know, i chair the asia pacific subcommittee as we talked about of how we can partner together to work on those commonalities and with that as you know yesterday panama terminated the diplomatic relationships with taiwan. Its the latest china effort to restrict taiwans International Space and including the blockade of taiwan delegation at the world health assembly. And to me this is unconscienceable to say to another nation and i feel like with other people that have said they are a nation that i recognize and i know its in the a tough situation. Weve had that policy since president nixon. But saying that and china says theyre going to be a reliable partner to bring north korea to the table. When we look at what china has done, theyve increased their trade with north korea 37. 4 in the first quarter. Chinese imports of north cokore increased and they have not been sukted to secondary sanctions. I heard you talking about that. It looks like were moving in that direction. China, can we realistically rely on china in lieu of the past experience or actions . Well, first, just to remind you that our korea our north korea policy really went into effect late february or early march when we began to execute that and so we recognize there was a lot of activity going on early in the year. Thats what weve been trying to attack. We recognize what china has done to put pressure on smaller countries. Theyre using the power of their trading relations. Theyre using the power of aid that they have gone in and provided to smaller countries. And in my trip that i recently made down to australia and new zei zealand, were hearing this directly from them. That they are not only feeling this pressure, it is being put in right in front of them to say you either sever relationships with thus and so or were going to end our trading relationships with you. Even large countries are being threatened in this way. And our conversations with the chinese about this next 50 years of stability and prosperity, were clear to them. You are destabilizing what has been a stable relationship with these actions f this is where youre going, youre going to create instability and youre going to take this balance that has maintained a period of nonconflict, youre going to upset that balance. Right. These are the kind of discussions were having with the most senior levels of the chinese leadership. You have to think about where does this go . Where does this lead . And what are you going to force as a response to that . So were very mindful of that. We see it as threatening stability. Im out of time. My last statement. I hope we stay in honor of the taiwan relations act as we have in the past. As i mentioned before this hearing will conclude at 1 30. The secretarys been very flexible and he does have other commitments. So if the members we want to give everyone a chance. We go to robin kelly of illinois. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary, for coming to the house Foreign Affairs committee. You are the first government witness to appear before the full committee. The official Mission Statement of the state department reads, the departments mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American People and people everywhere. In your testimony, you stated that the state departments primary folk us is to protect our citizens at home and abroad. And to me that sounds more like the mission of the Defense Department than the state department. So has the mission of the u. S. State department changed somewhat under President Trump . The Mission Statement that you just read is one that is very powerful and that i would certainly support. Having said that, it was a statement developed under previous administrations. Part of our this redesign opportunity with very in front of us, a lot of the element thats we learned out of the listening session was there is some confusion over the mission. And that confusion doesnt just exist as to have day. Its existed for some time. I think we do owe it to ourselves with the input and help of our colleagues in the state department to do a better job of articulating what is the enduring missionst state department that endures regardless of what Political Party may be in place at any given time. Because the state department is here constant. We understand that the will of the American People changes and can change from one election to the next. But the state Department Must have a mission that delivers regardless of what the policy decisions may be that change from time to time. And i think thats a conversation we really need to have with ourselves inside the state department, with our colleagues, and thats the Mission Statement that im in search of is what will endure regardless of who may be occupying the white house . Thank you. I do agree with most of my colleagues about the budget cuts. I have a lot of concerns. A recent article by mike mullen and james jones, two distinguished military leaders cited cuts to the usaid as risking u. S. National security. They say in the 21st century, weapons of war fighters alone are insufficient to keep america safe. Mr. Chairman, i ask to submit the entire article into the record. I also have without objection. Concerns about the staffing up that needs to be done. That will help you do the job you need to do if you have the people you need to have. Is there a backlog of policy recommendations now because of the lack of staffing . There really is not. Again, i would i want to recognize every job is filled today, a Deputy Assistant stepped up to be the acting assistant. An acting assistant stepped up to be the under if necessary. These are remarkably good people, competent, dedicated. I have a lot of conversation with them about how i know its difficult to be the acting, but they are doing a superb job. They travel with me when i go overseas. These are the people that help me develop the policy. Theyre executing the policy. And theyre doing an extraordinary job. Okay. Because of time, i yield back. Thank you for yielding back. We go to brian master of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time today. A couple quick questions. You have any plans to bring putin or red reset button . I dont think you can reset anything. We are where we are. We just have to address the conditions as they exist. You foresee turning a blind eye if russia were to invade any other sovereignty . Certainly not. You anticipate President Trump whispering in the ear of the russian president . I would not expect that President Trump has any intent to do anything other than to try to restore this relationship to something that is in the interest of the American People. Do you plan on saying the 1980s want their Foreign Policy back. I think well be articulating our own view towards russia and i described some and some respects today. We take the relationship with russia as serious. They are a Global Nuclear power. Having said that, we have a number of troubling issues with them in front of us to deal with. Is there any level of funding that can make up for actions like that . I think is going to be just very hard work of diplomacy coupled with some strong actions taken already and what they can enable us to do with stronger actions if we cannot get progress. You believe that its more important the words and the actions that you undertake than any level of funding you try to meet . Today in restoring that relationship, it is not absence of funds that is in any way preventing us from tipping the work to identify areas where we may find cooperation to begin to build some level of trust and confidence. Funding is not an issue in terms of how were working with russia today. Thank you for your remarks. I yield back. We go now to deana titus of nevada. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary. I, too, share my colleagues concerns about the devastating budget cuts and also by the lack of Senior Leadership at the state department. I dont see how we can move forward in the leadership role in the world with those two problems hanging over us. But i want to go back to the kind of the questions that mr. Castro raised. I dont believe our country has a singular voice when it comes to Foreign Policy. And that concerns our allies and also emboldens our adversaries. He mentioned several examples, qatar, the event that kurd recently. I would like to bring up a couple of others. You werent part of the discussion to withdraw from the paris climate agreement. And i believe you have said that you are opposed to that. That we should not have done that. Id like to ask you why you think this was a bad idea and is there any way with all this limited funds that we can move forward in any way as a leader on Climate Change . The second one id like to ask you to address is in the written statement, you say the u. S. And i quote, will fin continue to be the leader in International Develop ment, Global Health, democracy and Good Governance initiatives and humanitarian efforts. Yet, the president has said we dont care what other countries are doing internally, only how they relate to us. Its not up to us to interfere. I believe the quote was, were not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, wheen to be. Would you tell us how that kind of jives with what you said. With respect to the decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, i was part of that interagency process. What i would point out to you this is a decision the president could easily have taken the first week after inauguration. He clearly indicated in his campaign he intended to. I think its note worthy that he took some time to think about it. He deliberated on it. He learned a lochlt we had a couple different sessions with it on him. He waited until he took first overseas trip and attended the g7 so he can hear from others thattish sue important to and then he came home. He had one more deliberation and it was on the telephone conversation call which i participated. I was free to express my views. I took a counter view to the decision that was made. But i fully appreciate the elements behind why he took the decision. Can you tell us why you have a counter position and why you dont think it was a good idea to pull out . As ive expressed publicly and to the president , i think having our seat at the table around the Paris Climate Accord to continue to have influence on the issue itself, continue to represent americas efforts because america has done an extraordinary job, an extraordinary job of dealing with our own Green House Gas emissions without heavy handed regulation. And just because we have walked away from the target thats were set under paris is in no way indicative of our intent to walk away from that continued improvement. So my view was adds a diplomat, its an opportunity for engagement. I take every opportunity for engagement i can. This is an issue that is very important to many of our allies. It is among i agree. I think having the opportunity to engage thats the reason i argue ford staying in. Yeah. And how about the second point about just okay with whatever you do in your own country . I think the president was indicating that he is not in to government building or, you know, changing governments. I think what hes indicating is some of the mistakes have been made in the past by involving ourselves with countries and then expanding our involvement to want to now change their culture, change their heritage, change who they are, change the way they live their lives. Theres a lot of conflict that can be created when we try to go too far in imposing our way of life on others. That we have to recognize and respect the history of countries, the history of regions, their culture and not create new areas of conflict just because we think they should be doing things differently. I think thats the intent. Theres a lot of merit in that. I think there is a lot of he when i reflect on the conflicts around the world and how did we get there and why did they exist . A lot of it is grounded in these areas. We believe if we can deconflict areas and bring peace to areas, we have a much better chance of engaging on many things like human rights, freedom, democracy which we want thank you, my time up is. I appreciate that. So after we go in and after the war is over, dwoenlt hawe dont responsibility for doing nation building. But thats okay. Francis rooney of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. Thank you for leaving private industry to serve your country. As a person whos been in and out of the state department for many years and relationships with the agency for International Development, i want to thank you for bringing a business like and pro taxpayer approach to funding the department. What he said is true. Fwz what you can ash polit th has spent over 29 million to subsidize an organization you and i know personally, the World Economic forum. I wonld whaert taxpayers would think of that. I want to applaud you and your budget for scrapping the u. S. Institute of peace f every taxpayer out from florida to california can ko see that building, we would have a revolt on our hands. Lastly, i wish you would reconsider the 10 million you in there for the u. N. Human rights counsel. Thats on top of 17 1 2 million we spent to try to buy friendship with israel that ill tell you bet you a steak dinner its not going to work. And so i guess i just want to know what can we do to agree with you to have your back to encourage you to stay tough and to reinforce your effort to bring reform, to eliminate wasteful spending and position the dont live effectively in the 21st century. Congressman, thank you for the support we already receive from the congress. And the input which vaely important for us to have an understanding what the priorities are in the minds of the congress. And in particular, the house because you represent youre closest to the face of the American People. I recognize that. I think in terms of some of the cuts to international organizations, we are looking at those one by one by one. And really asking ourselves what is the cost benefit here . And in some areas, we either are going to reform those or were going to withdraw from them. And we actually are using this exercise and everyone is well aware of what were going through here where were taking a very close look as to what do we, the American People, get in returns for this investment or this funding that we provide . And that is very much not as a threat but as a tool to use so they understand you this time this say serious conversation. We need to get to a serious conclusion f you dont want to change, if you dont want to reform, thats fine. Just let us know. And well try a different approach and the Human Rights Council at the u. N. Is one that were currently engaged in. Ambassador haley is directly engaged in. She and i have spoken about. Were going to reform this thing and make it reflect what it should be reflecting or were going to withdraw our support for it and try to find other means that we can approach human rights issues on a multilateral basis with partners who see it the same way we do. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I yield my time. Thank you. Norma torres from california will be our last speaker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And welcome. Thank you for staying as long as you have and accommodating our tough day to day. I understand that later this week you are traveling to miami for a conference about security and prosperity in central america, specifically the northern triangle area. I want to make awe ware thyou ae in congress are working very hard on a bipartisan way to deal with the crisis we have in this area. I want to make sure that you understand that while our president may not think that, you know, we should be building up other governments, our National Security is very dependent on the democracy and democracy issues within our neighbors, our closest neighbors to the south. We have to be very pro active at dealing with the very corrupt governments that have become a culture of these of our neighbors. We have to deal with them in our traffic issues and the Money Laundering that happens in this region because they are our partners and our National Security. So thank you for making a commitment to working there. But i also want to make sure that you understand that this is important to congress. We pass this resolution unanimously here in congress. The world looks at the United States for leadership on the global stage. Unfortunately, the president s words and actions have been undermining American Leadership. Part of the problem is that we dont have a fully staff functioning state department. Another problem is that there is a conflict of mixed messages that come across when the president tweets and you have a different response and his press team has a different response. Mr. Secretary, my question to you is are the president s tweets the official Foreign Policy of the United States . Im not going to comment extensively on the president s tweets. The president has his own means he wishes to communicate. And he kmucommunicates a lot of different ways. I understand. That either it is an informed decision based on facts that he is tweeting out and is this our policy . U. S. Policy . Im not involved in how the president constructs his tweets, when he tweets, why he tweets, what he tweets. It seems to be a game that goes back and forth. There is not meant to be, you know, a gotcha question. This is simply wanting to clarify for other world leaders. I was just on a trip to mexico with a delegation of u. S. Members of congress. Part of the insecurity with our closest neighbor to the south is the fact that president puts out tweets and people dont know. These leaders dont know if this is informed policy and if this is truly how the United States intends to conduct business. What i would say with our neighbors in mexico to the south and you mention the miami conference that ill be going to tomorrow to address both economic and Security Issues in the triangle area, this conference is being cosponsored by the state department, department of homeland security, mexican counter parts, Foreign Ministry and state minister of mexico. This is something that came out of our mexico city engagement. We recognize we have a commonish knew transmigration that is a problem for mexico, a problem for us. And this gets to our approach to the budget question and concerns that were not going able to carry out our Foreign Policy objectives. Were bringing the interamerican bank, the world bank, were breg a number of private sector entities to miami, the Vice President is coming to give the keynote address at the address. Do you know who is not coming . Do you know who is not coming . It is not because you did not invite them, but the attorneys general will all three countries are not coming simply because their governments think that there is instability happening here in the u. S. And they have left them out. I think its important at this conference, sir, we called them out on that. As you know, a lot of our assistance in the three countries is strengthen law enforcement, strengthen attorneys attorney to prosecute and strengthen the courts to make the cases stick on corruption and n. Particular. We have made progress and the reason were focusing on the triangle area is because we made progress. We think were very close to pushing this over the hump so to speak. We want to bring in a lot of others to help with this so were not doing it alone. Well, i want to thank the secretary for his time with the committee. This has been a challenging day in congress. Its a tough world out there. Were at 1 30. I gave my commitment that we would adjourn. I want to thank the secretary for speaking here today and sharing your time so generously. On behalf of those of us not able to ask questions, i request that we may submit them to you and get a response in writing. Absolutely. I look forward to any other questions. And im sorry we were unable to have a dialogue with each of you as well. Again, i understand the circumstances entirely. And as i said at the beginning of the hearing, that absolutely is something we will do. And i do want to convey on behalf of all the members here, we the committee looks forward to working with you, mr. Secretary, on many policies including your reorganization efforts. And youve heard our concerns. And we look forward to receiving your legislative proposals for the departments reorganization once theyre ready. Again, i thank you and i thank you for being prepared to respond to the other members who did not get an opportunity here today. I thank you and we stand adjourned. If you missed any of this hearing, you can find it online at cspan do the coring and just type tillerson in the search bar. Members of congress continue today to react to the shooting this morning of representative Steve Scalise as well as two Capitol Hill Police officers and two others. It happened during a practice for a congressional baseball game in alexandria, virginia, just outside of washington, d. C. House Speaker Paul Ryan spoke on the house floor today saying an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. There are very strong emotions throughout this house today. But this dreadful attack and coming up
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.