U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–010PDF 2017

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Serial No. 115–74

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable John J. Sullivan, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of State 5

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable John J. Sullivan: Prepared statement ......................................... 7

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 63

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 71

Written responses from the Honorable John J. Sullivan to questions submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .............. 73

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel ............................................................................. 75

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio ............................................................................................................... 95

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 96

The Honorable Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in Congress from 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............................................................... 98

The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ............................................................................................ 99

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Rhode Island ....................................................................................... 102

The Honorable Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 103

The Honorable Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois ................................................................................................. 106

(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. The hearing will come to order. I will ask the 

members all to take their seats, if you will. 

Today we hear from Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan on 

the proposed reforms that he and Secretary Tillerson are working 

on for the State Department and for the Agency for International 

Development. 

I don’t think there are many that question the need to improve 

the operation of both agencies. A more efficient and effective State 

Department and USAID would better promote our national security and our many other interests around the world. So I have welcomed the administration’s undertaking. 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has started a process here, as 

those at State will tell you, where he is focusing on listening to the 

diplomats and listening to the employees, our foreign service officers. I think this very commendable. He has sought feedback here 

from the bottom up. Many employees, he reports, have asked, and 

I think this speaks volumes, for more responsibility and, in turn, 

more accountability for their performance. They also want better 

training throughout their careers and a modern IT infrastructure. 

And I think they deserve these tools, and we would be all better 

off if they had them. 

So I welcome Secretary Tillerson’s efforts to address the Department’s aging technology infrastructure, and to strengthen the diversity of the Department’s workforce, including increased recruitment. 

He has focused specifically on veterans and minority candidates, 

and this is a goal the committee here has long supported. But as 

a country with global challenges and opportunities, I do have continued concerns about whether our diplomats and development specialists will have the resources they need. Yes, there is room for 

savings. We need savings. But we should not and cannot lose sight 

of the fact that our diplomacy and assistance improves our national 

security, improves our economic well-being for a relatively small 

amount of money. 

2

Consider this committee’s work to sanction rogue regimes like 

Iran over their missile program, or like North Korea. It takes 

skilled, properly resourced diplomacy to build international support 

for sanctions enforcement. And the same is true when it comes to 

convincing nations to turn away cheap labor from North Korea, for 

example. It takes our diplomats going out and explaining, when 

you are doing an arrangement where you are not paying those 

workers from North Korea, you are only feeding them, and you are 

sending the check, the foreign currency, to the regime. That money 

is going into the nuclear weapons program and that has to end because of our sanctions. That has to be explained by our foreign 

service officers; or working with us to counter Hezbollah; or granting our health specialists access to halt an emerging pandemic in 

its tracks, as was done in West Africa with the Ebola virus. 

Robust diplomacy is also needed in conflict zones to defeat ISIS 

and defeat other threats. And that is what we hear from our generals who understand the critical need for our country to have successful political, and not just military, strategies. 

But this leadership requires us being present. And I am concerned about reports of closing Embassies and consulates. Where 

we depart, we create a void for unfriendly actors to step in and promote interest hostile to our interests. Where there is a diplomatic 

void, we have no eyes, we have no ears, to detect the next threat 

or the next opportunity. 

And so I want to thank the Department. I want to thank the Department specifically for starting a dialogue with Congress on these 

reforms, and on its policies, and on its management, more broadly. 

And some of the proposed reforms that we see here will require legislation, while others can be undertaken administratively. But in 

both cases, the committee has a significant oversight role to play, 

as we are doing today. 

And after our successful work last Congress to get the first State 

Authorities bill signed into law, in well over a decade, the committee continues to have some reform ideas of its own, which we 

look forward to sharing. 

And I will now turn to our ranking member for Mr. Engel’s opening remarks. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling this 

hearing, and Mr. Deputy Secretary, welcome to the Foreign Affairs 

Committee. Thank you for your service and for your time this 

morning. I was grateful that you hosted the chairman and myself 

at the State Department yesterday to discuss your reorganization 

effort. I am going to raise some of the concerns this morning that 

I mentioned to you yesterday. 

There is no doubt that the State Department and all our Federal 

agencies should be as effective as possible to address the challenges 

and to seize the opportunities we are facing. 

This committee has taken some steps to modernize our foreign 

affairs agencies, including last year’s State Department Authorities 

bill. There are plenty of good ideas that could bring the State Department, USAID, and our foreign policy into the 21st century. 

With the Department and Congress working in a bipartisan way, 

I believe we could get there. But I was troubled that the apparent 

first step in a reorganization process was the announcement of a 

3

32 percent cut to our international affairs budget. I know we discussed it yesterday and I will try to ask you to repeat some of the 

things you said. 

In my view, I worry about starting with the budget and then 

finding the reforms is doing things in reverse. To me, it makes 

more sense to lay out a vision for what modernization looks like, 

to set clear priorities, to bring in our diplomats, development professionals, and other experts, and then to determine the right 

budget to get the job done. So I hope in your testimony, and afterwards, you will mention some of the things that you mentioned to 

us yesterday, you will clarify why the decision was made to start 

with the dollar figure and work backwards from there. 

I worry about the reorganization process. I want it to be more 

transparent and collaborative. I don’t think that goes against anything you told us yesterday. The Department has called this an employee-driven process, and I have no doubt that the career employees involved in the exercise have totally honorable intentions. 

But I understand that those involved are not allowed to discuss 

the plans with their colleagues, and that the private sector consultants brought on have kept tight control over documents related to 

the plan. The administration committed to this committee that 

there would be consultation with Congress every step of the way, 

and obviously we still have more questions. So I hope we can talk 

about some of that today. 

And, overall, I must ask, what is the goal of the process? What 

is the administration’s vision for American foreign policy? For 

America’s role in the world? For how the State Department fits 

into that vision? And for how this process will make the State Department more effective? 

The only consistent answer that we have gotten is the Department is finding efficiencies; and I worry when the administration 

talks about efficiency that it is just not a codeword for budget cuts. 

Cost savings that undermine effectiveness certainly aren’t efficient, 

in the long run they make America less safe. 

And as the Department focuses on redesign, I worry the critical 

day-to-day work of diplomacy is suffering. Far to many senior positions, and we talked about this again yesterday, remain vacant, depriving the Department of leadership. And making it harder for allies and adversaries alike to know who to call, and who is calling 

the shots in Washington. So I wish you could explain some of that 

today. 

Overseas, our diplomats’ jobs are getting harder because they 

can’t know if established American foreign policy will be reversed. 

Morale at the Department continues to suffer, as senior career officials flock to the exits. Reports continue to surface of an insular 

group surrounding the Secretary, uninterested in the expertise of 

our most seasoned professionals. Taken together, America’s credibility around the world is wobbling. Our leadership on the global 

stage seems to be waning. 

And, most importantly, without a strong, functional State Department with a clear foreign policy vision, our interest, values, 

and security are increasingly at risk. And let me be clear, I do support modernizing the State Department. I want to see it leading 

and directing American foreign policy. Civilian leadership at the 

4

center of national security policy is integral to our democracy at 

home, and to our leadership abroad. 

For years, Congress has sat on the sidelines when it comes to the 

State Department, and what do we have to show for it? Antiquated 

IT systems, personnel shortages that make it harder to address crises or allow for professional development. Traditional responsibilities of the Department moving to other agencies, like the Pentagon, distracting from its core diplomatic mission. I am glad that 

the President sees the necessity for more funds for DoD, but we 

don’t want it at the expense of the State Department, the expense 

of diplomacy, the expense of making sure our Embassies are safe. 

In 2020, the Foreign Service Act will be 40 years old. It was written during the Cold War and the world has changed. We do need 

to modernize the Department. That is why I have instructed my 

staff to consult with former diplomats, civil servants, and other experts to begin thinking about what State should look like for the 

next 40 years. I would value the input of any member of this committee as we move forward. And, again, Mr. Deputy Secretary, I 

look forward to your testimony, and I hope you shed some additional light on this process. 

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent to 

place in the record the following documents dealing with the reorganization of the State Department and USAID. The first is a report by Modernizing Foreign Assistance and New Foreign Aid Architecture Fit for Purpose. Second is a report from the U.S. Global 

Leadership Coalition, entitled Opportunities for Reforming and 

Strengthening Diplomacy and Development. The third is a report 

from The Center for Global Development, A Practical Vision for 

U.S. Development Reform. 

Next is a report from Refugees International called Honoring a 

Distinguished Tradition, Crisis Response in U.S. Government Reorganization. And, finally, a submission from Amnesty International 

USA, calling on the State Department to preserve the structure, 

staffing, and resources for the Refugee Bureau War Crimes Office 

and Global Women’s Issue Office. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Subject to the length limitations in our rules, 

without objection, we will put those reports and include them. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We now go to our introduction 

here of Deputy Secretary John Sullivan. 

Prior to this position, Mr. Sullivan was a partner at the Mayer 

Brown law firm. He co-chaired its national security practice, and 

previous to that, Mr. Sullivan served in senior positions at the Justice Department, then at the Defense Department, and the Commerce Department. 

Without objection, the witness’s full prepared statements will be 

made part of the record. Members are going to have 5 calendar 

days to submit any statements or any questions or any other extraneous materials that they want to submit for the record here. 

And we would ask, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, if you would 

please summarize your remarks, and then we will go to questions. 

Thank you. 

5

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN J. SULLIVAN, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Engel, members of the committee. Thank you all for inviting me 

here to discuss the——

Chairman ROYCE. Secretary Sullivan, let’s make sure you pushed 

that and then get it very close. Right there. And everyone will be 

able to hear you. Perfect. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members of the committee. I am honored to be here 

today to discuss the redesign of the State Department and USAID. 

We appreciate the interest the committee has shown in the Department’s efforts to become better equipped and more effective in 

serving the American people. On Secretary Tillerson’s first day, he 

promised to deploy the talent and resources of the State Department in the most efficient ways possible. He also committed to harnessing all the institutional knowledge of our workforce to do that. 

So he went straight to those who know best, our State Department 

and USAID colleagues, to determine where reform was most needed. From the very beginning, our reform effort has been employeeled. 

We commissioned a listening survey that produced feedback for 

more than 35,000 employees, nearly half of our entire global workforce. Hundreds more took part in in-person interviews. We also set 

up State and USAID web portals for staff to provide regular input 

and to continue to guide our planning. We have received more than 

1,400 submissions to those portals. 

After hearing from so many of our own colleagues, we convened 

a cross-section of almost 300 rising leaders and seasoned professionals to create a reform plan. I want to stress that the employeeled nature of the redesign is not an empty slogan. The Secretary 

wanted employees to drive this process from the beginning so that 

the Department and USAID can better serve them, even as they 

serve our country. 

The Redesign Executive Steering Committee, which I chair, is 

composed of a balance of USAID and State Department leaders. 

Similarly, the five work streams, the groups that drafted the proposals that fed into the reform plan, were comprised almost entirely of career staff, posted both in the U.S. and abroad. Seventytwo percent of work stream members were working-level employees, those who deal with the day-to-day business of diplomacy and 

development. Their presence and contributions proved to be invaluable. 

The resulting Agency Reform Plan incorporates the suggestions 

and feedback from thousands of our public servants serving all over 

the world. We submitted this plan to OMB earlier this month, consistent with the President’s Executive Order 13781, which calls for 

improvements in efficiencies, effectiveness, and accountability for 

each Federal agency. 

Let me share with you a few key features of our proposed plan. 

First, we need to streamline the policy creation process and optimize and realign our global footprint. The world is changing quickly and State and USAID need to be nimble, that means taking inputs from the field, turning them into evidence-based recommendaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\092617\27010 SHIRL
6

tions, and executing them as quickly as possible. We will use the 

same approach to assess our physical footprint around the world to 

ensure that our missions abroad align with our foreign policy priorities. 

Second, we must maximize the impact and accountability of U.S. 

foreign assistance. We need to strengthen planning among the 20-

plus agencies that provide some type of foreign assistance, to make 

sure our foreign policy goals are focused, integrated, and supported. 

Third, we need to implement a more effective global service delivery framework to reduce operational costs and redundancies, increase efficiency, and improve service quality for our personnel 

around the globe. We want to reduce red tape and bureaucratic 

hurdles by making management and administrative functions do 

what they were intended to do, support our professionals as they 

change posts, develop their skills, and serve our country all over 

the world. 

Fourth, we need to empower and retain a 21st century workforce 

by optimizing our HR support. Too often employees are bogged 

down trying to navigate broken processes or redundant systems. 

We envision HR shifting to a more strategic role to help State and 

USAID attract a more diverse workforce and to invest more in our 

most valuable assets, our people. 

Finally, we need to improve our IT platforms, modernize legacy 

systems, and upgrade our technology infrastructure so that our employees can work anywhere, anytime, and as effectively as possible. 

We urgently need to integrate our IT systems and cybersecurity 

platforms. By upgrading our systems and modernizing our technology, we can save money in the long-run, reduce overall risks, 

and facilitate better decisionmaking in the future. 

The redesign provides a new foundation for our diplomacy and 

development professionals. It will also generate significant savings 

as we streamline processes and increase efficiencies across the Department. The proposals we are pursuing will save the American 

taxpayer a minimum of $5 billion over the next 5 years, with an 

aspirational whole of government target of up to $10 billion. 

Some of these changes will require further guidance and approval from OMB, others will require close coordination with other 

agencies. Still, others will require a change in law by Congress. 

And, be assured, that for all aspects of the redesign, whether or not 

a change in law is required, we will consult with this committee 

and Congress before any actions are taken. 

We are working to move quickly on the redesign. The reforms 

that the Department can implement internally will be rolled out as 

soon as possible, after consultation with Congress. For example, in 

the coming months, we hope to move the State Department toward 

a cloud computing platform, and increase the number of foreign 

service family members we employ abroad. 

Let me emphasize that, throughout this process, I commit to consulting closely with this committee. Your input, as always, is most 

important as we move forward. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you this morning about our reform plan and 

hear your feedback. And I would be happy to take your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

7


27010a-1.eps
8


27010a-2.eps
9


27010a-3.eps
10


27010a-4.eps
11


27010a-5.eps
12


27010a-6.eps
13


27010a-7.eps
14


27010a-8.eps
15

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. Let 

me start, as you know, the State Department Authorities Act requires the Department to notify this committee no less than 45 

days before closing a diplomatic post. Will the Department commit 

to a robust engagement with the committee before you seek to close 

a diplomatic post, because our members have decades of experience 

and strong views on this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate that. And let me emphasize here 

why I think this is key. Just to follow through on the legislation 

that we pass in this committee, for example, the legislation we 

passed on sanctions on North Korea, I explained a little bit of this, 

but our response to that threat is to have our diplomats make it 

clear to every country on Earth that they have got to cut ties with 

that rogue regime or suffer the consequences of it. 

It is our diplomats who have the relationships in these countries 

throughout the world, who follow up and explain directly how seriously the United States takes this. And, as I mentioned also in my 

opening remarks, they are our eyes and ears. In northern Nigeria, 

for example, Boko Haram emerged seemingly out of nowhere. We 

have no diplomatic presence in all of northern Nigeria. The Muslim 

population in Africa is the most populated country, over 140 million people. And because we closed our consulate in Kaduna in the 

1990s, the previous administration looked at reopening a consulate 

in the region, but once closed, posts are very difficult, very expensive to reopen. 

China certainly isn’t trimming back its diplomatic presence 

there, as you know. Nor, in the case of the conversations I had with 

the governor of that state, where now Boko Haram holds sway, told 

me, money was flooding into the area from the Gulf states, setting 

up at that time madrasas to recruit. He told me about one across 

the street from the madrasa where he got his education. But the 

new one, young boys were wearing Bin Laden tee shirts. And he 

explained what the consequences were going to be, and he was 

right. But we have to have that presence on the ground to see 

these kinds of things coming, and it has to be our foreign service 

that is engaged there. 

Let me ask you another question, and this goes to this issue of 

hiring veterans and increasing diversity. The foreign service will be 

the most effective that it can be when it draws on the strengths 

of the American people. However, it is my understanding that the 

interview is only offered in Washington, DC, and in San Francisco. 

Will the Department consider offering the interviews in more 

places such as on military bases? If I could ask you that question. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I met, in fact, last week with 

all of our employee affinity groups, including our veterans group at 

the State Department, to discuss better ways to recruit for the Department to increase our diversity, which is a key goal of the Secretary, as you know. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. And I just, in my opinion, think, that if 

you were to deploy a strategy, and if it was well understood that 

we were going to do this at military bases, and that those interested in serving the foreign service would have that option, I think 

in terms of the Secretary’s commitment to increase efforts to hire 

16

veterans, and this focus on diversity, this would be a very helpful 

way to make that happen. And I appreciate your willingness. 

With that said, let me go to Mr. Engel for his questions. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I wanted to, again, thank you for taking the time 

to meet the chairman and myself for lunch yesterday. It is very important for this committee and the State Department to have a 

good working relationship. And I believe the commitments you 

made yesterday go a long way in advancing a constructive working 

relationship. We won’t always agree, but I think the constructive 

working relationship is very important. 

So one thing we discussed, and I would be grateful if you would 

reaffirm it here today, is your commitment that the State Department will respond in a timely fashion to the requests for documents 

and information that come from myself or the chairman or our 

staff? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely, Congressman Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I wonder if you would also clarify, as you 

did yesterday, the Department’s policy regarding the necessity of a 

chairman’s letter for certain types of information, so we are clear 

about that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly. Subject to legal restrictions imposed because of executive privilege, my policy and the Department’s policy 

will be to be as responsive as we can be, both in responding to 

phone calls, to request for documents, and a call from any member 

of this committee, or a request from any member of this committee 

is a high priority for the State Department. You have my commitment on that. And if we fall down on the job, please let me know 

and I will remedy that situation. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Secretary 

Tillerson made the same commitment, and when it wasn’t being 

fulfilled, I went to him again and he reaffirmed the commitment. 

So I am pleased that you are reaffirming that as well. 

I would like to read something to you: ‘‘We will eliminate overlap, set priorities, and fund only the work that supports those priorities. We will empower our people to make decisions, and hold 

them accountable for the results. This begins with the Chiefs of 

Mission in our Embassies around the world. We will give our 

Chiefs of Mission the tools they need to oversee the work of all U.S. 

Government agencies, empower them, and engage them more fully 

in policy-making in Washington. It sounds basic, but it is the kind 

of change that will help us tap the full potential of our civilian 

power.’’ That is the end of the quote. 

Does this sound like it aligns with Secretary Tillerson’s vision for 

improving the Department? There is a 2010 QDDR report, and I 

am quoting from the 2010 QDDR: ‘‘Secretary Tillerson recognizes 

the need for modernization of the State Department, and both of 

his immediate predecessors saw it as well. But one of the criticisms 

the QDDR report, including from our committee, is that it failed to 

realize many of its goals.’’

So, in my opinion, I would like to hear your opinion, one of the 

reasons we failed was the lack of funding. This document is full of 

important and insightful ideas, but because these ideas were not 

17

linked with resources, they didn’t lead to the transformation of the 

Department in the ways we had hoped they would. 

Would the Secretary’s reorganization make the State Department 

more effective? You will find enthusiastic support from this committee on both sides of the aisle. But how can the administration 

carry out real or lasting reforms, including an IT modernization, 

that is currently dramatically underresourced when you have tied 

your hands with respect to the budget? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, as we discussed yesterday, Congressman 

Engel, one of the key goals of the redesign is to empower our men 

and women, our Ambassadors, in particular, the Chiefs of Mission, 

who are in the field implementing U.S. foreign policies. That is one 

of our overriding goals that has been clear from the Secretary’s 

first day on the job. 

As we also discussed yesterday, the budget process to which you 

refer started before Secretary Tillerson was confirmed and took office. So he came onboard, I followed several months later. We had 

a budget process that was already underway. The redesign effort, 

as I have said in other context, the Secretary would have been taking this redesign effort even if we had had a budget increase. 

It is important for us to find efficiencies in the Department, to 

be good stewards of the taxpayer money. But there will also be 

areas, as you have noted, where as we go forward, particularly 

with respect to IT infrastructure, where we will in the future need 

investments. And the Secretary has made a commitment to the Department, and I will repeat it here to this committee, where we 

need more resources to do our jobs more effectively, we will seek 

them. IT is one area where I predict we will need assistance in the 

future in reforming our IT infrastructure. 

Mr. ENGEL. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher 

of California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

How many people do you have working at the State Department? 

What is your payroll like? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. At the State Department, Congressman Rohrabacher, we have approximately 75,000 employees worldwide. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How many again? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. 75,000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 75,000? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Worldwide. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Worldwide. What is the number of people 

that a new President, political appointees, but brought in by the 

new President, how many spaces are there for those? There are 

75,000 regular employees, how many political appointees are there? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, there are a couple of different categories. 

There are all the Ambassadors, so there are approximately 190. Of 

those, roughly 30 percent are political appointees, in other words, 

they are not career foreign service officers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

18

Mr. SULLIVAN. So that is one category. Then there are positions 

at the State Department itself, Under Secretaries, myself, Deputy 

Secretary, Assistant Secretaries. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There would be fewer than 100 of those. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is only 100? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Approximately. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And of those 100, how many of those 

are now filled? How many of those political appointees are sitting 

now and have their authority? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Those who are now in office, actually at the State 

Department or in their ambassadorial post, it would be fewer than 

20. That is a rough guess on my part. We have 30 nominees that 

are pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thirty nominees? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thirty nominees pending. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that is for——

Mr. SULLIVAN. For both appointments at the State Department, 

for example, Under Secretary for Management. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Legal adviser. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. And 

then we have another category of individuals who have been selected by the administration, but who are undergoing their background investigation and filling out their financial disclosure forms 

and being reviewed by the Foreign Relations Committee. That 

would probably be another 20 or 30, I would say, of those. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you are saying that about 50 people 

that could have been appointed by the President are not now——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. In their positions. So when we 

say that elections count in this democracy, that we have 50 people 

now whose slots are either being taken by career people until they 

get there, or actually—are there any appointees from the last administration still in those positions? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. To my knowledge there are no political appointees 

who are filling those positions. There are, however, career foreign 

service officers who are filling those positions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that 

across the board we have seen—we are already into October, you 

know, and the President of the United States, if our elections, the 

democratic process means anything, the President has to have his 

people in there to help direct policy because that is who the people 

voted for. And I think that we are seeing something that I haven’t 

seen for a long time, I have never seen, is that throughout our Government, not just State Department but elsewhere, we have these 

seats that are vacant that should be Presidential appointees. 

Let me ask you about NGOs and their relationship to the State 

Department. Do we actually provide services for nongovernmental 

organizations that are active in different countries? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe, among other things, we provide financial assistance to NGOs that, in turn, provide assistance, whether 

19

it be life-sustaining food, water, medical assistance. So we will contract with, among others, NGOs for those types of services. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And are NGOs—obviously we have our 

beliefs and we want—we have certain standards, but when NGOs 

go into another country, are they required to respect the culture of 

that country? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That would certainly be expected Congressman, 

yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So NGOs—we get complaints—I have 

gotten complaints, as I have traveled around, from people that the 

NGOs are actually out trying to change the country. And, of course, 

we want a certain amount of change, but at some point it becomes 

a disrespect for the culture of those countries. Good luck in trying 

to find that line. And good luck in your new position. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Brad Sherman, ranking member 

of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Deputy Secretary, I want to thank you for 

your comments about wanting to get information to Congress and 

answer our questions. Rex Tillerson, the Secretary, was here on 

June 14—and, of course, we only get 5 minutes, and a lot of us 

have a lot more questions, and that is why we have questions for 

the record. But the questions for the record for the June 14 hearing 

haven’t been answered yet. I wonder if you could commit to having 

the June 14 questions answered—the vast majority of them by October 15 and all of them by October 31? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I think I can do better than that, Congressman Sherman. I believe I heard this morning on my way up, and 

it is strictly a coincidence, I assure you, that those questions—

those responses were provided this morning. So if there are any 

that are outstanding, I will make sure that they are——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am eagerly awaiting one of those, and that is, 

I asked—you are submitting a budget that involves drastic cuts. 

And the Secretary agreed to say how he would propose spending 

10 or 20 or 30 percent more money than the administration was 

asking for. Because that would give Congress the expert view or 

the, at least, executive branch view of not only how to spend the 

amount of money you are talking about, but if we decide—how we 

would allocate more. And I hope that you can commit to answering 

the QFRs for this hearing within 30 days. Can you do that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHERMAN. This reorganization plan, I hope, is not a cover for 

cuts or a reason to delay filling posts. Others have asked you about 

that delay. The administration has a muscular tone in its foreign 

policy. Sanctions are an important part of that, sanctions are very 

labor intensive. It is not a matter of just giving a speech at a rally. 

It is a matter of convincing a Danish or a Dutch bank or government on this deal or that deal. And I would hope that you and the 

Secretary would convince the President that a muscular foreign 

policy requires a fully staffed State Department. 

Tom Lantos was our chairman here. He pushed forward legislation that created the special envoy on Global Anti-Semitism. I 

20

know your department has committed to filling that post. Can we 

count on that being filled fairly soon? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You have my word on that, Congressman. If I 

don’t, it is my fault, and I assure you it will be filled promptly. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Now, there has been a report of a plan to 

transfer the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migrations and 

Consular Affairs to the Department of Homeland Security. Can you 

put those rumors to rest? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I can. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is not under consideration? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is not under consideration. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is a great answer. We have, all around the 

world, consulates. The consulates report to the Embassy, and the 

Embassy reports to Washington. The one exception to that is our 

consulate in East Jerusalem. And I wonder whether part of your 

reorganization could be to have the same policy there as everywhere else, and have the consulate in East Jerusalem report to the 

Embassy? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the issue of our Embassy in Israel, as you 

know, is——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not asking the bigger question about moving 

to Embassy to Jerusalem. Assuming we keep the facilities that we 

have now, would the consulate in East Jerusalem report to the Embassy, which is currently located the Tel Aviv? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would certainly take that under advisement, 

Congressman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Not everything that relates to foreign policy can 

be in the State Department. I would hope that you would provide 

guidance, as you have a process of doing, to the BBG, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, about the importance of broadcasting 

in the regional language of Pakistan. I don’t have to tell you that 

this is one of—while North Korea has one language, Pakistan has 

several. And if you are trying to reach the population of this important country with over 100 nuclear weapons, you can’t just broadcast in Urdu and Pashto. 

And, finally, I am going to ask you to convey to the Secretary of 

the Treasury, or the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, the importance in—they have to allocate their time and where to negotiate 

a tax treaty, and they have been doing it on kind of a paint-bynumbers basis. How big is the GDP of this country, or whatever, 

ignoring the geopolitics. And there are places in the world where 

having a tax treaty furthers the objectives of the State Department, and your Assistant Secretary of Europe testified in a smaller 

hearing that having a tax treaty with Armenia is important geopolitically. And I hope we can get that influence over to the Treasury Department. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will do so. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We will go to Joe Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I was very fortunate in August, I was 

with Congressman Paul Cook on a delegation. We visited Romania, 

Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Georgia, and Poland. And 

I can report firsthand that all of the State Department personnel 

who were with us were first class. They were very competent, capaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\092617\27010 SHIRL
21

ble. They connected with the very important new allies of the 

United States. And so it was just a very uplifting experience in 

each of those countries. And I was so proud of the dedication of 

your personnel on behalf of the American people. 

But I do know that the Foreign Service attracts thousands of applicants each year, however the Department struggles to effectively 

recruit Foreign Service Officers with a greater diversity of experience, including veterans, and those from under-represented portions of the country. Successive administrations have pledged to increase veteran recruitment with limited success. 

Does the Department intend to target veterans for recruitment? 

If so, what reforms to the recruitment process are being considered 

to reach this goal? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Wilson. Yes, recruitment of veterans is a priority for the Department. As I discussed earlier with the chairman, one issue that we have discussed 

is recruitment at military posts. I have met with Retired General 

David Petraeus who came to speak to our veterans affinity group 

about this issue. And I have met with our group leader as well. 

Mr. WILSON. And many veterans have language skills that could 

be so helpful, too. Currently, the Department only interviews candidates for the Foreign Service in Washington and San Francisco, 

not exactly the most representative of U.S. cities. Is the Department considering conducting the oral assessment exam at military 

bases across the county to encourage veteran hiring? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, we are. 

Mr. WILSON. Super. Please. That is good. And what other reforms is the Department considering to recruit Foreign Service Officers with more diverse backgrounds and skill-sets like veterans? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, a commitment to diversity is a priority for 

Secretary Tillerson, and not just with respect to veterans, but with 

respect to all aspects of American society. The State Department 

should reflect America, and we are committed to that. Veteran hiring is a priority for us, as I have said, and I have discussed this 

with Chairman Royce. And we are doing all we can for outreach 

to veterans, but also to other groups as well who are under-represented in the State Department. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. And I look forward to 

working with you on that, too. Given the prominent role assigned 

to the Department by the President’s executive order on 

cybersecurity, I am concerned about plans to downgrade the Office 

of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues and merge it with an existing 

office within the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. At a 

time when the U.S. is increasingly under attack online, shouldn’t 

the State Department continue to have high level leadership focused on the whole range of cyber issues not relegated to economics? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congressman Wilson, it is a priority for the 

Secretary. The move that you discussed for that special envoy is 

only the first step in our approach to cybersecurity. I have discussed this with the Secretary. We are committed to raising this 

to a high level within the Department, and working with the White 

House on that issue. 

22

Mr. WILSON. And in fact, the House passed legislation, H.R. 600, 

the Digital Gap Act, expressing the sense to Congress that there 

should be an Assistant Secretary for Cyberspace to lead the Department’s Diplomatic Cyberspace Policy, the Department take into 

consideration that provision, which effectively calls on the Secretary to elevate the rule of cyber diplomacy before there was the 

provision of downgrading? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I can commit to you that cybersecurity, our 

whole cyber effort, will be elevated at the Department beyond the 

level it is now. 

Mr. WILSON. And with that understanding—and we are pleased 

to learn that the Department cyberspace functions will continue to 

focus on a full range of activities beyond just economic issues, 

doesn’t that call into question your plans to house the office within 

the Economic and Business Affairs Bureau? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The final decision about where and at what level 

we will place the cybersecurity responsibility hasn’t been decided. 

The initial decision that was made was that for this special envoy 

office, which exists, we have moved that into that bureau, but that 

is only the first step in addressing the larger cyber issue that the 

Department needs to—and we will consult with this committee on 

where the appropriate level is and what bureau it is in before that 

decision is——

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And I hope you all will be pushing hard 

on the 30 pending ambassadorships, that they be secured as soon 

as possible. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. And we go now to Greg Meeks, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Europe. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, first let 

me just congratulate and thank you. It seems as though any time 

that you have been called to come and serve our great country in 

various administrations, you have done that, and I think that is 

something to be thankful for. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MEEKS. And, likewise, when I look at our individuals in the 

State Department, and I think that we have said it just about 

unanimously, that no matter where we travel, when we look at the 

men and women that are in our State Department and how they 

serve our country, it is just miraculous. And so, you know, a number of us are very concerned when we hear the drastic cuts—and 

I don’t know, sometimes I get nervous when I hear the word modernization because I don’t know what that means. Does that mean 

that we are going to get the equipment and make sure we have the 

new technology that is necessary so that our State Department has 

all of the tools that it needs to continue to do the great job—the 

job that it often does with its hands tied. Or does it mean that we 

are going to have to cut personnel and make their jobs even more 

difficult than it already is, because they have tough jobs. 

And I think as General Mattis has said, the more that we take 

away from the State Department, the more we have to put into 

DoD. So we are nervous. And as I travel, I think that a number 

of the employees in the State Department are nervous. I listened 

to your opening statement where you said that—and I see that 66 

23

percent of the individuals responded, but they still don’t know what 

the final plan is, and the information flow has not gotten down. 

So there seems to be a lot of morale problems now because they 

don’t know the uncertainty of whether or not what they have recommended would be heard. And then when we have what took 

place, for example, what concerned me at the U.N., this past week 

in New York, where I believe there was some 140 officials that 

were there, and it was down from twice that number the year 

prior. And what I looked at before was consistent because here was 

an opportunity to have our diplomats in the State Department 

working with all of these heads of State at various levels. That is 

how this works. So when I see that kind of reduction, that to me 

means that there is difficulty in getting our diplomacy out and 

talking and working with these other governments. 

So can you tell me, is that going to be the trend? Are we going 

to see less numbers of diplomats and people from the State Department that are going out to promote our diplomacy, as we just saw 

exhibited at the U.N. last week? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely not, Congressman. I approached this 

job—when I interviewed with Secretary Tillerson, I spoke to him 

of my enormous respect and regard for the Foreign Service, and it 

comes from my family. My family—my uncle served in the Foreign 

Service, my father’s brother, 32 years in the Foreign Service. He 

was actually our last U.S. Ambassador to Iran. It was his staff that 

was taken hostage on November 4. 

So I understand the burdens that Foreign Service and our Civil 

Service face when they are posted abroad. I committed to Secretary 

Tillerson, Secretary Tillerson is committed to the Department, that 

our goal is to empower those women and men in the Foreign Service and the Civil Service who serve the United States abroad in 

dangerous places on our behalf with little thanks. And our men 

and women in uniform are absolutely deserving of our respect and 

admiration, and thanked for their service. But our Foreign Service 

and Civil Service offices are equally deserving of that respect and 

thanks because they serve, just as our military does, in dangerous 

places. 

Mr. MEEKS. Absolutely. And, again, thank you. Then the other 

decision that kind of puzzled me a little bit, that it has been reported that after initially turning down funding for the Global Engagement Center that focuses on anti-propaganda efforts, Secretary 

Tillerson approved the request for the transfer of $40 million from 

DoD. The State Department deserves to have its own funding. Can 

you tell me why the State Department is relying on DoD funding 

for its own civilian efforts to combat terrorism and propaganda 

from our Government? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly, Congressman Meeks. Let me clarify 

that. There is an appropriation for our Global Engagement Center 

that is State Department money, and we are spending that money. 

A separate statute authorized the Department to seek from the Department of Defense an additional amount of money, which Defense could transfer to us. That is the $40 million that we sought. 

So we have our own money, we sought an additional $40 million 

from the Defense Department, and that is because the way ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\092617\27010 SHIRL
24

gress wrote the law, we had to ask the Defense Department for the 

money, we did, and it has been transferred to us. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Mark Meadows of North 

Carolina—I don’t think he is with us at the moment. Adam 

Kinzinger from Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, sir, 

for being here. Thank you for your service to your country, and it 

is very much appreciated. I think State and USAID are sometimes 

the unsung heroes of conflict mitigation, and in many ways we 

never see some of the success they provide because it is in a lack 

of a war, for instance, you know, which is hard to quantify. 

My colleague mentioned the Global Engagement Center. I just 

want to drill a little deeper on that, if you don’t mind, sir. You 

mentioned the $40 million coming from DoD. So I just want to clarify. You are accepting the $80 million then that was written in the 

statue now, and so that would be a total of $120 million in essence, 

is that what you are saying? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have requested and received from the Defense 

Department $40 million. We have our own appropriated funds, 

which we are also applying to the Global Engagement Center’s mission. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Okay. So that is happening then? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So if you look at kind of your overall idea of redesign or fixing the State Department, how does the Global Engagement Center figure into your redesign plans? Where do you 

guys see this going? What are some of the benefits you see in terms 

of pushing back against the propaganda from our eastern friends, 

I guess, or nonfriends, competitors? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Global Engagement Center figures prominently in our public diplomacy in countering the malign activities 

of terrorist organizations, whether it is ISIS, al-Qaeda or their affiliates. That has been the mission traditionally of the Global Engagement Center since it was created by Congress. The new aspect of our mission and the $40 million which we 

have gotten from the Defense Department is to counter State efforts at propaganda, so Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, which is 

a different form of mission, the GEC was initially focused on terrorist organizations, it is now also focused on State efforts at propaganda. Both are important, both are being funded properly, and 

both will figure prominently in our public diplomacy going forward. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Good. And maybe you can respond to this or 

maybe I will just state it for the record. I think the intention of 

Congress and the $80 million was to really focus on the counterpropaganda efforts of Russia, because as we have seen and our various friends in Eastern Europe, they are the victims of a lot of this, 

and we have seen the victim of that, in fact, here on our own 

shores. So I think that is essential. 

And I also firmly believe that the State Department, as I mentioned, and USAID, are unsung heroes in conflict mitigation. And 

I think rather than hindering our diplomats and USAID professionals, we need to provide them with greater flexibility and capacVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\092617\27010 SHIRL
25

ity to operate in conflict zones so we can work to provide hope and 

opportunity to the 7- and 8-year-olds that we see right now in refugee camps, which I would call it the next generational war on terror. And it could either lead to guns and bombs or it can lead to, 

frankly, a generation that rises up to reject terror within their own 

communities. 

And I think that’s frankly how you are going to actually win this. 

I think bombs and guns are important in the current fight, but I 

think we have to look at that next generation, because this could 

be a war that we are engaged in for the rest of my life, and something I think that is essential. 

So how does the redesign in your mind offer solutions for increasing State and USAID’s flexibility and capacity to operate in conflict 

zones like Syria or elsewhere? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I think you are absolutely right, Congressman, about the challenge we face with refugees, whether it is refugee camps in Jordan, from the conflict in Syria, the refugee crisis 

we see now on the border of Burma and Bangladesh. Those enormous refugee populations are a global problem and will continue to 

be unless it is properly addressed. We have at the State Department modest means, not the complete means, to address them. It 

is a global problem. So, for example, in Burma, we have spent $32 

million now to start to address the refugee crisis there. Our Ambassador in Burma is looking to go up to the Iraqi state to get to 

the border within the next 2 days. We are doing all we can to address that problem there. 

We have spent large sums of money to address the refugee crisis 

that has been generated by the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and 

with partners and allies, with the help of the Jordanian Government, which has done a heroic amount of work. We are trying to 

do all we can to address that problem, because, as you know, this 

is a generational problem, and this is going to be a problem that 

will face us for years to come. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. And since my time is running out, 

I won’t ask the question, but I will make this statement. As you 

guys are looking at diplomatic outposts maybe to consolidate or 

shut down, I think it is important to remember, we didn’t have a 

diplomatic post in Afghanistan pre-9/11. And so a lot of the areas, 

when we look at around the world where to do this, we need to be 

thinking—and I know you are thinking of this, Mr. Secretary, not 

in terms of the conflict today but what could potentially be a conflict tomorrow, and the benefit of having a presence there, again, 

for conflict mitigation, which we can’t quantify how many conflicts 

we have stopped with State or USAID. 

But, again, I want to thank you and the people that work for you 

for your hard work to the American people. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Albio Sires of New Jersey is the ranking member on the Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing today. 

And thank you for being here and the work that you do to serve 

this country and all the people that work for you. I get a chance 

to travel quite a bit, and they are professional, they are working 

26

hard every day. And, quite frankly, some of them are in real dangerous situations, and I am concerned. And I also want to thank 

you for the coincidence of answering our questions that happened 

this morning. We submitted about 3 months ago the questions. And 

I get concerned—go ahead, sir. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There is nothing like a congressional hearing to 

focus the concentration. 

Mr. SIRES. What a coincidence, right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is just an observation. 

Mr. SIRES. I get concerned when we throw out numbers like 30 

percent, that we are going to have this kind of cut in the State Department. You can imagine what it does to the people that work 

for you, and you can imagine what it does for the countries that 

we deal with. 

And one of the things that really concerns me is this hiring 

freeze and how it impacts the family members that work for these 

people. Some of these people are not going to be able to work. And 

it is hard enough already for some of the employees, you know, 

with the salary that they get, to make ends meet in some of these 

places, but now you have a situation where even the family members cannot be employed if we implement this 30 percent. So can 

you talk a little bit about that? Even schooling of the children. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. SIRES. I mean, that is all part of it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. The employment of family members at 

U.S. Embassies abroad is vitally important, not just for the support, the monetary support, it provides for those families, but for 

the services that those family members provide to our Embassy. 

So we have had a hiring freeze in place. There was an administration-wide hiring freeze. The Department has continued that hiring freeze until we get a better handle on our redesign. There are 

a lot of exceptions, though, to that hiring freeze. Among them has 

been an exception for the employment of family members. I believe 

the numbers are we have employed—since the hiring freeze went 

into effect, we have brought on somewhere between 800 and 900 

authorized family members to work at our Embassies. 

It is a consistent concern. I hear from our Ambassadors when 

they come back from post to Washington and I meet with them. 

Employment of family members at Embassies is always a topic 

they raise. 

Mr. SIRES. And schooling too. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Schooling as well. 

Mr. SIRES. You know, that is what we hear also when we travel. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. I hate to bring this into this Cuban foreign affairs situation, but I know that Tillerson is meeting with some of 

the Cuban diplomats in Havana? Is that correct? When is that happening? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have had regular contact with the Government of Cuba. If you are referring to the acoustic incidents——

Mr. SIRES. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. That have been happening——

Mr. SIRES. I was coming to that. 

27

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. In Havana, we have had regular contact to register our deep concern with what has happened in Havana and to remind the Cuban Government of its obligation under 

the Geneva Convention to protect our Embassy employees and 

their families down there. 

Mr. SIRES. Yeah. We have been trying to get a briefing schedule, 

and we can’t seem to get it, on where we are with this acoustic situation from the State Department. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. If you need a briefing, Congressman, I will guarantee you, this committee, whoever wants a briefing will get one. 

And our staff can perhaps speak with the chairman after this hearing, and we will arrange to get the information you need to understand what is happening in Havana at our Embassy. 

Mr. SIRES. I am also concerned about the crisis in Venezuela and 

our role with the OAS. How involved are we with the OAS? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I actually had the honor to represent the United 

States at the OAS General Assembly in Cancun in late June. There 

was a diplomatic accomplishment by the United States and our allies at that meeting, where we got over 20 countries in the region 

to back a resolution on Venezuela. Unfortunately, we didn’t reach 

the two-thirds threshold to get that resolution passed——

Mr. SIRES. Sorry. My time is running out. I am just wondering 

if some of these cuts are going to impact our ability to do something like this in the future. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely not. We will not——

Mr. SIRES. Because this country is all—I don’t want to interrupt. 

I mean, they are all frightened that all these cuts are going to take 

place and we are not going to be as active as we have been in the 

Western Hemisphere, which I work with. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. No, Venezuela, in particular, is a priority for 

this administration, and we will continue to work hard on that 

topic and bring pressure to bear on the Maduro government, which, 

as you know as well as anyone, has really driven the Venezuelan 

country, its economy into dire straits. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Might I suggest—you are the ranking member on Western 

Hem—that we formalize the request right now to the State Department concerning a private briefing for the members here with respect to the concerns our Foreign Service Officers have who were 

stationed in Havana with respect to some of the health issues that 

they have raised so that we can learn about the ongoing discussions here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We will undertake to have that briefing for you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We appreciate that. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making that suggestion. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your testimony 

and being with us today. And thank you, Mr. Sires. 

We now go to Dan Donovan of New York. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me 

add my sincere gratitude to your service to our Nation as well. 

Recognizing we are not appropriators, in your efforts to redesign 

the State Department to better serve our Nation’s interests 

28

throughout the globe, is there anything that this committee can do, 

legislatively or anything, to help in those efforts? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we will have a number of requests that we 

will come to this committee on with respect to our redesign effort. 

Just to give you an example, we have shared with the committee 

a letter from the Secretary that sets forth proposals for all of the 

special envoys that we have. It is almost 70. Some of those offices 

were created by statute, and what we propose to do with them, in 

consultation with the committee, may require legislation to effect 

change. 

So we will be coming to this committee with changes that we 

seek to help us with our redesign, and we very much want to, A, 

cooperate with you and consult with you on these proposed 

changes, but we will need legislation for some of them as well. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. Recognizing that a stable globe is very 

much in the interest of the United States’ national security, our 

homeland security—and that is the other committee that I serve on 

besides Foreign Affairs—is there any redesign efforts that you are 

contemplating now involving USAID? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, there are substantial redesign proposals that 

are under consideration. However, I should state up front, one of 

them is not merging USAID into the State Department. So we have 

a number of proposals that we are considering with input from senior USAID officials to make USAID more efficient, to align our development policy with our foreign policy as we go forward, but we 

are not considering, at this point, merging USAID into the State 

Department. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Deputy Secretary Sullivan, thanks for being here, and thank you 

for your service. 

Secretary Tillerson told our committee in June that throughout 

this redesign process, he said, ‘‘we will work as a team and with 

Congress.’’ And with all due respect, this has not felt like a team 

effort. 

Modernizing the State Department so that it can be as effective 

as possible in advancing national security and promoting U.S. interests abroad is a shared goal, but many of us, as you have heard 

today, are worried that this whole process is simply a downgrading 

of our diplomacy by another name. President Trump’s proposed 30-

percent cut of the State Department is particularly dangerous at a 

time when we need deft diplomacy and skilled statesmen to address the threats from Iran and North Korea, to promote peace in 

the Middle East, and to push back against Russian aggression both 

in the Ukraine and, frankly, here at home. 

In a time when foreign diplomats speak openly about how they 

look to the White House because the State Department is so understaffed, I would like to ask you, the State Department, about a few 

specific foreign policy topics to get an understanding of the administration’s position. 

29

First, in the Middle East, we saw a brutal reminder of the challenges that Israel faces in its search for peace today when a terrorist killed three Israelis and seriously wounded others near Jerusalem. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas continues to hold the bodies of 

slain IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians as bargaining chips. Earlier 

this month, I met with the parents of Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, 

who was killed by Hamas terrorists using an underground terror 

tunnel during a ceasefire in 2014. I have also met with the family 

of Sergeant Oron Shaul, who was also killed by Hamas in 2014. 

Hamas’s refusal to return the bodies of these soldiers to their families for burial is an obvious violation of international law and basic 

human values. 

So, to where we are today. Jason Greenblatt is currently in Israel 

continuing the administration’s push toward peace, but, for many 

of us, we are still in the dark about what that looks like. Mr. 

Greenblatt said last week that ‘‘it is no secret our approach to 

these discussions departs from some of the usual orthodoxy, for, 

after years of well-meaning attempts to negotiate an end to the 

conflict, we have all learned some valuable lessons.’’ So what I 

would ask you, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, is, what are those lessons that have been learned? What are the unorthodox approaches 

that you are pursuing? And is it this administration’s intention to 

present its own peace plan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, as you note, the 

White House, Jason Greenblatt, the President’s Special Representative, and the senior adviser to the President, Jared Kushner, have 

been very deeply involved in negotiations between this administration and the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. 

The President met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority that last week. The President, 

himself, is personally committed to this process, as other Presidents have been. 

I think the commitment of this administration is clear to the 

peace process. I would have to defer to Mr. Greenblatt on what he 

specifically meant with those comments. I would say that Secretary 

Tillerson, though, has been involved as well. He was with President Trump when the President visited Israel in June. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right, all of which we are aware of. Can you tell 

us whether it is the President’s intention, the administration’s intention to present its own peace plan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would have to defer to White House on that, sir. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay. Next, moving on to Iran, the vice chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs said in July that it appears Iran is in compliance with the rules that were laid out in the JCPOA. Now, there 

are very real flaws in the JCPOA, including the problematic sunset 

provisions. However, in order to lead an international effort against 

Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism, their support of the Hezbollah 

militias in Syria, the development of their missile program, all of 

which are outside the terms of the JCPOA, we are going to need 

the support of the international committee and our allies and partners in Europe. Wouldn’t a decision not to certify compliance because of factors that are outside the JCPOA risk isolating us from 

our allies and making the job of combating Iran’s malign activities 

in the region even more difficult? 

30

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the Secretary has said as late as last week 

that Iran is in technical compliance with the JCPOA. He said, as 

well, however, that Iran is in violation of the spirit of the JCPOA 

for all the malign activities that you have just described. 

We have been in close consultation with our allies to address 

both those malign activities and the flaws in the JCPOA, including 

the sunset provision. So the President will have a decision in October on whether to certify or not, but our work on Iran’s malign activities and trying to improve the terms of the JCPOA will continue. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, just if I may, my last 

question. As you know, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, Bob Levinson 

has now been held by Iran for more than the 10 years. The 

Levinsons were told that the U.N. General Assembly would be used 

as an opportunity to push forward Bob’s case. Are you seeing any 

progress? And can you commit to us here that bringing Bob and 

the other Americans being unjustly and cruelly held by Iran will 

remain a priority for this administration? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Levinson case is a priority for this administration, as are all the other American hostages held worldwide. 

Just as a note, I have met and spoken with the Levinson family 

on multiple occasions. I have a picture on my desk of Bob Levinson, 

who reminds me every day that he is our longest-held hostage in 

Iran. And I have personal family experience with Americans being 

held hostage in Iran. This administration has no higher priority 

than bringing home all of those Americans, including Mr. Levinson. 

You have my word on that. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I am profoundly grateful for that. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Lee Zeldin of New York. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today and for your service to our country. 

The rising tide of anti-Semitism, both here in the United States 

and abroad, is of great concern for myself, for many of my constituents, for many Americans. The U.S. State Department’s office responsible for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism has how 

many active members currently? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would have to get you that answer after this 

hearing. I can’t tell you off the top of my head, Congressman. I 

apologize. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And, previously, in responding to a question from 

one of my colleagues, you mentioned filling the Special Envoy position as a top priority for the State Department. Are there potential 

candidates being vetted? Where are we in that process? How imminent is this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, there are candidates being vetted. Unfortunately, because a final decision hasn’t been made, I can’t disclose 

those names or where things stand. But you have my commitment 

that that position will be filled promptly. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. How many Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary positions are there at the State Department? Is it about 30? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are six Under Secretaries. Assistant Secretaries, there are more than 30, I believe. 

31

Mr. ZELDIN. Yeah. Do you know how many of those positions are 

filled as of right now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Filled with confirmed officeholders? I can’t give 

you a precise number. It is well below 50 percent and far fewer 

than it should be, and that is not a good—we are not pleased with 

that situation. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And I want to see you be successful, I want to see 

Secretary Tillerson be successful. And I believe very strongly that 

it is very important for those positions to all get filled. We are here 

now at the end of September, and this first year for Secretary 

Tillerson is pretty close to an end. As you know better than I do, 

a lot of these positions get filled up with acting heads of these different offices, and I think that you all would be much more successful to fill those as quickly as possible. What is the timeline and 

goal for getting the remainder of these positions filled? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, we 

have 30 nominees that are pending now before the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee. We have in the pipeline, so to speak, individuals who are undergoing vetting for many more positions. My hope 

is, subject to the Senate calendar, that we will get the vast majority of these positions filled by the end of November or beginning 

of December. But we are behind the curve. We should be ahead of 

the curve. And we are doing all we can to catch up. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you for that. I very much appreciate the administration’s efforts, the State Department’s efforts, Ambassador 

Haley’s efforts at the United Nations as it relates to North Korea. 

I know that it is a very challenging situation. The timeline keeps 

shrinking of how quickly North Korea can get to that point where 

they have the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the United 

States, and that the State Department is working hard on getting 

multilateral diplomacy, ramping up economic pressure, the information effort within North Korea so that they understand that it 

is their own regime responsible for many of their struggles. 

And it is no small feat, what the administration has pulled off 

at the United Nations in getting a unanimous vote, including Russia and China, on a massive sanctions package, bringing China to 

the table more than ever before. And because the military option 

is absolutely the last possible option that anyone should want to 

consider, because there really is no good military option, I greatly 

appreciate everything that you are working on to increase that 

pressure and try to deal with North Korea situation. 

And while it may not get covered as much in the news, all those 

victories with regards to bringing China and Russia on board, I 

just want to let you know, on behalf of myself and my constituents, 

I am very grateful for your achievement so far, and I wish you 

much success, because it is certainly far from over. I yield back. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of 

Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Sullivan. 

You said that this is an employee-led effort, a visionary document with no predetermined outcomes. How can you say that when 

the President’s budget already recommended a 32-percent cut to 

32

our State Department budget and USAID budget, estimated to 

slash $5 billion to $10 billion over the next 5 years? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I distinguish——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I mean, was that a bottom-up recommendation? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, that is the President’s budget——

Mr. CONNOLLY. You need to speak into the mike. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is the President’s budget——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Which we have to live with. And it 

is also a budget that is passed by Congress, ultimately. So we deal 

with the budget that we have, with the amounts that have been 

appropriated for this year and going forward. Apart from that, as 

I said earlier, whether or not we were going to have a budget decrease or increase——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I must—I am sorry. I only have 5 minutes. I take 

your point. But, candidly, if you are going to have a bottom-up, you 

know, re-org for the State Department and USAID and they already know there is going to be a third cut, you know, leading to 

the attrition or the layoff of somewhere probably north of 2,000 employees, I would say that puts a little damper on my enthusiasm 

on the bottom-up effort to reorganize State Department because I 

am worried about my own job security. And I wonder how sincere 

the effort is if, in advance, I have already been told what the parameters are. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The budget parameters are only one aspect of the 

redesign——

Mr. CONNOLLY. A pretty big, important one, though, isn’t it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is an important one——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. As is our——

Mr. CONNOLLY. And it sends a message, doesn’t it? I mean, what 

kind of——

Mr. SULLIVAN. The budget——

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. Message does that send to these——

Mr. SULLIVAN. The budget is——

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. The bottom-up process, to those employees in terms of the value of their work? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The message——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. That the Secretary has sent to those 

employees, the 75,000 men and women of the Department of State, 

is they are enormously valued by him, by us, and their service is 

recognized every day. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I am sure he means it, but to some employees, especially many I represent in my district, that sounds like 

empty rhetoric, frankly, Mr. Sullivan. Because the fact is we have 

a President and a budget that would cut a third of their budget, 

and that doesn’t seem like a real high value being put on their 

work. Would you argue that, in the course of this process, morale 

is high at the State Department and the USAID? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think there is uncertainty. We are doing our 

best to reduce that uncertainty. This testimony by me today is part 

33

of that process. I have had a townhall meeting with employees. I 

have had small-group meetings with employees. The Secretary has 

initiated a regular outreach, both by email and in person, with employees. We are doing all we can now to reassure them that this 

process is employee-led, they are valued, and diplomacy is valued 

by this Government and by this Secretary. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So let me—okay. Good to hear. I hope they believe it. And I hope the actions corroborate what you have just said. 

Do you believe that USAID should be folded into the Department 

of State, or is that still an open question? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, it is an open question? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is not—no, it is not an open question. As I testified earlier today, there is no intention to merge USAID into the 

State Department. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do you believe that USAID should be, in fact, enhanced, the role of the USAID Administrator enhanced, as the lead 

development office of the United States Government? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe that the role of USAID should be enhanced, made more effective and more efficient. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, good. I am glad to hear that, actually. I 

have a bill maybe you want to take a look at that would do just 

that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Because part of the problem I am concerned 

about is that, over the years, we have seen sort of a diffusion of 

things—all with good purpose—whether it be, you know, 

HIV/AIDS, whether it be Africa, whether it be other special programs to help certain mid- to advanced countries, and what it has 

done is disperse the focus of U.S. development assistance. And it 

seems to me that that is not a very good management model. So 

I would be glad to work with you and hope you will work with us 

in trying to take a fresh look at that. 

Do you believe that—well, let me ask this question. We have a 

famine going on in Africa right now. Do you believe that USAID 

and the State Department are currently well-equipped to respond 

to that famine? And then my time is up. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We are not doing as much as we should be to respond to that famine. We should do and will do more. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. And thanks for your refreshing testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ann Wagner of Missouri. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. And I thank you, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, for making the 

time to be with us today. 

I appreciate your leadership and am keen to watch the State Department redesign process unfold. As a former United States Ambassador who spent 4 years at State, I am well aware that the 

State Department is a bloated bureaucracy, and reassessing everything, from hiring, to diplomatic programming, to cutting unnecessary departments, is critical to advancing U.S. diplomacy into the 

21st century. I believe that we can balance the State Department’s 

checkbook while promoting American leadership and strength, and 

I trust you and Secretary Tillerson to make those difficult calls. 

34

One of my longtime concerns is that State Department deployments are not well-balanced to reflect the importance of American 

leadership in the Asia-Pacific, in particular. Despite the U.S. rebalance to Asia, it appears that we still have very large Embassies in 

Western nations, where I served, and, relative to the conflict that 

we are facing, insufficient staff at our Asia postings. Are you considering rebalancing the number of Foreign Service Officers who 

are posted in China, South Korea, India, and the ASEAN nations 

to account for our interests in the Asia-Pacific? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, absolutely, Congresswoman Wagner. That is 

one of the priorities of the redesign, is to rebalance our footprint. 

The chairman raised the issue of closing posts. It is not so much 

closing posts as rebalancing——

Mrs. WAGNER. Rebalancing. Correct. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. 

Mrs. WAGNER. What is our timeframe, sir? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The redesign we are looking at implementing—

subject to consultations with this committee and others in Congress 

over the next several months, the rebalancing will be a process 

that is ongoing and should start immediately and continue through 

our tenure in office. I think it will be an ongoing process as challenges rise and we find the need to have more Foreign Service Officers, Civil Service Officers at particular posts. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Let me shift gears here a little bit, Mr. Secretary. 

The last administration fought to lift sanctions against Burma and 

give the country GSP status, but violence has raged on. And we are 

going to be having, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Yoho, a 

hearing on that this week. How is the State Department actively 

responding to the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, 

and how will the U.S. protect this persecuted community? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, our outreach has started at the top with 

Secretary Tillerson. And our Ambassador is working very hard and 

looking to go up to the region this week. We have committed already $32 million to address the crisis. More to follow, and a lot 

more intensive effort for our department, because this is, as I testified earlier, it is not a Burma problem, it is not a problem for Bangladesh or the United States, it is a global problem. The scale is 

tragic. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I agree, and timely also, as we have seen 400,000 

refugees in the last week move on to Bangladesh. 

Syria Civil Defence rescue workers have reported that they have 

been directly targeted by Russian forces, even though they are in 

a ceasefire zone and should be protected by medical neutrality. 

What is State Department doing to address violence committed by 

Russia in Syria? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have established a military-to-military chain 

of communication. The U.S. Department of Defense, from the chairman on down, has been in contact with their equivalents in the 

Russian Defense Ministry. That coordination and deconfliction has, 

for the most part, over the course of this summer, worked well. But 

there have been breakdowns, including recent breakdowns, that we 

are addressing immediately, in person, with our military’s Russian 

counterparts. 

35

Mrs. WAGNER. Good. Well, I thank you on that. And I will yield 

back my time——

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentlelady yield for just a minute? 

Mrs. WAGNER. Yes, I will. I just wanted to say that if you are 

interested in input from a Member of Congress who served at the 

State Department in your rebalancing efforts, I have a lot of ideas. 

So I yield back my time. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Look forward to hearing them. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate the Ambassador, Mrs. Wagner, 

yielding. 

The question she brought up about the Rohingya issue is one 

that I raised with you yesterday and raised with the Secretary of 

State. And that is, we have to figure out a way to get across to the 

military government in Burma that they have to pull the militia 

and the military out that are engaged right now in burning those 

villages. 

There are 400,000 Rohingya people who have fled over the border, as you know, into Bangladesh. They need to be welcomed back 

in. It is not enough to have statements from the Counselor. She is 

not Commander-in-Chief. Their system reserves that for their military in Burma. And this requires not just international pressure 

but a very focused amount of pressure on the Burmese Government 

to get USAID, get the U.N. in, in terms of being able to assist those 

in Rakhine State who have faced this ethnic cleansing, and also requires the press being on the ground. So, again, I just reiterate the 

important role that we must play in achieving this. We have a 

hearing coming up, I think later this week, on this subject. 

I also just wanted to raise an issue. Yesterday, Karen Bass and 

I were with the Liberian President. Now, that election is a month 

away, and so let me just put this question to you. I understand one 

of the things you are trying to do is get the versatility to be able 

to transfer or get the reforms in place where you can quickly do 

a deployment. So if we have more people in the Embassy in Switzerland than we do in Liberia, and Liberia has an election next 

month, can you deploy right now from Europe—because we have 

been a decade late in making these realignments—can you deploy 

to the ground to make sure that fair and free elections, which is 

what is trying to be engineered here by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the 

President of Liberia, takes place? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We can, but it is a huge challenge for us. I will 

give you an example: The recent elections in Kenya—a huge 

logistical undertaking by the Department of State. We are going to 

have to go through this again when the new elections occur. We are 

going to have to do this in Liberia. It is logistical challenge for us. 

We need more flexibility and authorities to do that. And it is part 

of—when we talk about——

Chairman ROYCE. Let us know precisely now. We understand 

how long the wait is going to be here, and then the OMB is going 

to review. Let us know this aspect of it now so that I and the ranking member and Congresswoman Bass and Mr. Smith can work on 

legislation to specifically rectify this situation immediately. And I 

appreciate that. 

36

We go to Congresswoman Karen Bass of California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, especially for your leadership 

on these issues. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you three quick 

questions. 

One, I wanted to ask you about the diversity fellowships. And let 

me begin by saying that I really appreciated Secretary Tillerson’s 

statement—and I appreciate the timing that he made the statement as well—the State Department’s commitment to diversity. So, 

specifically, I wanted to ask you about the Rangel Fellows and the 

Payne Fellows. And I wanted to ask, and I don’t want to assume, 

but that those fellowships will be continued? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congresswoman Bass, those fellowships will 

be continued and are very important to our efforts in bringing in 

new talent to the Department. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. In August, Secretary Tillerson 

sent a letter to several Members of Congress effectively stating 

that the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Africa Bureau already 

fulfills the responsibilities that have previously been performed by 

the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan. And I know one 

of my colleagues asked you a question about special envoys earlier, 

but I wanted to specifically ask if that is going to be the case, if 

the Special Envoy will be eliminated for Sudan and, in particular, 

South Sudan, considering the instability in that nation? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Bass. I believe 

that is one of the special envoy positions for which we would need 

a statutory change. 

Ms. BASS. Oh. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So we will need to come to this—I could be wrong 

about that, and I will have to get back to you to confirm, because 

I am just relying——

Ms. BASS. So that means, as of now, you can’t change it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have to seek—if we were to make changes to 

that office——

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. I believe we would require a change 

to the statute. 

Ms. BASS. Good. We will follow up on that as well. And then a 

few moments ago, when my colleague was asking you about the 

famine, you said that we could be doing more. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. And I was wondering what your opinions were. We did 

authorize in the CR a couple of months ago close to $1 billion. And 

I went to the region with Mr. Smith, and I was wondering, one, has 

all of that money been allocated, and is it on the ground? We were 

concerned that some of it would be used as carryover, and we didn’t 

want to see that happen. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will get you the precise figures, Congresswoman 

Bass. I would be disappointed in the extreme if it is not. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But I will confirm that for you. 

Ms. BASS. I would appreciate that. I would like the figures, and 

I would like to know where——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Of course. 

37

Ms. BASS [continuing]. Considering it was spread over four countries. And then also, a minute ago, you were referencing the special—or the election, rather, in Kenya. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. I was there as an observer. And you mentioned that 

we had to deploy a lot. What did we do? Because I didn’t see that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Diplomatic security, among other things, for election monitors. So there were a number of groups that came to monitor the elections, and we——

Ms. BASS. Right. I was part of that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. We provided diplomatic security? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah, diplomatic——

Ms. BASS. I know you did for me. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The diplomatic security—in fact, I met with Diplomatic Security about their needs. The requirements for diplomatic 

security made by the Embassy in advance of the election went well 

beyond what we would have otherwise anticipated for that Embassy. So there was a substantial commitment of security resources 

to make sure that Americans would be protected in the event that 

there had been violence, as there had been in the two elections 

prior. 

Ms. BASS. I see. So then the diplomatic security you were referring to was housed at the Embassy? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And there were also posts around the country 

where we had other Americans that we needed to protect. 

Ms. BASS. And, Mr. Chair, if you don’t mind, when you were referring to support needed in Liberia, were you referring to diplomatic security, or were you referring—what were you referring to? 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, because the election on the ground is 

going to require all kinds of monitoring, it is a good opportunity to 

have the full comportment of security in place but also engagement 

on the part of the United States. I imagine we are going to try to 

have NDI and IRI——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. On the ground. All of that requires a tremendous amount of—you and I have both been involved, I think, in the past. I have been involved in these elections, 

where you come in, you spend, you know, a week, and you try to 

engage in making certain that everything is in place for what is 

going to be a tremendously complicated undertaking. And to the 

extent that you have the staff there from the U.S. Embassy to assist, it is very important. 

So what is at risk here is being able to get the ability, the discretion, on the part of the Secretary of State to move personnel. And, 

unfortunately, we are sort of locked in. And that is something that 

I think we could all agree would be a necessary change. You might 

not like the transfer momentarily, temporarily from Switzerland to 

a situation where you had the war-torn results, where we are trying post-conflict to have another successful election there, but that 

should be the decision of those of us in Congress with oversight responsibility and our Secretary of State. And that is where I am trying to drive the policy. 

38

Ms. BASS. All right. Well, thank you very much, and I will await 

your responses about the famine. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Francis Rooney of Florida. Ambassador Rooney is here. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I am glad to read that you are going to upgrade IT. I think when 

I was serving in Rome we had, like, Windows minus 1. Well, just 

one quick question. There has been some discussion about the consular activities maybe going to Homeland Security. And we have 40 

percent of the people in this country illegally overstayed visas. And 

700,000 people overstayed their visas last year. So the question I 

have is, can the State Department adequately deal with the overstay problem in the United States, or should that part go to Homeland Security? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think the overstay problem here in the United 

States is something that should be and is being addressed by the 

Department of Homeland Security. I think consular affairs and the 

role of the consular officer at the Embassy in screening visa applicants and so forth is an important function of the Department of 

State. So there is no plan to transfer consular affairs to DHS. But 

there is definitely an overstay problem. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. Thank you. That is all I was going to ask 

about. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Bill Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the 

Deputy Secretary. I enjoyed our conversation before. 

The second of the proposals that you had was maximizing the 

impact of foreign assistance or aligning foreign assistance with foreign policy goals. And here is a question I have: We had a question 

earlier on by one of our members about respecting culture. And we 

have also had President Trump signal maybe some changes in 

terms of how we approach autocratic regimes, sort of giving them—

just leaving them alone or not being as involved as we were. Could 

you comment? Is this a change in our foreign policy? Because my 

understanding has always been that our foreign policy goals reinforce our basic American values, values like rule of law, freedom 

of the press, freedom of religion, human rights, civil rights, gender 

equality, respect for minorities in those cultures. Now, is that a 

change, frankly, the President’s remarks? 

As well as maybe the thoughts behind the question of respecting 

culture. When we are dealing with these autocratic regimes that 

act at odds with basic American values, are we going to still reinforce those values? And, indeed, is that going to be something that 

is factored in when we are aligning foreign assistance to these 

countries? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congressman Keating, our American values 

are, for us at the State Department and for me as an American, 

they are immutable, and we are committed to them. And it is a difficult line we walk in dealing with foreign governments that have 

different institutions and cultures, and we walk a fine line. But let 

me give you an example to support my contention that we don’t 

39

have a change in policy. With, for example, our foreign military—

FMF program with Egypt, the Secretary has withheld $195 million. 

It has been notified, it has been obligated to be spent, but it is 

being withheld until the Egyptians show some progress on issues 

related to human rights with, for example, the treatment of NGOs. 

It is an issue we confront every day, and we have to walk a fine 

line, but we never deviate from our values. We protect Americans’ 

national security, promote our prosperity, but never undermine our 

values. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you for reaffirming that. And in terms 

of NGOs and working with them, the State Department when they 

are reducing some of the budget items they have, is that going to 

affect the collaboration with NGOs, the nongovernmental organizations, on the ground because of the hiring freeze or reorganization? 

Will we still be able to support a very robust engagement with 

these NGOs when they reflect these American values? Do you see 

these changes in budget cuts or reorganization affecting that arrangement? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There wouldn’t be any policy to change our relationship with NGOs. There may be, incident to changes in our 

budget, where our relationship with a particular NGO might 

change. But we will continue to implement U.N.’s foreign policy, 

particularly development assistance, as necessary through NGOs. 

Mr. KEATING. And the Women, Peace, and Security Act passed 

the Senate and just passed the House, and it is on its way to the 

President’s desk right now. And that makes sure that women are 

meaningful participants at all levels of foreign policymaking and 

implementation, and it requires commitment and resources to do 

that. With that reaching the President’s desk, is that something, 

again, that we are going to reaffirm? Because that policy change 

is something that was in place in the last administration. Is that 

going to carry forward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think the senior adviser to the President, Ivanka 

Trump, would strongly reaffirm that that is the policy of this administration, as the President would. We are committed to that at 

the Department of State. 

One thing I would note for you, Congressman, is that one thing 

that has astounded me is, in talking about diversity at the State 

Department, the number of women we have in the Foreign Service 

and the Civil Service has actually decreased, particularly at the 

senior levels, over the last 8 years or so. We have to do a better 

job on promoting women in the State Department, in our Foreign 

Service, and we are committed to it. 

Mr. KEATING. Great. Thank you for making sure that is clear and 

for reaffirming that. And thank you for your presence, and I look 

forward to working with you in the future. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Representative Ted Yoho of Florida, chairman 

of the Asian-Pacific subcommittee. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being 

here, Deputy Secretary Sullivan. 

I was at a meeting, probably a year ago, and there was a lot of 

the current and retired generals in there talking about a major 

40

world tectonic shift in world powers that we haven’t seen since 

1942. And the State Department being around since 1789 as the 

first Cabinet agency, with you in the position you are in now, you 

are able to step back, look at the State Department as a whole, 

probably that it has never looked at before, in reform. And I would 

have to ask, when was the last time there has been a major transformation or reform of the State Department? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There have been efforts at reform that have not 

been as successful as they should have been——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Including in the mid-1990s. I would 

contrast that with efforts at reform at the Department of Defense, 

where I have also served, that have been more successful in about 

the same time period. So I think the Defense Department has done 

a better job of reorganizing——

Mr. YOHO. So this is an unprecedented moment in time. And I 

look forward to working through this to reform it and find out what 

works well and what doesn’t work well and get rid of those things 

that don’t, and let’s make those things that are working well more 

efficient so that we can get more bang for the buck, especially in 

these times of economic constraint. 

With that being said, what places do you think we need to redirect—and keep in mind—and this builds on what Gregory Meeks 

brought up about the geopolitical knowledge. We have seen how it 

failed in Robert Gates’ book ‘‘Duty,’’ how we didn’t take the geopolitical, the customs of the area, the tribal culture in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, and we didn’t get the results we wanted, obviously, and 

how we can take that knowledge as we move into different areas 

as there are these different conflicts starting to develop and use 

that more to our advantage to create policies so that we get more 

favorable results in a timely manner. Where do you see we need 

to focus more on that we haven’t? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I think as a starting point, I would want to 

see a more diverse State Department, that we have more diverse 

viewpoints contributing to the formulation of policy, whether it is 

veterans, women, minorities, language, culture, expertise. Bringing 

all of that to bear, all of the strengths that our country has, bringing those strengths to bear on these diplomatic challenges, combined with working with our intelligence agencies and our experts 

at the State Department to address all of those issues that you 

have raised, whether we are dealing with a conflict in Syria, in 

South Asia, in Mindanao in the Philippines. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Very different areas. 

Mr. YOHO. It really is. And we are seeing the escalation in radical groups showing up. You had brought up—and I want to, just 

for the record, reiterate this. The amount of people—you said you 

are 50-percent staffed, or understaffed, I guess. But yet the amount 

of people that have nominated that haven’t been confirmed by the 

Senate—that is where the holdup is, the way I understand it, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I want to be fair to the Senate. A number 

of those—we have 30 nominees pending. 

Mr. YOHO. That is all right. This is the House. 

41

Mr. SULLIVAN. They haven’t been pending for 6 months. Some of 

them have been pending for only a relatively short period of time. 

But they have all come out of the pipeline, and they are now sitting 

before the Foreign Relations Committee. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And then Burma had come up, and you talked 

about the $32 million to start to address the Rohingya situation in 

Burma. I would hope, as we move forward, as you are redirecting 

this, that—we have known about this escalating over probably the 

last 5 years, and we have seen it build up. So, instead of investing 

the $32 million now—which we have to, but I would hope that we 

would have the foresight, as we see this arising and starting to become inflamed, that we do a better job on the front end so that 

maybe we can deescalate this. What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah, you are absolutely right. This is not a problem that just arose over the summer——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Or this month. 

Mr. YOHO. And that is so true on so many of the conflicts we 

have around the world. That is where I hope that, with your leadership and Secretary Tillerson’s, we can look at that and say, 

‘‘These are hotspots. We need to get in here now,’’ so we don’t have 

400,000 refugees in the last couple months and over 1 million displaced that will be the next hotspot, that we need to do now. What 

are your thoughts, where we need to really focus? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, right now, even though we should have anticipated this, we are now stuck with the problem we have, with 

the hundreds of thousands of refugees. So we have got to work with 

allies, partners, others, the U.N. We can’t—it is not a United 

States problem. Thirty-two million from us is a drop in the bucket. 

We have to get other countries and the U.N. involved as well. 

Mr. YOHO. And I would hope—I am going to offer this through 

our committee, and the chairman, I think, would probably be okay 

with this. Use this committee as a tool to get the legislation or direction that you need to direct the policies that we need, okay? And 

I thank you for your time. And I yield back. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. And I concur with the gentleman. We go to 

Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. 

I think as you outlined the purposes of the redesign plan in 

terms of streamlining and maximizing efficiencies and avoiding duplication, I think we all agree with that. In fact, every agency of 

the Federal Government should be engaged in that work on an ongoing basis. 

But I think one of the things that sort of troubles me a little bit 

about this process is that the Secretary of State sent out a memorandum and an email indicating that this redesign would generate, 

and I quote, ‘‘a minimum deliverable of 10 percent ($5B) in efficiencies relative to current spending over the next 5 years, with an 

aspirational general interest target of up to 20 percent ($10B).’’ So 

my first question is, where do those figures come from——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

42

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. The $10 billion? What data did you 

rely on to come up with them? 

And isn’t it sort of a perversion of the process that you have—

unless it is just about cost-cutting—that you have as really the 

only stated goal cost-cutting in these amounts before the process 

has even begun? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. Well, very good questions, Congressman. 

First, on the budget numbers, to give you an example, the 

amount of money we spend now for legacy IT systems, just to keep 

them running, is staggering. So we spend for outdated systems, to 

keep them patched and running, huge amounts of money. So——

Mr. CICILLINE. No, no—I don’t want to interrupt, but I do have 

a limited time. But I guess my question is, where did those 

amounts come from at the beginning of the process? You are talking about IT as one of the strategies, but——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Who came up with the $10 billion 

and $5 billion cuts? They were just pulled out of the air? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Those aren’t cuts. Those are efficiencies that we 

expect from the process that will result—we are not saying up front 

we are going to cut $5 billion. What the Secretary said is, when we 

implement these new processes, procedures, and efficiencies, we expect $5 billion in savings. 

If we don’t get that, we don’t get that. We will be disappointed; 

we will have not accomplished what we hoped to achieve. But we 

are not setting out with a $5 billion cut. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, members of this administration have given mixed 

messages when it comes to the role of democracy and human rights 

in our foreign policy. 

My colleague Brendan Boyle and I sent a letter to Secretary 

Tillerson on August 11 raising our concerns about reports that democracy promotion was possibly going to be taken out of the State 

Department’s mission statement. We received a reply from the 

State Department saying that the Department agrees that democracy promotion has been and should be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. However, this response doesn’t actually answer the 

question of whether democracy promotion will remain in the State 

Department’s mission statement. So my first question is, will it remain in the mission statement? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. My second question is, the expression of support 

for democracy and human rights matters, but you also have to view 

it in the context in which we are currently operating: The President of the United States who continues to express admiration for 

the thug Vladimir Putin; a President who called to congratulate 

President Erdogan when a referendum passed that undermined a 

basic rule of law; a President who invited President Duterte from 

the Philippines to come to the White House; and Secretary 

Tillerson, who says Americans should not impose their values on 

others. 

So, in that context, is somebody in the State Department speaking to the President about the consequences of that kind of mixed 

message, that you have a State Department where it is recognizing 

43

democracy and human rights as an important value that we are 

going to promote around the world, and the President of the country is doing things to undermine that important message? 

I mean, it is important to recognize it is not just promotion of 

democracy and human rights for the sake of it. It is because it is 

also important to the stability of the world, to the ability of our 

American businesses to invest, and all the, kind of, other consequences that democracy brings. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. For all the reasons you state, Congressman, it is 

exceptionally important to us that we be committed to promoting 

democracy. It is necessary for our own national security that other 

countries are secure and stable and, as you point out, for example, 

that our businesses have stable, open markets with democratic governments in which to do business. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But how do we manage that objective with the 

declarations of the President of the United States which directly 

undermine that message? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the President has to deal with—as I discussed earlier, we have to deal with governments that are undemocratic, whether they are——

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, dealing with them and praising them are 

two different things. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I will defer to the President on how he deals 

with particular world leaders, but our commitment to democracy at 

the State Department on behalf of the Secretary is unwavering. 

Mr. CICILLINE. If I can just get in one last question. As you 

know, U.S. foreign assistance programs are really critical to advancing the stability and growing economies of developing countries, which are vital to U.S. national security interests, and it can 

help us avoid costlier conflicts. As former Defense Secretary Robert 

Gates noted, ‘‘Development contributes to stability. It contributes 

to better governance. And if you’re able to do those things and 

you’re able to do them in a focused and sustainable way, then it 

may be unnecessary for us to send soldiers.’’

Do you share the view of Secretary Gates and many of our military leaders that robust investments and civilian foreign assistance 

and diplomacy budgets are necessary for effective U.S. leadership 

in the world? And if you do, how do you square that with the proposal to cut 32 percent of the State Department budget by President Trump? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The answer to your first question is emphatically 

‘‘yes.’’

The answer to your second question is it is on us to manage the 

State Department in a more efficient and effective way and spend 

the money that the President has asked for, but Congress appropriates and spends the budget we have in an effective and in an 

efficient way and promote and implement that diplomacy to promote our national security and our economy. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But you don’t think you can——

Chairman ROYCE. Ron—Ron——

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Do that with a 32-percent cut in your 

budget, do you, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry? 

44

Mr. CICILLINE. You don’t think you can do that successfully with 

a 32-percent cut in your budget, do you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe we can. I believe we can. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy. I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Mr. Ron DeSantis of 

Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Good morning—or afternoon. 

In May, when the President signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act forestalling moving our Embassy in Israel to 

Jerusalem, he said we will in fact move it, it is just a matter of 

time. So will we move it? And when are we going to move it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Two questions. The first, yes, the President is 

committed to moving it. The decision on when to move it is a strategic and tactical decision that the President himself, in consultation with the Secretary, will have to make. But the President has 

been quite clear in his commitment on that. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So the State Department’s view is that is the 

President’s policy. Obviously, he has to pull the trigger, but your 

agency is going to facilitate that move when it happens, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We work for the President. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. Number two, we are talking about the Palestinian Authority. They will take money—some of it comes from 

the United States—and they will fund families of terrorists who 

murdered Jews. They will name stadiums after terrorists. And we 

have a bill in the Congress, the Taylor Force Act, that is trying to 

address at least some of that. Does the administration support the 

Taylor Force Act? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am aware of the bill. I don’t know whether we 

have issued an administration policy on that bill. But I will say 

that we at the State Department are certainly opposed to all of 

those things that you have just said that the Palestinian Authority 

does. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. For the Iran deal, this idea of technical 

compliance. I mean, is it true that Iran has exceeded on numerous 

occasions the amount of heavy water stocks that they are permitted 

under the JCPOA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am venturing into an area that I don’t have sufficient expertise in, but I will offer the following. My understanding 

is that there have been instances, such as you cite, where the Iranians may have gone over the line, but they came back down. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well—and they have buried that. What about operating more advanced nuclear centrifuges than were allowed 

under the JCPOA? That has happened as well. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah. I am going to have to defer to the experts 

on that, but——

Mr. DESANTIS. So here is the issue, I think, in terms of the advice that the State Department has given to the President. The 

President does not like this deal. He campaigned saying it was bad. 

His U.N. speech was very clear that this was not a good deal. We 

see what is happening in North Korea right now—very difficult decision. Five, 10 years into the future, if this deal continues as is, 

it is going to be the same thing, maybe even more intractable at 

45

that point. And so to simply recertify it as being within our national security interest, you know, I think would be a mistake. 

The Muslim Brotherhood, there is a lot of nefarious influence 

that they have. The President has said that, other members of the 

administration. But yet, they have not been designated as a foreign 

terrorist organization by the State Department. Why not? And is 

there a possibility that State will designate them as such? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I understand that that issue has been under review, not just now but in the past. I don’t have a——

Mr. DESANTIS. Is it currently still under review? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman, but——

Mr. DESANTIS. I know it was earlier. We haven’t heard as much 

about it. And so, if a decision has been made that you guys don’t 

want to identify them, then we would like to know that. So if you 

can get back to me, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Cuba. You know, we see these attacks on your 

personnel. You acknowledge, I mean, Cuba is a totalitarian country. There is not much that goes on on that island that the government doesn’t know about. 

So isn’t it reasonable to say either Cuba was directly responsible 

for this or they at least knew and know who is responsible for it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is certainly a reasonable suspicion. I don’t 

know that, but it is reasonable suspicion. 

I say that on the basis of the fact that my family—my wife is a 

Cuban American. Her uncle was a political prisoner for 27 years 

in——

Mr. DESANTIS. Then I can only imagine what she would infer 

about the regime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. She told me last night, ‘‘They know.’’

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As a United States Government official, I don’t 

know that. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, the question is, though, what are we going 

to do? Obviously, we just can’t let this happen and not do anything. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have two issues. We have, first and foremost, 

the health and safety of our employees and their families who are 

down there, to make sure that they are protected and cared for. 

And then, second, we have our policy with respect to the Government of Cuba. Our expectation is for them to comply with the Geneva Convention and, if they are not, to do something about it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I hope you guys do. I mean, I think we need a 

response to this. Obviously get the facts and don’t do anything 

rash, but this is unacceptable. 

My final question is, as we look at the North Korea situation, 

how does the State Department view Kim Jong-un in terms of his 

rationality? Does he appreciate a response if he were to do some 

of the things they are talking about? I mean, he is a young, plump, 

immature kid. And we don’t have as much information, it seems, 

on him, because of the nature of regime. How does the State Department view Kim Jong-un? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would defer to the intelligence agencies on their 

assessment of the leader of North Korea. We are approaching this 

46

as we are dealing with a government, and assuming that they are 

rational, and that the pressure campaign that the Secretary of 

State has led, the significant pressure campaign, will influence 

them through the pressure that is being brought to bear by—not 

just by the United States, but by China, Russia, and other members of the U.N. who are applying the U.N. Security Council resolutions. We are going to do all we can to give diplomacy a chance to 

resolve this problem. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We have got a meeting with the South 

Korean Foreign Minister at 12:30. So we are going to get to everyone here, but we will keep it to 5 minutes. We go to Dr. Ami Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you, Secretary Sullivan. I appreciate 

your candor, actually. And, thinking about where we are right now 

and thinking about some of the comments of some of my colleagues, 

one of the responses in response to Mr. Connolly from Virginia, 

again, I think I heard you correctly that in your own understanding, morale right now within the Department is not high, is 

that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. 

Mr. BERA. So that is obviously a challenge. In the results of your 

own survey, which you have referenced a number of times, those 

findings also suggested that many of the employees don’t feel the 

support of the President and the Secretary. Am I interpreting those 

findings correctly? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry. Could you say that again? 

Mr. BERA. So in response to your own survey and published reports, many of the employees of the State Department themselves 

don’t feel the support of the President or the Secretary? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know that that was specifically addressed 

in the survey. I would say that—when I say that morale is not 

high, I think there is uncertainly and that causes—uncertainty 

leaves people unsettled and we need to address that. 

Mr. BERA. But we could surmise, if you work for a department, 

and you are told that we are going to cut your budget 30 percent, 

that you don’t feel support. That you feel—and I’m not discounting—there were also—you have referenced outdated IT, 

redundancies, duplicative processes. So we are all for trying to improve efficiency. But, again, widely reported surveys, the Wall 

Street Journal, others, suggest that many of the employees of the 

Department don’t feel that support from the White House. 

Mr. Kinzinger asked a question and, again, I want to make sure 

I heard this correctly. Less than 50 percent of the Assistant Under 

Secretary positions are currently filled? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. By confirmed, Presidential appointees, yes. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. Mr. Rohrabacher asked a question and suggested that nearly 50 countries currently don’t have an appointed 

or confirmed Ambassador? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not certain about that statistic, I would have 

to get back to you on that. But if they don’t have a confirmed Ambassador, they have a charge who is performing the duties and 

functions. 

Mr. BERA. But, again, there is an urgency to get those Ambassadors to——

47

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. I would be the first to acknowledge 

that we need to fill these positions as quickly as possible. 

Mr. BERA. Do we currently have a South Korean Ambassador? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We do not. 

Mr. BERA. Do we have one that we are going to put forth for 

nomination? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have an individual who is in the vetting process, but the nomination hasn’t been announced yet. 

Mr. BERA. Do we have an Ambassador to Jordan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know where that person stands in the 

process. 

Mr. BERA. My understanding is currently we don’t have an——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we don’t have an Ambassador now, but I 

thought the question as——

Mr. BERA. Now, this is one of our country’s closest allies to a 

country that is stressed by 11⁄2 to 2 million refugees, and they are 

struggling. And we have to do everything we can to support Jordan. Do would have an Ambassador to Qatar? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, we have a charge. 

Mr. BERA. Do we have an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. For all these reasons you suggest, Congressman, 

we need to have those positions filled. 

Mr. BERA. Absolutely. Right. There is a lot going on in the Middle East right now. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. BERA. We need those folks on the ground representing us. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do want to say, if I may, though, that the career 

people who are in some of these positions will be filled by career 

people. But the State Department, through its Foreign Service Officers, who are standing up and doing their jobs are filling in either 

as acting or as charges, so our work is getting it done. It would it 

better done if we had those positions filled. 

Mr. BERA. Absolutely. And I don’t want to disparage our State 

Department employees all around the world, I think they are doing 

a phenomenal job under trying circumstances. They are stepping 

up. They are representing the values of the United States, and they 

are true patriots, but we have got to get these positions filled. 

Would you say the hold-up currently is within the State Department or at the White House? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Both. And the Senate. 

Mr. BERA. What can we do as the members of the Foreign Affairs 

Committee to speed up this process? Because I think many of us 

travel and visit with folks, you know, we are also sensing that we 

need these positions filled. What can we do to push the urgency of 

now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, for this committee, I am not sure what I 

would recommend other than your support for our nominees that 

we have going forward. We can get the nominees through the pipeline up to the Foreign Relations Committee, but to the extent that 

there could be support for those nominees and to get them confirmed as quickly as possible, that would be much——

Mr. BERA. Let’s get these positions filled. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

48

Chairman ROYCE. The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Sullivan, Secretary, congratulations on your confirmation. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And welcome to your first hearing. I wanted to 

touch on cybersecurity. I deal a lot with that on Homeland Security 

issues. And I think the State Department is going to be more and 

more involved in this area. As I see the espionage coming out of 

foreign adversary, nation states, cyber warfare, and I think right 

now there are no rules of the road. There are really no treaties or 

other things agreed to by nation states, would NATO apply in the 

event of a cyber attack. And so there are a lot of issues that—or 

questions raised about cyber that I think the State Department—

as cyber becomes a bigger and bigger issue, the State Department 

is going to have quite a role in this arena. 

So I want to ask you about what you envision the future at State 

to be on that issue. I know there is an Office of Coordination for 

Cyber Issues that is being sort of down-played with another office. 

I want to thank Chairman Royce and Engel, ranking member, for 

introducing the Cyber Diplomacy Act of 2017, which would essentially codify into law an Office of Cyber Issues headed by an Ambassador reporting directly to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. 

I’m not sure I want to put you quite on the spot with the bill 

itself, but can you give me your thoughts on the direction moving 

forward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And I have spoken to the Secretary about this, 

and we have had a number of conversations about the need to elevate this issue within the State Department. Cyber, broadly defined, not only our cyber defense, but our cyber diplomacy in our 

interaction with the Department of Defense on cyber issues. And 

my expectation is that part of our redesign, we will elevate to a 

Senate confirmed level, the role, and we will have to figure out 

what the title is and where it figures in the bureaucracy. But our 

commitment is to elevate and provide the appropriate resources for 

leadership on this essential issue. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think this is excellent because this is no longer 

just an FBI, Homeland, NSA issue, it is really a State Department 

issue. So I am very pleased to hear that. 

Secondly, as I look at hot spots, particularly in Africa, with these 

fragile states out of destabilization, rises insurgencies and terrorist 

safe havens and vacuums, can you tell me what the State Department will be doing with USAID to help with foreign assistance programs to help stabilize this destabilization? It seems to me it would 

be a very good use of our money rather than to have to deal with 

the terrorism insurgencies after the fact. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I will give you a current example about our 

planning for a post-ISIS Syria. As we defeat ISIS in Raqqa, as we 

move further east in Syria. The State Department, USAID, the 

U.S. Government, our allies and partners need to fill in, provide 

the basic services, water, food, hygiene, to get refugees back into 

their homes to try to rehabilitate these communities. This isn’t nation building, this is just basic human necessities to try to address 

49

the calamity that has been visited on these cities and these regions 

by occupation by ISIS. And that is a role—that is where the State 

Department, USAID and our allies and partners need to step up. 

The Defense Department and our allies and partners are defeating 

ISIS. We have got to be prepared to step in after that battle is won 

and take the ball from there. 

Mr. MCCAUL. That is very good to hear that. I think that is an 

excellent approach. I will just make a quick statement because my 

time is running out. 

The Global Development Lab, I have been a strong supporter of 

that in the past, and I ask that you take a look at that in terms 

of State Department support. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would be happy to. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Brad Schneider of Illinois. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. And, Deputy Secretary, thank you 

for your long service to our Nation and in indulging us here today 

in this hearing, and for your candor in your answers. 

We are here talking about this restructuring. And restructuring, 

I think everyone agrees, any time we can find efficiencies, we 

should pursue those and pursue those aggressively. But a restructuring, whether it is in business or, in this case, in the State Department, should follow a strategic structure, and that strategy 

should follow from our mission and vision. Broadly stated, what 

would you define is the mission of the State Department right now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The mission of the State Department is to—in 

promotion of American democratic values, to implement U.S. foreign policy through active diplomacy. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And within the Secretary’s vision or your vision 

of how we go about doing that, in the context of the world we face 

in 2017 and looking forward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Wow, that is a big question. We have got several 

layers of challenges. We have countries, regions, where there are 

imminent national security threats to the United States, whether 

it is ISIS in Syria, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani network in 

South Asia, which are obvious priorities to protect the United 

States, to protect our national security. 

But beyond that, throughout the globe, there are areas where, as 

has been raised elsewhere in the hearing, where we want to be active to make sure that we are on the look-out for that next Iraq 

and Syria, or that next Mindanao in the Philippines, so that we are 

being proactive. We have people on the ground who are able to spot 

issues, spot problems before they become national security threats 

to the United States. That is one of our key jobs at the State Department. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. That is a goal promoting U.S. interests—around 

the world has to be a goal. I think it was my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, pointed out that we didn’t have those feet on 

the ground, those eyes in the community in Afghanistan, and paid 

some dire consequences because of that. And yet, as we talk about 

this reorganization, it seems that the emphasis is on cost-cutting, 

the emphasis is on the efficiencies. How does the reorganization 

specifically fit within the goals underlying the strategy that you 

just laid out? 

50

Mr. SULLIVAN. So a lot of—when we talk about efficiencies and 

effectiveness, part of it is the budget and the cost savings, but part 

of it is also empowering our men and women in the Foreign Service 

and the Civil Service for redundant bureaucratic processes or bureaucratic processes that don’t serve our people well. 

I have heard complaints since the day I arrived on the bureaucracy that manages how our women and men and their families 

transfer from post to post, how their bills are processed, how they 

do it. Making their lives easier, as they should be, in how they—

in their service to our country, is one of the things we talk—when 

we talk about effectiveness and cost savings and eliminating 

redundancies. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Absolutely. And what you describe is having a 

diplomatic corps, development officers around the world who feel 

empowered. There was a business book, and clearly from this organization plan, there are many lessons taken from business here, 

but one of my best—one of my favorite examples of how to have 

a good workforce is you empower them, you give them autonomy, 

you allow them to master their skills, and you let them operate 

with a clear purpose. I’m not sure I see this from here. So that is 

one of my concerns. And we the touched on the morale issue. 

I think if we can present a narrative to the people at the State 

Department and the American people, of what we are trying to 

achieve and how this better achieves it, that would be great. What 

I am seeing is, this is much more of an emphasis on cost reduction 

and slashing than it is on pursuing and protecting and promoting 

our interests around the world. 

Let me take, in the limited time I have, take you to some other 

questions. One of the concerns many of us have are the President’s 

tweets, specifically as it relates to foreign affairs, I think specifically as it relates to a recent moment regarding North Korea. How 

is the State Department managing that? What can we do to make 

sure we don’t get ourselves into an unintended situation with 

North Korea? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, both Secretary Tillerson and Secretary 

Mattis have made it clear that diplomacy is our prime objective in 

addressing the North Korean problem and denuclearizing the 

North Korean peninsula. The Secretary has made it clear that we 

are not looking for regime change in North Korea. We are not looking to cross the 38th parallel. Diplomacy is our principal means of 

addressing this problem. 

General McMaster and Secretary Mattis, for that matter, have 

also said that this is a regime that has weapons that can threaten 

the United States, so we need to be prepared with a military response, but that is not our first resort. Our first and principal objective is to use American diplomacy, American pressure through 

our allies, our partners, and in countries like China and Russia, to 

bring this situation to a rational conclusion and denuclearize the 

Korean peninsula, which is everyone’s goal, and the purpose of 

those U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, and I agree with you, diplomacy has 

to be the front of that to make sure we have a good solution to this 

crisis. And I yield back. 

51

Chairman ROYCE. We thank Mr. Schneider for going on our delegation to South Korea last month. We go to Mr. Tom Garrett of 

Virginia. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask if diplomacy is as effective a mechanism to effect change where other options are publicly and clearly not on the table? And by other options I mean kinetic options? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. With respect to North Korea? 

Mr. GARRETT. Sure. I guess the suggestion that I would submit 

for your comment quickly is that diplomatic efforts have a greater 

likelihood of success if there are some teeth to the possibility that 

there might be efforts that are more kinetic in nature? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. And General McMaster and Secretary 

Mattis have made that clear. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. And I want to make sure that that is clear 

to anyone who is watching at home or maybe perhaps in 

Pyongyang or anywhere else in the world, that we want a peaceful 

and diplomatic solution, but while the lives of Americans and our 

allies are threatened, all options are on the table, and that needs 

to be clear. Sorry for the soliloquy. 

I have done a little bit of research on you, and I find that you, 

like myself, made the mistake of pursuing a legal education. The 

only thing that you might do that would be looked upon in less esteem is being a member of this body—I am kidding, maybe. But 

I wonder if you are familiar with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 from 2010 with regards to Iranian ballistic missiles and 

nuclear activity? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so then you are undoubtedly aware that the 

wording of that resolution was that Iran shall not undertake—and 

I stress shall not because that has meaning to lawyers and diplomats, et cetera, the testing of ballistics missiles that might be 

married to a nuclear problem. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is phrased in the imperative, they shall not. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so, too, in 2015, the Security Council Resolution 2231 with the regards to Iran, formed after the JCPOA, which 

I have repeatedly referred to, not to be cute, but based on wholehearted opinion, the JCPOS, which says, Iran is called upon not to 

undertake these activities. Are you familiar with that wording? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. So, in 2010, the wording was, Iran shall not. 

In 2015, the wording was, Iran is called upon not to. And you said 

earlier that the U.N. had said that Iran was in technical compliance with the JCPOA, but it violated the spirit of the JCPOA. 

When the wording hammered out is, Iran is called upon not to, as 

opposed to, shall not, does that make your job more difficult as it 

relates to creating a circumstance where Iran doesn’t enhance its 

nuclear capability and the ability to deliver such weapons? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It certainly undercuts the arguments that Iran is 

prescribed from the ballistic missile activity that it is engaged in. 

Mr. GARRETT. So I wonder—and this is rhetorical—what sort of 

attorneys and diplomats hammered out language that was far more 

permissive than the precedent language, and what the intent was, 

or if it was complete incompetence? That was rhetorical. 

52

I want to take a moment to draw attention, Mr. Chairman, if you 

will grant me the leave to the gentlemen and ladies in this room 

in yellow coats and those not wearing yellow coats, which are emblazoned with Free Iran, and the perpetual presence of these individuals in this committee to stand for a free Iranian nation, where 

individuals are empowered to make decisions for themselves without fear of the retribution of a regime through the IRGC and the 

Quds Force thereof, that is willing to take the lives of their very 

brothers and sisters. And I want to applaud them and ask them 

to continue in these efforts that one day, perhaps, we will see the 

fruit of your diligence and your persistence. 

So I apologize for the aside, but I think it is important to recognize that you all are always here, that it matters, and that it matters to Chairman Royce, to Ranking Member Engel, and the members of this committee. And I get frustrated, as a member of this 

body, that sometimes I feel like things don’t move quickly enough, 

but we will achieve an outcome that is just and fair for good people 

across the planet, and that flies in the face of the totalitarian and 

radical objectives of those who seek to oppress human beings. And 

so thank you. 

Finally, I would submit that I believe that the application of appropriately spent funds on foreign aid might, if properly done, save 

money on things like bullets and bombs and rockets. I would ask 

if you would concur that foreign aid has a role in peace and stability throughout the world? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would join Secretary Mattis in agreeing with 

that whole-heartedly. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so I appreciate that because I think some of 

the rhetoric and questioning heretofore has indicated that money 

is the sole arbiter of our commitment to diplomacy and peaceful 

outcomes. And I would ask you, is the intent of the reorganization 

simply to perform our job more efficiently and as better stewards 

of tax dollars, and not to gut our foreign aid efforts, which would 

I think meet with bipartisan resistance from this committee and 

others? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is exactly the purpose, Congressman, it is 

not to gut our foreign aid. 

Mr. GARRETT. I thank you for your efforts and applaud you and 

look forward to working with you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Good morning and thank you for being here. I 

thank you for your service. And I have great admiration for those 

who serve in the State Department, and I think it is a very important function of our Government. 

My colleagues have done a good job in covering a lot of issues, 

and I will start by saying, I think reorganization is part of the bureaucracy. Every bureaucracy reorganizes, that is part of bureaucracy. It doesn’t make sense to me that before you reorganize or go 

through this process that there would be a suggestion of a onethird cut in the budget. But I will put that aside for now because 

I want to talk about the women of the world. And here is what I 

am very concerned about. I am not going to—I won’t be accusatory, 

I am going to try to be diplomatic—that is rare. I am going to try 

53

to be diplomatic. But, listen, I believe that the actions that this administration has taken is systematically going to add great suffering to women and families around the globe. 

And I want to mention a couple of them. I think, right off the 

bat, of course, is the elimination for funding for global family planning and reproductive health, eliminating funding for international 

organizations and programs which support voluntary contributions 

to several programs in the U.N. system. Prohibiting contributions 

to the UNFPA, which works not only with women’s health, but obviously child marriage. And expanding the global gag rule, the old 

one wasn’t good enough. You know, I could go on and on. The proposed $1 billion decrease in the global health programs, which will 

disproportionately harm women and girls. Now, I do have a question out of this. I know you are waiting for that. There is an Office 

of Global Women’s Issues, and there is a proposal to downgrade 

it—I think it is a downgrade, but you will have to tell me if it is—

which is to downgrade the Office of Global Women’s Issues from 

the Secretary’s office to one that instead reports to the Under Secretary for Civilian Democracy and Human Rights. 

So can you explain the difference that will be? Is there plans to 

name an Ambassador-at-Large to lead the office? Those are my 

first two questions. Why don’t you answer those first? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. Yes. In fact, I have interviewed candidates 

for that position. It will be filled promptly. And it is the proposal 

that was sent up to this committee and to Congress on moving the 

office. The office is going to remain as is with the same structure 

and budget. It is moving it from the Office of the Secretary to a 

bureau under the Under Secretary, as you mentioned. We believe 

that that actually strengthens the office. What has happened with 

all of the special envoys, there are almost 70 of them, they all report to the Secretary. 

For the Secretary to have 70 individuals—or 70 offices reporting 

to him, he doesn’t have the time to dedicate to each and every one 

of them. All of them are important. With this office, which is important not just to the Secretary but to the President, if it’s got the 

support of the State Department bureaucracy, the bureau which it 

will be located. And I think the most important feature of this office is the person we nominate. The office is going to be as good 

as the person we nominate, and that really is the key issue. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. I am glad to hear that. I want to say 

this has emphatically as I can. There is no reorganization in the 

State Department that is a substitute for enabling women around 

this world to be in control of their own bodies and to have reproductive health. So that is the message I want to say. And I think 

this administration is on the wrong path, and it caused a lot of 

harm, not only to the health of women and their families, but to 

the economic security of their countries, because when women cannot be in control of their own bodies, they don’t work, and they 

don’t produce for the economy. And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentlelady yield for one question? 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am yielding back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I have a question I have to ask just on behalf 

of the committee. We need to hear about the redesign timeline. 

54

When will you be coming back to the committee with the legislative 

reform proposals? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we have started that process, Mr. Chairman, with the proposals on special envoys. My expectation is that 

as the redesign goes forward, we would be coming, as they are 

ready, with proposals to this committee. My hope and expectation 

is that all of the major reforms that we are going to propose will 

be done by the end of this calendar year. 

Chairman ROYCE. At the end of the calendar year. Thank you. 

And Mr. Tom Garrett will be presiding as chairman, and Mr. 

Espaillat as ranking member from here on out. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT [presiding]. Thank you. We now recognize Representative Norma Torres of California for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. Deputy Secretary, congratulations, you 

are now 4 months and 2 days into your position. Congratulations. 

Modernization is a good thing for any government agency bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it. And I fully support giving the 

State Department the technology it need to keep our nation abroad 

safe. At a time when we are facing serious threats from North 

Korea, Russia, and elsewhere, I firmly believe that we need a State 

Department that is fully equipped to keep us safe. Unfortunately, 

this administration has followed a path, huge budget cuts, leaving 

senior positions unfilled, that has weakened the State Department, 

and has put our national security at risk. So I am looking forward, 

as my colleagues, to seeing that redesign timeline and how specifically and knowledgeably these cuts are going to be implemented. 

One of the most significant threats to our national security is the 

prevalence of corruption across the globe. Threats to our homeland, 

including terrorism and drug trafficking often arise in countries 

where corruption thrives. Corrupt actors also pose a real danger to 

our political and economic system when they seek to launder their 

funds in U.S. banks, lobby our Government to advance their own 

interests, and even seek to interfere in our elections. 

This past week I traveled to Guatemala as part of the House democracy partnership delegation. Guatemala is currently in the middle of a crisis that is the result of political elites trying to protect 

themselves from a U.S. supported anti-corruption drive. I am very 

worried if the progress that we have made in Guatemala is turned 

back, it could have very significant impact once again at our border. How will the reorganization process help State become more 

effective in combatting corruption? And what steps are you taking 

to ensure that State coordinates more effectively with other agencies, including the Department of Justice, to ensure that we are 

protected from the influence of foreign corruption? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, you are absolutely right, Congresswoman, 

corruption is a serious problem. It is a serious problem—a national 

security problem for us in Afghanistan. Corruption in Afghanistan 

is an enormous problem. The Afghan Government acknowledges it. 

The issue you raised in Guatemala, that is a very serious problem. 

The ray of hope I see in Guatemala is that judicial decision that 

reversed the President’s decision on removing the head of that commission. There is some hope that the rule of law will triumph 

there. 

55

Mrs. TORRES. Well, I cannot hang my hat, if I wore one, on hope, 

sir. So I specifically want to know what steps we are taking to ensure that the State Department is more effectively coordinating 

with other agencies to ensure that we know what is happening, 

and that we take steps to prevent these governments from influencing our Government. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we are working closely with the Justice Department and with other government agencies in Guatemala, in 

particular, to address this problem. We have made our position 

clear that the United States does not support the actions that the 

President took and there will be consequences. 

Mrs. TORRES. I am going to be a little bit critical of our folks 

down there, because I think that they were not fully informed or 

were being very evasive with our members at disclosing everything 

that has been happening in the region. We are in a place where 

there is no going back. Either we move forward—there were 

200,000 people demonstrating in the streets of Guatemala when we 

landed. 200,000 people that could be seen from the air. 

If we don’t continue to advance and support the people there at 

ensuring that this government in Guatemala, the current government, understands that we will not stand for their elitist corruption behavior. We are going to be in serious trouble, sir, when we 

are going to see more children come to the U.S. 

And I have spent the last 3 years working to ensure that that 

doesn’t happen. That they can see a future for themselves. I understand that you have only been at this position for 4 months, but 

the first hour on your job, I expect everybody to know what is going 

on and be prepared for the job. 

Recent years, USAID has made significant progress in monitoring and evaluating its programming. As you work to more closely align our development efforts with our foreign policies goals, how 

would you ensure that the gains of USAID has made in this area 

are not diluted back, and maybe you can write back, or maybe answer some of the letters that I have written in response to what 

is happening in the region. 

My time is up, so I am going to yield back. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, ma’am. And I would now recognize 

Adriano Espaillat of New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Congressman Garrett. Deputy Secretary, thank you so much for your patience. A long time in answering our questions. We are really thankful for your patience. 

I want to find out what is the—given the current storms that 

have hit the Caribbean hard, what is the extent that USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, what are they doing and what 

is currently in place in these small nations that have been—Barbuda, the Dominican Republic, that have been hard hit by Hurricane Irma and Maria, in some cases. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, the DART teams at USAID are very important tools for the U.S. Government, both with respect to the hurricanes that have hit the Caribbean and the earthquakes in Mexico. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. That is correct. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. USAID is really stretched to the limit at this 

point in its capacity in dealing with all of these horrible natural 

disasters that have occurred simultaneously. So it is a big chalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\092617\27010 SHIRL
56

lenge for us, and of course we have got in our own—in our own 

Puerto Rico, enormous problems that we have got to, as a U.S. 

Government, address. So USAID is working on this with all of its 

available resources, but it is a big challenge. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. In terms of funding, how much money has been 

allocated to respond to these natural disasters so far? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will have to get you the exact figure. I will undertake to do that right after this hearing, sir. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Now, you mentioned Puerto Rico—and obviously, 

probably the island that has been hard hit the most is Puerto Rico, 

it has been termed Caribbean Katrina. And I wanted to see—and 

FEMA has been also, just as you have, asking for help, their resources have been depleted. Is there any way that you can team 

up with FEMA to help Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. We have actually sent teams down over the 

weekend both to assist the U.S. Government effort and to assist 

our State Department colleagues who work in Puerto Rico. So for 

Puerto Rico though, unlike foreign countries, this is a U.S.—these 

are U.S. citizens who are in trouble. This is a U.S. Government 

problem, not just a State Department problem. So we are doing all 

we can to support our colleagues and FEMA at DHS, it is coordinated by the White House. But it is an enormous challenge, Congressman, as you know, as well as anyone. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Now, having heard that from you, I know that 

we often assist U.S. citizens for being evacuated from Caribbean 

countries. But there are right now currently 20,000 Puerto Ricans 

that are on a waiting list to be evacuated or to leave the Commonwealth. Is there anything that could be done to help them? They 

are U.S. citizens, although they are in a U.S. territory. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. They are waiting to come either to the United 

States or other places in the world where they may have families 

or they may seek the help that they need right now. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Or people with medical emergencies, for example, 

to get off the island. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Correct. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There have been problems, as I understand it, 

with the airports. And I am not as familiar because it is U.S. domestic territory, but we are doing all we can at the State Department to support our colleagues at DHS as coordinated by the White 

House in trying to address these problems. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Will you be able to help them to evacuate them 

from the island to wherever they——

Mr. SULLIVAN. We will do all we can to assist. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you. And, finally, with regard to the medical needs in Puerto Rico, do you have Spanish speaking personnel, 

and is there an assistant from the Pan American Health Organization to Puerto Rico going there? I mean, the second phase usually 

of these disasters is health issues. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Seek other kinds of diseases that may spurt up 

because of stagnated water and the flooding. Do you have any 

plans for medical assistance with the help of DHS? 

57

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Just as we did with the original hurricane 

that hit Houston, State Department people went down, were mobilized as part of the response by DHS and FEMA. My expectation 

is that we will do the same in Puerto Rico as soon as we are able 

to get people on the island, and do not expose them to danger, but 

to do all we can to help. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. My time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from New York for adhering to the time limits. And I thank the Deputy Secretary for his 

time, and the Department for engaging with this committee in this 

process. I would ask that upon your return you provide information 

focusing on how we are not slashing foreign aid, but instead, trying 

to be more efficient and more effective and better stewards. I think 

that that is something you have heard a repeated call for. With 

that, we stand adjourned. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


27010n.eps
61


27010m-1.eps
62

f


27010m-2.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


27010b-1.eps
64


27010b-2.eps
65


27010b-3.eps
66


27010b-4.eps
67


27010b-5.eps
68


27010b-6.eps
69


27010b-7.eps
70

f


27010b-8.eps
71


27010c-1.eps
72

f


27010c-2.eps
73


27010d-1.eps
74

f


27010d-2.eps
75


27010e-1.eps
76


27010e-2.eps
77


27010e-3.eps
78


27010e-4.eps
79


27010e-5.eps
80


27010e-6.eps
81


27010e-7.eps
82


27010e-8.eps
83


27010e-9.eps
84


27010e-10.eps
85


27010e-11.eps
86


27010e-12.eps
87


27010e-13.eps
88


27010e-14.eps
89


27010e-15.eps
90


27010e-16.eps
91


27010e-17.eps
92


27010e-18.eps
93


27010e-19.eps
94

f


27010e-20.eps
95

f


27010f.eps
96


27010g-1.eps
97

f


27010g-2.eps
98

f


27010h.eps
99


27010i-1.eps
100


27010i-2.eps
101

f


27010i-3.eps
102

f


27010j.eps
103


27010k-1.eps
104


27010k-2.eps
105

f


27010k-3.eps
106


27010l-1.eps
107


27010l-2.eps
108

Æ


27010l-3.eps