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

25–840PDF 2017

THE FY 2018 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 14, 2017

Serial No. 115–61

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 Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson: Prepared statement ......................................... 7

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 58

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 59

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Rhode Island: Material submitted for the record .......................................... 61

The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii: Material submitted for the record .................................................... 70

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

of Illinois: Artical submitted for the record ....................................................... 79

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 81

The Honorable Adriano Espaillat, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York: Prepared statement ............................................................ 83

Written responses from the Honorable Rex W. Tillerson 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 .............. 84

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

of New York ...................................................................................................... 85

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 144

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

of California ...................................................................................................... 145

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

of Ohio ............................................................................................................... 150

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

State of New York ............................................................................................ 152

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .................................................................................................................. 158

The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey .................................................................................................... 168

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .............................................................................................. 172

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly ..................................................................... 185

The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ............................................................................................ 194

The Honorable William Keating, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts ................................................................... 197

The Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri ......................................................................................................... 204

The Honorable David Cicilline ............................................................................ 207

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

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............................................................... 226

Page

IV

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

of California ...................................................................................................... 228

The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 233

The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard ............................................................................. 234

The Honorable Joaquin Castro, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas ................................................................................................... 237

The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada .......................................................................................................... 243

The Honorable Norma J. Torres, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 245

The Honorable Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Illinois ........................................................................................... 248

The Honorable Adriano Espaillat ....................................................................... 252

The Honorable Ted Lieu, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 255

(1)

THE FY 2018 FOREIGN AFFAIRS BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. Before we say or do anything else today, I 

want to pause to extend our thoughts and our prayers for the wellbeing of Whip Scalise and our colleagues, police, and staff who 

were attacked by a gunman this morning in Virginia. Several members of this committee were there. This is a sad day for our country. We still don’t have all of the details, but we do know that there 

are those who want to use acts of violence to create chaos, to disrupt our democracy. The American people will not let them win. So 

after deliberation with the ranking member, we have decided to 

proceed. 

The Secretary has a very challenging schedule. Given these circumstances and the delayed start of our hearing, I want to appeal 

to members to attempt to use less than their full 5 minutes so that 

more of our colleagues have a chance to participate and I will be 

abbreviating my opening statement. 

Today, Secretary Tillerson will testify on the administration’s 

budget and reorganization plans for the Department of State. 

First off, Mr. Secretary, let me welcome you to this committee. 

This committee and your Department manage an essential responsibility for our Government, set at its founding. And that is defending our Nation. 

The committee strives to be bipartisan. We are fortunate to have 

a ranking member, Mr. Engel, who shares this approach. We look 

forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary. We wish you success 

in your tenure. 

For generations, America has been the leader of the world. This 

has required great sacrifice. But our commitment to stability, to 

the rule of law, to open markets, and human rights, and our work 

through alliances have all paid off greatly. We have made mistake, 

no doubt, sometimes by overreaching in our commitments and 

sometimes by not reaching at all. But our Nation has certainly 

been a force for good. If we do not lead in security and commerce 

as well as in values and in ideas, the vacuum will be filled by others, including jihadists and others, wishing us grave harm. 

2

Leading takes resources. Sufficient resources are needed for our 

military, for sure, but also for our diplomats working to end the 

many conflicts impacting our security. That is what the generals 

say. In today’s well-connected age, in which threats can come from 

anywhere, we need a very broad diplomatic presence and that 

takes resources too, especially to keep our diplomats safe. 

Resources are also needed to support our humanitarian relief 

and to support development. Their work abroad benefits America 

at home. Consider that a modest emergency investment in West Africa’s health stopped cold what looked like an emerging Ebola panic 

in our country a few years ago. 

Mr. Secretary, I am confident that you will find new efficiencies 

in your Department. There is waste to attack. But many here remain concerned by the hand you were dealt with the budget and 

look forward to strengthening it. Congress also has a responsibility 

not to hamstring the Department with mandates and with restrictions. And these have accumulated over years, compounding your 

management challenges. 

For our partnership to succeed, we need to communicate, often. 

Too often, administrations go it alone, as frankly, the last administration did. Iran and Cuba policy are examples. Let us break that 

pattern. 

And I will now turn to Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know that 

the shooting in Alexandria this morning is on all our minds. It is 

shocking. We are all hoping for the best for our colleague, Steve 

Scalise, the police officers, and others who were victims of the attack. We wish them a speedy recovery and we are thinking of their 

loved ones this morning. 

Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you here. I wish you well, but 

I have to tell you that I am deeply skeptical about this budget, 

which in my view is part of a foreign policy strategy that would 

cripple American diplomacy and development efforts around the 

world. This strategy has been carried out first and foremost by an 

action with an initial purge that pushed out some of our most senior and accomplished career diplomats. This administration has 

eliminated years of expertise in one fell swoop and, with few exceptions, the President simply has not nominated anyone to help you 

run the Department. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my graphic be displayed. This is an organizational chart of the State Department. The three dark green 

boxes are President Trump’s confirmed nominees. The light green 

boxes are officials in place in the last administration. Yellow boxes 

are nominees awaiting Senate action. And all the red boxes are positions for which the President hasn’t even submitted a nomination. That is a lot of red boxes, far behind where Presidents Bush 

and Obama were at this point and that doesn’t cover the dozens 

of vacant ambassadorships. We should all keep this in mind next 

time there is talk about obstruction in Congress. People have not 

been confirmed, not because there is obstruction, because they 

haven’t been submitted. 

Now career diplomats, keeping the seats warm, are capable and 

devoted public servants, but they aren’t able to direct our foreign 

policy. What is the President’s approach to Russia hacking our elecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
3

tion or nonproliferation or human trafficking or Africa or the Arctic? When will we have the Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries and Ambassadors at large to put these policies in place? 

The second indication of the administration’s view of the State 

Department is this document. This is the budget, The 2018 State 

Department Budget, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 

State. It calls for a 32 percent cut to our international affairs budget. I have never seen a budget proposal so reckless in all the years 

I have been here. It is so insulting to our personnel and so quick 

to hit bipartisan opposition. 

Mr. Secretary, when we spoke, you told me that you hoped to put 

the State Department on the glide path to reduce spending levels. 

A one third cut is more like a nose dive. Imagine being an American diplomat learning that this is the value the administration 

places on your service. Imagine waking up every morning in a dangerous place on the other side of the world knowing that the officials responsible for your safety haven’t even been nominated, and 

that America’s top diplomat, which is you, Mr. Secretary, was coming here to ask us for a 32 percent budget cut. 

Some consequences of this budget will hit us down the road if we 

fail to invest in diplomacy and development now. The conflicts we 

don’t prevent will come back to us as wars we will need to fight. 

Senator Lindsey Graham said it well and I quote him, ‘‘If we implemented this budget, we have to retreat from the world and put a 

lot of people at risk.’’ He said we would have ‘‘a lot of Benghazis 

in the making if we actually implemented the State Department 

cuts.’’ He is right. The budget cuts Embassy security by more than 

$1 billion, 62 percent—Embassy security cut 62 percent. So fortunately on this point, Congress retains the power of the purse, so 

we will have the last word on this issue. 

So I think that we need a lot of clarity on this and I think this 

committee should keep pressing these issues until we have the answers we need. I am going to stop now, Mr. Chairman, because we 

have agreed to shorten our statement, but I will submit the rest 

of my statement for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. This morning, we are pleased to be joined by Mr. Rex Tillerson. He is the 

69th Secretary of State. Prior to his appointment, the Secretary 

spent 40 years at ExxonMobil, culminating as the chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer. Secretary Tillerson also has long been involved with the Boy Scouts of America, most recently serving as 

the Boy Scouts’ National President. Mr. Secretary, welcome to our 

committee. 

Without objection, the witness’ full prepared statement will be 

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

days to submit any statements or any questions they might have 

of the Secretary or any extraneous material for the record. 

Also, we want as many members as possible to have a chance to 

question the Secretary, so to accomplish that, I would just ask that 

everyone respect the time limit and that means leaving an adequate amount of time for the Secretary to answer your questions. 

Nothing requires full use of your time. And we will begin with Secretary Tillerson’s testimony. 

4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE REX W. TILLERSON, 

SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary TILLERSON. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking 

Member Engel, and distinguished members of the committee. 

Of course, we were all stunned by the news of the shooting involving your colleagues, members of congressional staff, and Capitol Police. Congressman Scalise is a friend of mine. He is a friend 

and represents many friends of mine back in Louisiana. My prayers and those of my colleagues at the State Department are with 

the injured and with those members of law enforcement who responded to this morning’s attack. 

Today, I would like to continue the conversation that we have 

started about the administration’s State Department and USAID 

budget requests for Fiscal Year 2018. 

Before I begin my testimony on the budget, I would like to offer 

a point of view on the Russian sanctions legislation currently being 

considered by the Congress. I certainly agree with the sentiment 

that has been conveyed by several members from both parties that 

Russia must be held accountable for its meddling in U.S. elections. 

I would urge Congress to ensure any legislation allows the President to have the flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs 

of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation. Essentially, we 

would ask for the flexibility to turn the heat up when we need to, 

but also to ensure that we have the ability to maintain a constructive dialogue. 

As we all know, America’s global competitive advantages and 

standing as a leader are under constant challenge. The dedicated 

men and women of the State Department and USAID carry out the 

important and often perilous work of advancing America’s interests 

every single day. That mission is unchanged. However, the State 

Department and USAID, like many other institutions here and 

around the world, have not evolved in their responsiveness as 

quickly as new challenges and threats to our national security have 

changed and are changing. We are challenged to respond to a postCold War world that set in motion new global dynamics, and a 

post-9/11 world characterized by historic new threats that present 

themselves in ways never seen before, enabled by technological 

tools that we have been ill-prepared to engage. The 21st century 

has already presented many evolving challenges to U.S. national 

security and economic prosperity. We must develop proactive responses to protect and advance the interests of the American people. 

With such a broad array of threats facing the United States, the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request of $37.6 billion dollars aligns with 

the administration’s objective of making America’s security our top 

priority. The first responsibility of government is the security of its 

own citizens, and we will orient our diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that commitment. While our mission will also be focused on 

advancing the economic interests of the American people, the State 

Department’s primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home 

and abroad. 

Our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding values of 

freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human dignity. The 

conviction of our country’s Founders is enduring, that ‘‘all men are 

5

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’’ As a 

Nation, we hold high the aspiration that all will one day experience 

the freedom we have known. In our young administration’s foreign 

policy, we are motivated by the conviction that the more we engage 

with other nations on issues of security and prosperity, the more 

we will have opportunities to shape the human rights conditions in 

those nations. History has shown that the United States leaves a 

footprint of freedom wherever it goes. 

Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American people and 

advancing our values has necessitated difficult decisions in other 

areas of our budget. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request includes 

substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs under 

the auspices of USAID and the State Department, but we have 

made hard choices to reduce funding for other initiatives. Even 

with reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in 

international development, global health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. If natural disasters 

or epidemics strike overseas, America will respond with care and 

support. I am convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of the 

programs and continue to offer America’s helping hand to the 

world. 

This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure every 

tax dollar spent is aligned with the Department and USAID’s mission critical objectives. The request focuses the State Department 

and USAID efforts on missions which deliver the greatest value 

and opportunity of success for the American people. The State Department and USAID budget increased over 60 percent from Fiscal 

Year 2007, reaching a record high $55.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2017. 

Recognizing that this rate of increase in funding is not sustainable, 

the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request seeks to align the core missions of the State Department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also represents the interests of the American people, including responsible stewardship of the public’s money. 

I know there is intense interest in prospective State Department 

and USAID redesign efforts. We have just completed collecting information on our organizational processes and culture through a 

survey that was made available to every one of our State and 

USAID colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were completed, and we 

had held in-person listening sessions with approximately 300 individuals to obtain their perspective on what we do and how we do 

it. I met personally with dozens of team members who spoke candidly about their experiences. From this feedback we have been 

able to get a clearer overall view of our organization. We have no 

preconceived outcomes, and our discussions of the goals, priorities, 

and direction of the State Department and USAID were not token 

exercises. The principles for our listening sessions and subsequent 

evaluation of our organization are the same as those which I stated 

in my confirmation hearing for our foreign policy: We will see the 

world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the American 

people, follow the facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves and 

others accountable. We are still analyzing the feedback we have received, and we expect to release the findings of the survey soon. 

From all of this, one thing is certain: I am listening to what my 

people are telling me are the challenges facing them and how we 

6

can produce a more efficient and effective State Department and 

USAID. And we will work as a team and with the Congress to improve both organizations. 

Throughout my career, I have never believed, nor have I ever experienced, that the level of funding devoted to a goal is the most 

important factor in achieving it. Our budget will never determine 

our ability to be effective, our people will. My colleagues at the 

State Department and USAID are a deep source of inspiration, and 

their patriotism, professionalism, and willingness to make sacrifices for our country are our greatest resource. I am confident 

that the U.S. State Department and USAID will continue to deliver 

results for the American people. 

I thank you for the time, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Tillerson follows:]

7


25840a-1.eps

SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON 

STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

ON THE FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST 

JUNE 14,2017 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and distint,'llished members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this Administration's State Department and US AID 

budget request for Fiscal Year 2018. 

As we all know, America's global competitive advantages and standing as a leader are under 

constant challenge. The dedicated men and women of the State Department and USAID carry 

out the important and often perilous work of advancing America's interests every single day. 

That mission is unchanged. However, the State Department and USAID, like many other 

institutions here and around the world, have not evolved in their responsiveness as quickly as 

new challenges and threats to our national security have changed and are changing. We are 

challenged to respond to a post-Cold War world that set in motion new global dynamics, and a 

post- 9/ II world characterized by historic new threats that present themselves in ways never seen 

before, enabled by technological tools that we have been ill-prepared to engage. The 21st century 

has already presented many evolving challenges to U.S. national security and economic 

prosperity. We must develop proactive responses to protect and advance the interests of the 

American people. 

In Syria and Iraq, ISIS has been greatly diminished on the ground, but there is still a substantial 

fight ahead to complete the job and eliminate it from the region. But the battle to ensure that ISIS 

and other terrorist organizations do not gain or grow footholds in other countries will continue. 

The fight against Islamist extremism extends to the digital world. The battle to prevent terrorists' 

use of the internet and other digital tools will continue to challenge us from a security and 

diplomatic perspective. 

The regime in Iran continues activities and interventions that destabilize the Middle East: support 

for the brutal Assad regime, funding militias and foreign fighters in Iraq and Yemen that 
8


25840a-2.eps

undermine legitimate governments, and arming terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which 

threaten our ally Israel. We and our allies must counter Iran's aspirations of hegemony in the 

region. 

Thoughtful development and implementation of policies to ensure Afghanistan never again 

becomes a platform for terrorism, Pakistan does not become a proliferator of nuclear weapons, 

and the region is positioned for stable economic growth. 

On our southern border, illegal migration from countries in the Western Hemisphere presents a 

risk to our security, with criminal cartels exporting drugs and violence into our communities. 

Almost 20,000 Americans died from overdoses of heroin or synthetic opioids in 2015, and 

between 90 and 94 percent of all heroin consumed in the United States comes from or passes 

through Mexico. While we, as Americans, must take responsibility for being the largest demand 

center in the world for the drug trade, stopping the cross-border flow of drugs is an essential step 

in protecting American lives from the catastrophic effects of drugs and the violence that follows 

them. 

While we seek a constructive relationship with China, and in many cases are seeing signs of 

shared interests, their artificial island construction and militarization offacilities on features in 

international waters is a threat to regional stability and the economic livelihood of the United 

States and our allies. As a nation dependent on the free flow of commerce across the globe, we, 

and all other nations, have a legitimate interest in the peaceful use of international waters, and we 

must assert our lawful right to the use of the South China Sea and other bodies of water. 

Both state and non-state actors' malicious cyber capabilities present a threat to U.S. national 

security, and complicate our diplomatic efforts with a surge of misinformation and interference 

in sovereign countries' internal governments. 

With such a broad array of threats facing the United States, the FY 2018 budget request of $37.6 

billion dollars aligns with the Administration's objective of making America's security our top 

priority. The first responsibility of government is the security of its own citizens, and we will 

2 
9


25840a-3.eps

orient our diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that commitment. Within the FY 2018 request 

level, funding for Diplomatic Security operations will increase by approximately 11% over FY 

2016. While our mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interests of the 

American people, the State Department's primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home 

and abroad. 

Our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding values offreedom, democracy, individual 

liberty, and human dignity. The conviction of our country's Founders is enduring, that "all men 

are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." As a nation, we hold high the 

aspiration that all will one day experience the freedoms we have known. In our young 

administration's foreign policy, we are motivated by the conviction that the more we engage 

with other nations on issues of security and prosperity, the more we will have opportunities to 

shape the human rights conditions in those nations. History has shown that the United States 

leaves a footprint of freedom wherever it goes. 

Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American people and advancing our values has 

necessitated difficult decisions in other areas of our budget. The FY 2018 budget request 

includes substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs under the auspices of US AID 

and the State Department, but we have made hard choices to reduce funding for other initiatives. 

But even with reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in international 

development, global health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and humanitarian 

efforts. If natural disasters or epidemics strike overseas, America will respond with care and 

support. I am convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to 

offer America's helping hand to the world. Despite necessary reductions from FY 2017levels, 

we are still devoting $25.3 billion to foreign assistance, which accounts for over 2/3 of the State 

and USATD budget. This entails $7.1 billion in security assistance programs, and $5.6 billion, 

including our diplomatic engagement, to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations. In several 

other areas where we have chosen to make reductions, we will ask other donors and private 

sector partners to increase their support. 

3 
10


25840a-4.eps

This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure every tax dollar spent is aligned with 

the Department's and USA !D's mission-critical objectives. The request focuses the State 

Department and USAID's efforts on missions which deliver the greatest value and opportunity of 

success for the American people. The State Department and USAID budget increased over 60% 

from FY 2007, reaching a record high $55.6 billion in FY 2017. Recognizing that this rate of 

increase in funding is not sustainable, the FY 2018 budget request seeks to align the core 

missions of the State Department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also 

represents the interests of the American people, including responsible stewardship of the public's 

money. 

I know there is intense interest in prospective State Department and USAID redesign efforts. We 

have just completed collecting information on our organizational processes and culture through a 

survey that was made available to every one of our State and US AID colleagues. Over 35,000 

surveys were completed, and we also held in-person listening sessions with approximately 300 

individuals to obtain their perspective on what we do and how we do it. I met personally with 

dozens of team members who spoke candidly about their experiences. From this feedback we 

have been able to get a clearer overall view of our organization. We had no preconceived 

outcomes, and our discussions of the goals, priorities, and direction of the State Department and 

USAID were not token exercises. The principles for our listening sessions and subsequent 

evaluation of our organization are the same as those which 1 stated in my confirmation hearing 

for our foreign policy we will see the world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the 

American people, follow facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves and others accountable. 

We are still analyzing the feedback we have received, and we expect to release the findings of 

the survey soon. From all of this, one thing is certain: 1 am listening to what my people tell me 

are the challenges facing them and how we can produce a more efficient and effective State 

Department and USAID. And we will work as a team and with Congress to improve both 

organizations. 

Throughout my career, I have never believed, or experienced, that the level of funding devoted to 

a goal is the most important factor in achieving it. Our budget will never determine our ability to 

be effective- our people will. My colleagues at the State Department and USAID are a deep 

4 
11


25840a-5.eps

source of inspiration, and their patriotism, professionalism, and willingness to malce sacrifices 

for our country are our greatest resources. l am confident that the U.S. State Department and 

USAID will continue to deliver results for the American people. 

l thank you for your time, and l am happy to answer your questions. 

5 
12

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. This 

committee has worked to make the State Department more efficient. In December, as you know, the first State Authorities Bill in 

over a decade was signed into law. That was our work product. We 

stand ready to work with you to reform the Department and on reorganization. On this question I just ask that you commit to intensified consultation between your staff and the committee in terms 

of plans for reform. 

Secretary TILLERSON. We certainly will do that and welcome and 

seek your input as we go about this. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I only have one question and it 

goes to the issue of North Korea, Secretary Tillerson. This situation, we were encouraged yesterday first to hear news that Otto 

Wormbier would be returned to the United States, but then we 

found out about his condition and were horrified to learn that he 

was in a coma. This is outrageous. And on Monday, we heard Secretary Mattis call North Korea ‘‘the top security threat to the 

United States.’’

You have been working a strategy, I know, to ratchet up pressure on the regime. Last Congress, we passed and signed into law 

a comprehensive North Korea sanctions bill to go after those assisting the regime. And then recently we passed out of this committee 

again another piece of legislation, this one to attack North Korea’s 

use of overseas labor, indentured servitude in which the check goes 

to the regime and they use it for hard currency and they can use 

it for their nuclear weapons program. 

We heard two kind of mixed reports on China’s cooperation on 

this. There is a new report out this week and it shows that by 

cracking down on a relatively small number of interlinked Chinese 

companies that deal with North Korea, we could really crank 

things up and reportedly the administration has asked China to act 

on some ten entities. If Beijing doesn’t act, are we prepared with 

the sanctions we put on the books now, to act unilaterally with 

third-party sanctions in order to cut off the hard currency? This a 

very expensive program they are running. It costs them billions 

and billions of dollars a year and frankly they don’t make much of 

anything, so they need the hard currency coming in in order to 

fund this program. And this is what I wanted to ask you. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Thank you, Chairman. I am familiar with 

the reports you are referencing. Treasury Department also has that 

report and we will examine the study that was done and the results they found. 

The approach we are taking with North Korea, as you are aware, 

is one of eliciting countries all over the world to support us in putting pressure on the regime and Pyongyang to change and alter 

their position and their view before we are willing to sit down and 

conduct discussions with them. 

Clearly, China is the capstone to achieving this kind of pressure. 

This was a topic of significant discussion in President Xi and President Trump’s summit in Mar-a-Lago. The communications had 

been very clear. Our expectations have been very clear with the 

Chinese. Their cooperation, I would say, has been notable, but it 

has been uneven. And we continue that dialogue with the Chinese, 

specifically around their actions that support revenue streams to 

13

North Korea, but also taking action against entities inside of China 

that may be supporting revenue streams as well. 

We will be having another high-level dialogue next week when 

Secretary Mattis and myself meet with our counterparts here in 

Washington, and that will be one of the first topics on the agenda. 

We have made it clear to them and we have provided them lists 

of entities that we believe they need to take action against. We 

have asked that they take the action, but President Trump has also 

been very clear with President Xi that if they either don’t want to 

take the action or they do not take the action, that we will act on 

our own. 

Chairman ROYCE. I concur. We can’t have dialogue forever, Mr. 

Secretary. Thank you and I go to Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I just 

want to say that I heard what you said, but I don’t find it compelling that we can operate the State Department and diplomacy with 

a 33 percent cut, a one-third cut. It just seems to me like it is—

I know you will do the best with what you have, obviously, it is 

showing where priorities are not and priorities don’t seem to be 

with the State Department, with diplomacy. I just want to say 

that. 

Because we are short with time, Mr. Secretary, I would like to 

start by getting you to respond to a series of questions, but I would 

like just a yes or no, if you can. 

As you may know—and we chatted a little bit before—this committee under Chairman Royce and myself has a long-standing bipartisan tradition and we have worked closely with both Republican and Democratic administrations. So I was taken aback by the 

Trump administration’s apparent decision to ignore oversight requests of Democratic Members of Congress. 

In a letter to the President, Senator Grassley called the administration’s departure of long-standing practice nonsense, and I was 

pleased that Homeland Security Secretary Kelly rejected this guidance by saying and I quote him, ‘‘Regardless of who the letter 

comes from and it doesn’t have to just come from a ranking member or chairman, we will respond to any congressional inquiry.’’ 

That is a quote from him. 

So I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, will you join Secretary 

Kelly in committing to respond to congressional inquiries and information requests regardless of the political party of the member inquiring? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I already have and I will. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Can I have your commitment that you 

will direct the Department to respond to requests for information 

made by the committee staff as the designees of the chairman and 

ranking member? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Indeed, through the appropriate channels 

and processes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, a member of your staff informed my staff that the reorganization you are planning for the 

State Department will require statutory changes. So I am glad to 

know that that is the State Department’s position because I agree 

with that. 

14

When your reorganization assessment is complete, will you commit to coming to this committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, 

which has oversight and authorizing responsibilities for the State 

Department, with any requests you have for organizational 

changes at the Department? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes, and we would expect to work with you 

on that as we are developing those. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. It was recently reported that within the 

first few weeks of the administration, a top White House aide attempted unsuccessfully to lift economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response to the illegal occupation of Crimea and interference 

in the 2016 Presidential Election. This followed repeated contacts 

with the Russians by Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions, 

and others. So do you accept the conclusion, Mr. Secretary, of the 

Intelligence Committee that Russian criminally interfered in last 

year’s election? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes, I do. And I have no knowledge of any 

of those efforts that you mentioned. 

Mr. ENGEL. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. interest to relax 

sanctions on Russia before she has fully complied with the Minsk 

framework and left Crimea? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I think it is important that we be given 

sufficient flexibility to achieve the Minsk objectives. It is very possible that the Government of Ukraine and the Government of Russia could come to a satisfactory resolution through some structure 

other than Minsk, but would achieve the objectives of Minsk, which 

we are committed to. 

So my caution is I wouldn’t want to have ourselves handcuffed 

to Minsk if it turns out the parties decide to settle this through a 

different agreement. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, let me say that I hear what you are saying, but 

I disagree, because I believe that the only thing that Russia understands is tough talk and if they think that we are somehow willing 

to relax the sanctions on them before they have complied with the 

Minsk framework and left Crimea I think it just will encourage 

Putin to continue his bullying and who knows where he will strike 

next. 

Secretary TILLERSON. That is not our intent, nor will we do that. 

I back the objectives of Minsk. 

Mr. ENGEL. And let me finally ask you, what has the administration done to respond to the Russian assault on our Presidential 

Election? Have you spoken with the President about how to prevent from ever happening again? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I have spoken to the Russians directly 

about it. Their response is pretty much as you have seen in their 

response publicly to be. But we have registered our complaint 

about that and that it is going to be a constant obstacle to our ability to improve our relationship if they do not address it. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We go now to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

15

I am strongly against the proposed zeroing out of democracy and 

governance programs, especially in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, where civil society is facing increasing repression. In the 

last 2 months nearly 3,000 Venezuelans have been jailed. Over 

1,000 have been injured, and nearly 70 people have been killed by 

Maduro’s thugs. So I ask you to please place more human rights 

violators on our sanctions list. 

On a separate topic, in January of this year, your State Department determined that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority have 

not complied with their commitments under U.S. law, yet all potential sanctions were waived. So I ask how you can justify an increase when so many things in the budget are cut, but the PA has 

an increase in your budget request. 

Also, a few days ago, Mr. Secretary, Israel’s Prime Minister 

called for UNRWA to be folded into the U.N. Commissioner for Refugees after a Hamas tunnel was found beneath two UNRWA 

schools. Is the U.S. going to support our ally, Israel, and prohibit 

funding to UNRWA? 

And finally, on Iran, as a witness told this committee at a hearing in February, sir, the International Atomic Energy Agency ‘‘has 

not been able to state that Iran has addressed its concerns and 

questions about past nuclear weapons activities.’’ And it also ‘‘has 

not stated that it successfully is verifying the JCPOA’s prohibitions 

on specific nuclear weapons development activities.’’ So considering 

this lack of verification, how does the Justice Department justify its 

certification that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA as it did 

in April? And I don’t want to take more time, but if you could answer adding names to the Venezuela sanctions list, UNRWA funding, and Iran and noncompliance. 

Secretary TILLERSON. We are working with Treasury to develop 

a very robust list of individuals and most recently you saw sanctions imposed on six members of the Venezuelan Supreme Court in 

response to their decision handed down which we felt was certainly 

not in keeping with the Constitution. We are going to continue to 

be very engaged in the situation in Venezuela, but as you know, 

the challenge for the U.S. is to do this in a way that is productive 

and constructive as opposed to the U.S. then being used by the 

Maduro regime as a tool to justify their actions. But rest assured, 

we have active efforts underway working with others in OAS, in 

particular. 

With regard to the Iran compliance, we rely upon the process 

called for under the JCPOA and the IAEA. We do question them 

vigorously. We are in discussions with them to ensure that are they 

meeting all of those obligations to certify compliance to us. We are 

reliant upon them to make the certifications to us in order to then 

make decisions around filing a compliance report and then filing 

the sanctions and waivers that follow on with that. 

With respect to the Palestinians, we are in active discussion with 

the Palestinian Authority. As you know, we had a meeting here in 

Washington at the President level and I had my own bilateral 

meetings with President Abbas. We were recently in Israel and had 

meetings with the Authority in Bethlehem. These discussions are 

around issues of how they manage terrorism and how they manage 

violence within the West Bank and Gaza, but it is also hopefully 

16

setting the stage for a re-engagement on the peace process with the 

Israelis. So all of those issues of concern have been discussed with 

them. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. And I won’t take up any 

more time. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Our hearts go out to the victims. This is an attack 

on our democracy and the best response is for us to be here doing 

our jobs, so I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Most of my 

questions will be for the record because we want to be as brief as 

possible. 

The discussion about what resources the State Department 

should have and without objection I would like to put into the 

record a letter from 120 Three and Four Star Flag Officers urging 

that you have more resources than you are asking for. And of 

course, Senator Corker made some more comments to you yesterday. 

We in Congress decide how much money is going to be spent. We 

have the overall view. We might plug a tax loophole or have savings in another part of the budget that would allow us to spend 

more on foreign ops. But we do our best job when we get guidance. 

I would hope that you would submit for the record how you would 

spend a 10 percent, a 20 percent, or a 30 percent increment. What 

your recommendation to us is if we can find the money to provide 

that and I thank you for nodding. 

I am going to move on to the red boxes that the ranking member 

brought up. The Under Secretaries, the Assistant Secretaries that 

haven’t been appointed. We talked about this and I commend you 

for your decision to praise the people who are filling these positions 

as Acting Assistant Secretaries, Acting Under Secretaries. They are 

career professionals. They are doing a spectacular job except they 

can’t do the job because they are temporary. They are not authorized to make policy and there are hundreds of decisions that 

shouldn’t reach your desk, but need to be made by someone who 

isn’t just there holding down the—so I would urge you to submit 

a list of those actings that you would recommend keep their job because they are doing a spectacular job and they have already got 

their security clearances and then you hit the ground running and 

whoever holds that position not only has the incredible competence 

that you and I have discussed, but also has the authority of saying 

this is really my desk. 

I would urge you to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard 

Corps as a specially designated foreign terrorist organization. The 

Quds force is already so designated. If you designate the subsidiary, you should designate the entire consolidated group of corporations. If we apply that business term to the situation you 

should certainly designate the IRGC given the thousands of people 

they have killed in Syria. 

We face an ideological threat from radical Islamist terrorism. I 

hope that we would pay to print and provide textbooks to parents 

who otherwise have to pay for them and expand our broadcasting, 

particularly in the regional language of Pakistan, especially Sindhi. 

Now a couple of oral questions. I think this is an easy one. Is 

the Trump administration committed to the implementation of last 

17

year’s extension of the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding 

regarding security assistance? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Another one that might be a little tough. They are talking about an arms package for Saudi Arabia starting at $110 

billion, perhaps $350 billion over the next 10 years. Can you provide the committee with assurance that the State Department will 

closely scrutinize any proposed sales to ensure that they do not adversely impact Israel’s qualitative military edge and that you 

would oppose the transfer of F-35 aircraft? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We will ensure that all of those sales meet 

all of our obligations both to Israel and to others. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Secretary TILLERSON. I would like to respond to——

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the Secretary. 

Secretary TILLERSON. I would like to respond to the ranking 

member’s chart, all the red boxes since you brought it up. First, 

just so you know, we have named and have names in the process 

at the White House for about 50 percent of the Under Secretary 

and Assistant Secretary positions and we have candidate lists that 

we are narrowing down for the remainder. 

Same on the ambassadorial roles. We have 212 Ambassador or 

representative positions. Over 140 of those are filled. Of the remaining 70, about half have already been named and are in process. The other half we have evaluations with candidates under 

way. 

One of the real obstacles over in the process is—I followed up 

with people, all these people were named literally months ago, asking what is the hold up—and when we call them we find out it is 

getting their paperwork done. The paperwork burden to get the 

clearance and to satisfy the Office of Ethics, which is important, is 

extraordinarily burdensome. I know from my own experience, I had 

to hire eight individuals to help me get mine done so that I could 

get it done as quickly as I did. Most people can’t afford to do that. 

So this is an extraordinary chore for people to get through the paperwork, even former senators who have been nominated for positions are struggling to get through the paperwork. Just the point 

that it is not because people haven’t been named and they are not 

in the process. They are being processed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

welcome to the committee and thank you for your leadership. 

On human trafficking, Mr. Secretary, the TIP Report, as we all 

know on the country ratings will soon be released. They are under 

active review right now. Tragically, the Obama administration in 

the last 2 years ignored TIP recommendations and artificially inflated, gave passing grades, to countries like China, Cuba, Oman, 

and Malaysia who have egregious records when it comes to human 

trafficking. They ignored the TIP professionals and they politicized 

the outcome. Reuters confirmed this. They did an investigative report that was incisive and brilliant. I held several hearings on it 

and the focus of the last one was ‘‘Next Time Get it Right,’’ because 

they didn’t. We sell out the victims of human trafficking when we 

18

misappropriate a tierage, Tier 3 being the worst and say you are 

okay when they are not. So please, assure the committee that this 

year’s TIP Report will be honest, transparent, and will follow wherever the human rights abuse goes. 

What you do with sanctions, the part two of all of that, is all up 

to you. Hopefully, all of you are very informed and you will make 

a great decision on that, but at least get the TIP Report right. We 

have to restore the integrity of that report. 

Secondly, on food aid, on October 15th, I held a hearing on why 

everyone it seemed were exiting the Middle East and going to Europe. Some wanted to come here, but most flooded into Europe. We 

were told by the UNHCR’s Regional Representative that the trigger was the 30 percent in the World Food Programme provisions 

and that the UNHCR appeals have been so under realized, average 

40 percent, 60 percent unrealized, so people felt helpless and abandoned in those refugee camps. They finally said we are out of here. 

We are going somewhere, Germany, wherever they wanted to go, 

but it was triggered by a lack of food aid and other kind of humanitarian assistance. 

I would appeal to you. Karen Bass and I just returned from 

South Sudan. It was my second trip within the last 9 months. We 

went to refugee camps. One refugee camp, the largest, one of the 

largest in the world, Bidi Bidi, in Uganda, they are cutting food rations by 50 percent because it is not there. 

We did go to another camp, Bentiu, which is an IDP camp in 

Unity State and frankly, they had food and a lot of it was courtesy 

of the United States Government, so thank you for that. But we 

have to make sure that that food does not diminish. It needs to actually be increased. We are having a hearing tomorrow, it was 

scheduled for today, on the fact that some 14 million Africans are 

at risk of famine and the driver, frankly, is conflict. But they have 

to get that food aid. 

Finally, I will just say this on the issue of the conflict. I believe 

and I think Karen would agree with this that there is a window 

of opportunity with South Sudan and Salva Kiir and his leadership 

to really put pressure on them to end this conflict which is a Nuer 

versus Dinka conflict. He has a new chief of staff for the military 

who seems to be saying all for the right things. His previous one 

was a disaster and the rapes and the interruption of convoys on 

their way to deliver foodstuffs and humanitarian assistance were 

disrupted by the military. So please, there needs to be an all-out 

effort on South Sudan right now to act on this window of opportunity, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, as to the human trafficking report, as 

I said in my opening statement, we will see the world as it is. We 

will be honest with ourselves and the American people. So let me 

assure you that report will be reflective of what the circumstances 

actually are. 

On the food aid, you are correct. So much of this is complicated 

by conflict. We appreciate that Congress gave us a big plus up on 

food aid this past year. Some of that money, I guess I can say regrettably, is going to carry over to 2018 and it has to do with our 

ability to deliver, particularly in some of these conflict areas. We 

have had difficulty working with NGOs getting some of the food deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
19

livered because of issues in the case of the conflict around Syria, 

issues with NGOs in Turkey that you have read about. We are 

working with the Government of Turkey to facilitate them approving and not stopping our ability to get aid into these regions. 

You mentioned parts of Africa. Yemen, there is a serious famine 

crisis in Yemen. Again, we are blocked, the aid workers, and we 

are blocked from being able to deliver to the people that need it. 

We are working, trying to work solutions in all of these areas with 

our first and highest priority create conditions that we can at least 

get the humanitarian aid in while we are working on the conflict 

resolution itself. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New 

York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you 

for being here. Let me just first say, Mr. Secretary, that what we 

are looking at—I understand the difficulty with the paperwork, 

etcetera, but just noted that the Bush and the Obama administration was way ahead at this point as far as hiring the number of 

individuals that we had at various levels at the State Department. 

But let me ask you a couple of questions and maybe you can 

clear them up for me. As I travel around, these are questions that 

I am often asked and I have been unclear with some of the answers 

and so maybe you can answer them in the vein of what we talked 

about here in a yes or no answer. 

Are you in favor of America First nationalism? 

Secretary TILLERSON. America First, as we said, does not mean 

America alone. We will continue our strong alliances and partnerships and maintain the friendships, the relations that we have 

around the world. 

Mr. MEEKS. Because of some of the statements that the President has made about America First and he has said that a lot of 

the other countries around the world have to give things back or 

we are not going to do this or that, in his words, by just using the 

words, America First in that regard, do you see any negative consequences to America’s standing internationally as a result of the 

America First, which would seem to indicate to the rest of the 

world that it is about us and only about us if you just take that 

language. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, that is why the Vice President, myself, Secretary of Defense, others have been making numerous trips, the President himself with his trip abroad. We have 

to ensure our partners and allies understand what that moniker 

conveys and I think what we have had good dialogue with them 

about is it does not mean America is stepping back or that we only 

worry about our own self interests. Rather, as I indicated, we live 

in some really challenging times and a lot of things are changing. 

We have to ask our allies and friends to do more and take more 

responsibility in these great alliances that we have. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay, so let me——

Secretary TILLERSON. And what I am hearing back is they are 

glad we are engaged. I have seen no indication that our relationships have been undermined with this very open, frank, and honest 

conversation we are finally having with people. 

20

Mr. MEEKS. Short period of time I have, so let me just ask this 

so that we can be clear. Do we support, because I know that the 

President has said that he doesn’t generally agree with multi-lateral agreements or multi-lateral organizations. He would rather do 

things on a bilateral basis. So we do support the EU? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. We have been quite clear that we do. 

Mr. MEEKS. NATO? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Without a doubt. 

Mr. MEEKS. OAS? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Certainly. 

Mr. MEEKS. WTO? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. But WTO needs some reform. 

Mr. MEEKS. The U.N.? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes, the U.N. needs a lot of reform. 

Mr. MEEKS. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. MEEKS. So we will work and we are going to—silently with 

all of those——

Secretary TILLERSON. We are engaged with every one of those organizations you named. And those that are quite effective, we want 

to strengthen them. Some of them need significant reform and that 

is not just the U.S. point of view. 

Mr. MEEKS. I am just trying to make it clear because for some, 

quite frankly, Secretary, what has happened is the truth of the 

matter is as you have traveled and General Mattis, etcetera, and 

the Vice President, they have heard one thing and it seems to be 

that people are relieved when they have heard you speak. Then the 

President tweets or says something else. It seems to contradict 

what you say and so then people come to me and they don’t know 

what to believe, whether or not it is the words of the Secretary of 

State or the President of the United States. That is not your fault. 

There is nothing you can do. I don’t want to—in the little bit of 

time that I have. 

I really want to jump then real quickly into this issue that we 

have, just talking about the budget because 21 percent of the diversity in the State Department has come from the utilization of the 

Fellows, either the Pickering or the Rangel Fellows. And I understand that there is a freeze that is going on and we have already 

spent $85,000 per person on these students. So I am wondering if 

not these bright, young individuals who can help diversify the 

State Department that they can be waived from this freeze. They 

have finished the program. They have been paid. We have invested 

the money so that they can then take their spots in the foreign 

service. Is there any opportunity for them to be——

Secretary TILLERSON. There is no freeze. The structure of the 

program, Rangel-Pickering, which is very important to us and we 

have every intention of continuing it, the obligation in the contract 

that the young people and others engage with us when we fund 

their tuition and for their graduate studies is that we confirm that 

we will offer them a position in consular affairs. That is confirmed. 

And it is a 5-year commitment on their part to serve. 

We then say we will put you on the list for consideration for the 

next A-100 foreign service class. We are holding the next A-100 foreign service class because quite frankly right now on foreign servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
21

ice officer staffing we are actually up about 50 people from the beginning of the year. With our expected manning which we are looking at probably an 8 percent reduction by the end of fiscal 2018, 

in order for us to have time to manage how we want that to occur 

so that we do not diminish the strength of the foreign service corps, 

we are holding the next A-100 class. So nothing has been frozen 

and we want people to continue to apply and they are all offered 

a position in consular affairs and that is no change from the past. 

There has never been a guarantee that anyone would have a 

clear offer or pathway to foreign service. They would be considered 

for foreign service, based upon the work they have completed, but 

they always have an offer to go to work in consular affairs. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and let us just 

note that right from the very beginning you outlined for us that we 

have been spending more money on our foreign projects and foreign 

goals than we have at historic levels, which have actually been 

lower. Let me just note for the record that this increase in spending levels especially in the last 8 years, has not resulted in a more 

peaceful world or a more secure situation for the people of the 

United States of America. 

Let me note also, Mr. Secretary, that I am proud that we have 

a Government now and we have a President who makes no apologies for putting America first in his priorities. What is important 

for the well-being, security, and prosperity of the United States is 

our job and for us to try to blur that is not doing anyone a service. 

Achieving our goals, however, let us note, and putting America 

first, achieving our goals does not necessarily derive from higher 

budgets, but like you have committed to us today, working with 

other countries and making sure that we reach out to make friends 

and to make sure that we turn enemies into friends and get the 

job done for helping the less fortunate people of the world is something that we will work together on and not just bear as a burden 

of the United States taxpayer. So I appreciate, number one, what 

this administration is doing and what you are doing, Mr. Secretary, 

to achieve those goals. 

I have some specific questions for you on specific areas. Number 

one, are we still giving money to Pakistan? Dr. Afridi, who fingered 

Osama bin Laden, the murderer of 3,000 Americans in 9/11, is 

being held in a dungeon there and the Pakistanis continue, we 

know, the ISI continues with a notorious support of terrorist elements in Afghanistan. Why are we still giving Pakistan any aid at 

all? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We are beginning an inter-agency policy 

review toward Pakistan. This is going to be one of the considerations. The President has asked the questions specifically about 

our level of support and funding to Pakistan. No decision is to be 

taken until we complete that policy review, as you well can understand and appreciate. 

Pakistan and our relationship with them touches on some much 

broader issues relative to stability in Afghanistan and how we 

achieve that, but also stability in the Indo-Pacific region. It is a 

very complex relationship we have with the Government of Pakistan, but your concerns are all well founded. 

22

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will trust you and trust this administration 

that we take a realistic view and sometimes that means biting the 

bullet and having when you are dealing with someone who is—they 

have been two-faced with us for so long now. Pakistan is acknowledged by most of the people I have dealt with as the source of terrorism in that part of the world and if we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, it will be because of the ISI in Pakistan. With that said, Afghanistan looks like it is not going in the right direction. And there 

are some creative ways to handle this. We continue to have our 

troops involved there, but some people are calling for more troops. 

I hope that we look for other methods rather than sending American troops into Afghanistan. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, we have an Afghanistan policy, as you know, under review as well and I mention that in the 

context of Pakistan because you cannot work one without the other. 

In the interim though, we have had inter-agency discussions with 

the President about how to preserve the opportunity for our longterm solution in Afghanistan where we never allow Afghanistan to 

become the platform for terrorism to be launched against the 

United States or certainly others. That work we expect to complete 

over the coming weeks, review it with the President, make a final 

policy decision. But it has not been going well in Afghanistan. I 

would refer and defer to Secretary Mattis’ assessment and he testified to that effect this week. 

And I think there are steps we need to take to at least prevent 

further deterioration while we get our new policies in place. What 

we are following now are the policies of the prior administration 

and we need to take some steps to stem the effects of those while 

we get our policies in place. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Albio Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you 

very much for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, I was not born in this country. I was born in 

Cuba. Growing up as a little boy, what I remember is the process 

of indoctrination where the premise of the indoctrination was the 

destruction of America. Everything that was evil was America. We 

have a situation now where we have a White House that seems to 

ignore the fact that Russia was meddling in our democracy. The 

most important thing in this world, I think, is the democracy that 

we have here. And the fact that some of these intelligence agencies 

have confirmed Putin’s involvement in this. 

I ask you why are we treating Russia with kid gloves? Why are 

you coming before us and telling us to give you flexibility when the 

premise of Russia is to destroy this country? I think the fact that 

we have a bipartisan effort now with this legislation to put some 

sanctions on Russia and to send a strong message that this is 

something that we will not allow—I just cannot understand why 

this White House seems to treat this man with such kid gloves? 

Why don’t we just talk and tell the reality, tell the people of America from the White House? 

I know you have spoken about it. Other members have spoken 

about it, but can you tell me, please, so I can rest a little better? 

23

Secretary TILLERSON. As I have characterized the relationship 

with Russia and I did this after walking out of President Putin’s 

office and went immediately to a press avail in Moscow, the relationship between the United States and Russia is at an all-time 

low post-Cold War. 

Mr. SIRES. But it is not us. It is their doing. 

Secretary TILLERSON. And it is getting worse. 

Mr. SIRES. Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt. I don’t have too 

much time. But it is their efforts to undermine us. 

Secretary TILLERSON. And it is getting worse and the two greatest nuclear powers on the planet cannot have this kind of a relationship. We have to move it to a different place and that is what 

I have been asked to do, is to determine whether we can move the 

relationship to a different place that doesn’t present the kind of 

threats to us and to the world that I am concerned the current relationship does and further deterioration would. 

And I fully appreciate and share the sentiment of all you just 

said, but the issue is do we want to make the relationship worse 

and where will that leave us? What is next? Or do we want to see 

if we can stabilize it and begin to deal with—there is a large number of issues——

Mr. SIRES. But Mr. Secretary——

Secretary TILLERSON [continuing]. On the table between us including meddling in the elections. And do we want to try to deal 

with those toward some resolution? It may very well be that when 

we have progressed this discussion with them to some point where 

I will be the one to tell you we are getting nowhere. We are getting 

nowhere. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Secretary, I think you are going to the other extreme now. 

Secretary TILLERSON. I will be the first to come back to you and 

tell you——

Mr. SIRES. We are going to the extreme where we seem to be just 

giving into a lot. There are messages you can send without going 

to a nuclear war. You know, there are things that we can do and 

send strong messages to this country. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Sanctions are very useful tools. Unilateral 

sanctions are not quite as useful as multi-lateral sanctions. And we 

are, as we think about additional sanctions, one of my challenges 

and I take this as my responsibility, is how do I bring other allies 

along with us to say to them you must respond in this way as well. 

In order for these sanctions to be the effective pressure that I know 

we all want and that you desperately want, I agree with that. We 

can take unilateral action, but if we take it alone and we get little 

support from others, they will be somewhat hollow and Putin will 

know they are hollow. 

So this is a bit of a tactical discussion you and I are having at 

this point, not a fundamental discussion around intent, objectives. 

Our interests are completely aligned, let me assure you. This is 

really a tactical difference of opinion I think. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I do hope that you send this message to the 

President. And tell him that a lot of people are looking at how he 

behaves toward Russia. And quite frankly, I am very concerned. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

24

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Tillerson for being with us here today. I have been a member of 

this committee for two decades now. I have chaired the Middle 

East Subcommittee and the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee as well. 

The issue I would like to discuss with you this morning is Taiwan. 

As a founding member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus and 

having been to that nation—and I use that term nation intentionally—quite a few times, I take the commitments of our country 

that we have made with Taiwan very seriously. I believe that you 

do, too. 

Taiwan is a close ally of ours. It is one that truly exercises freedom and democracy and can be a role model to other nations facing 

an aggressive bullying neighbor. Taiwan faces an unrelenting 

threat from China which has nearly 600 ballistic missiles aimed directly at Taiwan. Although Taiwan enjoys de facto independence, 

China’s ultimate goal, as we know, is the annexation of the island. 

Therefore, the Taiwan Strait remains a potential hot spot. 

The PRC’s aggression toward Taiwan has only grown over the 

years. The PRC more and more is referring to Taiwan as a core interest to them. They continue to block Taiwan’s participation in 

international gatherings and the world, including the United 

States, embarrassingly, usually yields to China’s bullying. 

Further, China continues its long campaign to pressure nations 

around the world to stop their recognition of Taiwan. And Panama 

just this week announced its intention to yield to that pressure. 

Fortunately, the 38-year-old Taiwan Relations Act is still alive 

and in place and this historic legislation has thus far maintained 

peace and stability, but we must be clear to the PRC that if push 

comes to shove, the United States will stand with Taiwan. 

Now Mr. Secretary, a couple of questions. China would never 

allow us to determine who they can meet with. Yet, because of fear 

of offending China principally, we won’t allow high Taiwanese officials to set foot in this city, our Nation’s capital, Washington, DC, 

right here. 

Some years back, a couple dozen Members of Congress, including 

myself, had to get on a plane and fly to New York City one evening 

after votes to meet with the President of Taiwan, President Chen. 

I know some other members are nodding because they were on that 

same plane with me. Because he wasn’t allowed to come here at 

our Nation’s capital. 

Now an important bill to remedy this, which I have introduced 

in previous Congresses as well, H.R. 535, the Taiwan Travel Act, 

would allow the President and Vice President, Foreign Minister, 

and Defense Minister to come here. It is being marked up tomorrow in the Asian Pacific Subcommittee and I would welcome the 

administration’s support for that measure and I appreciate your 

comment, please. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, thank you, Congressman. You have 

summarized it quite well in terms of the situation as we see it 

today between China and Taiwan. As you know, the China-U.S. relationship has been defined for the past 50 years by our One China 

policy and our agreement around One China policy. They have 

their interpretation of what that means and we have ours and we 

25

have agreed that we will accommodate each other’s interpretation. 

But that has led to 50 years of stability in the region. It has prevented conflict and has allowed for this enormous economic growth 

that has gone on, much of which we have benefitted from. 

As we begin our dialogue with Chinese leadership with this new 

administration, as you know, there was some questioning of our 

commitment to One China early on. The President has reaffirmed 

that we are committed to the One China policy. We are also completely committed to the Taiwan Relations Act, of fulfilling all of 

our commitments to them under that act. But we are also in a discussion with China now about what is our relationship going to be 

for the next 50 years? How do we enter another era of stability and 

absence of conflict? And Taiwan, clearly to the Chinese, is a part 

of that discussion. 

So it is important as we engage with them that we are able to 

fulfill our commitments to Taiwan, which we have every intention 

of doing. And that the question is, is the One China policy sustainable for the next 50 years? And those are the kind of discussions 

we are having. They are extremely complex in many regards. But 

this is what we seek as another 50 years of stability and no conflict 

with China in the Pacific region. Taiwan is a big element of that. 

North Korea is a big element of that. Their island building and 

militarization of islands is a significant element of that. All of these 

are in our discussion with them about how do we define this relationship for the next half century to ensure we have a continued 

era of no conflict and stability. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being 

here today. 

Mr. Secretary, I guess I am wondering what the Trump Doctrine 

means. Because to some of us it looks like making America great 

again in the realm of foreign policy means unilateral withdrawal 

and disruption. We renounced our own Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Trade Agreement. We have threatened to renegotiate NAFTA with 

our two largest trading partners and have had unfriendly assertions with both. 

We have renounced the Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 

countries. We have now joined the happy company of two, Nicaragua and Syria. What a proud moment for our country. 

We have threatened the NATO alliance with being ‘‘obsolete’’ and 

refused in Europe at the moment it was expected to reaffirm Article 5 and our commitment to it. 

We have embraced Russia in a way that is disturbing, I think, 

for most Americans. The President personally championed Brexit to 

the enormous consternation of our closest ally, the United Kingdom. 

He has embraced strongmen—Duterte of the Philippines; 

Erdogan of Turkey; Putin of Russia, el-Sisi of Egypt—while lecturing our closest allies about their commitments. 

And in your budget, he has proposed a 32 percent cut in the 

Function 150 and Function 300 international affairs functions of 

the budget that would cripple our ability, frankly, to engage in serious diplomacy. And of course, there is the U.N., with constant 

26

threats of pulling out of specialized agencies and even peace-keeping operations. 

Mr. Secretary, how does a reasonable observer of that sorry and 

lamentable litany not conclude otherwise than this constitutes a serious unilateral withdrawal from long term post-World War II commitments, values, and policies of the United States Government? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, my assessment of all as I 

listened to that entire list of areas, we can go down them. The 

withdrawal from TPP was by and large supported by most people 

in this body and up here on the Hill. There was little support——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Secretary, I know we could pick one or two 

from the litany. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, I am picking your list. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are you going to go down the whole list? Because 

we are going to run out of time. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, if you are not interested——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am interested, but I am just worried about time 

and my question really wasn’t about a particular item on the list. 

It was, does this add up to a radical alteration in our foreign policy? You are the Secretary of State. 

Secretary TILLERSON. It does not add up to a radical alteration 

of our foreign policy. I think in my statement I made a couple of 

comments that in my view and in my assessment, many of our institutions have not—have never responded to the post-Cold War 

era. With the fall of the Soviet Union, a whole array of dynamics 

were unleashed globally. After 9/11, a whole new array of threats 

were unleashed. And we have continued to try to address those 

with the old constructs. Not that the constructs are not valid and 

not that the constructs don’t give us the frame and the relationships, but we have to begin to examine the effectiveness of those. 

And I think what the President is doing is he is examining all 

of these elements and we are questioning whether they are as effective as they should be and whether our partners and allies have 

come as far as we have come in commitments. So I would call this 

an elevated level of engagement, not in any way withdrawal. 

I think what people are questioning is because we are making 

certain demands of allies and partners and we are having this very 

frank, open, honest conversation with them that needs to occur. It 

needs to occur so that——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Secretary——

Secretary TILLERSON [continuing]. If people take a difficult as a 

decision around this as we take, that will strengthen our alliances. 

There will be greater commitment toward this, not less. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Secretary, to call this an elevated involvement in the world would embarrass even George Orwell. I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our prayers are with our colleagues who are not here today due 

to the baseball practice shooting: Congressman Jeff Duncan of 

South Carolina, Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama, and Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida. 

Mr. Secretary, I especially appreciate your Exxon service. My 

heritage is Exxon. My great grandfather started with Standard Oil 

27

in Richmond in 1890. My grandfather was a division manager of 

Standard Oil in New Jersey and South Carolina. My dad was a 

sales representative for SO Humble. And my brother has been an 

oil shopper for Exxon. So I know of the integrity of the company 

that you have led. 

Also, I was really pleased to see of your Scout background. All 

credit to my wife, we have four Eagle Scouts in our family. So 

thank you for what you have done. 

With so many global challenges, the rogue nation, North Korea, 

continues to push against international norms, and threatens our 

Nation’s security and the security of our allies. I am concerned that 

large cuts in our foreign affairs budget will leave us at a disadvantage and the distinct national security role played by our diplomats 

so capably. 

I appreciate your willingness to make significant reforms to the 

Foreign Affairs budget in support your continuing the State Department’s critical missions around the globe. 

So Secretary Tillerson, on the threat of the unstable and dangerous North Korean regime, each week there are reports of nuclear developments, missile tests, ridiculous videos showing Americans being killed, and Americans being unlawfully detained. There 

is bipartisan support and concern. 

Recently, Congressman Adam Schiff and I introduced H.R. 2732, 

the North Korea Travel Control Act, which would prohibit travel to 

North Korea. Given the recent release of Otto Wormbier and Dennis Rodman’s travel to North Korea, do you support the prohibition 

of U.S. tourist travel to North Korea? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We have been evaluating whether we 

should put some type of travel visa restriction to North Korea. We 

have not come to a final conclusion, but we are considering it. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And my concern, indeed, that 

tourists go there is simply supporting a dictatorial totalitarian regime. And I say this with my colleague, Congressman Eliot Engel. 

He and I are the only two Members of Congress who have actually 

been to Pyongyang. But it was on a congressional delegation, not 

as a tourist. 

Thank you very much for your service. 

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

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And even as we pray for 

the Majority Whip and the others who were injured this morning, 

I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge and express our 

gratitude to the Capitol Police who permit us to do our job every 

day, keeping us safe as well as all who are here in this room today. 

So we are grateful for what you do. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I wanted to first add my 

voice to those who have spoken out against the budget and in support of a robust international affairs budget. I would just point out 

that a 32 percent cut to the State Department cannot be solely 

about cost savings to the U.S. Government when the defense budget is being increased by 54 percent. American leadership, as you 

know, Mr. Secretary, has always been and must continue to be 

about more than just military might. 

Next, I wanted to ask you about a hearing yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You were asked about payments 

28

made to Palestinian prisoners and their families, hundreds of millions of dollars per year payments that are made to those who stab 

or ram or shoot Israelis, payments to suicide bombers, payments 

that only incite violence and frankly prevent movement toward a 

two-state solution. 

The issue came up, as you pointed out, in bilateral meetings. And 

yesterday, in response to the question you said they have changed 

that policy. Their intent is to cease payments to families who have 

committed violence and murder against others. 

Can you provide clarity on the supposed change of policy, since 

Palestinian officials quickly responded by saying that there are no 

plans to stop these payments to families of Palestinians killed or 

wounded in carrying out these attacks? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Those were assurances that were given to 

me in the most recent trip to Bethlehem. We have had conversations with them and told them they cannot continue these types of 

payments and expect the U.S. and the American people to see any 

explanation for why they do that. They have indicated they would. 

They indicated to me they were in the process of changing that. 

They did say we have to support widows and orphans. I said widows and orphans is one thing. Attaching payments as recognition 

of violence or murder is just something the American people could 

never accept or understand. So we will continue this dialogue with 

them. We have been quite clear as to our view. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate your making that clear. Unfortunately, 

it appears that that position has not yet changed. 

Finally, I want to raise an issue that I have raised every single 

time the Secretary of State has sat before this committee in the 7 

years that I have served here. And that is the case of my constituent, Robert Levinson. Bob went missing in 2007. He is, Mr. 

Secretary, the longest held American hostage. 

As you know, Bob was not part of the 2016 deal that saw five 

America citizens released from Iran. But as part of that deal, commitments were made by Iran to assist in Bob’s case. I have no 

doubt that there are those in Iran that know where Bob is or how 

to locate him. I hope that the administration is making every effort 

to prioritize engaging on Bob’s case. Unfortunately, the Levinson 

family has not received much high-level communication since January. I would like to acknowledge two of Bob’s seven children who 

are here with us today, his eldest son, Dan, and his youngest son, 

Doug. 

So first, Mr. Secretary, I just would like to ask one, will you commit to meeting with the Levinson family? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We are happy to provide an update on anything we know and just to assure you, as you know, regrettably, 

we have a number of American citizens who are detained illegally. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I understand. I understand that. I would ask on behalf of——

Secretary TILLERSON. I just wanted to let you know, we have our 

attention on—we treat them as individual cases. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will you meet with the family, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will you either designate a senior level position in 

the Department or fill the position of Special Envoy for Hostage 

29

Negotiations to liaise on a regular basis with the Levinson family 

and others? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We are evaluating people to fill that position. I would tell you though and I think it is important, we do not 

stop our efforts just because we do not have someone in that role 

and I hope the evidence of our success already during this short 

term of our administration of securing the release of people who 

have been detained, I hope people take encouragement from that 

and I promise you that we have efforts underway for every detained person. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I understand that. Just sadly, it is 10 years now. 

So I am just focused on Bob. I would ask that you raise Bob’s case 

at every opportunity that you have. 

Can I ask you, Mr. Secretary, whether you have plans to meet 

with the Iranians? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I have no current schedule to meet with 

the Iranians. 

Mr. DEUTCH. If you don’t do it, which I think is a mistake, it is 

imperative that you press our allies to raise Bob’s case in their 

communications with the Iranians or any international fora. Ten 

years is simply too long for a family to go without their husband, 

father, and grandfather. Bob, Mr. Secretary, is going to become a 

grandfather for the seventh time in a matter of weeks. He should 

be home celebrating this joyous moment with his family. I appreciate your efforts and urge you to do everything you can to bring 

him home. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Mike McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. It is good to see a fellow Texan back in the 

Secretary of State position. 

I just got back from Mexico City. I chair the U.S.-Mexico InterParliamentary Group. I just want to let you know that it was a 

very productive, civil, and respectful meeting on security, energy 

issues, and NAFTA, in terms of how we could put energy under the 

NAFTA umbrella. I know you know more about that topic than I 

do. I think that would be certainly a win-win for both of our countries. 

I want to ask you about transnational criminal organizations. I 

had Secretary Kelly testify before my committee, stating it is one 

of the greatest threats facing the United States. He said that the 

cartels share ties with terror networks that we are currently fighting overseas, that they are threats to the fabric of American society 

and have the ability to sneak drugs and people, including potential 

terrorists, and dirty bombs into the United States. And finally, he 

stated the nexus between criminal networks and terrorist networks 

is real and I would predict will get more sophisticated. Do you 

agree with Secretary Kelly’s comments? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes, I do. That is why we have undertaken 

this joint effort with our counterparts in Mexico around transcriminal organizations, designed around getting at the supply chain 

of how illicit narcotics, but also human trafficking and other illicit 

activities, are carried out across our borders. We clearly see the 

connections of these activities with terrorist organizations all the 

30

way back to and including ISIS. Working with our Treasury counterparts, this is part of our global effort to deny terrorist financing 

as well. 

But this effort really gets at the challenge to our own national 

security, but also the health and well-being of our citizens in terms 

of the number of drug-related opioid deaths. So it is a very comprehensive effort that we have had. We are advancing with cooperation from our Mexican counterparts. I think you are going to 

see a very different approach to how we attack the problem of the 

cartels. 

Mr. MCCAUL. That is great to hear. I think we have long neglected this. We had a classified briefing with Admiral Tidd yesterday, the SOUTHCOM commander, and without getting into the details of that, I know that you are aware of that threat and it does 

worry me as the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee 

what is coming from terror ties into the Western Hemisphere and 

potentially across that U.S.-Mexico border which I think is why 

getting security both at the border with Mexico, but also Mexico’s 

southern border is so important. Let me just thank you for your attention to that and I look forward to working with you on that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Karen Bass of California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, I appreciated 

the discussion that we had the other day. I wanted to talk to you 

in regard to Africa and what our policy is on Africa. I appreciated 

that you were clear that you understand the significance of the continent and the role that we play there, but it is still not really clear 

what our overall policy is. 

I am in my fourth term here and for the first time in the last 

couple of months, I have had a number of visits from our allies in 

the AU who have come and expressed a lot of concern about what 

the direction is that our country is taking in regard to Africa. They 

have read the budget. They understand the numbers and they understand that a budget really reflects your values, your policy, and 

your direction. And so they have come to me asking where is the 

United States going in regard to Africa. 

And when I think of the continent, there are three different 

things that come to mind. And I raise these in reference to the cuts 

in the budget. So from the national security perspective, we know 

that on the continent of Africa, there are many fragile democracies 

that can easily collapse and that quickly open the door to terrorism. So I am concerned about the cuts to the democracy programs, as well as to the cuts to U.N. peacekeeping. And I know 

that we pay a considerable share, but we also don’t send our troops 

and other countries do. 

In terms of humanitarian assistance, especially including health 

and cutting food aid, and when we had the crisis with Ebola, we 

certainly know how quickly that could have spread to the United 

States. So our interest is very much at stake. 

And when I think of the economic perspective on Africa, and we 

have discussed the tremendous opportunities for U.S. businesses, 

U.S. jobs, but then I look at the budget cuts regarding OPIC and 

MCC, the African Development Foundation, and all of those are 

31

key institutions to really lay the basis for our businesses to do business on the continent. 

So one of my questions to you is you described a process that you 

are going through with the State Department, a listening tour, to 

look at how to run things more efficiently. And usually what happens in processes like this is that you have the process first and 

then you come up with the number that you need to actually deliver what the State Department and USAID should do. 

So my question is were you involved in determining the 30 percent cut or was it imposed on you? And is your review process designed to fit into the cut? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We had an interactive process with the 

OMB director. We gave him a pass-back budget. We were then 

given the budget back that I am here today to present. And so my 

view is if these are the resources that are going to be available to 

us, how do we want to prioritize the areas that we can have greatest impact. And I indicated this in my opening statement. 

I think in terms of Africa, and I appreciate the discussion you 

and I had the other morning. I thought it was quite useful. We 

share the same list of both concerns and opportunities. I would 

point to the fact that we have a lot of other areas of our budget 

that we can bring resources to bear on these particular concerns 

and issues. We have money in the ISIS budget that allows us to 

address some of the threats of an emergence of ISIS on the continent of Africa either in North Africa and certainly we are keeping 

our eye on Libya or through the Sahel. And we are working with 

other multi-national partners to defend against and not allow a reemergence on the continent itself. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am about to run out of time. I wanted to ask you about 

one other area. I had heard that before you were confirmed that 

a message was sent to the State Department to go through and 

identify any program that was focused on women. And I want to 

know, number one, was that true? And there is a specific program, 

the African Women’s Entrepreneurial Program and I don’t know, I 

can’t tell from the budget detail whether that is scheduled to be 

cut. And then just returning from South Sudan and knowing that 

rape is used as a weapon of war, very concerned about family planning services. And I mean birth control. I am not referring to abortion at all, but whether or not we would seek to eliminate birth 

control, especially in countries where we know that rape is used as 

a regular practice of war. 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am not aware of any directive that was 

sent before my arriving there. We certainly have not carried out 

any directive of that nature while I have been there. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Ted Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Thank you 

for your long-time service. As a fellow Houstonian, I want to congratulate you on your position. I appreciate you being here as well. 

I live in Humble, Texas, so you can assume where we got our name 

from. 

First, I want to thank you for your personal involvement in the 

release of Sandy Phan-Gillis, a Texan who had been imprisoned 

32

unlawfully by China for over 2 years. She was unlawfully in prison 

there. She was on a mission from Houston to work on economic 

things in China and arrested when she got on the plane. But thank 

you for your personal involvement and the President’s involvement. 

Now she is released and she is back home in Houston. I want to 

thank you for that on behalf of their family. 

I want to go over several things and I will eventually have a 

question as well. The State Department can lead the effort to designate the IRGC as a sponsor of terror. I personally think that the 

State Department should designate them as a sponsor of terror 

under Executive Order 13224 and I would hope that would be on 

your radar to do. They are doing bad things throughout the world 

on behalf of terrorism and destroying the human rights of many 

people. 

I would like to know what the policy is of the U.S. toward Iran. 

Do we support the current regime? Do we support a philosophy of 

peaceful regime change? There are Iranians in exile all over the 

world. Some are here and then there are Iranians in Iran who don’t 

support the totalitarian state. So is it the U.S. position to leave 

things as they are or to support a peaceful, long-term regime 

change? 

I want to mention Russia, second issue. I was in Georgia in 2008 

about a week after the Russians invaded and I know Congressman 

Smith was there when the Russians actually did invade. Russia 

took one third of the country. Basically, the world said that is not 

nice and nothing happened. 

And then in 2014, they took Crimea. They are in Eastern 

Ukraine now. And does our policy, U.S. policy state that that was 

unlawful and it is still unlawful and that those territories in Georgia must be returned to Georgia and to Crimea and as well as 

Eastern Ukraine be returned to Ukraine or are we just going to accept a Russian invasion of those territories? 

And the last thing I want to mention is Pakistan. I think Pakistan is playing us. We give them money. That money ends up in 

the hands of bad guys in Afghanistan who hurt Americans. I personally think that Pakistan should not get any American money. 

They get $500 million a year, not counting the military. They 

should be designated as a state sponsor of terror and they also 

should be removed from the major non-NATO status that they 

have. But I know this has been a discussion for years, to try to get 

Pakistan on board to do the right thing. They don’t. What are we 

going to do? I heard your comments earlier. Are any of those things 

that I mentioned options? 

So Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and I will let you comment on that. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, our Iranian policy is under development. It has not yet been presented to the President. But I would 

tell you that we certainly recognize Iran’s continued destabilizing 

presence in the region, their payment of foreign fighters, their export of militia forces in Syria and Iraq, and in Yemen, their support for Hezbollah. And we are taking action to respond to Iran’s 

hegemony. Additional sanctions actions have been put in place 

against individuals and others. 

We continually review the merits, both from a diplomatic standpoint but also the international consequences of designating the 

33

Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist 

organization. As you know, we have designated the Quds. 

Our policy toward Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain 

their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to 

a peaceful transition of that Government. Those elements are 

there, certainly as we know. 

Mr. POE. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, I am out of time and I would 

just expect—I would like a written response to those questions. 

And I have a constituent named Claudia who sent me some excellent questions to ask you and I hadn’t gotten there. I will submit 

these to the record as well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. POE. And thank you very much for your service and being 

here today. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. William Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I speak for all 

my colleagues this morning, it has been difficult through this hearing not to keep in our minds our colleague, Steve Scalise, and our 

other colleagues, the staff, and Capitol Police who were injured, 

and their families. 

And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your willingness to 

serve your country. 

This committee has had a great experience, as long as I have 

been here, working in a bipartisan fashion with the administration 

trying to find the areas of commonality. And I mean this sincerely. 

I am not going down this path. It is just a clarification, if I could. 

For our ability to interact with the administration, nothing more 

than that. But I want to get a better idea to clarify the position 

of Jared Kushner in the administration. He has a major foreign 

policy position. But is he coordinating with you? What is your experience? Has he ever engaged in foreign policy discussions without 

prior coordination with the State Department? How would you define his role? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Mr. Kushner is a senior advisor to the 

President, so he does attend our discussions, not all, but discussions we have in the West Wing from time to time. And I would 

say there is a clear recognition by him as to where foreign policy 

is conducted. It is in the State Department. It is by the Secretary 

of State. So I would say his role is one of any other senior advisor 

in the West Wing. He has freedom and I have invited him, as I 

have others serving the National Security Advisor McMaster and 

others, to call if there are issues that arise in the West Wing, let 

me know so we have visibility so we can begin talking about how 

we want to address those. 

Mr. KEATING. Do you have any instances where he hasn’t coordinated with State or yourself before engaging in discussions with 

foreign nationals or officials? 

Secretary TILLERSON. You would have to ask him as to whether 

he has. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You spoke 

earlier about the working relationship with China in terms of 

North Korea. And there have been positive steps. I want to congratulate you on your work in that regard. But one of my concerns 

34

is the fact that as China might move away from trade opportunities to try and pressure North Korea, Russia seems to be creeping 

in replacing that vacuum with their own trade opportunities and 

other interactions with North Korea. Have you addressed this to 

Russia? This is a problem, I think we will have in dealing with the 

North Korea situation because if Russia just comes in and tries to 

fill that vacuum, then our work with China won’t be as effective 

as it could be. 

Secretary TILLERSON. We have seen that occur already as China 

has withdrawn certain support. Russia has backfilled that. Yes, 

North Korea is among our top issues, items that I speak to Foreign 

Minister Lavrov frequently about. I also had very extensive discussions directly with President Putin in the Kremlin when I saw him. 

We are asking for their help. 

I think Russia is evolving its own position relative to North 

Korea and we are looking for more support from them. I think two 

indications of late, one was their affirmative vote in the U.N. Security Council for the additional sanctions on North Korea. Typically, 

at best the Russians would abstain. This time they actually voted 

for these additional sanctions. I think that indicates that they see 

it differently. They have also made their own public statements 

that they see these activities by North Korea as being a threat now 

to Russia. So that is part of our dialogue with the neighborhood is 

look, this is not just a threat to us. This can become a threat to 

you as well. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you Mr. Secretary. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you for yielding back, Mr. Keating. 

Now we go to Mr. Darrell Issa of California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was delighted when you 

were named and I keep reminding my friends that one of the last 

great Secretaries we had was George Schultz who for 6 years before, not immediately, but just before had run a global enterprise, 

one that was responsible for building large and small cities. And 

so I am going to kind of segue from that to one of the areas you 

inherited that I want you to be aware has been the intention of 

this committee and of the Oversight Committee. 

During the George W. Bush era under General Williams and others, the State Department began a standard design/build process. 

This allowed the State Department to go from an aging Embassy 

system that lacked security—and it was falling behind where most 

of the money was being spent just trying to keep crumbling Embassies going—to getting new modern facilities that were secure and 

predictable in operation. 

Upon the change of administrations, there was a change under 

Hilary Clinton and she began going back to the old practice of New 

York wine and cheese liberals happily designing works of art. And 

I am trying to be over the top for a reason because if you go to 

Great Britain where you find that glass palace on an undersized 

lot that we can’t use that we are paying extra, what you find is a 

return to Embassies that might be works of art. They may make 

great statements about America’s prowess and place in the world, 

but you are not being given, as you know, enough money to build 

Embassies just to provide security, the likes of which we didn’t 

have at Benghazi. And we didn’t have in a lot of other places. By 

35

the way, I was also thrilled when Ambassador Patrick Kennedy 

abruptly left with the team that I am glad to see go. 

So now my question to you is with the President’s current budget 

quite frankly reduced in that area, can you by changing back to a 

process of efficient design and build, can you begin to get us caught 

up to where never again will we have people die because they have 

a facility that lacks the basic security required by your own regulations? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

The current budget around security, both security services as well 

as Embassy construction, will allow us to maintain our program 

pretty much through 2018. We will begin to have planning difficulties in ’19 at this level and we are in discussions, certainly we will 

have discussions with OMB about that. 

But I think to your point about our execution against Embassy 

construction, it really is an execution issue and I agree we need to 

get back to standard designs, fewer scope changes. We don’t need 

to be unique every place. I am a fit for purpose guy and I think 

we need to build what is needed for us to deliver on mission. And 

there are some execution issues. 

I have been reading reports from OIG of audits they have been 

doing, the various projects and I recognize a lot of the deficiencies. 

I have seen them in the private sector when the private sector 

struggled with major constructions projects. So I think we have a 

lot of opportunity to improve that and get back to fit for purpose 

approach. 

Mr. ISSA. I would like to follow up with another area on that and 

very briefly. Because you have OCO funding and because if we 

really look at your facilities around the world, they are often facilities in which Title 10 individuals and others assigned to you need 

to operate or at least coordinate in dangerous areas. So I might 

suggest that a very good investment of several billion dollars over 

the next several fiscal years would be to springboard ahead to have 

those facilities able to house both the diplomatic mission and coordinate other missions in the area. And I am thinking particularly 

of Africa and some of the other hot spots. 

What I would like to do is segue though to two things. One is 

you have 1,000 Marines available to you. This was a post-Benghazi 

decision to plus up. I can tell you that when I hear that Papua New 

Guinea’s facility gets stopped and a whole new one is getting designed and part of the justification is they needed room for Marines, again, Papua New Guinea, that perhaps looking where you 

best would have those 1,000 Marines could well be a good investment in moving them around. And of course, having them match 

facilities to the greatest extend possible that you plan on having 

and would otherwise build. 

Lastly, the President’s budget did a 50 percent cut in an office 

which was Conflict Stabilization Operations which is under State, 

and the Office of Transition Initiatives which is under USAID. We 

had previously sent your agency under the last administration letters asking you to combine those two. And with the budget having 

a 50 percent cut, could you consider 100 percent cut by combining 

them, deciding who gets this job either State or USAID, but not 

both? 

36

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, again, I think part of our whole redesign is to look at exactly the kind of issues you have identified of 

where have duplicative work efforts, overlap of work, not just within the State Department, but we find it interagency in Ag, Commerce, Defense. And so this is going to be examining all of these 

areas which ultimately I suspect will lead certainly to combined efforts. Delivering on mission for less cost. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I appreciate that. This committee 

will recess at 10 minutes before noon to allow us to join our colleagues on the House Floor and following the prayer and pledge, 

there will be brief remarks from the Speaker and the Democratic 

leader concerning the shooting incident this morning. Then this 

hearing will resume afterwards at 12:30 or so. I would like to 

thank the Secretary for his flexibility. We will adjourn here no 

later than 1:30. So at this time, let me go to Mr. David Cicilline 

of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. I think it is very clear that the devastating 

cuts proposed in this budget would make it nearly impossible for 

America to lead the world and it is why it has been decried by virtually every serious diplomat, scholar, and development expert. So 

I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues about 

this budget and what it would mean for our diplomatic work. 

I have very specific questions, Mr. Secretary, which I would ask 

you to answer with a yes or no if you can, so I can get through as 

many of them as possible. 

First, Mr. Secretary, I assume you are familiar with the First 

Amendment and the rights that it affords to the American people? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And do you believe that an open and unrestricted 

press is a vital part of a transparent and accountable government? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And in your observations, do China and Russia 

have a free and unfettered press, free from government influence? 

Secretary TILLERSON. No. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And so do you believe that Chinese and Russian 

media sources reliably and accurately report meetings or conversations between U.S. Government officials and their governments? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Not likely. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So do you believe that it impacts the narrative or 

sends any type of message to the leaders of Russia, China, or other 

authoritarian-leaning governments when American media is excluded from reporting on significant events involving yourself, the 

President, or other senior American diplomats? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am not sure I understood that one. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do you believe it impacts the narrative or sends 

a type of message to the leaders of other countries when American 

media is excluded from reporting on significant events involving 

you, the President, or other senior American diplomats? You may 

remember a meeting in which American media was excluded and 

Russia media was permitted in the Oval Office? 

Secretary TILLERSON. It is hard for me to say what impact that 

particular limited incident had. 

37

Mr. CICILLINE. Next, Mr. Secretary, you are aware that the 

Chechen Government, which is an arm of Vladimir Putin, has been 

engaged in a concerted campaign of kidnapping, detention, torture, 

and murder of gay men in Chechnya, are you not? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am aware of those reports, yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And my colleagues and I sent you a letter raising 

this issue on April 7th of 2017 and my question is did you discuss 

the issue of these atrocities being carried out in Chechnya when 

you met with the Foreign Minister Lavrov on May 10th or any 

other government officials at any other time? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Those are on our pending list. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So you have not discussed them at all? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We did not make our way through all the 

issues in the meetings we had. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Are you aware whether the President has raised 

this issue with President Putin? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am unaware of whether he has or not. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But will you here today in this hearing, condemn 

the torture and murder of gay men in Chechnya and state that is 

the policy of the United States Government at the highest levels 

that the Russian Government must protect the lives and safety of 

all of its citizens including the LGBT community? 

Secretary TILLERSON. That is our position globally. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And in Russia as well? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Last time I checked, Russia is part of the 

globe. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So that is a yes? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Next, Mr. Secretary, I assume you are familiar 

with the events that took place in Washington, DC, outside of the 

Turkish Embassy on May 6th? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I assume you do not believe it is appropriate for 

a foreign security force to assault Americans on American soil? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I do not. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Have you or the President had conversations with 

President Erdogan or the Turkish Ambassador about this incident? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We called the Turkish Ambassador over to 

the State Department immediately and spoke to him. I have had 

face-to-face conversations with the Foreign Minister Cavusoglu on 

the margins of the NATO meeting. The matter is under investigation by Washington, DC, police and the court system and we are 

awaiting conclusion of that investigation for further action. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So once those prosecutions are concluded, you will 

consider actions in response to this egregious attacks? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We want our action to be consistent with 

what the investigation shows. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And do you believe it is the purview of the United 

States Government to sell weapons to the very same security forces 

who committed this attack? 

Secretary TILLERSON. It is under evaluation. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Next Mr. Secretary, when can Congress expect to 

receive the administration’s plan to defeat ISIS and end the conflict 

in Syria? 

38

Secretary TILLERSON. We have an recent update with the President on the plan going forward, both militarily, diplomatically, and 

then how to confront ISIS, the D-ISIS campaign globally, both in 

the communications networks and to deny them the financing. It 

is a global approach. 

Mr. CICILLINE. When can Congress expect a presentation of those 

plans? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am not aware that there has been a request for one. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Consider this one, at least from one Member of 

Congress. And finally, Mr. Secretary, would you say that our past 

efforts to counter Russian aggression in Europe and Eurasia have 

been successful? 

Secretary TILLERSON. It is a work in progress and it requires 

work every day. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But has it been successful? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We have had some success. I think if you 

look at how certain countries in East Europe have progressed, 

progress in the Balkans, but challenged. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So my question is in light of that, after an unprecedented attack against our own elections, evidence of Russian 

attempts to hack and influence elections throughout Europe, as 

well as other mischief, how do you propose to adequately counter 

the Russian threat with the budget that is decimated by almost 60 

percent in the account for countering Russian aggression? We 

haven’t been successful and your budget proposes cutting it by 60 

percent. How can we be successful in countering Russian aggression with those kinds of resource reductions? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Our engagement is going to continue with 

those nations in East Europe that are most threatened. If we had 

additional funds, we would fan that back out to do more than some 

other countries, but we are going to remain engaged with those 

countries. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go briefly to——

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that 

the following three documents be placed in the record? 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go briefly to Scott Perry of 

Pennsylvania and then we will recess. 

Mr. PERRY. Great to see you. I for one, although I might take 

some differences with some of the lines in the budget request, am 

thrilled that we finally have a commander in chief that is interested in balancing the budget of the United States and I do consider that a national security priority. 

With that, Mr. Deutch asked you about the Palestinian Authority 

and the 10 percent increase. And I will tell you, at least one of us 

and probably more than one that is concerned and somewhat tired 

of continuing to fund the PA and hearing somewhat of the same 

rhetoric where we are going to discuss it. We are considering it. We 

have a commitment to end this stipend to murderers and terrorists 

and I am just wondering if you have a glide path and I don’t want 

to get into any discussion that would imperil your ability to be effective in this regard, but is there some way that you are using to 

39

assess how they are doing with that and to claw back some of that 

funds and use it for other things if they fail to comply with their 

commitment, whatever that is? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, I think the President has been very 

clear with the Palestinian Authority over actions he expects them 

to take and he has indicated that he has a certain window of patience and a certain window under which he is going to remain engaged and be interested and at some point he is going to become 

disinterested. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. 

Secretary TILLERSON. And if we become disinterested, that will 

certainly alter our level of support. 

Mr. PERRY. So we will just note, we will be monitoring and we 

will probably look to follow up to see if that, in fact, takes place. 

You also had a conversation regarding the IRGC and designating 

them. I would like to throw the Muslim Brotherhood in there as 

well, two organizations, actors if you will, that have the specific interest of the destruction of the West, particularly the United 

States. And while there might be some good components, if you 

want to characterize it that way for these organizations, I would 

like to engage in a little bit of a short conversation about designating each one of those sponsors of terrorism—what the pitfalls 

might be of doing so. What are the American people missing because they know they are bad actors. So what are we missing that 

we need to know about that it is deleterious to designate these obvious sponsors of terrorism for what they are? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, as you just noted, the Muslim Brotherhood, which I think reportedly would have up to 5 million members, has become somewhat segregated within its own ranks with 

the number of organizations within the Muslim Brotherhood, continuing to commit themselves to violence and terrorism. We have 

designated those organizations. 

At the top of the quality chain—if I can call it that—there are 

elements of Muslim Brotherhood that have now become part of governments. There are members of Parliament in Bahrain that are 

parts of government. There are members in Turkey that are parts 

of government. And so in designating the Muslim Brotherhood in 

its totality, as a terrorist organization, I think you can appreciate 

the complexities this enters into our relations with then the Government of Bahrain, and other governments where the Muslim 

Brotherhood has matriculated to become participants and in those 

elements they have done so by renouncing violence and terrorism. 

So that is one of the complicating issues around just taking a whole 

designation of Muslim Brotherhood. But I will tell you it is on our 

watch screen. We have not taken our eye off of it and we revisit 

this question periodically because it comes up in our foreign relations with others as well. 

Mr. PERRY. And I certainly appreciate the answer. I just hope 

that we do not allow the more moderate ones, the ones that denounce violence, to have the organization use them to be the umbrella under which they conduct all these other things, which is the 

specific downfall of the United States and do continue vigilance. 

Finally, and the last question, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, the deal with Saudi Arabia and I couldn’t get an answer on 

40

specifically how we were monitoring their support, the continued 

support of the exportation of Wahhabism, Salafism, and the terror 

that goes along with that fundamentalist view of Islam around the 

globe. 

Do you know of any metrics that the Department is following to 

support their claim that they are working on that? What are we 

gauging that? How are we doing to determine whether they are following along with that portion of the agreement? 

Secretary TILLERSON. One of the outcomes of the President’s 

summit in Riyadh was the creation of the Center to counter extreme Muslim messaging with Saudi Arabia. The Center now exists. It was inaugurated while we were there. The Center has a 

number of elements to attack extremism around the world. One of 

the elements that we are visiting with them about and they have 

already taken steps, the Saudis, is to publish new textbooks that 

go into the schools that are in the mosques around the world. 

These textbooks are to replace textbooks that are out there today 

that do advocate extreme Wahhabism viewpoints around the justification for violence. 

We have asked that they not just publish the new textbooks, we 

have asked that they retrieve the existing textbooks so we get 

those back. That is just one example. This Center is going to have 

a very broad range from social media to broadcast, to how young 

Imams are trained in the theological centers. And we are working 

with them today with the establishment of the new center to determine what are the measures that we will hold ourselves accountable to. That is one of the charges that the State Department is 

working with the Saudis and others as we bring this Center up to 

an operating level. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My time has expired and 

I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. And without objection, the committee stands is 

recess and will return at approximately 12:30. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ROYCE. We will begin at this time and we will begin 

with questioning from Mr. Ami Bera from California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience in this reconvening. 

Now this is a tough day today, but it is with thanks to the Capitol Police. It is with thanks to the men and women that not only 

protect us, but all across this country, protect not only communities 

across the country, but the men and women that are around the 

world protecting who we are. 

You know, I have stated this previously in committee. A world 

led by American leadership is a better world and we can see that 

if we look back at the second half of the 20th century and the postWorld War II world order. American leadership—leading with our 

values, with our morals—has created a better world and most 

around the world recognize that. And that has really been predicated on a foreign policy plank that has three legs, certainly, our 

defense, but also development and diplomacy. 

And my concern with this budget is that it cuts off two of those 

legs on that stool and that stool is going to collapse. It devastates 

the diplomacy and development budget. 

41

Now I know it is not your budget, Mr. Secretary, but as Members 

of Congress who have a responsibility for setting priorities, 

etcetera, I have grave concerns and can talk about a number of 

areas that I find very troublesome in this budget. I am going to 

focus—I am a physician by training with a public health and global 

health background, and have some real deep reservations about 

some of the cuts to our global health development, some of the cuts 

to USAID, particularly a 15 percent cut to maternal and child 

health programs. That is very worrisome to me, the impact that 

those cuts potentially have around the world. 

I think America is a great Nation, but a great Nation leads by 

our values and our morals and we don’t withdraw from the world. 

So my concern is if those cuts go into effect, the number of women 

that potentially will suffer, the number of women that potentially 

will die. I think some of the cuts with regards to a potential billion 

dollar reduction from PEPFAR, the zeroing out of family planning 

funds, are going to have devastating impacts. 

I watched them and read the testimony and the question of our 

colleague across the Capitol, Senator Shaheen, discussing the extension of the Mexico City policy. I heard your answer to that, that 

your office would be studying the impact of the extension of the 

global gag rule. 

Can you give us assurances that in that 6-month time frame 

when you get that report back, if we are seeing adverse impacts, 

that you would make recommendations to reverse that policy? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, thank you for the attention 

to that particular matter. I can’t commit to you that I would seek 

a reversal of that policy. As I explained to Senator Shaheen yesterday, our implementation of the policy was structured in a way and 

engagement with a number of our health partners to mitigate any 

effect on delivery of their activities. We said we would do a 6-

month check to see if it is impacting them and one provision I left 

out in my response to her yesterday is if it is impacting any particular areas of our healthcare that we did not intend to impact, 

then in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, I as Secretary of 

State can issue waivers and allow the funding to continue. So the 

reason we want to do the 6-month check is to see what impact does 

it have. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Secretary, will you commit to providing us the results of that report and what you find at that 6-month check? 

Secretary TILLERSON. We would be happy to share that. 

Mr. BERA. Great. I also have real reservations about the impact 

of PEPFAR. Now PEPFAR was started by a Republican President 

and has been a remarkable program saving thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa. I think President Bush would 

suggest that that is his proudest accomplishment. 

I would like to hear further commitment as we look at how we 

engage in global health around the world with partnerships—and 

I understand that it is our responsibility to evaluate each program, 

that we have limited resource and limited funds—but I would like 

to have this commitment that we are going to look at how we work 

with nonprofits around the world, how we work with allies and 

other countries around the world to continue relieving suffering. 

42

Secretary TILLERSON. That is a fundamental element of our approach to how we manage these reductions. Even with these cuts, 

the $1 billion cut to PEPFAR, we will continue to be the leader in 

health issues globally and PEPFAR is clearly recognized as a model 

program that should be replicated elsewhere. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We are going now to Mr. Paul 

Cook, vice chairman of the committee, of California. 

Mr. COOK. It is good to see you again, Mr. Secretary. I missed 

some of the testimony and I hope I am not being redundant, but 

I wanted to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, the impact in 

Qatar, and quite frankly, Turkey, and the strained relationship, 

and how it is so difficult to find out one day you have an ally and 

the next day you might have an adversary. And I know that is 

going to be very, very challenging with the Saudis and what has 

happened in the past few weeks, as well as the on-going political 

situation in Turkey which affects the whole Middle East and our 

policy. 

If you could address that, I would appreciate it. I talked to you, 

I think last week, about the same thing. But Secretary Mattis had 

some input on it Monday night and it is one which doesn’t necessarily have a military solution, but you are going to be right in 

the eye of the storm. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Our relationship with Turkey is extremely 

important to the United States. It is also extremely important to 

NATO, to Europe and clearly we are concerned about the evolution 

of events, particularly since the coup attempt in Turkey. I have 

traveled to Ankara and obviously President Erdogan has been here. 

So our level of engagement with Turkey is at a very high level of 

communication and engagement. 

And where we have issues of concern, we are talking about those, 

discussing them. Clearly, they have some issues with how we are 

executing our military plans in Syria to defeat ISIS. We are concerned about their engagements with Russia. The European Union 

is concerned about the relationships. Turkey sits at an extremely 

important place geographically, but also geopolitically. So it is an 

important relationship. It is quite complex right now and our objective is not to worsen that relationship, but find ways to re-engage 

and strengthen it so that we can have some influence over the 

choices that they are making, particularly with respect to freedoms 

within the country, continuing their role and their construct as a 

democracy. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COOK. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Secretary, 

I would ask you if you would to your thought about the waivers for 

the Mexico City policy in answer to my friend and colleague, Dr. 

Bera. I would hope that you would not go that route. That would 

have the perverse impact of incentivizing foreign non-governmental 

organizations to be noncompliant with the Mexico City policy. 

And I would point out to my colleagues that back in 1985, after 

Ronald Reagan first announced the Mexico City policy at the U.N. 

Conference in Mexico City, hence its name, there were large numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
43

bers of NGOs, foreign NGOs, that said ‘‘We are not going to comply.’’ I offered the amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1985 which passed. And I fully expect we will have 

an all-out legislative battle on the floor again which I would welcome, with a policy that seeks to hold harmless unborn children in 

our foreign aid. 

Global health ought to be inclusive, not exclusive of unborn children who we know now beyond any reasonable doubt are harmed 

in a way that is violence against children, whether it be by dismemberment or chemical poisoning. Abortion is violence against 

children and it also has consequences in the negative for women. 

And the Mexico City policy, as you know so well, has three exceptions: Rape, incest, and life of the mother, which tracks what Ronald Reagan did and what George W. Bush did and what the first 

Bush did when he initiated the policy as well. 

And at the end of the day when it only applied to family planning organizations, when I offered the amendment on the floor, 

Olympia Snow and others said none of the groups are going to accept it. At the end of the day, all but two accepted it. And that was 

IPPF, based out London and Marie Stopes International. They all 

accepted it. 

So I would encourage you, waivers would be an incentive to a foreign, non-government organization, and again American taxpayers 

through the polling have shown clearly that they do not want our 

foreign aid subsidizing and enabling the killing of unborn children 

overseas or anywhere else. That is why the Hyde Amendment domestically enjoys such strong support. So I just would offer that 

thought. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Secretary 

of State. 

I think today is the day where we all recognize our common humanity as my thoughts are with my colleague and the other folks 

impacted by the shooting. So I will try and be kind and gentle. I 

am always kind and gentle, aren’t I? 

So in a very kind and gentle way, I want to say that I am sad 

to say that I think your budget is inhumane and dangerous. Okay. 

I had to say that. 

I don’t want to turn this into an abortion fight at all, because 

that was not part of my remarks, but I just want to counter my 

colleague who I respect very, very much and just say that women 

having full access to reproductive choice and care is imperative for 

them to have a full and productive life and I think it is important 

to the security of their community. But I am going to move on. 

I wanted to mention, I remember the President said, I think he 

said he inherited a mess in talking about international affairs, so 

to me it is very perplexing that he inherits a mess and then you 

come in with a budget with almost a one-third cut in State Department activities. 

Over 120 retired Four Star Generals sent a letter opposing the 

cuts, saying this is not the time to retreat. Secretary Mattis, when 

he was Commander of U.S. Central Command says, ‘‘If you don’t 

fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.’’ I guess this is the Trump doctrine because he is putting bilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
44

lions of more dollars into ammunition and cutting, as my colleague 

said before, two of the legs of our national security which are diplomacy and development. 

I want to focus on what I think is one of the crown jewels of our 

development efforts and that is our global health investments. I 

know you would probably agree that diseases do not recognize 

international borders. Every year, almost 80 million people from 

other countries visit the United States. This was in 2016 and 

Americans took more than 77 million international trips. We have 

hundreds of thousands of military living overseas. So U.S. global 

assistance helps not only to protect people in other countries, but 

it protects the United States. 

I hope you would agree that these health initiatives help keep 

countries stable. When you have, one of my colleagues mentioned 

famine, but if you have disease, you have famine, you have inhumane conditions, it promotes not only people trying to escape the 

country, but it destabilizes countries creating an environment for 

terrorism. 

George Bush, one of his greatest achievements was PEPFAR, 

which put us on track to end AIDS as a public health threat by 

2030. I know you yourself have said it is a model for the world to 

follow, yet the President’s budget cuts this by $1.1 billion. 

The Global Fund, which controls the spread of malaria, TB, and HIV, also is being cut by $225 million. And I know people have 

said why should we care what is happening in these other countries? I think that is going to the questions I want to ask you which 

is this, Mr. Secretary, why should we care about diseases in other 

countries? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, Congresswoman, I think you just 

gave the explanation for why we should care and I do not think——

Ms. FRANKEL. —all right, well, I will go on. 

Secretary TILLERSON. What I would point to, I know we are focused on the cuts. I think it is important to also focus on how much 

we still will be committing and spending toward these diseases, toward our global health efforts. We are not zeroing health out. 

These were difficult choices that were made in the budget. We do 

believe that we can attract others and other funding and enable 

the continuation of these programs. And there is no stepping back 

from our commitment on PEPFAR to the countries. We are going 

to fully meet the commitments on our AIDS programs in PEPFAR. 

We are fully meeting our commitments, fulfilling our 5-year pledge 

to Gavi. We don’t intend in any way to abandon our efforts or 

abandon our view of how important these issues are. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

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

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

A few questions. First, I want to ask about Iran. There is a lot 

of agreement that Iran has violated the spirit of the JCPOA. Have 

you seen any evidence that Iran has violated the letter of the 

JCPOA? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, we will await the quarterly report 

from IAEA to see if they have found any specific violations. I have 

read the entire JCPOA agreement now for myself, so I can underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
45

stand this spirit and intent. Quite frankly, it is a poorly constructed agreement. The bar for Iran’s compliance is pretty low. 

And so it should not come as a surprise to people that they are able 

to comply. It is not that difficult for them to comply. 

Having said that, we intend to have a rigorous application of the 

compliance requirements and a rigorous confirmation from the 

IAEA that they are complying. 

The whole spirit and intent question is one that obviously is always open to interpretation by both sides. And importantly, remember the JCPOA is a multi-lateral agreement, so we have partners I would say that were on our side of the table, best I can tell. 

They will have their interpretation of that as well. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you. And your predecessor pointed out that 

it was a political commitment. It wasn’t a treaty. It wasn’t an executive agreement. It was a political commitment, one that we didn’t 

even ask for a signature on, an unsigned political commitment. 

Does the administration recognize Jerusalem as the capital of 

Israel? 

Secretary TILLERSON. The administration has not expressed a 

specific view in that regard. 

Mr. ZELDIN. I would state my own position. I believe strongly 

that the administration should recognize Jerusalem as the unquestionable capital of Israel. 

Will the administration eventually move the American Embassy 

in Israel to Jerusalem? 

Secretary TILLERSON. That decision is under evaluation by the 

President. Obviously, he will have to make a decision coming up on 

whether to extend a final decision on that or not. He has not made 

that decision to my knowledge. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And the President was absolutely correct during the 

campaign when he had stated his position and intent then of moving the Embassy and I would encourage him to go with his instinct 

from the campaign and follow through with that pledge. 

How do you believe the United States can better leverage our foreign aid that we provide to the Palestinian Authority? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, I think again our engagement with 

them and our making clear on our expectations of how aid is utilized. One thing I would like to clarify from this morning’s hearing, 

several times in the questions people suggested our support to the 

Palestinian Authority was increasing next year. That is inaccurate. 

It is actually going down about $20 million, if I remember correctly. 

And to remind everyone, our aid does not go directly to the Palestinian Authority. It is given to them by way of Israel and we 

work closely with them as to how that money is delivered and for 

what purposes it is delivered. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And I appreciate that point. And I would offer that 

whatever the United States can’t do to the Palestinian Authority, 

legally, we should also have the position that we also cannot do for 

the Palestinian Authority indirectly. 

I cosponsored the Taylor Force Act, as I know a number of my 

colleagues in the House and the Senate did as well. I believe it is 

now one that has bipartisan support over on the Senate side. And 

I wish a better leverage of the aid that is provided for the Palestinian Authority which includes providing certifications that the 

46

Palestinian Authority is not inciting violence. And as in the name 

Taylor Force Act, the United States Military Academy graduate, 

the Palestinians are not only inciting violence to target innocent 

Israelis, but they are doing so to target Americans as well. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, just so you are clear. It was 

with that strong bipartisan sense of the Congress that we have 

taken the position with the Palestinian Authority in a very unequivocal way, that you either take care of this yourself or someone 

else is going to take care of it for you. And those are the words I 

have used with them. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And you have strongly stated in recent statements 

where you have mentioned that the President brought this up with 

Abbas, that you have received assurances. It is in the news today 

that there are Palestinian officials pushing back on your position 

that the Palestinian Authority has agreed to stop providing these 

payments to financially reward terror and I really do wish you the 

absolute best as Secretary of State in your pursuit here. And I 

would love to talk to you further about those efforts moving forward in the weeks, months, and years ahead. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Joaquin Castro of Texas. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for 

being here today and for your testimony. Obviously, cooperation between Congress and the State Department is important, but I am 

concerned over what looks like a lack of cooperation within the Executive. 

The policy of the White House and the State Department has not 

been completely aligned over the last several months. For example, 

mere minutes after you stated that the Saudi and Emirate blockade of Qatar hindered U.S. military action against ISIS, President 

Trump took to Twitter to praise the blockade. 

As you attempted to form an international coalition to isolate 

North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, President Trump 

called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un ‘‘a smart cookie’’ and said 

he would be ‘‘honored to meet him’’ hurting your efforts. 

Your efforts to assure our European and Asian allies have our 

commitment to alliances have similarly been undercut by the 

White House and the President. 

It was reported that when Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump stood up at their press conference and broached the 

idea of a one state solution instead of a two state solution, that you 

were in an airplane somewhere else and that the State Department 

was not part of those discussions. 

So my question is how can Americans and our allies around the 

world have confidence in your word, in the State Department’s position, and most of all that it represents what President Trump believes? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Congressman, just to be clear, there is no 

gap between the President and myself or the State Department on 

policy. There are differences in terms of how the President chooses 

to articulate elements of that policy. In the instance of the Qatar 

example that you gave where I made a statement, the State Department. I then attended a bilat with President of Romania with 

President Trump and then he made his statement in the Rose Garden. I was involved in writing his comments in the Rose Garden 

47

to reflect the strong message he wanted to send which was not just 

to Qatar, but he said to everyone, to all countries, to stop the funding, stop the killing, stop teaching your young people hate. That 

was the way he wanted to deliver. He wanted to deliver a very 

strong message——

Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Secretary, I know that. 

Secretary TILLERSON. There is no daylight between he and I. 

Mr. CASTRO. I hear you. Jared Kushner has been given, reportedly given a big portfolio with respect to foreign affairs. Who is responsible for the foreign affairs of our country? Is it the Department of State and yourself or is it Mr. Kushner and the White 

House? 

Secretary TILLERSON. It is the Department of State and myself 

and that has been reconfirmed by the President to me on multiple 

occasions. 

Mr. CASTRO. And part of the reason I ask these questions, in 

February I was in Japan and South Korea and this was the biggest 

question people had. When we look to the United States, who 

speaks for the President reliably? Whose word can be trusted? 

I know you can understand how important that is for our allies 

and also for our adversaries. So why would the State Department 

be left out of any discussion about one of our most important foreign policy issues, whether you are going to have a one state solution or a two state solution? You can see how that is quite strange 

and bizarre. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, I think that came out of the bilateral 

private meeting between the President and Prime Minister 

Netanyahu. And I think to be fair, what the President was indicating is that whatever approach the two sides, the Palestinians 

and the Israelis, want to take to achieve a peace accord, we will 

support. I think what he was saying is we are prepared and he is 

prepared to put his shoulder to the wheel to see if we can move 

a process along and he is going to be unconstrained to exploring 

any and all other alternatives. Because the alternatives everyone 

has pursued now for so many years have not produced a result. 

And I think these are some of the changes that people have a difficult time perhaps understanding tactically. 

Mr. CASTRO. And thank you for that. 

Secretary TILLERSON. The President is saying let us explore everything. 

Mr. CASTRO. Let me just make one last comment. First, I don’t 

mean it as a knock on your leadership or your record at the Department. I believe that you have put in a very difficult position. 

And it is not just yourself. It is other members of the Cabinet 

where they essentially will make a statement, believing what they 

believe to be the President’s position, only to have the President go 

on Twitter or otherwise make a contradictory statement. But in all 

of it, it is very unsettling for Americans to try to understand where 

our Government is headed, where the President is headed. But 

even more unsettling for allies who are not in the United States 

and have no other indicators than what they hear on the news. So 

we would just ask, I would just ask for I guess more thoughtfulness 

from the Executive Branch on how they approach these things. 

Chairman ROYCE. So we go now to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. 

48

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good seeing 

you again. Appreciate your being here. 

As we talked the other day about 10 years ago, there were 25 

conflicts around the world. Today, there are over 75. There are certainly no shortages of great challenges in the world. But with the 

challenges come great opportunities, so I see great things in store 

for you, for our Nation, and hopefully for the world. 

I feel some of my colleagues aren’t accepting the fact that we are $20 trillion in debt and that austerity measures are coming. We 

have reports where we are going to be in 5 to 6 years and we are 

looking at Puerto Rico. We are looking at Greece and we don’t want 

to go there. 

So we do have to reform some of these programs and that leads 

to the current budget, that we continue the programs that work 

and we get the results. We get the results that we are looking for 

and get rid of the programs that aren’t working. 

We were in the DRC with Chairman Royce and I remember sitting there at the table with the ministers and we are going around 

and talking about things and I asked the people at that table, and 

keep in mind we have given hundreds of billions of dollars. What 

do you do for your social programs? And they asked me, what do 

you mean? I said feeding the hungry, housing, healthcare. And he 

goes we have you. Those aren’t good programs and we need to reform those and we need to put pressure on those kind of countries. 

The comment that President Trump said make America great 

again, put America first. I truly believe in that. And I think it has 

taken out of context because the only way we can become great or 

we can become first at whatever we do is to look out for the partners that we are working with and that comes through diplomacy 

in your agency. And I have a lot of confidence in your business acumen that you can transfer those to the State Department. I have 

watched you since you have come in and I am just a big fan of 

what you can do. 

I know we are in separate branches of government. And look at 

this committee—I chair the Asia Pacific Subcommittee as we 

talked about—of how we can partner together to work on those 

commonalities. 

And with that as you know yesterday, Panama terminated the 

diplomatic relationships with Taiwan. It is the latest in China’s effort to restrict Taiwan’s international space and including the 

blockade of Taiwan delegation at the World Health Assembly. To 

me, this is unconscionable to say to another nation, and I feel like 

what other people have said, they are a nation that I recognize. 

And I know it is in a tough situation because we have had that policy since President Nixon. But saying that and China says they are 

going to be a reliable partner to bring North Korea to the table. 

When we look at what China has done, they have increased their 

trade with North Korea, 37.4 percent in the first quarter. Chinese 

imports of North Korean iron has increased 270 percent in January 

and February, yet no Chinese firms have been subjected to U.S. 

secondary sanctions. I have heard you talk about that. It looks like 

we are moving in that direction. And I commend you for that. Can 

we realistically rely on China in lieu of their past experience or actions? 

49

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, first just to remind you that our 

North Korea policy really went into effect late February, early 

March when we began to execute that and so we recognize there 

was a lot of activity going on early in the year and through the first 

quarter and that is what we have been trying to attack. 

We recognize what China is doing to put pressure on smaller 

countries. They are using the power of their trading relations. They 

are using the power of aid that they have gone in and provided to 

smaller countries. And in my trip that I recently made down to 

Australia and New Zealand in my meetings I have had with members of ASEAN, we are hearing this directly from them, that they 

are not only feeling this pressure, it is being put right in front of 

them to say you either sever relations with this and so or we are 

going to end our trading relationships with you. 

Even large countries are being threatened in this way. And our 

conversations with the Chinese about this next 50 years of stability 

and prosperity, we are being clear to them that you are destabilizing what has been a stable relationship with these actions. If 

this is where you are going, you are going to create instability and 

you are going to take this balance that has maintained a period of 

non-conflict, you are going to upset that balance. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary TILLERSON. So these are the kind of high-level discussions we are having with the most senior levels of the Chinese 

leadership. You have to think about where does this go? Where 

does this lead? And what are you going to force as a response to 

that? So we are very mindful of it. We see it happening and we see 

it as threatening stability in the region. 

Mr. YOHO. I agree. And I am out of time. My last statement is 

I hope we stay in honor of the Taiwan Relations Act as we have 

in the past. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. As I mentioned before, this hearing will conclude at 1:30. The Secretary has 

been very flexible and he does have other commitments. So if the 

members will be brief and not be compelled to use their full time, 

we want to give everyone a chance in the next 20 minutes. And we 

will go to Robin Kelly of Illinois. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for 

coming to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You are actually 

the first government witness I believe to appear before the full 

committee, so I thank you for that. 

The official mission statement of the State Department reads, 

‘‘The Department’s mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, 

prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for 

stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and 

people everywhere.’’

In your testimony, you stated that the State Department’s primary focus is to protect our citizens at home and abroad. And to 

me, that sounds more like the mission of the Defense Department 

than the State Department. So has the mission of the U.S. State 

Department changed somewhat under President Trump? 

Secretary TILLERSON. The mission statement that you just read 

is one that is very powerful. And that I would certainly support. 

50

Having said that, it was a statement developed under previous administrations. 

Part of this redesign opportunity we have in front of us, a lot of 

the elements that we learned out of the listening sessions, was 

there is some confusion over the mission. And that confusion 

doesn’t just exist as of today. It has existed for some time. 

I think we do owe it to ourselves with the input and help of our 

colleagues in the State Department to do a better job of articulating what is the enduring mission of the State Department that 

endures regardless of what political party may be in place at any 

given time because the State Department is here constant. We understand that the will of the American people changes and can 

change from one election to the next, but the State Department 

must have a mission that delivers regardless of what the policy decisions may be that change from time to time. 

And I think that is a conversation we really need to have with 

ourselves inside the State Department, with our colleagues, and 

that is the mission statement that I am in search of is what will 

endure regardless of who may be occupying the White House. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. I do agree with most of my colleagues 

said about the budget cuts. I have a lot of concern and a recent article by Mike Mullin and James Jones, two distinguished military 

leaders, specifically cited cuts to USAID as risking U.S. national 

security. And they go on to specifically say that ‘‘in the 21st century, weapons and war fighters alone are insufficient to keep 

America safe.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask to submit the entire article into the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Ms. KELLY. I also have concerns about the staffing up that needs 

to be done because that will help you do the job you need to do if 

you have the people you need to have. Is there a backlog of policy 

recommendations now because of the lack of staffing? 

Secretary TILLERSON. There really is not. And again, I want to 

recognize that every job is filled today, either a Deputy Assistant 

stepped up to be the Acting Assistant, or an Acting Assistant has 

stepped up to be the Under, if necessary. And these are remarkably 

good people, competent, dedicated. I have had a lot of conversation 

with them about how I know it is difficult to be the acting, but they 

are doing a superb job. I have great confidence in them. They travel with me when I go overseas. These are the people that help me 

develop the policy. They are executing the policy and they are 

doing an extraordinary job. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Because of time, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you for yielding back. We go to Brian 

Mast of Florida. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for your 

time today. Just a couple quick questions. Do you have any plans 

to bring Vladimir Putin a red reset button? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I don’t think you can reset anything. We 

are where we are. We just have to address the conditions as they 

exist. 

Mr. MAST. Do you foresee turning a blind eye if Russia were to 

invade any other sovereignty? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Certainly not. 

51

Mr. MAST. Do you anticipate President Trump whispering in the 

ear of the Russian President saying he would have more flexibility 

after the next election? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I would not expect that President Trump 

has any intent to do anything other than to try to restore this relationship to something that is in the interest of the American people. 

Mr. MAST. Do you anticipate mocking the threat of the Russian 

influence on the United States by saying the 1980s want their foreign policy back? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I think we will be articulating our own 

view toward Russia which I have described in some respects today. 

We take the relationship with Russia as serious. They are a global nuclear power. Having said that, we have a number of troubling 

issues with them in front of us to deal with. 

Mr. MAST. Do you think there is any level of funding that can 

make up for actions like that? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I think this is going to be just very hard 

work of diplomacy, coupled with some strong actions that have 

been taken already and the prospect of what the Congress can enable us to do with stronger actions if we cannot get progress. 

Mr. MAST. Do you believe that it is more important, the words 

and the actions that you undertake, than any level of funding that 

you try to meet? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, today, in restoring that relationship, 

it is not an absence of funds that is in any way preventing us from 

continuing to work to identify our areas where we may find cooperation to begin to build some level of trust and confidence. 

Funding is not an issue in terms of how we are working with Russia today. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you for your remarks. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Dina Titus of Nevada. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary. 

I, too, share my colleagues’ concerns about the devastating budget 

cuts and also about the lack of senior leadership at the State Department. I don’t see how we can move forward in a leadership role 

in the world with those two things, those two problems hanging 

over us. 

But I want to go back to the questions that Mr. Castro raised. 

I don’t believe our country has a singular voice when it comes to 

foreign policy. And that concerns our allies and it also emboldens 

our adversaries because nobody knows who to believe. Now he 

mentioned several examples, Qatar, the incident that occurred recently; the peace talks in the Middle East. But I would like to bring 

up a couple of others. 

You weren’t part of the discussion to withdraw from the Paris 

Climate Agreement. And I believe you have said that you are opposed to that, that we should not have done that. I would like to 

ask you why you think this was a bad idea and is there any way 

with all this limited funds that we can move forward in any way 

as a leader on climate change? 

The second one I would like to ask you to address is in the written statement, you say the U.S. and I quote, ‘‘Will continue to be 

the leader in international development, global health, democracy, 

52

and good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts.’’ Yet, 

the President has said that we don’t really care about what other 

countries are doing internally, only how they relate to us. It is not 

up to us to interfere. I believe the quote was, ‘‘We are not here to 

tell other people how to live, what to do, and who to be.’’

Would you tell us how that kind of jives with what you have 

said? 

Secretary TILLERSON. With respect to the decision to withdraw 

from the Paris Climate Accord, I was part of that interagency process. What I would point out to you is this is a decision the President could easily have taken the first week after inauguration, that 

he clearly indicated in his campaign he intended to. 

I think it is noteworthy that he took some time to think about 

it. He deliberated on it. We had a couple of different sessions on 

it with him. He waited until he took his first overseas trip and attended the G-7 so he could hear directly from others that the issue 

is quite important to. And then he came home. He had one more 

deliberation. It was on a telephone conference call which I participated. 

I was free to express my views. I took a counter view to the decision that was made, but I fully appreciate the elements behind why 

he took the decision. 

Ms. TITUS. Can you tell us why you have a counter position? 

Why you don’t think it was a good idea to pull out? 

Secretary TILLERSON. As I have expressed publicly, and I expressed to the President, I think having our seat at the table 

around the Paris Climate Accord to continue to have influence on 

the issue itself, continue to represent America’s efforts because 

America has done an extraordinary job of dealing with our own 

greenhouse gas emissions without heavy-handed regulation. And 

just because we have walked away from targets that were set 

under Paris is in no way indicative of our intent to walk away from 

that continued improvement. 

I think America’s businesses and private and public enterprises 

have no intent of changing that commitment. So my view was, as 

a diplomat, it is an opportunity for engagement. And I take every 

opportunity for engagement I can. This is an issue that is very important to many of our allies. 

Ms. TITUS. I agree. 

Secretary TILLERSON. So I think having the opportunity to engage, that is the reason I argued for staying in. 

Ms. TITUS. And how about the second point about just okay with 

whatever you do in your own country? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I think what the President was indicating 

is he is not into government building, or changing governments. I 

think what he is indicating is, in his view, mistakes have been 

made in the past by involving ourselves with countries and then 

expanding our involvement to want to now change their culture, 

change their heritage, change who they are, change the way they 

live their lives. 

And I think what he was saying is there is a lot of conflict that 

can be created when we try to go too far in imposing our way of 

life on others, that we have to recognize and respect the history of 

countries, the history of the regions, their culture, and not create 

53

new areas of conflict just because we think they should be doing 

things differently. I think that is the intent. 

And I think there is a lot of merit in that and I think when I 

reflect on the conflicts around the world and how did we get there 

and why do they exist, a lot of it is grounded in these areas. We 

continue to believe that if we can de-conflict areas, bring peace to 

areas, we have a much better chance of engaging on many things 

like human rights, freedom, democracy, which we want to and will 

continue to promote. 

Ms. TITUS. My time is up. I appreciate that. So after we go in 

after the war is over, we don’t have any responsibility for doing any 

nation building? That is okay, my time is up. 

Chairman ROYCE. Francis Rooney of Florida. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for your service. Thank you for leaving private industry to 

serve your country. 

As a person who has been in and out of the State Department 

for many years and has had commercial relationships with the 

Agency for International Development, I want to thank you for 

bringing a business-like and pro-taxpayer approach to funding the 

Department. 

What you said is true. It is about what you can accomplish and 

what kind of people you have, not necessarily what you spend to 

get there. For example, like the record reflects, the Department has 

spent over $29 million to subsidize an organization you and I know 

personally, the World Economic Forum. I wonder what the taxpayers would think of that. 

I want to applaud you in your budget for scrapping the disaster 

known as the U.S. Institute of Peace. If every taxpayer from Florida to California could see that building, we would have a revolt 

on our hands. 

And lastly, I wish you would reconsider the $10 million you have 

in there for the U.N. Human Rights Council. That is on top of 

$171⁄2 million that we have spent in the last few years to try to buy 

friendship with Israel, that I will tell you, I will bet you a steak 

dinner, is not going to work. 

So I guess I just want to know what can we do, who agree with 

you, to have your back to encourage you to stay tough and to reinforce your effort to bring reform, to eliminate wasteful spending, 

and to position the Department to live effectively in the 21st century? 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, Congressman, first, thank you for the 

support we already receive from the Congress and the input which 

is really important for us to have an understanding of what the 

priorities are in the minds of the Congress and in particular the 

House because you are closest to the face of the American people 

and I recognize that. 

I think in terms of some of these cuts to international organizations, we are looking at those one by one by one and really asking 

ourselves, what is the cost of benefit here? And in some areas, we 

either are going to reform those or we are going to withdraw from 

them. And we actually are using this exercise, and everyone is well 

aware of what we are going through here where we are taking a 

very close look as to what do we, the American people, get in reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Oct 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061417\25840 SHIRL
54

turn for this investment or this funding that we provide. And that 

is very much not as a threat, but as a tool to use so they understand this time this is a serious conversation. We need to get to 

a serious conclusion. If you don’t want to change, if you don’t want 

to reform, that is fine. Just let us know and we will try a different 

approach. 

The Human Rights Council at the U.N. is one that we are currently engaged in and Ambassador Haley is directly engaged in. 

She and I have spoken about we are either going to reform this 

thing and make it reflect what it should be reflecting or we are 

going to withdraw our support for it and try to find other means 

that we can approach human rights issues on a multi-lateral basis 

with partners who see it the same way we do. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Norma Torres from California will 

be our last speaker. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Secretary. 

Thank you for staying as long as you have and accommodating our 

tough day today. 

I understand that later this week you are traveling to Miami for 

a conference about security and prosperity in Central America, specifically the northern triangle area. I want to make you aware that 

we in Congress have been working very hard on a bipartisan way 

to deal with the crisis we have in this area. 

And I want to make sure that you understand that while our 

President may not think that we should be building up other governments, our national security is very dependent on the democracy and democracy issues within our closest neighbors to the 

south. We have to be very proactive at dealing with the very corrupt governments that have become a culture of our neighbors. We 

have to deal with the narcotraffic issues and the money laundering 

that happens in this region because they are our partners in our 

national security. 

So thank you for making a commitment to working there, but I 

also want to make sure that you understand that this is important 

to Congress. We passed this resolution unanimously here in Congress. 

The world looks at the United States for leadership on the global 

stage. Unfortunately, the President’s words and actions have been 

undermining American leadership. Part of the problem is that we 

don’t have a fully staffed, functioning State Department. Another 

problem is that there is a conflict of mixed messages that come 

across when the President tweets and you have a different response and his press team has a different response. 

Mr. Secretary, my question to you is are the President’s tweets 

the official foreign policy of the United States? 

Secretary TILLERSON. I am not going to comment extensively on 

the President’s tweets. The President has his own means that he 

wishes to communicate through and he communicates a lot of different messages with those. 

Ms. TORRES. I understand that, sir. But is it an informed decision based on facts that he is tweeting out and is this our policy, 

U.S. policy? 

55

Secretary TILLERSON. I am not involved in how the President 

constructs his tweets, when he tweets, why he tweets, what he 

tweets. 

Ms. TORRES. It seems to be a game that goes back and forth. 

This is not meant to be a gotcha question. This is simply wanting 

to clarify for other world leaders. I was just on a trip to Mexico 

with a delegation of U.S. Members of Congress and part of the insecurity with our closest neighbor to the South is the fact that the 

President puts out tweets and people don’t know. These leaders 

don’t know if this is informed policy and if this is truly how the 

United States intends to conduct business. 

Secretary TILLERSON. What I would say with our neighbors in 

Mexico to the South, and you mentioned the Miami conference that 

I will be going to tomorrow to address both economic and security 

issues in the triangle area, this conference is being co-sponsored by 

the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, our 

Mexican counterparts, the Foreign Ministry, and the State Minister of Mexico. This is something that came out of our Mexico City 

engagement because we recognize we have a common issue in 

trans-migration that is a problem for Mexico, a problem for us. 

And what we are doing and this gets to our approach to the 

budget question and concerns that we are not going to be able to 

carry out our foreign policy objectives. These are some of the innovative approaches we are taking. We are bringing the Inter-American Bank, the World Bank, we are bringing a number of private 

sector entities to Miami. The Vice President is coming to give the 

keynote address at the lunch, so I think——

Ms. TORRES. Do you know who is not coming? Do you know who 

is not coming and it is not because you did not invite them. But 

the Attorneys General of all three countries are not coming simply 

because their governments think that there is instability happening here in the U.S. and they have left them out. And I think 

it is important at this conference, sir, that we call them out on 

that. 

Secretary TILLERSON. Well, as you know, a lot of our assistance 

in those three countries is to strengthen law enforcement, strengthen the ability of Attorney Generals to prosecute, strengthen the 

courts to make those cases stick on corruption in particular. 

We have made progress and the reason we are focusing on the 

triangle area is because we made progress. We think we are very 

close to pushing this over the hump, so to speak, and we want to 

bring in a lot of others to help with this so that we aren’t doing 

it alone. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I want to thank the Secretary for this 

time with the committee. This has been a challenging day in Congress. It is a tough world out there. Excuse me, we are at 1:30 and 

I made my commitment that we would adjourn. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I appreciate that and thank the 

Secretary for speaking here today and sharing your time so generously. On behalf of those of us who were not able to ask questions, I request that we may submit them to you and get a response in writing. 

Chairman ROYCE. Absolutely. 

56

Secretary TILLERSON. I look forward to any other questions and 

I am sorry we were unable to have a dialogue with each of you as 

well. Again, I understand the circumstances entirely. 

Chairman ROYCE. And as I said at the beginning of the hearing, 

that absolutely is something we will do and I do want to convey 

on behalf of all of the members here, the committee looks forward 

to working with you, Mr. Secretary, on many policies, including 

your reorganization efforts. You have heard our concerns and we 

look forward to receiving your legislative proposals for the Department’s reorganization once they are ready. 

Again, I thank you for being prepared to respond to the other 

members who did not get an opportunity here today. I thank you 

and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

58

f


25840n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

Junel4.2017 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You arc respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. to be held 

In Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and a·vailablc hvc on the Committee ·website at 

h!!u.J.b3: '" \\ .Foreig11Aff..1irs.ho~): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESS: 

Wednesday, June 14, 2017 

9:00a.m. 

The FY 2018 Foreign Affairs Budget 

The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson 

Secretary of State 

U.S. Department of State 

By Direction of the Chairman 
59


25840m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MlNUTES OF l'ULL COM\11TfLE llliARlNU 

Doy Wednesday Dotec ___ fi~V:~14~1.~'2~()1~7 ___ Room ____ 2_1_72_ 

Storting Time ---'1'-'()":"'05'----__ J<:nding Time __ 1'cC·cc·3'"'5 __ 

Recesses I:LJ (1 r:JJ_to 12:40) ( __ to __ ) ( __ to __ ) L__to __ ) L__to---,---) ( __ to_) 

Presiding Mcmbcr(s) 

Chairman Edward R. Royce 

Check all of the following that app(y: 

Open Session I:Zl Executive (closed) Session D Televised [Z] 

J<:lectronically Record~ taped) I:Zl 

Stenographic Hecord lLJ 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

The FY 2()18 Foreign Affairs Budget 

COMMITTEE ::WEMDERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NOK-COMMITTEE 1\ill::WBERS PRESENT: 

none 

HllAHlNG WUi'lllSSES: Same as meeting notice attached"/ Yes[] :>~oO 

(if "no", please list beloH1 and include title, agency. depm'fmeut, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR TilE RECORD: (List any statements suhmittedfor the record,) 

lJfR- Rep. Pavid L'icitliue 

IFR -Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 

JFR- Rep. Robin Kelly 

SFR - Rep. Gerald Connol(v 

SFR- Rep. Adriuno llipuiltat 

QFR- Chairman J::dward Royce 

QFR- Rep. Eliot Engel 

QFR- Rep. Dana lloltrahacher 

QFR- Rep. Brad Sherman 

QFR- Rep. Steve Chubut 

QFR- Rep. Gre~ory Meeks 

QFR- Rep. Ted Poe 

QF R - Rep. Albio Sires 

Q~FR -Rep. Jeff'JJtmcan 

QFR- Rep. Gerald Connolly 

QFR- Rep. William Keatinf{ 

QFR- Rt!p. Ann Wl1gna 

QFR- Rep. David Cicilline 

QFR -ll£p. Brian Fitzpatrick 

QFR- Rep. AmilJera 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECUNVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED _1_:3_5 ___ _ 

QFR- Rep. Lois Frankel 

QPR- Rep. Tu.lfi Gabbard 

QFR- Rep. Joaquin Castro 

Q.FR - Rep. Dina Tftus 

QFR- Rep. lVormll Torres 

Qfi'R -Rep. Brad Schneider 

QFR- Rep. AJ1·iano Espaitlat 

QFR -Rep. Ted Lieu 

caring Coordinator 
60

f


25840m-2.eps

PRT:ST:,\T 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu" COMMTTTFF HF:ARTNG 

Mr:URr:R PRT:ST:!.T Mr:MRr:R 

Edward R. Royce, CA X Eliot L. Engel, NY 

Christopher H. Smith. NJ X Brad Shennan, C A 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohrabacher, CA X Albia Sires, NJ 

Steve Chabot, OH X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson, SC X Theodore E. Deutch, FL 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicilline, RI 

Tom Marino, PA X Ami Bera,CA 

Jeff Duncan, SC X Lois Frankel, FL 

Mo Brooks, AL X Tulsi Gabbard, HI 

Paul Cook, C A X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Scott Perry, PA X Robin Kelly. TL 

Ron DeSantis, FL X Brendan Boyle, PA 

Mark Meadows, NC X Dina Titus, NV 

Ted Yoho, FL X Norma Torres, CA 

Adam Kinzinger,TL X Brad Schneider, TL 

Lee Zeldin, NY X Tom Suozzi, NY 

Dan Donovan, NY X Adriano Espaillat, NY 

James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. WI X Ted Lieu, CA 

Ann Wagner, MO 

Brian J. Mast, FL 

Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A. Garrett, Jr, VA 
61

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAVID CICILLINE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND


25840b-1.eps
62


25840b-2.eps

Colin Powell: American Leadersbip -- \Ve Can't Doh for Free- The New York Times Pagc2of4 

Thi::; proposal vmnld briug n~-soun:::12s for om· chiHan forces to :1 th.ird of,vhat ·we 

bpent lhe heigl:rf_ u~· Ron:~ld Rf::'t.iJ!im'~: ·"pcaee through strcnglh" yeEr.s, a~ 

pi~rr:cntage of thr.: gr-oss dor:wstic prodrcct. It -.vcmld h1J itJ1ernatitmaUy irrespousihl.!, 

encouraging 1:0ur and undc'Inining om ':nrn 

c,connmk ant~ :national se.;::nrity interest&. 

potting :l.merktHlS ''first" requirt:.s 1-·viLhdrawnl fr.:Jm thtJ 'hYn·kl 

wron,;;!H.•aci<:<l, be.;~;;; use ri retreat \A.-'ould achit:.'v-e exEtt!y the opposite for our 

1 karncd 1hat lesson the harri ',·vay '·.vhen I became se.::retary of sbite afkr 

decade w'bw:ig1:t r.ur:-; that hollO'o'\TCd out our clvihrrn foreign policy o::ouls . 

. 'i\1a.cryh<Jd as:,urned tlw Cold W'ar's end woLl1d allmvu.s to retn;at fro.m Hu- world, 

hu! c:1ts that Hta.v -have loo1.ed 1ogJca1 ~tt the eame back h) ba11t1l us as lens ions 

rOSl' in the Mi;.id1e Afrka u~c KoreJH hminf,ub Confronting 

thall('nges :rcqtdres not jnsi b1tt s.1sa-.:-\ldlrcsnurced., ~ffectivc and empuv1eted dipJomats r1nd aid '~.Yorkers. 

Indeed~ we'-ce ·~tronge5i: \Yhcn the fnr.(' of America isn't 

but also a diplomat negoti..tting pcact·~ a Peace Corps 

soldier cat :)ing 3 f',!H1 

br)nging dean 

off a ca1gu _plan,~ as f1oodwatets While! 

am aJJ for r<:;v-kwing .. reforming and .strengdwning the Stab:-: Department anti 

out t;conormc 

devf~1opme.nt assistance ln more 

flsg at nur outposts ctround the world :~nd_ HJ.3kr-us far 

bt~en more peor1lr: th•-Ping 

Pngulfjng Somalia put more than 20 

further dr·stahiHt~ing regk:ns aJreudy uncle:< 

J·hreat frnm t.ht• !.:s!Hmie A1 Q::leda, Boko Harr.m: and .:\1-Shabaab. 

Do we rnaHy io s}a.sh the State Pcpr-Ftment and the F.S.t\JD. at such a 

perUuus mor:.v .. '.:.1t? Thr Ameri~w 

kind of 

https:/ il-VVV"\:v-.nytimes.corn/20 17 /05/24/opinitlnfcolin-poweH-trump--budget~state-department.html 6/16/2017 
63


25840b-3.eps

Colin Powell: American Leadership Wt~ Can't Do It for FreeR The N~w York Times Page 3 of4 

these culs a re1Jec.tion of the presid~~nt's policies ~·cgarrling an rtttitude !o~,.,.,a:nl 

:12 perct~nt cut our dvlthm progrmns ov~:rseas anytfring but a 

de<--n· exvressiou of po1ky? 

True, malty in O:mgress have f~ffectively adTnlnistration's hudget 

the 

comirl,g budr;et debate. Tfw.fs the Y't<TOllg nn:.vcrs::;tien. Our diplorrwcy and 

development buc"!.gct not just ab0u1 ceduci::;g. spending and tlndirn~ effid0nde:,. Vic 

cnnver·satinn aboHt \Yhat ,,._·e c;trtHd for as that ''shin in;;; tity on a hill. 

conYt-r.sJtloa l1egilL; by ~1cknmv]ciir;ine; tbat we ('.Hl.l do it on the 

Dlp]mn;tcy and aU m·pn't the only f~elf~defca\ir:g etlts the adrnin1~•tration\ 

propos:.:l A raH to ~:H but cllmin:1it: t\·vo key e},i_Prt-promoti·Jr: agcrwie5 tht~ 

the Trade and Dcvc1opmP11!" Agcn...::y .. _ 

'.H.mld hBrm thnvs;-wds of AnH:':.dc . .rn \"I.'Orken .. :.tnd aetnally add t() thr defidt. A·,1d any 

C'..lts !o om ecotH.nnk dcvdupment invt~st:ncnts ln Afric::. Lnd dsev/}wre v . .rovid 

undermine ahilityt•J I.J1tild 

market.;;. 

V\7

ith 95 percr.nt of thB -..voild'~.., consurnets untsidt:~ 0nr horrlers. it's r:.ut "Americ,l 

building highways 

devdoprDent budget. InstcaJt }f~.; growing -by rnore than 

alone since 

percer:t 

r·:iease of its imdnl budg8t request ~n 1\1arch~ the ad.minlstrntion 

demon<::trate a more strategic foreign policy apln·oadL TJ:w;; is 'Vckum.e) 

tar more than a ;.;trike ::-<gain::.t Syri::L a b1rd~r 1ir.E- on Russia. increased 

en :..;·onh hKH'e3 and deef.!er I.)TI_g.a,ge-ment ;,.,itb China to st-rer Ameriean 

H ;1~~0 b;._~~s the resource:'-! to n:t1detw1:Jte lt. 

i'unt:::rlca is great that the wo;-ld 

hop-:: and :a p;:-iucipled people •vhv JH.' ge:-:wrmE;, fuir 2JH.l caring. Ihnfs the 

tha! 

strateg,ie 1 percrn! of our federal bw.igt'llu this n!ib~>ion. 

https;! /wvvw.nytimes..com/20 17/05/2 4/opinion/colin-powell-trump-budgct-state-department.html 6!16/2017 
64


25840b-4.eps

Colin Powell: American Leadership- \Ve Can1

t Do 1t fllr Free~ The New York Times Page 4 of 4 

unlyth an investrncnt \Ve 

© 2017 The New York Tfmes Company 

https:/r;,-...w-w.nytimcs.com/2017/05/24/opinionicolin-poweH-trump-budgct-state-department.html 6'16/2017 
65


25840b-5.eps

Statement of CARE USA 

Submitted to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Hearing on "The FY 2018 Foreign Affairs Budget" 

June 14, 2017 

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide the views of CARE USA 

regarding the Administration's fiscal year 2018 (FY 18) budget proposal and ask that this 

statement be included as part of the official record. With more than 71 years of experience in 

providing emergency humanitarian assistance and long-term development assistance in over 94 

countries around the world, CARE has serious concerns that the Administration budget proposal 

would inflict long tenn damage on our national security and global development needs. This 

budget will jeopardize millions of lives, and reverse decades of efforts to bring sustainable 

development, opportunity, health and dignity to people around the world. Tn short, this proposed 

budget would inflict human and political costs that far outweigh any potential budget savings 

In many countries around the world, the relief, hope and skills brought by U.S. 

humanitarian and development programs are often the only direct knowledge people have of the 

United States. These programs create a more stable world by providing assistance, opportunity 

and tangible improvement to people's lives. Stepping back from this leadership role would not 

just impact the lives of millions, it would mark the end of the American era- the point where the 

United States decisively turned its back on those most vulnerable, allowing the exploitation of 

human needs to go unchecked 

While the U.S. faces its own economic challenges, shifting less than 1% of the federal 

budget from these programs will not solve America's deficit concerns. Instead, such cuts would 

take away from core national security investments and preventative interventions in order to seek 

political gain at the expense of the world's most vulnerable people. 

Therefore, CARE urges this Committee to use its constitutional authority to protect the 

International Affairs account, oppose any disproportionate cuts to international humanitarian and 

development programs, fully exercise its oversight authorities, and preserve critical expertise 

within the U.S. Government 

Our Current Challenges 

Our global political system is currently facing the largest humanitarian needs we have 

known in modern human history, with 65 million people living in displacement, and over 30 
66


25840b-6.eps

million facing deadly famine conditions. Unfortunately, these numbers continue to grow every 

day. Conflict, extreme weather, pandemics, and natural disasters continue to impact millions 

Despite these growing challenges, and political suggestions to the contrary, US foreign 

assistance programs are working 

• In many areas where the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) is 

implementing agricultural development and food security programming, extreme 

poverty has dropped between 7 and 36 percent, child stunting has dropped between 6 

and 40 percent, and more than 10 million smallholder farmers are now able to apply 

new technologies and management practices. 1 

• Partners currently supported by OPTC are sustaining livelihoods for nearly 1 million 

smallholder farmers, allowing them to grow themselves out of poverty and creating 

future markets for trade. 2 

• In 10 years, U.S. malaria programing has saved 6 million lives, many of them 

children.1 Over the last eight years, 4.6 million children have been saved from dying 

of preventable diseases because of US. assistance.4 

• ln FY2016, U.S. investments in family plarming and reproductive health provided 26 

million women and couples with the tools they need to time and plan their 

pregnancies, prevented 8 million unintended pregnancies, and averted 3.3 million 

abortions. 5 

Globally, recent estimates show that 10.7 percent of the world's population lives on less 

than US $1.90 a day, down from 12.4 percent in 2012 and 35 percent in 1990.6 This progress 

shows that the fight against global poverty is winnable if there is sufficient political will 

While many, including some -within the current Administration, continue to promote a 

disingenuous narrative that U.S. foreign aid is inefficient, ineffective, and of inferior quality, the 

evidence points towards US. development programs as a leading standard in the international 

community. Tn particular, USATD has led the way towards more nimble, efficient, transparent, 

and effective systems of addressing global poverty and its challenges. Recent changes within 

USAID have resulted in huge gains towards evidence-based approaches that seek to distill best 

practices and achieve sustainable, independent development 7 Tn addition, a recent 2017 GAO 

1 Jnw;;tj_ng_ trc_c.t,!;:_5h_a[r:_(l_futt!r~: How a Confident and Capable USAID is Building on a Proud Legacy of U.S. 

(USAID Exit Memo, Gayle Smith, January 2017) 

2016. 

6 World Bank, updated October 2016.1!.li!L16~ .. ·.:!0 .. 'L~£2.U9J!ES!l:-Q!JV.i'BL!:i!.2.!ri£..9..:~\:!..9..'!12'ik"Y .. 7 For example, 1,425 evaluations completed by USAID since 2011, and of those completed between 2011 and 

2014, 71% were used to support and/or modify a project or activity. !.EY'~',ting ii!..2!J.L8l:!:eJ r;..;ill!::Q: How a 

Confident and Capable USAID is Building on a Proud Legacy of U.S. Development Leadership (USAID Exit Memo, 

Gayle Smith, January 2017). 
67


25840b-7.eps

study found that USAID and the MCC's evaluations far exceeded the quality of those conducted 

by other foreign assistance agencies. g 

After all, the role of U.S. assistance is to help communities become self-reliant and selfsustaining, create the conditions where assistance is no longer needed. CARE has long supported 

this philosophy and we have worked ourselves out of a job in some locations by building the 

capacity of local organizations and governments to continue programs and address their own 

needs 

Make no mistake, the challenges the world faces today are immense, and the level of 

human need in the world is reaching record proportions. Now is the time for the U.S to lead in 

the fight against poverty and conflict, not rescind its role or retreat into complacency 

A Proposal for a Darker Future 

Despite the dire realities that face millions around the world, threatening global stability 

and our own national security, the Administration's FY18 budget proposal calls for an end of 

U.S. leadership abroad through the dismantling of life-saving international development and 

humanitarian programs. The proposed budget does not support a sustainable future and ignores 

known threats - bre-wing conflicts, potential crises, and possible disasters or pandemics. Instead, 

the Administration's proposal actually adds fuel to current global fires, leaving us -with a darker 

future. CARE, along with a number of other implementing and advocacy organizations, have 

estimated the impacts of these proposed cuts by account (see addendum) The aggregate human 

cost of these proposed cuts is staggering. 

Tf accepted, the Administration's proposed cuts to this critical one percent of the budget 

would be historic, making us less safe, not more. This budget marks a dramatic departure in 

budgeting processes which unifies spending on defense and development Since 1977, increased 

funding to the Department of Defense has generally been complemented by increased support for 

the International Affairs account (figure 1).9 Past administrations, Republican and Democratic 

alike, have understood that development and diplomacy are critical parts of our national security 

strategy. This budget proposal counters our national security goals by threatening our country's 

ability to safeguard against the desperation and instability often caused by extreme poverty and 

suffering 

8 

(l9£J.l.f~.;;_~~QJ.JI.2!._1.2ffi .. ~:g_Q.;!.':!liil:".2!.!Jt.Il.J2?£!.0.I':I!0i2!1..2..L~C"--'Crcm CV.t?i01tf2il~ GA0-17-316: Published: Mar 3, 

2017. Publicly Released: Mar 3, 2017. 

9 Data obtained through the Office of Management and Budget's historic tables. 
68


25840b-8.eps

Figure 1: Defense and International Affairs (150 Account) Spending (0/., ofGDP) 

(in 2016 dolL·us) 

CliO% 

The Administration's FY18 budget proposal includes ending effective development 

programs in numerous countries, eliminating the Development Assistance (DA) account, and 

significantly reducing life-saving humanitarian assistance -including ending the leading U.S. 

international food aid program, Title 11 Food for Peace, which helps protect and grow food 

security around the world. The Administration specifically proposes a 43 percent cut to 

International Disaster Assistance (IDA), which saves lives by providing emergency food, water 

and sanitation in South Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria, and Somalia, where famine is growing, and to 

displaced persons and refugees everywhere. In addition, the Administration demands that the 

IDA account become the sole provider of emergency food assistance, without providing any 

additional funding to offset those impacted by the elimination of Title 11 Food for Peace 

programing or lessen the impacts of remaining IDA funds having to also meet non-food needs 

Ending the Development Assistance account, and merging such activities with reduced 

funding from the Economic Support Fund (ESF), will result in a dangerous reprioritization away 

from long-term development in favor of short term political gains. The Administration's budget 

proposal seeks to uproot current strategies that are in mid-progress and stop proven programs 

that have improved economic conditions around the world. For example, across the 19 current 

Feed the Future focus counties, the Administration's budget proposal would eliminate all 

agricultural development activities in 8 countries, and would drastically reduce funding for an 

additional 9 countries. 10 Abandoning the successful work done in these countries would 

1

° Feed the Future countries slated for elimination of agricultural development assistance include: Liberia, Malawi, 

Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Zambia, Cambodia, and Tajikistan. Feed the Future countries slated for significant 
69

Note: All pages of the material submitted for the record by Mr. Cicilline have not 

been reprinted here but may be found in its entirety on the Internet at

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106115

f


25840b-9.eps

dismantle progress, disregard existing U.S. Government strategies, and jeopardize programs 

authorized under the recently passed Global Food Security Act (P.L. 114-195) 

Tn addition, the proposed cuts to global health programing \vould have a severe impact on 

women around the world - setting back their access to health care, their ability to feed their 

families, confront and shift the social norms that contribute to gender-based violence, and access 

opportunities and economic engagement 

Implications for Women and Girls 

CARE puts women and girls at the heart of development and humanitarian efforts 

because our decades-long experience in the field has demonstrated that this investment brings 

about meaningful, sustainable impact. Similarly, US. investments in supporting women and girls 

bring high returns for economic gro\Vih, well-being, and democratic governance, \vhich 

maximize the benefits gained from the investment of United States' taxpayer dollars. If women 

were able to participate in the economy equally, it \vould yield a 26 percent increase in global 

GDP, or $28 trillion in 202511 

Most of the world's women have the role of ensuring that families are fed, often through 

fanning and/or food purchase supported by livelihood activities. By supporting women 

entrepreneurs, small business mvners, and farmers to become more self-reliant, we create a 

cascading effect beyond the women themselves, helping them lift their families and their 

communities out of poverty. U.S. assistance opens up opportunities for women and girls to 

access the education, skills, and economic empmverment they need to be catalysts for broader 

economic growth in their countries. Healthier economies abroad means stronger economic trade 

partners for Americans, benefiting us all 

Women and girls also comprise the majority of those displaced by conflict and natural 

disasters and, in this context, they are highly vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and poor health 

including malnourishment and reproductive health issues such as maternal death U.S 

Government assistance supports women and girls in emergencies, saves lives and, by being 

gender smart, can ensure efficient use of much-needed humanitarian aid. Tn order to be 

productive members of their communities and economies, however, women must be healthy and 

safe from violence 

U.S. assistance in preventing violence against women -\vhich affects an estimated 35 

percent of women worldwide- has a life-changing impact on the women and girls it serves. 12 

cuts include: Ethiopia (-24%), Ghana (60%), Kenya (-39%), Mali (-9%), Tanzania (-82%), Uganda (-72%), Bangladesh 

(-34%), Nepal (-37%), and Guatemala (-29%). As presented in the proposed FY18 budget tables for Operating Unit, 

Account, Objective, and Program Area. Et.1Q!.£i..r.Hlll!..~.&U!!..I_Q;!..I1fd_f~!:.ilii1?2JJ~Qsg2':/!l!J.E!ll.~idlLElF£iti.::!. 
70

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE TULSI GABBARD, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII


25840c-1.eps
71


25840c-2.eps

during the air campaign by NATO. Credit 

Jerome /Je!ay Associated Press 

After the war, United Nations officials administered the territory and American forces helped keep the 

peace. The Saudis arrived, too, bringing millions of euros in aid to a poor and war-ravaged land. 

But where the Americans saw a chance to create a new democracy, the Saudis saw a new land to spread 

Wahhabism. 

''There is no evidence that any organization gave money directly to people to go to Syria," Mr. Makolli 

said. "The issue is they supported thinkers who promote violence and jihad in the name of protecting 

Islam." 

Kosovo now has over 800 mosques, 240 of them built since the war and blamed for helping indoctrinate 

a new generation in Wahhabism. They are part of what moderate imams and ofticials here describe as a 

deliberate, long-term strategy by Saudi Arabia to reshape Islam in its image, not only in Kosovo but 

around the world. 

Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in 2015 reveal a system of funding for mosques, Islamic 

centers and Saudi-trained clerics that spans Asia, Africa and Europe. In New Delhi alone, 140 Muslim 

preachers are listed as on the Saudi Consulate's payroll. 

All around Kosovo, families are grappling with the aftermath of years of proselytizing by Saudi-trained 

preachers. Some daughters refuse to shake hands with or talk to male relatives. Some sons have gone off 

to jihad. Religious vigilantes have threatened- or committed- violence against academics, journalists 

and politicians. 

The Balkans, Europe's historical fault line, have yet to heal from the ethnic wars of the 1990s. But they 

are now infected with a new intolerance, moderate imams and officials in the region warn. 

How Kosovo and the very nature of its society was fundamentally recast is a story of a decades-long 

global ambition by Saudi Arabia to spread its hard-line version of lslam - heavily funded and 

systematically applied, including with threats and intimidation by followers. 
72


25840c-3.eps

extremists and has received death threats. Credit 

Andrew Testafor The Ne~1· York Times 

The Missionaries Arrive 

After the war ended in 1999, Tdriz Bilalli, the imam of the central mosque in Podujevo, welcomed any 

help he could get 

Podujevo, home to about 90,000 people in northeast Kosovo, was a reasonably prosperous town with 

high schools and small businesses in an area hugged by farmland and forests. It was known for its strong 

Muslim tradition even in a land where people long wore their religion lightly. 

After decades of Communist rule when Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia, men and women mingle freely, 

schools are coeducational, and girls rarely wear the veil. Still, Serbian paramilitary forces burned down 

218 mosques as part of their war against Kosovo' s ethnic Albanians, who are 95 percent Muslim. Mr. 

Bilalli needed help to rebuild. 

When two imams in their 30s, Fadil Musliu and Fadil Sogojeva, who were studying for master's degrees 

in Saudi Arabia, showed up after the war with money to organize summer religion courses, Mr. Bilalli 

agreed to help. 

The imams were just two of some 200 Kosovars who took advantage of scholarships after the war to 

study Islam in Saudi Arabia. Many, like them, returned with missionary zeal. 

Soon, under Mr. Musliu's tutelage, pupils started adopting a rigid manner of prayer, foreign to the 

moderate Islamic traditions of this part of Europe. Mr. Bilalli recognized the influence, and he grew 

concerned. 

"This is Wahhabism coming into our society,'' Mr Bilalli, 52, said in a recent interview. 

Mr. Bilalli trained at the University of Medina in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s, and as a student he had 

been warned by a Kosovar professor to guard against the cultural differences of Wahhabism. He 

understood there was a campaign of proselytizing, pushed by the Saudis. 

''The first thing the Wahhabis do is to take members of our congregation, who understand Islam in the 

traditional Kosovo way that we had for generations, and try to draw them away from this 
73


25840c-4.eps

understanding,'' he said. "Once they get them away trom the traditional congregation, then they start 

bombarding them with radical thoughts and ideas." 

"The main goal of their activity is to create conflict between people," he said. "This first creates 

division, and then hatred, and then it can come to what happened in Arab countries, where war starts 

because of these conflicting ideas.'' 

From the outset, the newly arriving clerics sought to overtake the Islamic Community of Kosovo, an 

organization that for generations has been the custodian of the tolerant form of Islam that was practiced 

in the region, townspeople and ofticials say. 

Muslims in Kosovo, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years, follow the Hanafi school of 

Islam, traditionally a liberal version that is accepting of other religions 

But all around the country, a new breed of radical preachers was setting up in neighborhood mosques, 

often newly built with Saudi money 

In some cases, centuries-old buildings were bulldozed, including a historic library in Gjakova and 

several 400-year-old mosques, as well as shrines, graveyards and Dervish monasteries, all considered 

idolatrous in Wahhabi teaching. 

From their bases, the Saudi-trained imams propagated Wahhabism 's tenets: the supremacy of Shmia law 

as well as ideas of violent jihad and takfirism, which authorizes the killing of Muslims considered 

heretics for not following its interpretation of Islam. 

The Saudi -sponsored charities often paid salaries and overhead costs, and financed courses in religion, 

as well as English and computer classes, moderate imams and investigators explained. 

But the charitable assistance often had conditions attached. Families were given monthly stipends on the 

condition that they attended sennons in the mosque and that women and girls wore the veil, human 

rights activists said. 

"People were so needy, there was no one who did not join," recalled Ajnishahe Halimi, a politician who 

campaigned to have a radical Albanian imam expelled after families complained of abuse 

Threats Intensify 

Within a few years of the war's end, the older generation of traditional clerics began to encounter 

aggression trom young Wahhabis. 

Paradoxically, some of the most serious tensions built in Gjilan, an eastern Kosovo town of about 

90,000, where up to 7,000 American troops were stationed as part of Kosovo's United Nations-run 

peacekeeping force at Camp Bondsteel. 

"They came in the name of aid," one moderate imam in Gjilan, Enver Rexhepi, said of the Arab 

charities. "But they came with a background of different intentions, and that's where the Islamic religion 

started splitting here.'' 
74


25840c-5.eps

One day in 2004, he recalled, he was threatened by one of the most aggressive young Wahhabis, Zekitja 

Qazimi, a former madrasa student then in his early 20s. 

Inside his mosque, Mr. Rexhepi had long displayed an Albanian flag. Emblazoned with a double-headed 

eagle, it was a popular symbol ofKosovo's liberation struggle. 

But strict Muslim fundamentalists consider the depiction of any living being as idolatrous Mr Qazimi 

tore the flag down. Mr. Rexhepi put it back. 

''It will not go long like this," Mr. Qazimi told him angrily, Mr. Rexhepi recounted. 

Within days, Mr. Rexhepi was abducted and savagely beaten by masked men in woods above Gjilan. He 

later accused Mr. Qazimi of having been behind the attack, but police investigations went nowhere 

Ten years later, in 2014, after two young Kosovars blew themselves up in suicide bombings in Iraq and 

Turkey, investigators began an extensive investigation into the sources of radicalism. Mr Qazimi was 

arrested hiding in the same woods. On Friday, a court sentenced him to IO years in prison after he faced 

charges of inciting hatred and recruiting for a terrorist organization. 

Before Mr. Qazimi was arrested, his influence was profound, under what investigators now say was the 

sway of Egyptian-based extremists and the patronage of Saudi and other !,'lllf Arab sponsors. 

By the mid-2000s, Saudi money and Saudi-trained clerics were already exerting influence over the 

Islamic Community of Kosovo The leadership quietly condoned the drift toward conservatism, critics 

of the organization say. 

Mr. Qazimi was appointed first to a village mosque, and then to El-Kuddus mosque on the edge of 

Gjilan. Few could counter him, not even Mustafa Bajrami, his fonner teacher, who was elected head of 

the Islamic Community ofGjilan in 2012. 

Mr. Bajrami comes trom a prominent religious family - his father was the tirst chief mufti of 

Yugoslavia during the Communist period. He holds a doctorate in Islamic studies Yet he remembers 

pupils began rebelling against him whenever he spoke against Wahhabism. 

He soon realized that the students were being taught beliefs that differed from the traditional moderate 

curriculum by several radical imams in lectures after hours. He banned the use of mosques after ofticial 

prayer times. 

Hostility only grew He would notice a dismissive gesture in the congregation during his sermons, or 

someone would curse his wife, or mutter "apostate" or "infidel" as he passed. 

In the village, Mr. Qazimi's influence eventually became so disruptive that residents demanded his 

removal after he forbade girls and boys to shake hands. But in Gjilan he continued to draw dozens of 

young people to his after-hours classes. 

"They were moving 100 percent according to lessons they were taking from Zekirja Qazimi," Mr. 

Bajrami said in an interview. "One hundred percent, in an ideological way., 
75


25840c-6.eps

Extremism Spreads 

Over time, the Saudi-trained imams expanded their work. 

By 2004, Mr Musliu, one of the master's degree students from Podujevo who studied in Saudi Arabia, 

had graduated and was imam of a mosque in the capital, Pristina. 

In Podujevo, he set up a local charitable organization called Devotshmeria, or Devotion, which taught 

religion classes and offered social programs for women, orphans and the poor It was funded by AI 

Waqf ails! ami, a Saudi organization that was one of the 19 eventually closed by investigators. 

Secrets of the Kingdom 

Articles in this series examine the society, politics, religion and global influence of Saudi Arabia, one of 

the world's most secretive countries 

Mr. Musliu put a cousin, Jetmir Rrahmani, in charge. 

"Then I knew something was starting that would not bring any good," said Mr Bilalli, the moderate 

cleric who had started out teaching with him. In 2004, they had a core of20 Wahhabis. 

''That was only the beginning," Mr Bilalli said. ''They started multiplying." 

Mr. Bilalli began a vigorous campaign against the spread of unauthorized mosques and Wahhabi 

teaching. In 2008, he was elected head of the Islamic Community of Podujevo and instituted religion 

classes for women, in an effort to undercut Devotshmeria. 

As he sought to curb the extremists, Mr Bilalli received death threats, including a note left in the 

mosque's alms box. An anonymous telephone caller vowed to make him and his family disappear, he 

said. 

''Anyone who opposes them, they see as an enemy," Mr Bilalli said. 

He appealed to the leadership of the Islamic Community of Kosovo. But by then it was heavily 

influenced by Arab b'lllf sponsors, he said, and he received little support. 

When Mr Bilalli formed a union of fellow moderates, the Islamic Community ofKosovo removed him 

from his post. His successor, Bekim Jashari, equally concerned by the Saudi influence, nevertheless kept 

up the tight. 

"I spent 10 years in Arab countries and specialized in sectarianism within Islam," Mr. Jashari said. "It's 

very important to stop Arab sectarianism from being introduced to Kosovo." 

Mr. Jashari had a couple of brief successes. He blocked the Saudi-trained imam Mr Sogojeva from 

opening a new mosque, and stopped a payment of 20,000 euros, about $22,400, intended for it from the 

Saudi charity AI Waqf al Islami. 
76


25840c-7.eps

He also began a website, Speak Now, to counter Wahhabi teaching. But he remains so concemed about 

Wahhabi preachers that he never lets his 19-year-old son attend prayers on his own. 

The radical imams Mr. Musliu and Mr. Sogojeva still preach in Pristina, where for prayers they draw 

crowds of young men who glare at foreign reporters. 

Mr. Sogojeva dresses in a traditional robe and banded cleric's hat, but his newly built mosque is an 

incongruous modern multistory building. He admonished his congregation with a rapid-tire list of dos 

and don'ts in a recent Friday sermon. 

Neither imam seems to lack funds. 

In an interview, Mr. Musliu insisted that he was tinanced by local donations, but confinned that he had 

received Saudi funding for his early religion courses. 

The instruction, he said, is not out of line with Kosovo's traditions. The increase in religiosity among 

young people was natural after Kosovo gained its freedom, he said. 

"Those who are not believers and do not read enough, they feel a bit shocked,"' he said. "But we 

coordinated with other imams, and everything was in line with Islam." 

A Tilt Toward Terrorism 

The intluence of the radical clerics reached its apex with the war in Syria, as they extolled the virtues of 

jihad and used speeches and radio and television talks shows to urge young people to go there. 

Mr. Qazimi, who was given the 10-year prison sentence, even organized a summer camp for his young 

followers. 

''It is obligated for every Muslim to participate in jihad," he told them in one videotaped talk. ''The 

Prophet Muhammad says that if someone has a chance to take part in jihad and doesn't, he will die with 

great sins." 

"The blood of infidels is the best drink for us Muslims," he said in another recording. 

Among his recruits, investigators say, were three former civilian employees of American contracting 

companies at Camp Bondsteel, where American troops are stationed. They included Lavdrim 

Muhaxheri, an Islamic State leader who was filmed executing a man in Syria with a rocket-propelled 

grenade. 

After the suicide bombings, the authorities opened a broad investigation and found that the Saudi charity 

AI Waqf a! Is! ami had been supporting associations set up by preachers like Mr. Qazimi in almost every 

regional town. 

Al Waqf al lslami was established in the Balkans in 1989. Most of its financing came from Saudi 

Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, Kosovo investigators said in recent interviews. Unexplained gaps in 

its ledgers deepened suspicions that the group was surreptitiously funding clerics who were radicalizing 

young people, they said. 
77


25840c-8.eps

Investigators from Kosovo's Financial Intelligence Unit found that AI Waqf al Islami, which had an 

office in central Pristina and a staff of 12, ran through €10 million from 2000 through 2012. Yet they 

found little paperwork to explain much of the spending. 

More than €1 million went to mosque building. But one and a half times that amount was disbursed in 

unspecified cash withdrawals, which may have also gone to enriching its staff, the investigators said. 

Only 7 percent of the budget was shown to have gone to caring for orphans, the charity's stated mission. 

By the summer of 20 14, the Kosovo police shut down Al Waqf al Islami, along with 12 other Islamic 

charities, and arrested 40 people. 

The charity's head oftlces, in Saudi Arabia and the Netherlands, have since changed their name to AI 

Waqf, apparently separating themselves from the Balkans operation. 

Asked about the accusations in a telephone interview, Nasr el Damanhoury, the director of AI Waqf in 

the Netherlands, said he had no direct knowledge of his group's operations in Kosovo or the Balkans. 

The charity has ceased all work outside the Netherlands since he took over in 2013, he said. His 

predecessor had returned to Morocco and could not be reached, and Saudi board members would not 

comment, he said. 

''Our organization has never supported extremism," Mr. Damanhoury said ''I have known it since 1989. 

I joined them three years ago. They have always been a mild group.'' 

Kosovo .fi'om Serbia in 2008. Credit Bela 

Unheeded Warnings 

Why the Kosovar authorities - and American and United Nations overseers - did not act sooner to 

forestall the spread of extremism is a question being intensely debated. 

As early as 2004, the prime minister at the time, Bajram Rexhepi, tried to introduce a law to ban 

extremist sects. But, he said in a recent interview at his home in northern Kosovo, European oftlcials 

told him that it would violate freedom of religion. 

''It was not in their interest, they did not want to irritate some Islamic countries," Mr. Rexhepi said. 

"They simply did not do anything." 
78

Note: All pages of the material submitted for the record by Ms. Gabbard have not 

been reprinted here but may be found in its entirety on the Internet at

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106115

f


25840c-9.eps

Not everyone was unaware of the dangers, however 

At a meeting in 2003, Richard C. Holbrooke, once the United States special envoy to the Balkans, 

warned Kosovar leaders not to work with the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo, an umbrella 

organization of Saudi charities whose name still appears on many of the mosques built since the war, 

along with that of the former Saudi interior minister, Prince Naif bin Abdui-Aziz. 

A year later, it was among several Saudi organizations that were shut down in Kosovo when it came 

under suspicion as a front for AI Qaeda. Another was AI-Haramain, which in 2004 was designated by 

the United States Treasury Department as having links to terrorism. 

Yet even as some organizations were shut down, others kept working Staff and equipment from AlHaramain shifted to AI Waqfal Islami, moderate imams familiar with their activities said 

In recent years, Saudi Arabia appears to have reduced its aid to Kosovo. Kosovo Central Bank figures 

show grants from Saudi Arabia averaging €1 00,000 a year for the past five years 

It is now money from Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - which each average 

approximately € I million a year - that propagates the same hard-line version of Islam. The payments 

come from foundations or individuals, or sometimes from the Ministry of Zakat (Almsgiving) from the 

various governments, Kosovo"s investigators say 

But payments are often diverted through a second country to obscure their origin and destination, they 

said. One transfer of nearly €500,000 from a Saudi individual was frozen in 2014 since it was intended 

for a Kosovo teenager, according to the investigators and a State Department report. 

AI Qaeda and other terrorist organizations were still raising millions from "deep-pocket donors and 

charitable organizations" based in the gulf, the Treasury under secretary for terrorism and financial 

intelligence, DavidS Cohen, said in a speech in ~o 14 at the Center for a New American Security 

While Saudi Arabia has made progress in stamping out funding for AI Qaeda, sympathetic donors in the 

kingdom were still funding other terrorist groups, he said. 

Today the Islamic Community of Kosovo has been so influenced by the largess of Arab donors that it 

has seeded prominent positions with radical clerics, its critics say. 

Ahmet Sadriu, a spokesman for Islamic Community of Kosovo, said the group held to Kosovo's 

traditionally tolerant version of Islam. But calls are growing to overhaul an organization now seen as 

having been corrupted by outside forces and money. 

Kosovo's interior minister, Skender Hyseni, said he had recently reprimanded some of the senior 

religious officials 

"I told them they were doing a great disservice to their country," he said in an interview "Kosovo is by 

definition, by Constitution, a secular society. There has always been historically an unspoken 

interreligious tolerance among Albanians here, and we want to make sure that we keep it that way." 
79

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ROBIN L. KELLY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS


25840d-1.eps
80

f


25840d-2.eps

A host of international terrorist groups- AI Qaeda, AI Shabaab, Boko Haram and ISIS, among 

others- have taken root in highly fragile regions and countries with shared characteristics, such 

as corruption and poor governance, weak institutions, high poverty and inequality, widespread 

indignity, and low quality of life for ordinary citizens. Local populations frustrated with poor 

governance and lacking meaningful opportunities to improve their lives or provide for their 

families are prone to tolerate, if not actively support, extremist groups that challenge government 

authority or assume the government's role as social-service provider. To combat these groups 

and prevent such areas from serving as fertile recruiting grounds, training areas and transit routes 

for violent extremists, the United States and its allies should become much more proactive in 

helping address underlying conditions that, left unchecked, invite and foment instability. 

Congress can, and should, make America safer with a robust and strategic Phase Zero initiative 

that engages the U.S. government, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to 

synergistically prevent conflict and promote security, development, and governance rooted in the 

rule oflaw. Such an initiative- accompanied by other targeted reforms to our foreign assistance 

programs - would fill a dangerous vacuum that military intervention alone simply cannot 

address. Proactive conflict-prevention strategies are far less expensive in terms of resources and 

lives expended than reactive use of our Armed Forces. 

Development experts under the auspices of USAID, State Department, the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation, and other federal agencies must be fully committed to a coherent wholeof-government stability-enhancement strategy that will protect America's interests in the modem 

security environment while minimizing the exposure of our young men and women to harm's 

way. 

The faithful service, courage and sacrifice of our service members deserves and demands that we 

address and develop the strongest possible strategy for conflict-prevention that our nation can 

muster. Cutting the International Affairs budget will hurt our country's ability to stop new 

conflicts from forming, and will place our interests, values and the lives of our men and women 

in uniform at risk. Congress should reject the administration's proposed cuts and instead fully 

fund the international affairs budget Our military is counting on it 

Admiral (Ret) Michael Mullen served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 

2011. General (Ret.) James Jones was commandant of the Marine Corps and served as Supreme 

Allied Commander-Europe from 2003 to 2006. 
81


25840e-1.eps

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by Mr. Connolly of Virginia 

President Trump's FY 2018 international affairs budget represents a unilateral retreat from US. 

global leadership. The Trump Administration has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 

balked at our sacred Article 5 commitment to our NATO allies, pulled out of the Paris Climate 

Accord, and President Trump's budget proposal for FY 2018 decimates U.S. diplomatic missions 

and foreign assistance abroad. Budgets are value statements, and this budget says, "This 

Administration doesn't value U.S. global leadership." 

Secretary Tillerson's assertion that U.S. foreign policy should sometimes be separate from 

American values would make our nation's founding fathers roll over in their graves. Our policies 

must flow from our ideals, and that starts with the budget. U.S. leadership in the world is essential. 

The hard truth is that when the United States does not act as a forceful advocate for our principles 

and our interests abroad, we leave a vacuum. When U.S. leadership retreats, adversaries who do not 

share our interests and values fill that vacuum and endanger U.S. security. 

Unprecedented threats to global stability require dedicated, unambiguous American leadership. 

Russian troops have illegally occupied Crimea and parts of Georgia, and fighting continues in 

eastern Ukraine. Yet, the President's budget cuts funding to counter Russian aggression by 59 

percent. Putin is undermining democratic elections in NATO countries, including our own, but this 

administration has turned a blind eye to such interference. President Trump has demonstrated more 

interest in validating false claims of fraudulent voting than combatting a threat certified by 17 U.S. 

intelligence agencies. 

There are 65 million displaced people around the world - the highest since UN. records began. 

Thirty million people are at risk of famine in Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, and South Sudan. The 

United Nations has called this the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. Yet, the Administration 

wants to cut international disaster assistance by 34 percent and eliminate the McGovern-Dole Food 

for Education Program, which assists more than 40 million impoverished and hungry children every 

year. At a time when global humanitarian needs are higher than ever, the President has proposed a 

32 percent cut to U.S. diplomacy and development programs- our first line of defense. If enacted, 

this funding level, as a percentage of GOP, would be the lowest since World War 11. 

Earlier this year, I visited Sri Lanka with the House Democracy Partnership (HDP). The oldest 

democracy in Asia, Sri Lanka is emerging from decades of civil war and undertaking significant 

political and economic reforms that will benetit its own people and US. interests. Our assistance 

also helps ensure maritime security and freedom of navigation for this strategically located island 

amid the major sea lanes of the Indo-Asia-Pacitk In Sri Lanka, the creeping intluence of Beijing is 

palpable. Everywhere you look, the Chinese have built a major highway, an airport, a stadium, and 

in the fishing town of Hambantota, a deep-sea port. Trump's budget would gut US. assistance to 
82

f


25840e-2.eps

Sri Lanka by 92 percent. We need to remember that when the US. walks away from our global 

investments, China is already knocking on the door. 

Beyond funding, President Trump has declined to invest in the human resources necessary to carry 

out the State Department's mission. Secretary Tillerson and Deputy Secretary John Sullivan are the 

only officials confirmed by the Senate - no undersecretaries or assistant secretaries have even been 

nominated. President Trump has appointed only 11 out of nearly 190 ambassadors, and his 

incoherent foreign policies have already driven the charges d'affaires to resign in Beijing and Doha. 

For the remaining diplomatic corps, the President's budget would recklessly endanger US. 

diplomatic facilities with a 62 percent cut to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance 

(ESCM) account. My office has been working with the State Department to address and close 19 

outstanding recommendations on diplomatic security made by the Government Accountability 

Office. Such a devastating cut would grind these necessary improvements to a halt, risking 

American lives and investments in the process. 

This Administration has heard from countless voices in support of a robust international affairs 

budget. Every Democrat on this Committee, and more than 100 members in total, sent a letter 

urging Secretary Tillerson to prevent these draconian cuts. And it is not just Democrats. Former 

Secretary of State General Colin Powell said the proposed budget "signals an American retreat, 

leaving a vacuum that would make us far less safe and prosperous." And it is not just politicians. 

More than 120 retired three and four-star generals, 225 business leaders, and more than 100 faith 

leaders have each rejected the evisceration of the State Department budget. And it is not just civilian 

and military leadership. The American people support a strong diplomatic presence because they 

know it keeps us safe- a February 2017 Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans support the 

US playing a leading or major role in global affairs. 

Since World War II, we have been and we remain the essential nation. From John Winthrop to John 

F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, our leaders have envisioned America as that shining city on the hill. 

American values are rooted in respect for human rights, personal autonomy, and individual 

freedoms. We are a place that people look to for succor and a beacon of hope even in the darkest 

comers of the world. 

You do not make America great again by withdrawing from the world. The Trump Administration 

is undermining U.S. leadership and endangering American security by slashing resources, failing to 

nominate senior diplomats, fumbling strategy, perpetuating contlicts of interest, and squandering 

influence. I look forward to hearing from Secretary Tillerson how this global retreat "Makes 

America Great Again." 

2 
83

f


25840f.eps

Statement for the Record 

Congressman Adriano Espaillat 

JLme 14,2017 

Secretary Tillerson, welcome to our committee. 

As the first and only Dominican American in Congress, it's incumbent upon me to highlight the 

importance of strengthening our relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. The 

Caribbean, in particular, is one of our most important trading partners and in 2016 they imported 

$20 billion worth of American goods and services. 

Yet, for your FY 2018 request, Mr. Secretary, you are proposing a 36% decrease in foreign 

assistance I 

To put that into perspective, we're talking about a mere $57.7 million to $36.2 million for the 14 

Caribbean nations in our own neighborhood. For far too long many have considered that our 

nation has placed its emphasis and focus away from our neighbors-Latin America and the 

Caribbean. For the Dominican Republic, we're talking about a proposed 51% cut (or FY 18 (or 11 

total o(only $10.5 million. That same budget requests $639 billion for the Department of 

Defense. 

These countries of the Caribbean are important not only because of their proximity, but because 

of their role in helping to curb and control drug trafficking, human trafficking, and drug 

smuggling to the U.S. 

These cuts are dangerous for our national security. Instead this is a proposal to suspend 

substantial funding in order to build a wall. 

• A wall will not stop reji1gees jiomfleeingfor their lives. 

A wall will not stop drug trafficking or human trafficking. 

A wall will not stop the American spirit that stand~ with immigrants. 

A wall will not keep us safe. 

And neither will these draconian cuts to the State Department budget. 

Turge you, Secretary Tillerson, we can do better. As global leaders, it's on U.S. shoulders to be a 

leader on democracy, transparency, and ethics. 

Earlier this Congress, T introduced legislation, H.R. 2494, which would amend the Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978 to require the President to place any financial conflicts of interest into a 

genuine blind trust 

President Trump has too many unanswered questions about potential constitutional and conflictof-interest problems posed by his far-reaching business holdings. 

We think the President of the United States' reputation should be beyond reproach and I hope 

you agree. 
84

f


25840g.eps

Question 1: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Edward Royce 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 14, 2017 

The Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to provide defense articles and services to Taiwan in 

support of its own self-defense. The last time Congress was notified of major arms sales to 

Taiwan was in December 2015. Does this Administration plan to notify Congress of major arms 

sale articles to Taiwan this year? If not, are we sending mixed signals to Taiwan that undermines 

our messages of urging Taiwan to urgently upgrade its defenses and increase its defense 

spending~ 

Answer: 

On June 29, the Administration formally notified Congress of seven proposed defense sales for 

Taiwan cumulatively valued at $1.42 billion. These notifications are consistent with the Taiwan 

Relations Act and our support for Taiwan's ability to maintain a sufficient self-defense 

capability. We remain committed to our One China Policy, based on the Three Joint 

Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act US defense sales to Taiwan are guided by the 

Taiwan Relations Act and based on an assessment of Taiwan's defense needs. Our longstanding 

policy on defense sales to Taiwan has been consistent across seven different US. 

administrations. We believe our consistent policy has contributed to the security of Taiwan and 

also supported the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait 
85


25840h-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Engel 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

The tragic September 2012 attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya was a 

centerpiece of President Trump's campaign and one which he frequently spoke about, often with 

little regard for the actual facts House Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a Select 

Committee that found nothing beyond what several previous investigations already had 

established. Yet, the White House has not yet nominated an Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic 

Security and has proposed cutting tunding that would keep our diplomats safe This includes a 62 

percent cut to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance account and a 19 percent cut 

to the Worldwide Security Protection account I understand that certain embassy security 

upgrades that the State Department has long planned for may not be possible if the President's 

FY 18 budget request is enacted. If the President's FY 18 budget request is enacted, what 

specifically will State be unable to fund that it previously planned to fund through the Embassy 

Security, Construction and Maintenance and Worldwide Security Protection accounts? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 Request provides $2.2 billion in total for the Capital Security Cost Sharing 

(CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) program, combining $33 7. 7 million in new 

Embassy Security Construction & Maintenance (ESCM) funding, other agency contributions, 

consular fees retained by the State Department, and resources provided for ESCM in the FY 

2017 Security Assistance Appropriations Act (SAAA). The FY 2018 budget request includes 

lanh'llage that would clarify that the Department's FY 2018 CSCS-MCS contribution would 

include ESCM appropriations provided under the SAAA. IfESCM appropriations provided 

under the SAAA are not utilized for the Department's FY 2018 CSCS-MCS contribution, the 

Department would need to identify other available tunds to support the FY 2018 CSCS-MCS 

program at the $2.2 billion level. 

The FY 2018 Request provides $3.8 billion for Worldwide Security Protection, which 

fully tunds the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and other related security programs. 

Question: 

Will arguments over whether the U.S. assessment rate is three points too high risk obscuring the 

bigger picture in terms of how much of a relatively low-cost investment peacekeeping is for 

American taxpayers? 

Answer: 

The President's request sets forth the goal of reducing the U.S. peacekeeping assessment 

rate to no more than 25 percent By seeking to reduce the assessment rate, the Department is 

pursuing the objective of ensuring a more equitable distribution of financial responsibility for 

UN peacekeeping operations among UN member states. 
86


25840h-2.eps

This objective is consistent with current law. Section 404(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations 

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 ("1994-1995 Authorization Act"), limits the 

amount of appropriated funds that can be used for payment of US. assessed contributions to a 

l)N peacekeeping operation to 25 percent of the total of all assessed contributions for that 

peacekeeping operation. Unlike previous years, when Congress raised the 25 percent cap 

through annual appropriations acts, Congress has not increased the 25 percent cap for fiscal year 

2017. As long as the actual US assessment rate exceeds 25 percent, the cap limits the ability of 

the Department to use appropriated funds to pay the entire amount of U.S. peacekeeping 

assessments, and the United States will go into arrears as a result 

I believe UN peacekeeping activities are a good investment of taxpayer dollars. UN 

peacekeeping missions represent a global commitment of resources to address threats to peace 

and security in troubled regions of the world. We have a responsibility to make that commitment 

as efficient and as effective as possible and we are working to do so. 

Question: 

There are currently 20 million people in four countries (South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and 

Yemen) facing famine and a historic number- 65 million- of displaced people around the world, 

the largest number since World War IL Not only is this a major humanitarian crisis, but it also 

has a major impact on our national security. If we do not support refugees around the world in 

the short tenn, the United States and our allies will be forced to provide far more resources in the 

long run. 

With the Administration's proposed cuts to International Disaster Assistance (34 percent) and 

Migration and Refugee Assistance (10 percent), how can the United States respond to these 

humanitarian crises as a leader in the international community? What will we be unable to 

respond to with these cuts? 

Answer: 

The United States is committed to doing our fair share to respond to humanitarian crises 

and providing lifesaving assistance to those who need it most With our FY 2018 budget request, 

we will remain a leading contributor of humanitarian assistance. This request would focus 

funding on the highest priority areas while asking our international partners to step up their 

etforts and contribute more. 

The proposed percentage ofhtnnanitarian funding requested as part of the FY 2018 

State/USAID foreign assistance budget remains the same as in FY 2016, roughly 22 percent, and 

the relative priority of these interventions has not diminished. 

Both development and humanitarian assistance are necessary to help prevent and mitigate 

humanitarian crises. The Administration's goal for FY 2018 is to balance humanitarian and 

development interventions to help prevent the next humanitarian crisis. 

Humanitarian funding decisions are based on need, as assessed by international and nongovernment organizations, USG field teams, assessments, and in close coordination with local 

governments and our implementing partners. The Department and USAlD continually work to 

support populations with the greatest humanitarian need, and to assess whether implementing 

partners have the operational capacity and access to the people in need. 
87


25840h-3.eps

Question: 

How will the reduction in budget and personnel affect the Department's diversity and inclusion 

e±forts at the recruitment- entry level and retention mid-level and senior level and advancement? 

Answer: 

The recruitment budget for FY17 has not been affected. We will reassess our recruitment 

programs in light of the FY 18 budget when announced. 

The Department will work to ensure that any reduction in budget and personnel does not 

negatively affect the Department's diversity, inclusion and retention e±Torts. 

Question: 

How are you coordinating with the Defense Department and the White House to develop a 

comprehensive national security stratetlY that e±Tectively utilizes both our military and civilian 

tools? 

Answer: 

Defense, diplomacy, and development provide the full spectrum of military and civilian 

tools as critical components of a comprehensive national security strategy. Combining these key 

elements of statecraft in the right way and at the right time ensures the protection of the United 

States' core national security interests. The utilization of both military and civilian capabilities 

as complementary elements of national power requires that they be applied accordingly to match 

the context of the day based on the worldview and security framework established in a national 

security strategy. The Department of State, Department of Defense, USAID, and the other 

national security agencies are collectively working through the established interagency process 

to deliver a balanced and flexible national security strategy-one that balances the application of 

defense, diplomacy, and development in the most logical and prudent way to achieve our foreign 

policy and national security objectives. Additionally, the Department of State and USAID as 

well as the Department of Defense are in the process of developing their respective agency-level 

strategic plans. The development process includes interagency collaboration and engagement at 

the highest organizational levels to ensure alignment across their respective agency plans as well 

as with the broader objectives of our national security strategy. 

Question: 

Do you see a need for State Department to reassert its role in areas where other government 

agencies, including but not limited to the Department of Defense, have increasingly duplicated 

aspects of the State Department mandate in recent years? 

Answer: 

The State Department is continually working to ensure that the execution of our role in 

national security and foreign a±Tairs is both e±Iicient and e±Tective to achieve our mission and 

mandate. This e±Tort includes working closely with our interagency partners on national security 

and foreign policy issues to ensure we are limiting any duplication of e±Torts in our operational 

mandates and supporting processes around the world. As the lead foreign affairs agency, the 

State Department will continue to lead and assert its role in areas pertaining to foreign affairs, 

and will also continue to engage and collaborate accordingly with our interagency partners to 
88


25840h-4.eps

maximize our collective efforts to advance and protect the interests of our country and its 

citizens. 

Question: 

In your testimony, you discussed the degree of confusion that exists around the State Department 

"mission.'' What do you see as the mission of the Department? 

Answer: 

The mission of the State Department is to lead America's foreign policy and create 

conditions for a better, more secure, more prosperous United States. We are working on behalf 

of the American people to carry out the President's foreign policies. 

The Department is currently undertaking a redesign project, which is an employee-led 

initiative jointly conducted by State and USAID to examine how we can structure our processes, 

workforce, and technology to better achieve our mission, from which the vision for the future 

will emerge. In July, we convened a group of key leaders from State and USAID- across Civil 

and Foreign Services and from a diverse range of bureaus- to articulate core tenets for each 

organization: Purpose, Mission, and Ambition. We are currently asking for employee feedback 

on these draft statements, which will help guide and inspire the redesign, and set clear context 

and decisions on our direction. 

Question: 

What impact will not having fully staffed consular sections have on revenue generation for the 

Department and on timelines for visa issuance? 

Answer: 

The first responsibility of government is the security of its own citizens, and we will 

orient our diplomatic efforts toward fulfilling that commitment. The provision of consular 

services is one of the Department's highest priorities, a national security imperative, and a 

powerful driver of the U.S. trade and tourism sectors, and it will remain so as we examine 

possibilities to reorganize the State Department. 

Predating the current hiring freeze, theCA and the Bureau of Human Resources (HR) 

anticipated that the demand for consular services would outpace the hiring of Entry-Level 

Otlicers. To address this deficit, the Department developed a range of hiring programs to 

diversify the pool of candidates available for assignment to entry-level consular positions, 

including Appointment Eligible Family Member Consular Adjudicators (CA-AEFMs), Civil 

Service Adjudicators, members of the Consular Fellows Program (CFP), and Register Candidate 

Consular Fellows. The CFP targets candidates with existing language skills in Arabic, Mandarin 

Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. These alternative hiring programs are funded by 

consular fees. The White House recognized the importance of the CFP in Executive Order 

13780, which directed that "the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular 

Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows." The 

Department will hire up to 98 Consular Fellows in August 2017, the largest ever such class. 

To satisfy urgent statling gaps, we prioritize and deploy Temporary Duty (TDY) staff CA's 

TDY program has grown dramatically in the past two years; in FY2015, our personnel 

completed 684 TDY assignments, more than a !56 percent increase from the previous year. In 

FY2016, our personnel completed 675 TDY assignments. 
89


25840h-5.eps

Question: 

How many hiring waivers have you issued? For which posts? DGHR 

Of the hiring waivers you issued, how many were for Employed Family Members? For which 

posts? 

Answer 

We are still compiling the data, but expect that approximately 1,466 hiring freeze 

exemptions will be approved by Aut,'llst 10. These include Civil Service, Foreign Service, 

Consular Fellows, Eligible Family Members (EFM), and Locally Employed Staff. Of these 

exemptions, we expect that approximately 763 will be for EFMs. 

In response to question #4g, EFM exemptions have been granted on a global basis based 

on priorities submitted by each Regional Bureau 

Question: 

Will you issue waivers to the current pipeline of Pickering and Rangel fellows allowing them to 

begin A-100 as planned? 

Answer: 

A waiver is not necessary. The Department is unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows a spot 

in an A-100 class at this time, as has been customary. However, the Department otiered Fellows 

the opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to waiting until the next 

A-100 class. Fellows who chose to begin their service as Consular Fellows would be placed in 

the next available A-1 00 class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular Fellows 

tour(s). 

Question: 

Pickering and Rangel Fellows: Will you commit, consistent with Congressional intent, to 

increase, as a proportion of overall hiring, the number of Pickering and Rangel fellows recruited 

through these programs? 

Answer: 

We support increases to the Rangel and Pickering fellowship programs, subject to the 

availability of sutlicient funding for such increases. The Pickering and Rangel fellowship 

programs are our premier diversity recruitment programs responsible for 21% of the diversity in 

the Foreign Service today. We need to increase the diversity of the Foreign Service to have a 

service that truly represents the diversity of the American people. 

Question: 

What do you believe are the State Department's contractual obligations to Rangel and Pickering 

Fellows? 

Answer: 

The Department's agreement with each fellow ditl'ers by program, and may also differ 

within each program by fellowship cohort. The basic understanding between the Fellows and the 

Department is that, in accordance with applicable law, the Department provides funds for 
90


25840h-6.eps

academic tuition and certain other benefits to the fellows each year during the fellowship. 

Fellows serve internships during the program and also serve in a position at the Department for a 

specified amount of time following their graduation from school, successful completion of the 

Fellowship program, and meeting Foreign Service entry requirements. 

Question: 

Do you believe placing Pickering and Rangel Fellows into the Consular Fellows program meets 

Congressional intent, or the long term goal of improving diversity of the Foreign Service? If yes, 

how? 

Answer: 

The Pickering and Rangel diversity recruitment programs increase diversity in the 

Foreign Service. Fellows are trained to and expect to join the Foreign Service upon the 

completion of their degrees and Foreign Service entry requirements. Normally, Fellows enter 

the Foreign Service as career conditional otlicers in the regularly scheduled entry level A-100 

classes. 

The Department is unable to otier this year's cadre of Fellows a spot in an A-100 class at 

this time, as has been customary. However, the Department otiered Fellows the opportunity to 

join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to waiting until the next A-100 class. 

Fellows who chose to begin their service as Consular Fellows would be placed in the next 

available A-100 class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular Fellows tour(s). 

Question: 

Given contractual obligations and that OMB has lifted the hiring freeze, why can't the State 

Department issue waivers and begin A-100 classes for Pickering and Rangel fellows? 

Answer: 

A waiver is not necessary. The Department is unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows 

a spot in an A-1 00 class at this time, as has been customary. However, the Department offered 

Fellows the opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to waiting until 

the next A-1 00 class. Fellows who chose to begin their service as Consular Fellows would be 

placed in the next available A-1 00 class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular 

Fellows tour(s). 

Question: 

Are Consular Fellows full members of the Foreign Service? 

Answer: 

Sections 303 and 309 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 authorize the Secretary to 

appoint individuals to serve on a limited, non-career appointment (LNA) in the Foreign Service. 

In May 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved the use of this authority to meet the 

growing demand for consular services. Consular Fellows are members of the Foreign Service in 

a non-career capacity while serving overseas and perform the same consular duties as their 

Foreign Service generalist counterparts. Consular Fellows comprise the bulk of consular LNAs 

used by the Department and may serve up to tive years, with the ability to extend for a sixth year 

with approval of the Director General. The Department is reviewing options for extended 
91


25840h-7.eps

lengths of service as a result ofE.O. 13780, issued March 6, 2017, which states that "the 

Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by 

substantially increasing the number of Fellows [and]lengthening or making permanent the 

period of service." 

Consular Fellows are assigned to consular positions established for entry-level Foreign 

Service Officers (ELOs). They help to fill consular positions for which ELOs are unavailable or 

not available in a timely manner. Consular Fellows may apply to become Foreign Service 

Generalists or Specialists, but they must meet all applicable qualifications and complete the 

standard application and assessment processes. 

Question: 

Why have you frozen sending State Department detailees to the National Security Council? 

What impact do you think the lack of State Department personnel at the WH, engaged in the 

NSC process, will have on ensuring State's equities and institutional knowledge are part of the 

larger decision making process. 

Answer: 

The State Department and the National Security Council conducted a needs assessment to 

determine the expertise that State can provide to NSC through detail assignments. The result of 

this collaborative etlort is that State will continue to detail a total of 33 employees to the NSC 

plus two administrative stati Currently, State is in the process of assigning 16 personnel to join 

19 State collea6'lles already assigned to the NSC. 

Question: 

Has the State Department issued hiring waivers for ot1ices such as the Bureau of Medical 

Services? 

Answer: 

On April 13, 2017 the Department granted the Bureau of Medical Services (MED) an 

exemption to hire 20 clinical specialists in order to fill high priority medical positions. This was 

based on position-by-position justifications; MED did not receive a blanket exemption. Other 

bureaus that have approvals for exemptions to the hiring treeze include the Bureau of 

Intelligence and Research, the Bureau of Near Eastern Atlairs, the Bureau of East Asian and 

Pacific Atlairs, the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, the Bureau of International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Atlairs, Overseas Buildings Operations, the Executive 

Secretariat, Policy Planning, the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and the Bureau of 

Human Resources. 

Question: 

The 2016 State Authorities Act required the Department to start a pilot program for mid-level 

entry into the Foreign Service. Please provide an update on etlorts to establish this program. 

Answer: 

The Department proposes to create a pilot program that permits lateral entry tram the 

government-wide Civil Service workforce and from the private sector to the Foreign Service. 

The pilot program will be designed to meet the needs of the Service, specifically in specialist 
92


25840h-8.eps

categories and generalist career tracks where specific expertise and outstanding talents are in 

deficit. For Foreign Service Generalists, the Regional and Functional bureaus will identify 

specific areas of scientific, lint,'llistic, technical, or global skills and expertise that are in deficit, 

and HR will recruit for these specific skill sets. Civil Service, and private sector candidates may 

apply for mid-level conversion to specific skill codes that have been identified with deficits. For 

Foreign Service Specialist, the Department will review each of the 15 specialties not currently 

being brought in at the mid-level to determine if a need, whether due to a skill or personnel 

deficit, exists. 

Final review and implementation of the program will continue after the Department's 

redesign is completed, and a determination is made as to how this program will best fit into the 

redesign. 

Question: 

Please provide an update on the Department's effort to undertake, consistent with the 

requirement in the 2016 State Authorities Act, a Foreign Service Families Workforce Study. 

The Foreign Service Families Workforce Study has been prepared and is currently under review 

before transmitting to Congress. The study shows that the challenges facing botb the family 

members of Foreign Service employees and the management of overseas missions have resulted 

in interesting and creative dynamics in the area of Foreign Service family member 

employment. A key factor for both tandem employees and family members is setting realistic 

expectations about opportunities and potential challenges. It is important to note, however, that 

tandems and EFMs comprise two analytically distinct groups. 

Answer: 

a. Has tbe Department analyzed comparable public, private and nonprofit entities to 

see how State Department Foreign Service compensation and benefits compares, 

particularly in the areas of children's education and housing? Please disaggregate 

findings by grade and by location/Post. 

b. From analysis to date, what has the Department determined to be the impact on 

the Foreign Service of a lack of quality options for spousal employment? 

c. For Foreign Service spouses that desire to work, whether it is in the Mission, 

remotely from their homes, or in the host country economy, what further etTorts 

will the Department undertake to better leverage this underutilized human 

resource at Post and/or support EFMs who are seeking meaningful avenues of 

employment" 

a. The Department provides housing to our ofilcers overseas as directed and in accordance witb 

Section 156 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act Our education allowances are in 

accordance with the mandate to provide an opportunity comparable to U.S. public education, and 

the allowable amounts vary by location. 

b. The Foreign Service has a very low attrition rate. Many family members find fulfilling 

options for employment overseas, depending upon the employment opportunities available, botb 

inside tbe mission and in the local economy. Employment options for family members vary 

from post to post, and, where legally possible, include opportunities to work outside our missions 

in the local economy in fields such as education, consulting, and running home-based businesses. 
93


25840h-9.eps

Family members apply for positions inside a cross-section of offices at US. missions overseas 

which vary from administrative support to entry level Foreign Service equivalent 

c. The current agency redesign phase is considering how best to leverage the experience of 

EFMs for work in our overseas missions. The Department also continues to seek new bilateral 

work agreements to enable family members seeking employment outside the mission to obtain 

work permits. Programs managed by the Bureau of Human Resources' Family Liaison Office 

help family members advance the portability of their skills that many find necessary during the 

course of the spouse's Foreign Service career. 

Question: 

Do you believe that State Department should have the lead role in directing US security sector 

assistance? If not. why not? 

Answer: 

The Department of State's role in the provision of security assistance is a crucial one. 

Security assistance is a powerful tool that the United States can use to strengthen our alliances 

and partnerships around the world and mitigate threats that require a collective responseterrorism, organized crime, restraints on the freedom of navigation, and much more. Security 

assistance is an instrument that inherently implicates every aspect of our foreign policy -

whether because of the sensitivity of the partner, regional balance, the type of assistance, or the 

program's overall impact on bilateral and regional goals and relationships. It is also a tool that 

we must use in conjunction with the other pillar of foreign policy: diplomacy. 

State Department security assistance supports regional stability in the face of terrorist 

threats, in particular ISIS and other organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and al-Shabab. 

State Department security assistance also strengthens security relationships to bolster regional 

and global security; increases US. inf1uence, secure access and legal protections to facilitate 

deployment of US. forces; improves interoperability with US. and coalition partners; 

advantageously shapes partners' capabilities to support strategic priorities; and promotes the US. 

defense industrial base as our international partners' first and best option for procuring defense 

articles. Further, our security assistance helps build security sector institutional capacity to 

ensure the long-tenn sustainability, etl'ecti veness, professionalism, and resilience of partner and 

ally nations, and it promotes post-conf1ict stability to improve partners' internal security and 

reduce threats to the United States and our partners. 

It is the job of the State Department to ensure that our security assistance aligns with and 

advances this country's goals in light of the broader diplomatic and defense relationship, and that 

the assistance provided across the various US. government agencies advances a single, coherent 

strategy- whether it be in the provision of major munitions in Iraq or Lebanon, border security 

programs in Eastern Europe, maritime capacity building in Vietnam, or military justice programs 

in Mexico. 

The State Department works to ensure that any investments we make in foreign security 

forces advance both political and security purposes; that they account for the political balance 

between civil and military institutions in the recipient country; that they are based on mutual, 

enduring interests between our countries; and that they do not cause long-term, unintended 

etl'ects in the country or region. 
94


25840h-10.eps

Question: 

A lack of government wide policy guidance a harmonized planning cycle on security sector 

assistance is commonalty cited as a one of challenges to etl'ectively coordinating this assistance 

and avoiding duplication. 

Do you see this as an area for the State Department to take a lead policy-setting and coordination 

role? 

a. What specific reforms do you think would be helpful in State reasserting such a role and 

providing etl'ective and responsive coordination for the USG7 

b. I believe that we should be making it easier, not harder, for our partners and allies to access 

US. security assistance, but the suggestion that some or all of our assistance will be converted to 

a "loan program." How will this impact the ability of our partners to access US security 

assistance? 

c. How will you work with Congress, the Defense Department and the White House to see that 

State Department retains and regains its role in overseeing security sector assistance? 

d. Do you believe the State Department should have the lead on security assistance relationship 

with foreign governments7 

e. What impact do you think allowing DOD to serve as a substitute provider of security 

assistance will have on sources of leverage the Department of State has with various 

governments around the world when State's budget is being slashed? 

Answer: 

It is the responsibility of the State Department to ensure that our security assistance aligns 

with and promotes US. objectives in light of the broader diplomatic and defense relationship, 

and that everything the various entities of the US. government are doing in foreign security 

sectors advances a single, coherent strategy. The Department has longstanding practices for 

coordinating the deployment of its security assistance funds, including processes such as the 

development of the Integrated Country Strategy, the development of the Mission Resource 

Request, various interagency planning forums, and program-specitic proposal review processes. 

The State Department is also working with the Department of Defense to develop 

processes to synchronize security assistance planning and programming across the two 

departments, in light of DoD's expanded assistance authority. Secretary Mattis and I have 

established a new State Department-DoD Security Sector Assistance Steering Committee that is 

taking on this important task. The Steering Committee will oversee a process to ensure that State 

and DoD are optimizing our respective department resources and individual authorities to 

advance US. national security priorities and partnerships. 

Both State and DoD will benefit from this coordination, as close collaboration pennits the 

agencies to maximize our limited resources and capitalize on each agency's unique expertise and 

authorities. 

(a) I have designated the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs (PM) as the 

lead coordinator for State in the joint planning, development, and implementation of programs 

for DoD's new section 333 assistance authority, which consolidated and codified several security 

sector assistance authorities in the FY 2017 NDAA This is in line with the requirement for the 

Department to designate an individual responsible for program coordination at the lowest 

appropriate level. In fulfilling its role as lead section 333 coordinator, PM manages a 
95


25840h-11.eps

consultative and inclusive planning and approval process to ensure that Departmental priorities 

and policy concerns are reflected in security sector assistance plans and programs. 

At the same time, the Otlice of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F) maintains overall 

responsibility for ensuring the alignment of foreign assistance resources with Administration 

policy and strategies and exercises the delegated authority to concur with section 333 programs. 

(b) The Department will pursue loans with partners that the U.S government has 

determined as able to fulfill their financial commitments without significant risk or are 

developing military capabilities that advance core U.S foreign policy priorities. 

It is not yet clear whether a transition from grants to loans will lead to a reduction or an 

increase in the amount of U.S defense articles and services purchased, granted, and/or loaned 

around the world. Partners may have the opportunity to borrow more than they received in the 

past in grant assistance, allowing recipients to purchase more American-made defense equipment 

and services. However, not all recipients may be appropriate loan partners for the United States, 

due to their limited national budgets or other circumstances that could limit their ability to repay 

the loan. Some recipients may not be willing to accept or be able to repay a loan from the U.S. 

government, which must, by law, be ofTered at an interest rate of no less than five percent and 

with a term of no more than twelve years. In some circumstances, past FMF recipients may also 

choose to seek loans or assistance from other international suppliers. However, these 

possibilities are mitigated by the fact that some of the largest recipients will continue to be 

funded with FMF grant funds at significant levels, and by the high quality of defense articles and 

services produced by the United States compared to other possible suppliers. 

(c) In addition to the Department's aforementioned processes for coordinating and 

overseeing security assistance, we are also working with DoD to develop processes that 

synchronize security assistance planning and programming across the two agencies. This 

includes the new State Department-DoD Security Sector Assistance Steering Committee that 

Secretary Mattis and I have established which is accountable for ensuring the joint approach is 

fully embraced. 

Congress has helped us by ensuring that DoD's new Section 333 authority is structured in 

a way that promotes State and DoD's collaboration. Specifically, Section 333 stipulates that 

assistance should be jointly formulated by the two departments and provided with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of State. Working with DoD, we have begun to put in place the 

necessary structures and processes to etliciently and effectively meet these requirements. 

(d) The Department's role in the provision of security assistance to partner nations is a 

crucial one. Security assistance is a powerful tool that the United States can use to strengthen 

our alliances and partnerships around the world and mitigate threats that require a collective 

response. 

The Department works to ensure that any investments we make in foreign security forces 

advance both political and security purposes, account for the political balance between civil and 

military institutions in the recipient country, are based on mutual, enduring interests between our 

countries, and do not cause long-tenn unintended effects in the country or region. 

(e) The Administration's request gives the United States a range of tools to build the 

capacity of foreign militaries, including FMF grants, FMF loans, and DoD assistance programs. 
96


25840h-12.eps

I am confident that the new State Department-DoD Security Sector Assistance Steering 

Committee will effectively validate security assistance requirements for countries that directly 

support this Administration's top goals and ensure that there is a tully coordinated State and 

DoD approach to meet those requirements. 

Question: 

What are the trends in visa applications? How do they compare to 2014,2012, 2010? 

Answer: 

Nonimmigrant Visas 

Nonimmigrant visa applications are subject to a number of variables which can, and often 

do, change within a short period of time This makes long range forecasting or projections 

challenging and subject to revision. 

In FY 2016, applications leveled otT as the surge in applications caused by visa 

reciprocity changes in China diminished. Visa demand to date in FY 2017 has decreased from 

FY 2016 by 4.8% and it is not expected to rise above current levels for the foreseeable future. 

Immigrant Visas 

The annual limits governing the issuance of numerically controlled family-sponsored, 

employment-based, and diversity visas results in a fairly steady level of applications each year. 

The historical rate of increase in applications for non-numerically controlled visa categories such 

as immediate relatives has been under two percent for most years. The FY 2016 immigrant visa 

application increase was artificially high, as consular sections continued to work offthe 2014 

backlog in USCIS immediate relative petitions. The 2014 backlog also resulted in an artificially 

low application total for FY 2014, as there were fewer applicants whose cases were ready for 

interview. 

The FY 2017 application totals have begun to return to normal levels, and are expected to 

be approximately 635,000. It is expected that immigrant visa applications will increase by 

approximately one percent annually, subject to trends in US CIS petition processing which 

impacts the rate of overseas application. 

Question 

What role do you believe technology can play in helping to modernize the State 

Department? With the budget numbers, how do you foresee being able to pay for these 

technolot\Y enhancements that the State Department so desperately needs? 

Challenges with the Department's technology platfonns, both from a functionality and cyber 

security perspective, are repeatedly cited as serious impediments to the eftlcient and etl'ective 

functioning of the Department, both in Washington and at Post. Addressing these challenges will 

undoubtedly be a costly endeavor in the short run, but would constitute significant efficiency and 

security gains. 

Answer: 

The lT Strategic Plan underscores the Department's need for technology to support its 

global mission and deliver innovative diplomacy, more secure IT infrastructure, and advanced IT 
97


25840h-13.eps

business management The Department continues to evolve its planning and is evaluating future 

investments in IT based on proposals that emerge from the efficiency review project we are 

currently undertaking. The Department will prioritize funding to directly support IT initiatives 

aligned with the Department's IT Strategic Plan and proposals that emerge from the review. Key 

areas of focus include IT initiatives such as: providing access to global cloud hosting services, 

improving digital mobility, knowledge management and security, modernizing key business 

systems, building improved analytics capabilities, and strenb>thening cyber defense and IT 

infrastructure. Among these focus areas, cybersecurity is a continued priority for the Department, 

and re-directing funds to its IT infrastructure is criticaL Not only will this support continuing IT 

security efforts, but improving the Department's IT infrastructure creates a solid foundation for 

future IT modernization and providing tools to improve mission efl'ectiveness and efficiency. 

Question: 

Following the intrusions by Russia into the State Department email systems in Nov 2014, what 

recommendations were made to help protect the State Department's network? How far along the 

department in implementing those recommendations? What resources will you need to make sure 

the State Department's IT infrastructure is secure and up to date? 

Answer: 

Recommendations following this cybersecurity event were to enhance the Department's 

existing capabilities with increased communication between stakeholders, to identify gaps and 

weaknesses in policy and capabilities, and to improve the technical security posture of the 

Department's networks and assets. The creation of a unified Cyber Security Steering Committee 

(CSSC) and the Joint Security Operations Center (JSOC) has improved communication and 

focus on cybersecurity issues. These are examples of initiatives the Department established and 

continuously refines as part of a cybersecurity program that supports the Department's global 

information assets and operations. To advance this mission, the Department developed a 

cybersecurity strategy to unify and assess the maturity of current and future cybersecurity 

capabilities in the Department's cyber program. With this strategy and a new operational 

framework in place, the Department is following a risk management approach to threats and 

vulnerabilities. The Department's strategy and framework has enabled a greater focus on policy, 

more effective cyber hygiene, and a stronger cyber defense. 

Question: 

How specifically does your proposed budget and reform agenda address shortcomings in the 

Department's technology, including hampering mission e±l'ectiveness, failing to meet document 

archival and record-keeping requirements, and exposing the Department to cyber security threats? 

Answer: 

The Department's IT Strategic Plan provides a framework for how the Department can be 

more effective in providing modern IT to its diplomats. IT initiatives such as cloud computing, 

improving knowledge sharing, improving mobility, providing stronger analytics, and 

modernizing business/mission systems are ways the Department plans to address IT gaps. 

Specifically regarding records management, and as noted in the 2016 Senior Agency Official 

Report for Records Management and the 2016 Federal Email Management Report, the 

Department has not fully met its December 31, 2016, deadline ofOMB/NARA Mandate M-12-

18 Goal 1.2 to manage email in an accessible electronic format Conversely, the Department has 
98


25840h-14.eps

met OMB/NARA Mandate M-12-18 Goal 1.2 for its primary email systems by capturing and 

storing all email on its classified and controlled unclassified information networks within a 

central repository. The Department is actively working on developing robust search and access 

functionality for this central repository in order to lower its risk and fully meet the NARA 

success criteria pursuant to the 2016 Federal Email Management Report. Additionally, the 

Department is evaluating its non-central email systems in order to validate if they meet both 

reb'lllatory requirements and NARA success criteria before we will certify that we have fully met 

OMB/NARA Mandate M-12-18 Goal 1.2. The Department anticipates launching a new user 

interface for its centralized email system in 2017, as the system which manages this activity is 

currently undergoing evaluation based on the required NISI Risk Management Framework 

process to acquire a full Authorization to Operate (ATO). 

Question: 

Will you conduct a review of Department travel procedures and contracting mechanisms as part 

of your effort to improve the Department's ability to meet mission requirements effectively and 

with greater efficiency? 

The redesign task force includes a group that is focused on review of management 

support. That work stream will identify opportunities to streamline administrative support 

functions at the bureau and agency levels to ensure front-line effectiveness. 

Even as this redesign work is underway, the Department's Transportation and Travel 

Management Division within the Bureau of Administration continually reviews its travel policies 

and procedures, stays well-informed of travel law, and tracks industry changes in a persistent 

effort to improve the Department's ability to meet mission requirements effectively and 

efficiently. The Division also conducts active outreach to solicit traveler feedback on the impact 

of the Department's travel policies and measure service delivery. In 2015, the Division 

established a Travel Working Group (TWG) to advance the Department's goals for improving 

travel programs, comprised of representatives from all regional and functional bureaus. In 2016, 

the Department also added a customer advocate to the Department's travel service contract, and 

instituted regular survey mechanisms. 

The Department complies with the Fly America Act and the General Services 

Administration's (GSA's) City Pair Program. The City Pair Program is estimated to save the US 

government $2.4 billion in FY 17 through the use of fixed contract fares, and the program also 

provides other benefits such as guaranteed last seat availability and fully changeable/refundable 

"unrestricted" fares. In certain instances set forth in the Federal Travel Reb'lllations and the 

Foreign Affairs Manual, the Department may grant a waiver from the use of a City Pair t1ight. 

The International Rate Desk, a service provided by the travel service contract to identify 

comparable routings on complex itineraries, has historically reduced costs for the Department. 

The Department has actively engaged with GSA senior travel leadership to advocate 

for policies and best value contract awards that provide t1exibility for the traveler while still 

containing costs. Representatives from the Department's travel otlice participate on GSA's 

interagency Source Selection Board to make recommendations on the annual City Pair fares 

awards. In FY 17, the voices of our State representatives were integral to the award of several 

non-stop carriers in key markets which had been awarded via connector routes the previous year, 
99


25840h-15.eps

drawing on broad customer feedback and analysis that these less direct routes were negatively 

impacting the Department's mission. 

The Department is also represented on GSA's executive level Senior Travel Official 

Council and actively engaged in discussions on federal travel policy and contract award criteria, 

particularly as it relates to international travel. 

Question: 

Where are you in the process of reporting to Congress on progress against Performance Goals 

from 2014- 2017? 

a. What is your plan for updating the Strategic Plan? 

b. Can we expect the plan to provide greater clarity in terms of how you are interpreting 

"issues of strategic interest" and "countries of strategic concern" as outlined in your FY18 

budget request? 

Answer: 

The recently published FY 2016 Annual Performance Report (APR) conveys indicator 

target and result data for all performance goals and agency priority goals from the Department of 

State-USAID FY 2014-2017 Joint Strategic Plan. The FY 2016 APR serves as the closeout 

report for accomplishments under the FY 2014- FY 2017 Joint Strategic Plan. 

The FY 2018-2022 JSP is currently under development in accordance with the process, 

timeline and requirements laid out by OMB and the Government Performance and Results ActModernization Act of2010 (GPRA-MA). The Secretary of State and USAID Administrator 

provide the overall policy t,>uidance and the Secretary's Policy Planning Statl' (SIP) is providing 

additional guidance and prioritization among the full range offoreign policy and foreign 

assistance issues and how those policy priorities should be articulated in the JSP's strategic goal 

and objective framework. The Department intends to release the FY 2018-2022 JSP by February 

2018, concurrent with the FY 2019 President's Budget. The JSP is being coordinated with our 

budget and reform priorities and will infonn future budget requests as well as providing greater 

clarity as to our shared goals and objectives and how we plan to achieve our redefined mission. 

Question 14 & 14a: 

The President's budget for the State Department references maintaining current lllV treatment 

levels within PEPF AR, while focusing on 12 countries to achieve epidemic control. Were those 

countries chosen because of burden of disease, ease of getting to epidemic control or some other 

strategic reason? Do you expect to see a rise in HIV infections or deaths in countries no longer 

receiving funding? 

Should we expect to see PEPF AR results slow and HIV treatment numbers start to stagnate? 

Answer: 

PEPF AR will continue to invest in over 50 countries, maintain life-saving antiretroviral 

treatment (ART) for all of the people we support, provide services for orphan and vulnerable 

children, ensuring that the most vulnerable and key populations have access to essential services 
100


25840h-16.eps

to prevent and treat lllV and accelerate progress toward controlling the pandemic in a subset of 

countries. 

PEPF AR has a unique opportunity to accelerate its progress toward reaching epidemic 

control by 2020 through the LlNAIDS 90/90/90 framework and expansion ofHIV prevention in 

13 high-burden countries while sustaining support to all countries and populations where 

PEPFAR works. These 13 countries were prioritized based on several factors HIV/AIDS 

burden; rate of new HIV infections (HIV incidence); number of AIDS-related deaths; and the 

potential for achieving epidemic control in the next 3.5 years- by 2020. In the last 6 months, 

PEPF AR has already shown that through the US investments in PEPF AR and the Global Fund, 

the rate of new infections in three high HIV- burdened countries (Malawi, Zambia, and 

Zimbabwe) has decreased by more than 50 percent This tremendous impact demonstrates that 

PEPF AR' s prevention and treatment programs are beginning to control these countries' HIV 

epidemics. 

Beyond these 13 high-burden countries, in addition to maintaining life-saving ART to all 

people it currently supports, PEPF AR will continue to expand both lllV prevention and 

treatment services, where possible, through increased performance, efficiency gains, and shared 

responsibility of all partners. 

We are committed to our foreign assistance investment achieving even greater outcomes 

and impacts through the use of granular data, linked to expenditures to increase the efliciency 

and etTectiveness of these key programs. In countries where PEPFAR is not the primary HIV 

t'under and/or service delivery provider, we will continue our work with partner governments, the 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNAIDS and others to ensure access to 

services by all populations. 

Question 15: 

The President's budget proposed a steep cut to HIV funding at the State Department, almost 17 

percent, and a shocking 50 percent cut to other global health programs. While the myriad of 

global health programs are t'unded through different budget channels, at the country-level these 

programs are often intertwined to better serve patient needs and maximize outcomes across 

different disease targets. 

Will the PEPF AR program be able to mitigate the impact of broader global health t'unding cuts 

and still meet its goals~ How~ 

Answer: 

PEPF AR began in 2003 as a compassionate emergency program under the Bush 

Administration, bringing life-saving HIV prevention and treatment services around the globe 

where the epidemic had decimated communities. PEPF AR was expanded by the Obama 

Administration and has been reauthorized twice by significant bipartisan majorities to focus on 

life-saving lllV prevention, treatment and care services. Through the compassion and generosity 

of the American people, PEPF AR has saved and improved millions of lives, accelerating 

progress toward controlling and ultimately ending the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat. 

PEPF AR has transformed the global HIV /AIDS response, supporting nearly 11.5 million 

people with life-saving antiretroviral treatment, a 50 percent increase since 2014. Nearly 2 

million babies have been born HIV -free to pregnant women living with HIV- almost twice as 

many as in 2013. Also, nearly 6.2 million orphans, vulnerable children, and their caregivers 
101


25840h-17.eps

have been provided with care and services. PEPF AR continues to expand its impact by using 

data to drive accountability, find efficiencies, increase transparency, and leverage partnerships, 

including with the private sector. 

Question: 

Africa's pending "youth bulge'' and global population growth could lead to as many as 100 

million people living with HIV by 2030. Biomedical prevention, including vaccines and 

microbicides, is obviously critical in the fight against HIV/AIDS. liSA!D is supporting clinical 

trials of AIDS vaccine research through its partner lAVJ and development of a proven 

microbicide ring with its partner IPM. 

What impact v-~11 eliminating budget lines for vaccine and microbicide research at !)SAID have 

on achieving contTOl of the HlV epidemic'J 

Answel': 

Biomedical prevention products, including HIV vaccines and microbicides, are critical in the 

light against HIV/AIDS, particularly with the impending "youth bulge" in Africa. Opportunities 

to control the epidemic are more promising than ever given the advancing biomedical science to 

develop globally effective HlV vaccines and microbicides. 

USAID intends to increase its efforts to leverage partners' expertise and resources, strengthen 

country capacity to conduct their ovm research and development (R&D), and strategically utilize 

market shaping and innovative financing tools to incentivize private companies to invest in 

R&D. 

While the United States will continue significant funding for global health programs, other 

stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. 

Question: 

The investments that US AID has made in the field of AIDS prevention have recently produced 

positive results. Specifically, in 2016, the first microbicide was shown to safely reduce a 

woman's HIV risk in two large studies- a turning point that could not have been possible ~thout 

crucial support and leadership from USAID (though it is also important to note that US 

government's contribution to microbicide research and development leverages significant levels 

of support from other international, public and private donors). 

Given the U.S. government's investments in microbicides is now pa~ng off with discovery of a 

safe and effective product, is the State Department and the Administration concerned about the 

negative impacts of the elimination of microbicide funding such as: halting access !o a 

microbicide product which is now being provided to thousands of high-risk women in in Africa 

and halting regulatory applications to license this product for widespread use worldwide, 

potentially preventing many thousands of new HIV infections? 

Answer: 

'lilore than half of the new J-IIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa occur in young women age 15-

24, according to recent UN AIDS reports. USAID has played a critical role in efforts to control 
102


25840h-18.eps

the HIV/AIDS epidemic through research and development (R&D) investments in targeted 

microbicide products for HIV prevention for young women" USAID's current investments 

support R&D, regulatory approval, and introduction of several microbicide products" 

USAID will continue vvork with other donors and the private sector to leverage resources to 

provide adolescent girls and young women with new biomedical HIV prevention tools" including 

microbicides" 

Question 

On April 4th, the State Department announced that the United States will no longer provide 

funding to the UN Population Fund -the leading and, sometimes, only provider of maternal 

health services, post-rape care and other vital reproductive health services in humanitarian crises" 

On May 15th, State released b'llidelines for the implementation of the Mexico City Policy, which 

-for the first time ever- will apply to all global health assistance programs" Experts tell us that 

this policy will turn back the clock on years of progress by causing more unintended pregnancies, 

more maternal and newborn deaths, and more unsafe abortions" And the budget before us today 

zeroes out funding for family planning and reproductive health programs- an elimination that 

will lead to two million more unsafe abortions and 12,000 maternal deaths" 

Can you explain how the Trump Administration believes that these policies will advance US" 

development goals, including achieving an AIDS-free generation and ending preventable 

maternal and child deaths? 

a" Which US" government departments and agencies are covered by the recent expansion 

of the Mexico City Policy? 

b" How will the State Department monitor the impact of the Mexico City Policy b'llidance 

on specific global health programs? On access to women's health care (including family 

planning services, rates of unsafe abortion and maternal mortality)? Will there be a metric 

to measure the impact? 

c" If service disruptions are found to occur, or data on programs, such as the PEPFAR 

DREAMS programs, indicate negative impact due to the Mexico City Policy, how will 

the State Department address these disruptions and ensure programmatic outcomes 

continue to be achieved? 

d" Will the State Department continue to monitor the effects of the Mexico City Policy 

after the six-month mark for etl'ects that may not be evident in the short term? 

Answer: 

Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) applies to approximately $8"8 

billion in funds appropriated to the Department of State, the US" Agency for International 

Development, and the Department of Defense, as well as to other agencies receiving funding 

from these departments and agencies to conduct global health activities, including the 

Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 

the Peace Corps" Under this policy, "global health assistance" includes funding for international 

health programs, such as those for HIV I AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health 

security, and family planning and reproductive health" Protecting Life in Global Health 

Assistance applies to global health assistance to, or implemented by, foreign NGOs, including 

those to which a US NGO makes a sub-award with such assistance funds" 
103


25840h-19.eps

The State Department is working with atl'ected agencies and departments to collect 

information on the extent to which the expanded policy may affect our global health programs. 

Interagency representatives continue to meet ret,>ularly to assess progress and challenges related 

to implementing the PLGHA policy. 

Ambassadors and agency heads in our overseas missions with PEPFAR and other global 

health programs have been notified about implementation of the PLGHA. US AID, HHS, DOD, 

and the State Department have bet,>un notifying implementing partners and other stakeholders 

about the expanded policy. Affected departments and agencies are also preparing for a review of 

the PLGHA's etl'ect on programs which will provide an opportunity to recommend changes to 

the policy's implementation or scope, should they be needed to address unintended consequences. 

Within PEPFAR, we will monitor women's access to critical HIV services such as HIV 

testing services, treatment, as well as prevention programs as part of our DREAMS partnership. 

PEPFAR collects site level data that is very detailed on who is receiving these services including 

age, sex, geographic location, and implementing partners. Because these data have been 

collected on a quarterly basis over the past several years, we will be able to monitor whether or 

not there are any significant changes in results after the implementation of the policy. 

Question 19: 

Studies have shovvn that linking services, including reproductive health and HIV, leads to better 

health outcomes and better use of foreign assistance dollars. A recent World Health Organization 

review found that integrating family planning and HIV services leads to higher-quality and 

better-used services, and is cost-eJTective. Tile U.S has been making great strides toward better 

linking programs, and it is alarming to see the funding for much of this v,mrk eliminated. The 

proposed elimination of funding for reproductive health and family planning will compound the 

harm caused by proposed funding cuts to HIV/AIDS and undermine prevention and treatment 

initiatives, and have serious etTects across global health programs. 

How will the State Department continue to move toward integrating HIV and reproductive 

health/t:~mily planning services in light of the drastic cuts to FP/RH funding, as well as the 

restrictions imposed by the Mexico City Policy'' 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 budget request will allow PEPF AR to continue prioritizing smart 

investments that save lives and continue progress toward controlling the HIV/AIDS pandemic, 

including among women of all ages, maintain its current level of antiretroviral treatment through 

direct service delivery globally and expand both HIV prevention and treatment services, where 

possible, through increased performance and etliciency gains 

PEPFAR will continue to work with USAID to assist women with HIV-related pregnancy 

complications, reduce maternal deaths (including those related to HIV), and prevent new 

pediatric HlV infections. PEPF AR will also continue to monitor data related to HlV services at 

the site level, including the impact of any new policies. 

No one country alone can end the AIDS epidemic. lt will tal<e all partners doing their 

part to reach this goal. 
104


25840h-20.eps

Question: 

The world is facing an unprecedented number of humanitarian crises and record levels of forced 

displacement- from the ongoing conflict and refugee crisis in Syria, to natural disasters, to the 

famines threatening millions throughout Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. We know 

that women and girls are disproportionately harmed during these crises. Sexual violence, 

pregnancy-related deaths, and child, early, and forced marriage often increase significantly, 

while access to lifesaving health care plummets. The United States has long been a leader in 

addressing these issues. But the decision to cut otT funding for the UN Population Fund, or 

"UNFPA," calls our dedication into question. UNFPA facilitates safe births, works to end child 

marriage, and supports those who have faced gender-based violence. UNFPA is a lifeline for 

women and girls in more than 150 countries, including Syria, Yemen, Iraq and South Sudan. 

These women and girls quite literally have nowhere else to turn 

20. Can you definitively say that no maternal health, reproductive health, or gender-based 

violence services in humanitarian crisis zones will be lost due to the decision to withhold 

UNFP A funding? 

Answer: 

a. How is the State Department ensuring that the needs of women and girls afl'ected 

by these crises are met? 

The Administration will continue to prioritize gender based violence prevention and 

response and reducing maternal deaths, including in humanitarian settings. The Department and 

USAID have comprehensive policy frameworks that address the threats posed to women and 

girls in crisis and cont1ict while also promoting women's active participation in etl'orts to resolve 

conflict and mitigate societies' vulnerability to crisis in the first place. With respect to the 

programming previously implemented by UNFPA, we are working to identify other partners to 

implement these life-saving activities. 

Question: 

The May 1511< implementation !,>uidelines on the Mexico City Policy state that the policy will not 

endanger lives, noting that US AID's maternal and child health program has worked in 25 

countries that together account for more than;', of maternal and child deaths worldwide, and, 

since 2008, this work has saved the lives of 4.6 million children and 200,000 women. 

Given that this work primarily occurred during a period when the Mexico City Policy \Vas not in 

place, and funding for international family planning was increased, how do you expect this lifesaving work to continue? 

Answer: 

a. How will you ensure communities continue to have access to family planning and 

matemal and child health services offered by the most qualified providers? 

As the world's largest bilateral donor to global health programs, the United 

States remains committed to helping women and their children thrive. Departments and Agencies 

will reprogram to other organizations any funding they would have awarded to NGOs that do not 

agree to the conditions set on the acceptance of US. funding under Protecting Life in Global 

Health Assistance. 
105


25840h-21.eps

We are working to streamline efiorts to ensure efiiciency and efiectiveness of U.S. 

taxpayer dollars. By focusing our efforts on global health programs in maternal and child health, 

nutrition, and malaria we will continue to save the lives of women and children. 

PEPF AR is also working to keep women and children healthy. The DREAMS 

Partnership aims to reduce HIV infections in adolescent girls and young women. 

PEPF AR will also continue to work with USAID to assist women with HIV-related 

pregnancy complications, maternal deaths related to HIV and new pediatric HIV infections. 

Question: 

In November 2013, the Guinean government committed at a global forum to focus on extreme 

shortages of frontline health workers in two rural areas. Less than a month later, 'patient zero' of 

the Ebola epidemic was believed to have been infected in one of these regions. The United 

States works with many countries on low-cost efforts to strengthen their health workforce's 

capacity to save lives and halt global threats like Ebola, but these efiorts are fragmented across 

several agencies with no strategy or action plan to maximize their effect, leaving Congress 

unable to properly oversee them. 

Can you commit the Administration will work on an action plan or strategy to strengthen the 

global frontline health workforce? 

Answer: 

a. And can you explain the rationale for eliminating a budgetary allocation for 

global health security, especially given the broad cuts proposed across global 

health and growing threats of deadly disease outbreaks?\ 

The Administration is working to strenf,>then the frontline global health workforce to 

detect and prevent the spread of pandemics and promote national-level compliance with the 

WHO International Health Ref,>ulations. The United States promotes best practices in workforce 

development by encouraging countries to strengthen their frontline health workforce and build 

other domestic capacities to find and stop disease outbreaks before they spread across borders 

and threaten U.S. citizens and the international community, as well as global commerce. 

The FY 2018 budget request pursues greater etliciencies and leveraging of resources. 

The FY 2018 requests using $72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola supplemental funds to 

support global health security, which would maintain support for global health security in 

development programs at FY 2016 levels. 

The FY 2018 funding request will enable sustained support for global health security and 

the building of country-level systems to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging disease threats 

to the American people. These funds will enable the U.S government, in partnership with other 

nations, international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent avoidable 

epidemics that could spread to the United States, detect threats early, and respond to disease 

outbreaks in an efiort to prevent them from becoming global pandemics. 

Question: 

USAID plays a critical and distinct role in global health research and development, supporting 

late-stage and implementation research to advance new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other 

health tools intended for use in remote and low-resource settings. Since 2000, the agency has 

supported development of 21 new health technologies with demonstrated track records of saving 

lives and cutting program costs. USAID's research investments are also critical for American 
106


25840h-22.eps

health, and allow health technologies to be tested in regions of the world with the highest disease 

burdens, which in turn ensures Americans have access to the most effective, high-performing 

health tools. Despite these returns, the Administration's FY 18 budget proposal slashes US AID 

funding for global health R&D and even zeros USAID investments in HIV/AIDS research, 

including novel and urgently needed prevention tools, like microbicides and an HIV vaccine. 

This work is unique and not duplicative of research happening at other US. Agencies. 

Can you detail why global health research is being deprioritized by Administration's budget at a 

time when global infectious disease epidemics are on the rise? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 budget consolidates all US assistance for global HIV/AIDS efforts within 

the State Department to simplify the management and coordination of these investments. US AID 

will continue to remain one of the primary implementing agencies for PEPF AR, and will 

continue to implement a significant share of US global HIV/AIDS assistance in this capacity. 

With regard to global health research, USAID intends to increase its efforts to leverage 

partners' expertise and resources, strengthen country capacity to conduct their own research and 

development (R&D), and strategically utilize market shaping and innovative financing tools to 

incentivize private companies to invest in R&D. 

Question: 

What is US. policy on the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act? Is it still valid? Was it ever 

binding? Are we observing it? And, does it place any constraints on our efforts to bolster the 

credibility of NATO's deterrent on the alliance's eastern flank? 

Answer: 

The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act (NRF A)- a non-legally binding instrument that 

remains valid- defines the goals and mechanisms of consultation, cooperation, joint decisionmaking, and joint action that constitute the core of mutual relations between NATO and Russia. 

After the end of the Cold War, NATO pursued a strategic partnership with Russia. The NRF A 

laid the foundation for this relationship. In it, NATO and Russia pledged to refrain from the 

threat or use of force against each other or other States in any manner inconsistent with the UN 

Charter or Helsinki Final Act, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of all States 

and the inviolability of borders, to foster mutual transparency, and to settle disputes by peaceful 

means. The NRF A does not undermine the ability of the United States to defend NATO Allies 

or meet our Article 5 commitments. 

Unlike the United States, Russia has not met its commitments in the NATO-Russia 

Founding Act, including to "observe in good faith" its obligations under the UN Charter, and has 

violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine. Russia has also not 

lived up to its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, the Budapest 

Memorandum on Security Assurances, and other key documents that underpin the European 

security architecture. 

Following the Russian occupation and purported annexation of Crimea and aggression in 

eastern Ukraine, NATO Allies suspended all practical NATO-Russia civilian and military 

cooperation, but agreed to continue political dialogue with Russia through the NATO-Russia 

Council at the Ambassadorial level or higher, with Ukraine first on the agenda. Military 

channels of communication also remain open particular! y to clarify events and deescalate 
107


25840h-23.eps

perceived tensions. Also in the wake of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, NATO took steps to 

enhance our deterrence and defense in all of NATO's major capability areas: nuclear, 

conventional, and missile defense. For instance, the four NATO battlegroups that make up 

NATO's enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in the eastern part of the Alliance were fully 

deployed as of June 2017. NATO's response to Russia's aggression has been defensive, 

proportionate, and fully in line with all our international commitments. 

Question: 

During your recent trip to Moscow you did not meet with representatives of civil society or 

members of the political opposition. Why was that? Do you plan any such meetings in the future? 

What about advocacy on behalf of political prisoners in Russia or, frankly, anywhere, will you 

raise their cases? Will you do so publicly? 

Answer: 

I believe that the Department of State's mission is at all times guided by our longstanding 

American values offreedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human dignity. 

While I was not able to meet with civil society groups on my most recent trip, 

Department officials at all levels, including otlicials at the United States Embassy in Moscow, 

Russia, regularly meet with civil society groups. We believe that the Russian people, like people 

everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and 

accountable governance, equal treatment under the law, and the ability to exercise their rights 

without fear of retribution. Although the space for civil society and free media in Russia has 

become increasingly restricted, Russian organizations and individuals continue to express a 

desire to engage with the United States. As long as this continues to be the case, the United 

States will support opportunities for direct interactions between Russians and Americans, 

including through peer-to-peer, educational, cultural, and other regional programs that provide 

exchanges of best practices and ideas on themes of mutual interest. 

Question: 

We are deeply concerned about the situation in Chechnya. Hundreds of men have been rounded 

up on suspicion of being gay or bisexual, and there are widespread reports of torture, violence 

and honor killings. Last month, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution 

expressing their concern about the situation. We understand that various heads of state have 

raised the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Please describe specifically what is 

happening to gay and bisexual men in Chechnya. 

Answer: 

I share your concern about the violence against the LGBTI community in Chechnya that 

has been brought to light by brave journalists at Nomya Gaze/a and researchers at Human Rights 

Watch. There have also been reports of mass illegal detentions, systematic torture of hundreds 

of gay men, and extrajudicial killings. 

We have demanded accountability and a full investigation of these reports by the Russian 

authorities. In addition, we have issued statements from Washington, our Mission to the 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and our Mission to the United 

Nations in New York expressing our deep concern over reports of these incidents. We have also 
108


25840h-24.eps

encouraged and welcomed like-minded statements from the OSCE, the Council of Europe, 

experts at the United Nations, and our allies in Europe. 

Victims of the violence have urgent needs, including in many cases the need to relocate 

outside of Russia The US is committed to working with likeminded countries and partners, 

including UNHCR, to be part of an international, long-term response that supports safe, stable, 

long-term solutions for the victims. The mechanisms at our disposal are not immediate and will 

take time, but we are looking at any and all options to assist, with an emphasis on those methods 

that will bring targeted individuals to safety most swiftly and securely. 

Question: 

Can you commit to raising this issue in all your bilateral meetings with Russian officials? Does 

the President have plans to raise this issue with Putin like other heads of state have done in the 

past? 

Answer: 

We have demanded accountability and a tull investigation of these reports by the Russian 

authorities. In addition, we have issued statements from Washington, our Mission to the 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and our Mission to the United 

Nations in New York expressing our deep concern over reports of these incidents. We have also 

encouraged and welcomed like-minded statements from the OSCE, the Council of Europe, 

experts at the United Nations, and our allies in Europe. 

For questions about the President's plans for future bilateral meetings with the Russian 

government, I refer you to the White House. 

Question: 

At your confirmation hearing, you indicated an openness to providing Ukraine with defensive 

weapons. Is this something that the Department is considering? Should the non-binding Minsk 

framework be an impediment to Ukraine's right-under international law-to self-defense? Is it 

in our national security interest that Ukraine controls the entirety of its border and what do they 

need to accomplish that task? 

Answer: 

While the United States has not provided defensive weapons to Ukraine, we have not 

ruled out the option of doing so. As I stated previously, Ukraine has a right to defend itself 

against Russian aggression. We are closely examining how to best use our security assistance 

funding going forward to bolster Ukraine's ability to defend its sovereignty and territorial 

integrity. In response to Russian aggression, the United States has committed more than $600 

million in security assistance to provide training and equipment to help Ukraine defend its 

sovereignty and territorial integrity, better monitor and secure its borders, and deploy its forces 

more safely and etl'ectively. 

The United States continues to press Russia to end its aggression in eastern Ukraine and 

tully implement its Minsk commitments, including a complete and lasting ceasefire, withdrawal 

of heavy weapons and troops, and allowing OSCE monitors unfettered access, including to 

Ukraine's international border with Russia. As I have told my Russian counterpart directly, our 

Minsk-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia fully implements its commitments 
109


25840h-25.eps

under the agreements and our separate Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia 

returns the peninsula to Ukraine. 

Question: 

Lack of Justice in Serbia 

I am deeply concerned with the lack of justice for murders and crimes committed by the 

government of Serbia during and after the Kosovo War. In particular, there have been no 

charges brought against anyone for the murders of the three American citizens, the Bytyci 

brothers, despite widespread understanding of who was behind them. 

Serbian President Vucic and Acting Prime Minister Dacic have promised very senior US 

government otlicials for many years that they would bring to justice the perpetrators of this 

crime and the crime of burning our embassy in 2008. They both also made these promises to me. 

On January 31 ''of this year, the respected Humanitarian law Center of Belgrade released a 

Dossier called, "The cover-up of evidence of crimes during the war in Kosovo: The Concealment 

of Bodies Operation." This report described mass graves in Serbia containing the bodies of941 

Kosovo Albanians, mainly civilians killed outside combat situations in Kosovo during 1999. 

According to the report: 

The evidence corroborated that the decision to conceal evidence of crimes committed was 

planned as early as March 1999 at the highest level of the government, and indicated that 

members of both departments ofthe Serbian MUP (State Security Department and Public 

Security Department) and the Yugoslav Army's departments in charge of"clearing up the 

terrain'' were involved in it. 

The murder and mass burial of almost 1000 innocent civilians is a crime against humanity, but 

the perpetrators have gone unpunished. It's long past time for Belgrade to face the facts and 

bring to justice the people- including high otlicials in its government- who are behind these 

very serious crimes. 

At the same time, the Serbian stalling and stonewalling has brought no adjustment in policy from 

the United States, and the European Union's willingness to proceed with Serbia's accession 

process has been unail'ected. This has to stop and has to stop now. Until Serbia brings those who 

have committed these serious crimes to justice, the EU should not move ahead with Belgrade's 

accession process and the United States should think twice before advancing our relations with 

Serbia. 

What is the United States doing to press Serbia to bring to justice the murderers of the Bytyci 

brothers, those who burned the United States Embassy, and those who murdered and buried in 

mass graves almost I 000 innocent Kosovo civilians? With the ICTY no longer accepting any 

new cases and closing down at the end of this year and Serbia seemingly unwilling to prosecute 

anyone for these grave offenses, will you support a new international or special tribunal, similar 

to that which was established in Kosovo, to prosecute those responsible? 
110


25840h-26.eps

Answer: 

We share your frustration with the lack of progress in the Bytyqi case and the slow 

progress in the 2008 Embassy burning case, and raise the issue with Serbian officials at all levels 

of government, including with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic. We have also informed 

Serbian officials that these issues stand in the way of closer bilateral relations. Serbia recently 

appointed a new Special War Crimes Prosecutor- the position had remained vacant for almost a 

year-and-a-half- and we have called for the Bytyqi case to be a priority in her work We are 

hopeful that that appointment will serve to advance the investigation and prosecution of those 

responsible for the Bytyqi murders. 

There have been some recent developments in the Embassy burning case, as five high 

level Serbian police officials, including the then-Chief of the Armed Police, have been indicted 

for allowing the attack to take place. Additionally, the re-trial of seven hooligans involved in the 

burning itself is scheduled to begin July 21. We will follow both of these prosecutions and 

continue to insist that those responsible be held accountable. We take seriously the allegations 

raised by the Humanitarian Law Center, and are reviewing the report. 

The United States has strongly supported the International Criminal Court for the former 

Yugoslavia (ICTY), which served as a model of fairness, impartiality, and independence in the 

trials of defendants accused of the worst crimes known to humankind: genocide, war crimes, and 

crimes against humanity. Justice for war crimes committed in the Balkan cont1icts of the 1990s 

will remain a U.S. priority following the close of the Tribunal later this year. It is important to 

ensure both that justice is done and that heinous crimes do not go unpunished in the future. As 

the ICTY' s work draws down, it is imperative that momentum shift toward national 

prosecutions. The United States continues to advocate with relevant actors in support of the 

swift and fair prosecution of the remaining cases, without regard to the ethnicities of victims or 

perpetrators. 

Questions: 

The budget request includes a mix of grants and loans for our defense partners around the world. 

a. How do you intend to determine who gets grants and who gets loans? 

b. Have you discussed the transition to loans with any intended loan recipients? 

c. Do these countries know that they will no longer be receiving grants7 

Answer: 

The Department of State is planning for a partial transition from foreign military 

financing (FMF) grants to loans, which we believe will allow us both to maintain key security 

partnerships and provide value for American industry and taxpayers. 

Not all countries may be appropriate loan partners for the United States, due to their 

limited national budgets or other circumstances that may limit their ability to repay. The 

Department is in the process of conducting loan feasibility reviews on a country-by-country 

basis; we are considering each country's importance to U.S. national security, national budget, 

expected ability to fulfill the terms of a loan agreement, and likelihood of interest. 

Pending support for the requested authority from Congress in FY 2018, the Department 
111


25840h-27.eps

will begin discussions with potential loan recipients and determine requirements and priorities 

for grants and potential loan subsidy costs. 

The Administration submitted its FY 2018 budget request to Congress and has made 

clear that the budget reflects U.S. fiscal priorities and the need for our partners to share a greater 

portion of the financial burden with the United States for security around the globe. The request 

includes bilateral allocations for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, and a request for $200 

million in global FMF tunding that may be available for targeted bilateral allocations or to cover 

FMF loan subsidies. 

Question: 

Jordan is a very important partner for the United States in the fight against extremism. Please 

rationalize the FY18 budget request decrease of our security assistance to Jordan by $100 million 

tram FY 16 and our economic assistance to Jordan by almost $200 million? 

a. If you are expecting other countries to cover the shortfall, which specitic countries have 

you already approached to pledge assistance to Jordan? What are their commitments? 

Answer: 

We are committed to supporting the stability and security of Jordan, a critical partner in 

the region on a range of U.S. national security priorities. Assistance is just one of the many tools 

we can use to support the Government of Jordan. The President's request for Jordan in FY 2018 

is at the same level as the FY 2016 and FY 2017 requests, and is consistent with the level in the 

existing U.S.-Jordan MOU. Protecting this robust level for Jordan's foreign assistance in the 

context of the reduction to the State and US AID budget signals a strong commitment to the 

U.S. -Jordan partnership. We expect to continue working with international partners, including 

European and GCC countries, in order to secure consistent support to Jordan. 

Question: 

Please rationalize the elimination of our FY 18 security assistance to Tunisia and the decrease in 

our economic assistance to Tunisia by $20 million? 

If you are expecting other countries to cover the shortfall, which specific countries have you 

already approached to pledge assistance to Tunisia? What are their commitments? 

Answer: 

Tunisia is an important partner and the United States is tully committed to investing in its 

success. We will continue to engage diplomatically with allies and partners to advance U.S. 

national interests and shared policy priorities. As we work to streamline etl'orts to ensure 

efficiency and etl'ectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritize 

and make some tough choices. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our most important 

policy goals. 

The Department is shifting our approach to the funding and provision of military 

assistance globally. The Department's budget request includes $200.7 million in global Foreign 

Military Financing (FMF) resources, which could support targeted FMF grants or loans to 

partners such as Tunisia. Shifting some foreign military tinancing ±rom grants to loans will 
112


25840h-28.eps

better leverage US. taxpayer dollars and still allow qualifying partners to purchase more 

American-made weaponry. 

The Administration's FY 2018 request for ESF -OCO for Tunisia takes into account the 

fact that the Tunisian American Enterprise Fund will have hit its total capitalization target of 

$100 million, with the last $20 million contribution provided by the United States in FY 2017. 

The FY 2018 request also includes $14.6 million in INCLE, NADR, and IMET securityassistance tunds to support our continued partnership with Tunisia on shared security and 

counterterrorism priorities. 

We actively coordinate our security assistance, as well as our economic and development 

assistance, with other foreign donors. For example, Germany recently entered a memorandum of 

understanding with the United States to transfer €16 million in funding to expand an ongoing 

US.-led project to secure the Tunisian-Libyan border. We will continue leveraging support from 

other donors in our etl'orts to support Tunisia's security and stability. 

Question: 

One of the only increases in this budget is economic assistance to Iraq and Syria to help them 

rebuild their country. As local forces-with US assistance-drive ISIS out of territory, these 

tunds will help secure gains and hold territory These tunds will help stabilize the country, 

thereby decreasing the drivers for extremism and advancing our national security interests. 

1. How do you plan to use these funds to ensure that Iraq becomes a more inclusive 

country? 

a. Are there plans to distribute assistance tunds fairly to the various ethnic and religious 

groups in Iraq? 

b. How will these funds be spent in Syria? 

c. How will you detennine whether local partners are truly representative? 

Answer: 

Stabilizing liberated areas is a top priority for the United States and the US. led 

Coalition. It is not enough to defeat ISIS militarily; we must help set the conditions for the safe 

and voluntary return of displaced families to their homes and support reconciliation etl'orts to 

ensure that any defeat is lasting and sustainable. 

Like the military campaign, stabilization efforts in Iraq are Iraq-led, and are supported by 

the Coalition through UNDP's Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS). This mechanism allows 

local leaders to identify and address the most immediate needs such as running water, electricity, 

and security, which allow internally displaced persons (IDPs) to return home and rebuild their 

communities. We are greatly encouraged by the results achieved by these etforts so far, which 

have helped facilitate the return of over two million Iraqi IDPs since the conflict began in 2014. 

The United States and other Coalition donors, as well as UNDP, put a premium on Iraqi 

ownership, which is essential for sustainable results. This is also conducive to Prime Minister 

Abadi 's political reconciliation strategy, which is grounded in the concept of empowering locals 

in Sunni and minority areas with the resources and authority necessary to manage their own 

atfairs and limiting the role of the central government. 
113


25840h-29.eps

On July 3, the United States announced our intent to provide an additional $150 million 

for the FFS program. This brings our commitment to stabilization programming in Iraq to more 

than $265 million over the past two years. 

a. Are there plans to distribute assistance funds fairly to the various ethnic and 

religious groups in Iraq? 

The United States closely monitors the needs of all vulnerable populations in Iraq, 

including members of religious and ethnic minorities. We also work with the Government of 

Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the UN, and other partners to help these 

communities. UNDP stabilization activities are carried out in several areas heavily populated by 

Christians and Y ezidis. So far, this has included $22 million of projects for theY azidi 

communities of Sinjar, Sinuni and Rabia, and $34 million of projects for the mainly Christian 

communities of the Ninewa Plains. 

Since FY 2014, the US. government has provided more than $14 billion to address the 

humanitarian needs of Iraqis both inside Iraq and in the region resulting from the conflict against 

ISIS. While our aid is provided based solely on need, regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation, 

a significant amount of assistance has gone to conflict-atl'ected members of minority 

communities. 

b. How will these funds be spent in Syria? 

In Syria, we will draw upon these funds to provide critical humanitarian mine action and 

stabilization assistance to areas liberated from ISIS. Specifically, we will prioritize: 

Humanitarian Mine Action: This is a precursor to all humanitarian and stabilization 

assistance. W ork:ing through a commercial firm, the Department of State is surveying, marking 

and removing explosive hazards in Manbij and Tabqa, while simultaneously training Syrians in 

order to build a local mine action capacity. Similar plans are in development for Raqqa. 

Restoring Essential Services: Stabilization assistance post-liberation will help to provide 

immediate relief to the local population, help prevent the return ofiSIS, and will prioritize rapid 

restoration of electricity and water systems and minor refurbishment of roads and bridges to 

allow humanitarian and stabilization assistance to flow and markets to re-open. The US. 

Government has begun supporting local civil society and grassroots organizations to provide 

immediate stabilization assistance in areas prioritized as the highest needs by the communities. 

Additionally the US. government has begun capacity-building support for the Raqqa Civilian 

Council (RCC), while continuing to evaluate it against US. government criteria for assistancenamely whether it is representative of the local population, civilian-led, and respects human 

rights and international humanitarian law. 

Restarting Education and Local Economies: Working through existing implementation 

mechanisms and with local governance entities and civil society organizations, the US. 

government plans to provide light refurbishment of schools and basic school supplies to get 

youth back into the classroom, providing an alternative to extremist ideolob'Y and encouraging 

the return of IDPs who have fled ISIS-controlled areas. Restoration of local markets is key to 

normalizing communities and facilitating the reinstatement oflivelihoods. Assistance in this 

area will be based on needs assessments post liberation to detennine the lowest cost, highest 

impact interventions and will be driven by community demands. 

Reconciliation and Reintegration support: Programs will work through local Syrian 

organizations to mitigate ongoing tensions and promote reconciliation; provide emergency 
114


25840h-30.eps

medical, psychosocial, livelihoods, legal assistance to former ISIS captives; resolve 

property/land disputes and direct other forms of compensation; and assist in developing 

inclusive, representative accountability and reparations frameworks and processes. 

c. How will you determine whether local partners are truly representative? 

The RCC announced itself in April and we have been in frequent contact with its 

leadership and committee members, including through our U.S. civilian presence on the 

ground. Our assessments indicate the RCC is reasonably representative and we have begun 

provision of small-scale equipment and capacity-building assistance in order to support its efforts 

to restore essential services. 

Our assistance to the RCC is conditioned on the body demonstrating etl'ective 

management of U.S. assistance, ability to credibly represent its community, transparency, and 

adherence to human rights norms. We continuously assess the RCC through reporting from local 

contacts and civil society organizations operating in the area. We are encouraged by the RCC's 

commitment to integrate members of the former Raqqa council in exile, as well as its 

commitment to hold elections within a year. 

However, the RCC is not our only civilian partner in northeastern Syria; we are also 

working by, with, and through local civil society organizations and technical associations to 

ensure we have diversity ofRaqqawis involved in the hard work ofretuming normalcy to a 

region after three years of brutal ISIS rule. 

Moreover, complementary programming will ensure that ci vii society is empowered to 

hold these newly developed governance systems accountable to the community they are intended 

to serve and represent. This will include promoting community reintegration, protection of civil 

rights, and assistance in developing inclusive, representative accountability and reparations 

frameworks and processes. 

Question: 

Can you speak briet1y to the Department's plans, if any, to modify our diplomatic standing in 

Iraq for the benefit of our troops, diplomats, and contractors? 

Answer: 

There are no plans to modify our diplomatic posture in Iraq. Our posture and the 

protections provided by the Government of Iraq are sufiicient for the mission our personnel are 

performing. 

Iraq has established status protections for DoD unifonned and civilian personnel equivalent to 

those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. The Government oflraq 

provides military personnel privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by Embassy 

administrative and technical staff 

Question: 

What's the status of repairs to the Mosul Dam? How much has the United States spent on 

repairs to the Mosul Dam? How much more are we expected to spend? What is the level of 

financial commitments from other countries~ 
115


25840h-31.eps

Answer: 

The Government of Iraq has committed the largest portion of the costs since 2016 for 

repairs to the Mosul Dam, with the US and Italy contributing approximately a quarter of the 

costs each. 

The Government of Iraq signed a contract with the Italian firm Trevi for maintenance 

grouting and rehabilitation of the dam's bottom outlet in March 2016. Trevi started repairs to the 

bottom outlet in October, and quickly restored operability to a damaged outlet gate. Additional 

repairs and rehabilitation are in progress, and bottom outlet work is estimated to be 76 percent 

complete. Trevi initiated drilling and grouting activities on the Mosul Dam in October 2016 and 

expects to drill and grout 1,950 holes by January 2018. At the end of June, Trevi expanded 

drilling and grouting operations throughout the dam and is halfway through its intended targets. 

Analysis of the grouting program is undenvay to evaluate the condition of the dam's foundation 

and the etl'ects of the grouting program. Training of Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources 

personnel is an important component of the work, and is estimated to be 25 percent complete. 

The Government oflraq spent about $200 million to fund approximately two thirds of the 

Trevi contract This ti.mding came from a World Bank loan. The Government ofltaly otl'ered to 

the Government of Iraq a soft loan worth about $114 million to fund the remainder of the Trevi 

contract Additionally, the Government ofltaly provides 500 Italian Army troops to provide 

security and force protection at the dam. The United States budgeted $118 million to support 

etl'orts on the Mosul Dam. The vast majority (about $107 million) is for the US. Army Corps of 

Engineers presence at the Mosul Dam, where they serve as the project's Engineer and oversee 

the contractor's work on behalf of the Government of Iraq. Approximate! y two thirds of the 

$118 million has been spent. 

The Trevi contract will end in January of 2018. It is possible that Iraq may extend the 

contract with Trevi. The Departments of State and Defense will need to make a determination 

on tunding to extend USACE if the Government of Iraq decides to extend the Trevi contract 

Question: 

This budget requests $75 million in economic assistance to Egypt, which includes money for 

democracy and development programs. Egyptian President el-Sisi recently ratitled a draconian 

new NGO law which would make it virtually impossible for independent civil society to operate 

in Egypt through restrictive registration and funding processes. According to the Project on 

Middle East Democracy, Egypt's new NGO law will also require international NGOs to obtain 

"prior approval from the National Authority to operate in Egypt They have to purchase a 

$20,000 pennit; this fee would increase by 20 percent every t! ve years." A longstanding 

provision ofU.S.law known as the "Brownback Amendment" asserts that "with respect to the 

provision of democracy, human rights, and governance activities, the organizations 

implementing such assistance, the specific nature of that assistance, and the participants in such 

programs shall not be subject to the prior approval by the government of any foreign country." 

Does Egypt's new NGO law violate the Brownback Amendment by giving the Egyptian 

government veto power over US.-funded democracy programs? 

a. More broadly, with this new law in place, what kind of economic, development, 

or democracy programming is even possible for US. assistance to support in 

Egypt? 
116


25840h-32.eps

Answer: 

b. Do you believe that repeal of this NGO law should be a pre-requirement to the 

United States providing continued economic aid to Egypt? 

The Egyptian government is an important partner on a number of key US foreign policy 

priorities. We have seen some progress over the last few months: the release of Aya Hijazy, 

increased military cooperation, and important wins for U.S. businesses. However, we have 

expressed extreme disappointment in response to President Sisi' s signature of the NGO law. 

From the time parliament proposed this legislation until President Sisi approved it, we clearly 

and repeatedly communicated our concerns about the law and urged the Government of Egypt to 

revise it. We have stressed that a strategic relationship is a two-way street that requires trust and 

credibility. 

The Department of State and USAID implement programs consistent with the 

Brownback Amendment. Many of the practical implications of Egypt's new NGO law remain 

unclear, and we are trying better to understand the law and how it might impact our programs 

and implementing partners. We continue to make clear to the Egyptian government our 

commitment to supporting Egypt's stability, which requires respect for civil society. We will 

continue to monitor closely Egypt's implementation of its new NGO law. 

Question: 

What is United States policy toward Qatar? Is the United States considering a withdrawal of 

U.S. presence from the al-Oudeid Air Force Base? What is the United States doing to help deescalate the crisis between the Gulf Cooperation Council countries? 

Answer: 

Qatar provides crucial support for the Defeat-ISIS campaign by hosting Air Force Central 

Command- Forward at al-Udeid Airbase. We have no plans to withdraw our presence. 

I am in ret,>ular contact with all parties, to discuss proposals on how to move forward with all 

the countries involved. Our engagement is ongoing, and there are real opportunities to move 

towards a resolution. 

Question: 

Will the PA or PLO continue to provide these stipends to families of convicted terrorists or 

terrorists who have been k:illed0 

Answer: 

The United States opposes any program which incentivizes acts of violence and terrorism, and 

the Palestinian Authority's (PA) welfare program for families of prisoners and deceased 

Palestinians is no exception. Senior U.S. government officials continue to demand that the P A 

stop payments related to perpetrators of political violence, and have facilitated meetings with 

members of Congress who have made similar requests. In June, the PA announced it was 

stopping payments to 277 Hamas-affiliated prisoners. While this is a positive first step, the PA 
117


25840h-33.eps

must do more. Fully addressing our concerns will take time, but we are committed to ensuring 

there is no program in place which could incentivize or reward acts of terrorism. 

Question: 

What steps is the United States taking to weaken Hezbollah? What more could be done? Is there 

a role for UNIFIL in this regard? Does the US. Government need any new authorities to 

weaken Hezbollah? 

Answer: 

The United States has a variety of tools at its disposal to push back on Hizballah, including 

economic sanctions and law enforcement actions. Our sanctions against Hizballah are aimed at 

weakening its capabilities, dismantling its financial network, and blocking its access to the 

international financial system. We will exercise these authorities to isolate Hizballah from the 

global tinancial system while preserving the strength of the Lebanese banking sector, which is a 

key US. partner in the fight against terrorist financing and anti-money laundering. The United 

States also supports strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and other state institutions 

that undermine Hizballah' s legitimacy and int1uence within Lebanon. 

The United States is a stalwart partner to Lebanon and is deeply engaged in ensuring 

Lebanese stability and security. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

continues to play an important role in maintaining the security and stability in southern Lebanon. 

The mission has helped to reduce tensions between Lebanon and Israel. 

Congress has provided the Executive Branch with sufticient authorities to weaken Hizballah, and 

we will use those to the fullest. The Departments of State and Treasury have sanctioned over 

I 00 Hizballah individuals and entities, including the recent designation of senior Hizballah 

leader, Hashem Satieddine. Finally, State is coordinating with the Department of Defense to 

optimize our security cooperation, particularly with respect to DoD's new Section 333 

authorities, to help strengthen partnerships against Hizballah and other threats. 

Question: 

Please describe the thinking behind the fact that the president's FY 18 budget proposal includes 

no FMF funding for Lebanon? 

a. Do you envision continued US. support for the Lebanese Armed Forces? 

Answer: 

The Administration's request gives the United States a range of tools to build the capacity of 

foreign militaries, including foreign military tinancing (FMF) grants, FMF loans, and 

Department of Defense assistance programs. The Department's budget request includes $200.7 

million in global FMF resources, which could support targeted FMF grants or loans to partners 

such as Lebanon. Shifting some FMF from grants to loans will better leverage US. taxpayer 

dollars and still allow qualifying partners to purchase more American-made weaponry. The 

Administration maintains the flexibility to respond with any combination of these programs and 

is committed to combatting the threats posed by terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, in Lebanon. 

We view the Lebanese Armed Forces as a critical partner in combating terrorism and 

providing regional stability. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Defense 

to ensure we are able to address the Lebanese Armed Forces' most urgent needs. Lebanon will 
118


25840h-34.eps

also likely continue to receive international military education and training (IMET) funding in 

FY 2018 to train and educate military leaders. 

We will continue to engage diplomatically with allies and partners to advance US national 

interests and shared policy priorities. As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficient and 

etfective use of US. taxpayer dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some 

tough choices. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals. 

Question: 

What steps is the State Department taking to ensure that Iraq provides compensation to the MEK 

for the value of these assets? 

Answer: 

The members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), who have now resettled in Albania and 

other countries, claim to retain hundreds of millions of dollars of property and other assets in 

Iraq, and have demanded that the United States and UNHCR press the Iraqi government to 

compensate them for this property. 

The United States government has consistently retused to serve as the guarantor of 

financial dealings between the MEK and the Government oflraq. We did, however, urge the 

Iraqi government to establish a judicial process for reaching a property settlement with the MEK, 

and we urged the MEK to follow that process. The MEK chose not to cooperate. They refused 

to participate with the Iraqis in conducting a joint inventory of their property at Camp Ashraf and 

refused to name an Iraqi lawyer to represent them in the compensation process. As a result, 

when the MEK departed from Camp Ashraf in 2013 there was no agreed-upon list of the 

property they left behind. In 2014, when ISIS surged across Iraq and threatened Baghdad, 

Iranian-supported militias occupied Camp Ashraf and looted it thoroughly. MEK property in 

Iraq is probably beyond recovery, but we would continue to urge the MEK to address the 

problem of restitution directly with the Iraqi government. 

Question: 

As Turkish authorities have raided U.S.-backed NGOs and seized the property of recipients of 

US. assistance-including seizing items given to them by the United States-what is the US 

strategy to restore a working relationship with Turkey, at least vis-a-vis Syrian assistance? 

Answer: 

We are engaged at all levels with the Government of Turkey to maintain operational 

space for our NGO partners to provide both our cross border assistance to Syria and support for 

refugees in Turkey. Cross-border assistance into Northern Syria has depended on the Turkey 

platform since 2013, and coordination with the Turkish government has been critical to our 

robust humanitarian, non-lethal and stabilization assistance into northern Syria 

Over the last year Turkey has restricted the operational space for NGOs providing humanitarian 

assistance and in some cases, shut down and restricted etl'ective statling and operations. In 

response, we have persistently engaged Turkey pressing for the unfettered delivery of critical 

assistance. However, progress remains sector-speci±ic and largely relationship-driven. We have 

engaged with Turkish diplomats as well as directly with the Turkish Ministries of Interior, 

Family and Social Policy, Health, National Education, Labor, and others as needed to facilitate 
119


25840h-35.eps

the work of humanitarian assistance NGOs in Turkey and cross-border. We work through 

Turkey's Presidential Disaster Management Agency (AF AD) on coordination of efforts as they 

serve as the lead agency for refugee response coordination and the authorizing agency for crossborder assistance. The United States also co-founded a multi-donor forum to coordinate donor 

advocacy with our Turkish counterparts. 

Question: 

With so many positions filled at the State Department and the Treasury filled by officials 

operating in an "acting" capacity, how is the U.S. carrying out a concerted and sustained wholeof-government pressure strategy against North Korea? Is there a regular and sustained 

interagency process focused on keeping the U.S. government focused on the economic, 

diplomatic and intelligence aspects of the "pressure strategy" against North Korea? 

a. While the United States and China agree in principle on the importance of denuclearization, 

that is where our strategic alignment largely ends. What specific evidence can you point to that 

shows Beijing is serious this time? What specifically have you asked China to deliver and what 

evidence you to have that they are delivering it? 

Answer: 

North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and improved ballistic missile technology is an 

urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority for this Administration. Upon 

assuming office, President Trump ordered a thorough review of U.S. policy pertaining to the 

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Department of State, along with the 

White House, the Treasury Department, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Mission to the 

United Nations, and relevant intelligence agencies regularly coordinate at all levels of the 

interagency on implementation of our DPRK policy. Our whole-of-government approach allows 

us to leverage a wide range of diplomatic, security, and economic tools to isolate Pyongyang and 

deprive it of the funds it needs for its unlawful nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation 

programs. 

We have made it clear to China that it has a responsibility to exert much greater 

economic and diplomatic pressure on the Kim Jong Un regime if it wants to prevent further 

escalation in the region. China pledged to work with the United States on North Korea during 

the President's April meeting with President Xi Jinping. China has endorsed three UN Security 

Council resolutions, each with increasingly robust sanctions, and announced a ban on coal 

imports from the DPRK, depriving the regime of its largest coal export market and diminishing 

its single largest source of revenue. However, we would like to see China do more. The UN 

panel has designated hundreds of DPRK entities, many of which do business through China, and 

we're working with China to enforce these UN Security Council resolutions. We will continue 

to cooperate with China, but we will not hesitate to act alone, including by sanctioning Chinese 

or other third-country individuals and entities that provide support to North Korea's unlawful 

activities. 

b. Do you support secondary sanctions against entities, including in China and Russia that are 

known to providing hard currency to the North Korean regime? 

The United States is committed to using targeted financial sanctions to impede North 

Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to counter the grave threat those programs 
120


25840h-36.eps

pose to the United States, our allies and international peace and security. This Administration has 

been clear that each country's actions or inaction with respect to North Korea will impact our 

larger bilateral relationships. The Administration will go wherever the evidence leads to impose 

legally available sanctions on entities or individuals that support North Korea's proscribed 

programs. 

Sanctions are specifically designed to increase economic pressure on the DPRK with a 

goal towards negotiation of denuclearization. Our aim is for countries to cooperate and take 

action using their own authorities to end any revenue generation for the DPRK regime that may 

be occurring in their jurisdiction. We have told the Chinese and Russians in no uncertain terms 

that we will utilize all tools at our disposal to choke off resources that fund the DPRI(' s 

proscribed nuclear and missile programs. It is unacceptable for individuals and companies in 

other countries to enable the DPRI( to generate income used to develop its UN-proscribed 

nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to increasingly threaten international peace and 

security -- and we will utilize all tools at our disposal to stop such activities. 

As Secretary Tillerson also made clear in his April address to the United Nations Security 

Council, we will not hesitate to sanction entities and individuals supporting the DPRK's illicit 

activities, wherever this activity takes place. 

Chinese otlicials have long used specific phrases in an attempt to define the U.S.-China 

relationship in co-equal terms favorable to their interests. You chose to adopt similar language, 

specifically: "non-cont1ict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation," even 

though your predecessors judiciously avoided such terms. Your statements set off alarm bells 

around the region because they were interpreted to mean that the United States will respect 

China's "core interests" and shy away from politically sensitive issues. 

Question: 

a.Do you endorse China's stance on issues involving Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, and human 

rights? If not, how does the State Department intend to address these issues in the context of 

U.S.-China policy? 

Answer: 

Our policy towards China and in the Asia-Pacific focuses on creating a results-oriented 

partnership that seeks cooperation where possible but does not shy away ±rom confronting 

challenges forthrightly. We will continue to uphold our alliance commitments; defend human 

rights and religious freedom; push for the peaceful resolution of territorial and maritime disputes 

on the basis of international law; pursue our unofficial relations with Taiwan on the basis of our 

longstanding One China Policy, as defined in the Three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan 

Relations Act; and support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safet,>uard their distinct 

identity, as defined in the Tibetan Policy Act At the same time, we seek a cooperative approach 

to make tangible progress on the most pressing global issues, such as the threat posed by the 

DPRK's nuclear and missile programs. 

Question: 

b. What support, if any, does the State Department expect to provide to Tibet and Tibetan 

refugees in the context of the President's budget which appears to zero-out a number of 

successful programs aimed at supporting this oppressed population? 
121


25840h-37.eps

Answer: 

While we do not have a specific funding request for Tibetan-related programs, the 

Administration's FY 2018 budget request includes humanitarian assistance resources that may be 

used by partners to continue to meet the basic needs of Tibetan communities in Nepal and India, 

including protection and reception services for those transiting across Nepal to India. It includes 

funding for exchange programs that can be used to increase engagement and mutual 

understanding between Tibetans and the people of the United States. Final funding allocations 

will be determined during the year of appropriation and will depend on factors such as 

humanitarian appeals received and needs identified at that time. 

Question: 

Will the US continue to support A SEAN and A SEAN member states in their decision to speak 

out against China's excessive claims? Would the State Department support other ASEAN states 

in their etiort to take cases to the Arbitral tribunal, as the Philippines did? 

a. Do you think, as the U.S Navy has asserted repeatedly, that the United States position on the 

law of the sea would be bolstered by the US. Senate ratifying the UNCLOS treaty7 

Answer: 

As the primary multilateral institution in Southeast Asia, ASEAN has political weight 

greater than the sum of its parts, especially on contentious issues like the South China Sea. We 

will continue to do what we can to support a unitied ASEAN that affirms the international rules 

and standards that underpin East Asian stability and prosperity. We support etiorts to resolve 

territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea peacefully, including through arbitration. 

The United States has significant national security interests in ensuring legal certainty 

and public order in the world's oceans. We have an exclusive economic zone and continental 

shelf that are among the largest in the world, and the world's most powerful armed forces 

operating in, on, and above the oceans. 

China routinely uses the United States' status as a non-party to the Law of the Sea 

Convention as a talking point in arb'lling that US. views on China's maritime activities and 

claims (including its excessive claims in the South China Sea) should be discounted. 

I am aware that successive prior Administrations have supported US. accession to the 

Law of the Sea Convention. As I noted during my confirmation process, we are examining the 

Law of the Sea Convention to determine whether it is in the continued best interests of the 

United States to become a party. 

Question: 

Could you clarify the Administration's policy toward Taiwan7 

a. Will the State Department continue to advocate for Taiwan's participation in 

international organizations? 

b. When can this committee expect to see the next proposal for an arms sale to Taiwan? 

c. Do you support regularizing arms sales to Taiwan? 
122


25840h-38.eps

The Administration has reaflirmed the US. commitment to our One China Policy, based 

on the Three Joint US.-China Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. Under the umbrella 

of our unoflicial relationship, the United States and Taiwan conduct, through the American 

Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the 

United States (TECRO), the full range of normal interactions, including arms sales, visits, trade 

negotiations, and education and cultural exchanges. In addition, we share strong economic ties: 

Taiwan is our 1Oth-largest trading partner and 7th-largest agricultural export market, and 

Taiwan's robust participation in events such as the SelectUSA Summit, wherein the delegation 

announced its intention to invest nearly $34 billion in the United States, demonstrates the 

importance of our economic relationship. We continue to pursue avenues of deepening our 

unofficial relationship with Taiwan, including working towards implementing a Global Entry 

program for Taiwan and coordinating Global Cooperation and Training Framework (GCTF) 

events to address global problems. Taiwan is a beacon of democracy in Asia, a reliable partner 

of the United States, and a force for good in the world, and we value advancing the US.-Taiwan 

relationship. 

We remain fully committed to carrying out the Taiwan Relations Act. In June 2017, the 

Administration notified Congress of a $1.42 billion arms sale package to Taiwan, which was 

warmly received by Taiwan authorities. These notifications are consistent with the Taiwan 

Relations Act and our support for Taiwan's ability to maintain a sufticient self-defense capability. 

It is in the strategic interest of the United States to provide the capabilities we believe 

make sense for Taiwan in the context of its asymmetric and innovative security approach. While 

we cannot comment on potential arms sales, we maintain our commitment to uphold the Taiwan 

Relations Act. 

Question: 

Do you believe your exclusion of US. press on foreign travel-a break from longstanding 

practice--inevitably gave foreign media undue power to spin the narrative in your first trip to 

Asia? 

a. Do you see the media as an important amplifier for U.S. diplomatic leadership in the 

world and a means to amplify our message, particularly in key relationships such as the 

US.-China relationship which many countries around the world watch closely? 

b. Will you commit to take press with you on future trips? 

The US Department of State and I engage global media on a daily basis. I travel with a 

pool of reporters drawn from the State Department Correspondent Association, and Department 

officials give ret,>ular briefings on timely issues to the members of the media. The Department 

will continue to dedicate people and resources to assisting members of the media in better 

understanding America's role in the world and the foreign policy it is pursuing 

Question: 

What is the State Department's position on Duterte's drug war? What actions is the Department 

taking to assert our position on human rights while also ensuring that we don't rupture the U.S.-

Philippines alliance relationship? 
123


25840h-39.eps

Answer: 

The United States and the Philippines have a longstanding alliance and relationship built 

on shared sacrifices, common values, and people-to-people ties. The United States works with 

the Philippines to address the shared objective of combatting drug trafficking, and supports 

programs that target the transnational shipment of narcotics, strengthen the rule of law, and 

encourage holistic drug demand reduction efforts. 

We have serious concerns when those involved in the drug war operate outside the rule of 

law. We have discussed our human rights concerns at the highest levels with the Philippine 

government and raised the issue at the May 8 Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations 

Human Rights Council. We vet all security assistance to the Philippines to ensure the US 

Government does not provide funding to individuals or units who have committed a gross 

violation of human rights. We encourage our Philippine partners to conduct thorough and 

transparent investigations into reports of arbitrary and unlawful killings. We will continue to 

work with the Philippines on this and other issues as we advance shared objectives in our 

multidimensional relationship. 

Question: 

Given the dramatic cuts to the State Department and USAID in your budget proposal, what will 

the State Department and USAID be doing to assist the Philippines in addressing the root causes 

of contlict in Mindanao it/when the military intervention concludes? 

Answer: 

The United States partners with the Philippines, a treaty ally, to promote regional security 

and economic prosperity. The State Department and USAID work closely with the Philippine 

people in Mindanao across a broad spectrum of activities designed to foster conditions for 

sustainable and inclusive economic growth, counter violent extremism, and promote peace and 

security. These continuing programs aim to address drivers of radicalization to violence, disrupt 

terrorism recruitment, and erode support for ISIS and its affiliates. Other continuing State 

Department programs increase the capacity of Philippine law enforcement to investigate, respond 

to, and prosecute terrorist threats in Mindanao and beyond. We will continue to seek ways to 

support the Government of the Philippines as it addresses the root causes of contlict throughout 

the country. 

Question: 

Given the concerning trends on a number of human rights issues in Thailand, including but not 

limited to the repression of free speech, abuses oflese Majeste laws, civilians being tried in 

military courts, continued delay of elections and the shortcomings of the current constitution, 

please describe if/how US. policy is urging progress on human rights issues in Thailand. 

Answer: 

The United States and Thailand have been treaty partners for 184 years and treaty allies 

for over 60 years; it is one of our most important relationships in the Asia-Pacific. The United 

States is committed to making progress on shared goals, such as advancing regional security, 

enhancing respect for human rights and labor rights, addressing public health challenges, 
124


25840h-40.eps

countering transnational crime, combating tratlicking in persons, and assisting refugees and 

displaced persons. 

We have repeatedly urged the government of Thailand to hold free and fair elections in 2018. 

We continue to be concerned about limitations on human rights and fundamental freedoms in 

Thailand, including freedom of expression, both online and offline, and freedom of association. 

As the government of Thailand continues to work on new laws and regulations, we are 

encouraging authorities to solicit and incorporate feedback from civil society, industry 

representatives, and other governments, to ensure these changes do not place undue restrictions 

on civil liberties. 

Question: 

What is your State Department's strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan? What should the 

primary US goal be in Afghanistan and Pakistan? 

a. How do you believe maintaining the office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan 

and Pakistan affects the broader policymaking apparatus for issues related to South Asia? 

b. What are some of the tools you believe the Administration believes it can use to pressure 

Pakistan to change its behavior as it relates to relationships with terrorist groups? 

c. Will you be including travel restrictions, harsher conditionality as it relates to security 

assistance or sanctioning of individuals in Pakistan that maintain relationships with 

designated terrorist groups? 

d. How does your administration intend to demonstrate to Pakistan that having relationships 

with designated terrorist groups, or that the use of terrorists as instruments of state policy 

will no longer be tolerated7 

Answer: 

As you know, the State Department is engaged in a rigorous interagency policy review on South 

Asia that will provide us with an integrated approach to advance our interests in the region, 

including combatting terrorism and promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. 

Afghanistan and Pakistan are an integral part of this broader, regional context given the 

dynamics and interdependencies among the South Asian nations and the region. 

Our primary goal is to keep the United States safe and prevent Afghanistan and the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan border region from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists to 

attack the homeland or U.S. interests abroad. 

Encouraging regional actors to play a greater role in combating the threat posed by 

terrorist groups and promoting political dialos'lle to end the Tali ban insurgency can help achieve 

this goal. A peaceful resolution to the contlict is essential to keeping America safe. 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of South and Central Asia, Alice Wells, is 

covering the functions and responsibilities of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and 

Pakistan (SRAP). As acting SRAP, she will continue to play a central role in the development 

and implementation of U.S. policy in the region, and to lead international community etl'orts to 

promote an end to the cont1ict in Afghanistan and to enhance regional cooperation and stability. 

Regarding your other questions (b, c, and d), 1 do not want to prejudge the outcome of the 

South Asia policy review. 1 can assure you that along with our counterparts at the Department of 

Defense (DOD), the NSC, and other agencies, we are carefully considering all options. 
125


25840h-41.eps

US. assistance is designed to advance our national interests. As part of the policy review, 

we are assessing our assistance approach to Pakistan to ensure it continues to effectively support 

our policy objectives in the region. 

Our relationship with Pakistan involves a number of vital national strategic interests, 

directed at safeb'llarding the US. homeland from threats and maintaining regional stability and 

security. Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan is important in our efforts against 

groups such as al-Qa'ida and ISIS. 

There are, however, elements of our relationship that have proved challenging, where we 

are seeking ways to convince Pakistan to change its actions. These include lack of action against 

Pakistan-based militant groups. The Afghan Tali ban, including the Haqqani Network, and other 

externally-focused militant groups retain the ability to plan, support and conduct terrorist 

operations from Pakistani soil, including attacks that target US interests in Afghanistan. 

We continue to stress to the highest levels of Pakistan's leadership the need to take 

specific and deliberate action to curb the activity of all militant and terrorist groups in Pakistan--

without differentiating among them -- as Pakistan has publicly pledged to do. Our policy review 

will include as the outcome steps we can take to continue reinforcing this message. I can assure 

you we will insist that Pakistan deliver on its commitment to combat all militant and terrorist 

groups, without discrimination. 

Question: 

When will you fold in the Special Representative's ot1ice to the Bureau of South and Central 

Asian Affairs? 

Answer: 

The Department is in the process of integrating the Otlice of the Special Representative for 

Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs into the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA). We 

anticipate an Assistant Secretary will oversee the entire bureau and will cover the functions and 

responsibilities of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and use that title 

when appropriate. 

Question: 

When will the Administration make a decision on the sale of Guardian drones to India? 

Answer: 

Commensurate with India's status as a Major Defense Partner, the Department of State 

supports deepening security cooperation with India to include exercises, engagements, and sales 

of military platforms. The Department recognizes the importance of the potential sale of 

SeaGuardian Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) to India, and this has been a topic of discussion at 

high levels between the two governments. The Sea Guardian UAS decision has been reviewed in 

accordance with the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, Unmanned Aerial Systems Export 

policy, and our international commitments, including those under the Missile Technology 

Control Regime. Accordingly, the Department of Defense will respond to the Indian Navy's 

request for Price and Availability data, and the decision to further pursue this purchase will then 

rest with the Government of India. 
126


25840h-42.eps

As a part of the statutory arms sale review process, we are required to notify Congress of 

sales above a certain threshold prior to proceeding. This will occur as part of the process once 

we have received a Letter of Request from India to purchase the SeaGuardian UAS. 

Question: 

What impact do you believe the zeroing out of assistance to Sri Lanka will have on the country's 

etforts at reconciliation? What impact do you think it will have as China is increasing its stake in 

the country? 

Answer: 

The United States supports Sri Lanka in its domestic etforts to achieve justice and reconciliation. 

Ongoing Department of State programming supports development of transitional justice 

mechanisms and peace and reconciliation processes at local and national levels, as well as civil 

society capacity to engage with formal transitional justice initiatives. The United States will 

continue to work with the Sri Lankan government, military, civil society, and our partners in the 

international community, including within the l)N system, to encourage progress on transitional 

justice and reconciliation, which we believe is vital to the stability of both Sri Lanka and the 

region. 

The FY20 18 budget request includes bilateral security assistance for Sri Lanka provided 

through Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) and 

International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding. These resources support 

activities that protect U.S. national security, secure our borders tram external threats, and 

maintain U.S. influence with Sri Lanka and its armed forces. For the sake of efilciency and 

greater accountability to U.S. taxpayers, the budget request also reflects hard choices that reduce 

funding, but this should not be taken to mean that the United States is less committed to Sri 

Lanka or our other triends and partners. To the contrary, we will leverage existing and prioryear resources and work with governments and private sector actors to encourage investment that 

empowers developing countries such as Sri Lanka. We believe that this approach will compare 

favorably to other development assistance models, particularly those that invite dependency on 

loans and initiate a cycle of rising indebtedness and vulnerability. 

Question: 

What, if anything, are you doing to mitigate the damage done by President Trump to our 

relationship with Mexico? Can you assure us that the Merida Initiative, which is responsible for 

important improvements in U.S.- Mexico relations, will continue into the future? 

Answer: 

Our bilateral relationship with Mexico is one of the most important, complex, and 

economical! y significant in the world. We are committed to our partnership with Mexico and to 

advancing common goals. Our priorities include expanding economic ties to increase U.S. 

prosperity and create jobs and enhancing security and modernizing our shared border. To 

advance our dialogue on security issues, Secretary Kelly and I hosted high-level Government of 

Mexico ofilcials for the May 18 "U.S.- Mexico Strategic Dialogue on Disrupting Transnational 

Criminal Organizations" which identified strategic approaches to disrupt the business model of 

the transnational criminal organizations. 
127


25840h-43.eps

We remain committed to supporting the Government of Mexico in combatting organized crime 

and the flow of illicit goods throughout the hemisphere. Through the Merida Initiative, the 

United States and Mexico have forged a multi-faceted partnership to combat transnational 

organized crime and drug trafficking and to support Mexico's efforts to strengthen its security 

and justice institutions, enhance rule oflaw, improve border security, disrupt illicit financial 

networks, and promote respect for human rights. Merida funding is directed to key priorities 

identified jointly by our governments and complements Mexico's investment in its own security. 

Question: 

According to the President's budget request, assistance to Mexico would drop by 45 percent in 

FY 2018 as compared to FY 2016. Given this dramatic drop, how can we sustain our important 

level of collaboration with Mexican authorities to combat organized crime and strengthen 

Mexico's criminal justice institutions? 

Answer: 

We remain committed to supporting the Government of Mexico in combatting organized crime 

and the movement of drugs and other illicit goods throughout tbe hemisphere. The FY 2018 

budget request reflects the Administration's focused approach to foreign assistance. The request 

for Mexico prioritizes issues that directly impact the safety and security of the United States, by 

strengthening border security and undermining the transnational criminal organizations that 

trafl!c drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, which are exacerbating the US. opioid epidemic. 

The US Department of State continues to build the capacity of Mexican civilian security 

and justice sector institutions to strengthen borders and ports; disrupt the activities of 

transnational criminal organizations; interdict illegal drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and 

methamphetamines; and disrupt illicit financial networks. Assistance will improve Mexico's 

ability to bring offenders to justice by increasing the etiectiveness and professionalism of 

judicial institutions under Mexico's new accusatory justice system. In support of the May 2017 

US.-Mexico Strategic Dialogue on Disrupting Transnational Criminal Organizations, the 

Department is working with the Government of Mexico to identify new opportunities to combat 

transnational criminal organizations, including disrupting their business models. We are 

exploring new ways to strengthen criminal investigations of money laundering, build Mexico's 

capacity to criminally prosecute and sanction financial crimes, and work jointly on detecting and 

interdicting bulk cash shipments from the United States to Mexico. The funding requested in 

FY 2018 is in addition to the $2.6 billion allocated to Mexico under the Merida Initiative from 

FY 2008-2016. 

In addition, US AID will promote human rights by building the capacity of federal and state 

authorities to abide by and implement Mexico's National Human Rights Program and the 

government's obligations under international human rights treaties. Assistance at a local level 

will improve access to community-level justice and victims' services. This is complemented by 

assistance to civil society organizations to help promote crime and violence prevention, rule of 

law, and human rights. 

Question: 

In light of tbe important role US. support has played in enhancing police professionalization, 

strengthening tbe rule of law, and advancing judicial reform in Mexico, what areas of assistance 

will you prioritize for the State Department's future engagement witb Mexico? 
128


25840h-44.eps

Answer: 

We continue to prioritize support for Mexico's transition to an accusatorial criminal 

justice system as an integral component of our strategy to combat transnational organized crime. 

A transparent, efficient, and effective criminal justice system is essential to our goal of 

dismantling transnational criminal organizations to combat the production and trafficking of 

heroin and fentanyl fueling the opioid epidemic in the United States. Disrupting criminal 

organizations that traffic heroin and other illicit items requires strong law enforcement and 

justice institutions that can investigate, arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison criminals. The 

Department and US AID's support also strengthens the rule oflaw by protecting due process, 

promoting assistance to crime victims, and strengthening human rights. 

U.S. funding supports the Government of Mexico's own priorities to promote 

accountability, professionalism, integrity, and adherence to due process among Mexico's 

350,000 federal, state, and municipal law enforcement otlicials. As Mexico has embarked on an 

essential set of reforms to its justice sector, the United States, through our security partnership 

with Mexico, has provided essential support by targeting every facet of the criminal justice 

system. This continues to include training for judges, prosecutors, and curriculum support for 

law schools, as well as supporting accreditation of federal and state forensic laboratories and 

certification of their personnel. The United States also continues to provide training, technical 

assistance, and equipment in support of Mexico's etTorts to reform federal and state penitentiary 

systems. 

The United States and Mexico have forged a multi-faceted partnership to combat organized 

crime and drug trat1icking and to support Mexico's e±Torts to strengthen its security institutions, 

enhance rule of law, build public confidence in the justice sector, improve border security, and 

promote respect for human rights. Through the Merida initiative, we will continue funding to 

key priorities identified jointly by our governments to complement Mexico's investment in its 

own security. 

Question: 

Colombia is in the tirst months following a peace accord with the F ARC, the hemisphere's 

largest guerrilla group. The early post-conflict phase is fragile, and there is much to do to 

consolidate territorial control, reduce coca cultivation, and ensure that violence doesn't worsen. 

2. Why, then, does the FY 2018 request include a 44 percent drop in assistance to Colombia 

from FY 2017 levels? How much does State plan to spend in FY 2017 and FY 2018 to 

support Colombia's etTorts to reduce coca cultivation, whether through forced eradication 

or through voluntary eradication/crop substitution? 

a. Colombian social leaders and human rights defenders are being assassinated at an 

alarming rate. According to the otlice of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights of the UN, 60 defenders were killed in 2016, a significant increase from 

the 41 it had documented in 2015. Killings have continued in 2017 with Bernardo 

Cuero of AFRO DES, an organization that is integral to USAID's work in 

Colombia, murdered last week. 

b. What steps is the State Department taking to guarantee that the perpetrators of 

such violence are put in j aiJ? How is the U.S. working with the Colombian 

government to guarantee the dismantling ofthe illegal anned groups committing 

these killings? What more can be done to stop these phenomena? 
129


25840h-45.eps

Answer: 

To counter the increase in coca cultivation, the United States is working with the 

Colombian government to implement an integrated, whole-of-government approach to 

counternarcotics and rural development in strategic areas of concern. Our counternarcotics 

cooperation with Colombia is a critical element of our broader support for Colombia's efforts to 

implement its peace agreement with the F ARC. 

Congress directed $391 million for U.S. assistance to Colombia in FY 2017, with 

particular focus on counternarcotics, security sector assistance, and economic and governance 

programming. Our FY 2018 budget request reflects the Administration's focused approach to 

foreign assistance. Program priorities include addressing the coca cultivation increase. 

Although there was a 35.7 percent overall reduction in U.S. assistance requested for Colombia, 

the request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funding has 

decreased by just 13 percent 

We remain deeply concerned by reports of killings and threats against human rights 

defenders and social activists and support Colombia's efforts to quickly and thoroughly 

investigate and prosecute those responsible. The May 2017 conviction for a case involving 

threats against human rights defenders was a positive step forward. We welcome the Attorney 

General's prioritization of investigations of killings of human rights defenders under the "Plan 

Esperanza" initiative. We continue to engage the Colombian government on this issue at the 

highest levels and urge concrete results, including convictions. 

Dismantling the illegal armed groups responsible for these crimes is essential to prevent 

future violence. We believe an integrated civilian-military government peace accord 

implementation plan that prioritizes expanding the state's presence to cont1ict-atl'ected areas is 

critical to success. We have underlined the importance of this issue with the Colombian 

government We continue to provide bilateral assistance to support Colombia's efl'orts to 

dismantle illegal anned groups. The Colombian government requested specific international 

"accompaniment" of the peace accord, including U.S. support for a provision in Section 3.4.4 of 

the accord providing for the creation of a special unit within the Attorney General's Otlice to 

focus on dismantling organized criminal groups. We are coordinating with the Colombian 

government to see how our support would be most helpful. 

Question: 

If your proposed cuts to these violence-prevention, workforce development, community policing, 

and criminal justice refonn etl'orts are put in place, what is the risk that violence and insecurity 

will worsen and drive another wave of migrants toward the United States? 

Answer: 

Through U.S. assistance and engagement in Central America, our aim is to secure U.S. 

borders and protect American citizens by addressing the economic, security, and governance 

drivers of illegal migration and illicittratiicking. The President's FY 2018 Request of$460 

million for Central America emphasizes continued U.S. commitment to reducing insecurity and 

violence, enhancing the business climate, and promoting improved governance in the region. 

This is in addition to the almost $2 billion provided by Congress during FY 2015- FY 2017. 

FY 2018 funding will enable the Department and U.S. Agency for International 

Development to continue implementing an integrated approach to crime and violence prevention 
130


25840h-46.eps

through programs that reduce gang violence and the int1uence of organized crime across borders; 

promote good governance, anti -corruption efforts, and fiscal management; and foster prosperity 

through economic development, food security, regional integration and the creation of 

sustainable jobs for Central Americans in their countries of origin. 

US assistance alone will not resolve the underlying causes of illegal migration and illicit 

trafficking. US funding complements the efforts of the Northern Triangle countries of 

Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala to tackle these problems through their own Alliance for 

Prosperity plan, for which they have committed approximately $54 billion in 2016-2017. 

To ensure long-term sustainability and success, the United States will partner with the private 

sector, international partners and organizations, and civil society to provide the necessary 

financial and diplomatic support for Central America. For example, the United States and 

Mexico co-hosted the Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America June 15-16, 

2017, in Miami. Senior-level representatives from Central America, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 

the European Union, Spain, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International 

Monetary Fund, and nearly 60 companies from the region participated in support of our shared 

goal of promoting a more secure and prosperous region. The conference provided an 

opportunity to directly engage the public and private sectors of the Northern Triangle to explore 

the policy solutions needed to improve investment in the Northern Triangle by improving tax 

efficiency, strengthening the business climate, and expanding market and investment 

opportunities for businesses. We are confident such partnerships, coupled with continued U.S. 

assistance and engagement, will assist in reducing violence and citizen insecurity over the longterm to contribute to a more prosperous and stable Central America. 

Question: 

If IPS is not renewed, what would the effect on economic and security conditions in these 

countries-whose combined population is 14.5 million-of a sudden in±1ux of300,000 

unemployed people (increasing the population by 2 percent)? Might the inability to absorb 

former IPS recipients destabilize these countries in a way that drives even more of their citizens 

to migrate? 

Answer: 

The Salvadoran and Honduran governments have been cooperative partners in receiving 

their deported citizens. Each country receives roughly 50,000 deportees a year from the United 

States and Mexico. 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) partners with the 

International Organization for Migration (10M) to improve the capacity of the Northern Triangle 

governments ofEl Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to receive and assist deported migrants. 

Since 2014, USAID has provided three program contribution grants totaling $26.8 million to 

10M to help the Northern Triangle governments improve their capacity to receive and reintegrate 

unaccompanied children, families, and adults returned from the United States and Mexico and to 

rebuild and renovate four repatriation centers. 
131


25840h-47.eps

Question: 

The Inspectors General for the Departments of State and Justice released a report recently that 

says State Department and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) employees \Vere involved 

in a cover up of a 2012 incident V\ihere a drug raid in Honduras \Vent \Vrong and four civilians 

\Vere killed. The report had several recommendations regarding DEA With regard to State, it 

found that Department employees "failed to comply \Vith, and undermined, the Ambassador's 

Chief of Mission authority'' and "provided inaccurate and incomplete information to Congress 

and the public." 

How is the State Department holding accountable the employees cited in the IG report? What 

changes to policies and procedures is State implementing to ensure that this level of noncooperation with investigators is not repeated, especially in cases involving loss oflife? Are 

adequate reparations or other compensation contemplated for the Honduran victims of the Ahuas 

incident detailed in the report? 

Answer: 

The Department of State (DOS) has very serious concerns with the joint report produced by the 

Inspectors General of the Departments of State and Justice (OIGs), ''A Special Joint Review of 

Post-Incident Responses by the Department of State and Drug Enforcement Administration to 

Three Deadly Force Incidents in Honduras." These concerns were raised by the Bureau of 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Mfairs (INL) in their January 17, 2017 official 

comments on the draft joint report. Additionally, during the course of the joint investigation, 

DOS otlicials asked the OIGs to address concerns over the root cause of the interagency conflict 

concerning appropriate protocols for disclosing lav\1 enforcement investigative information, 

including internal agency reviews. None of these concerns were addressed during the joint OIG 

investigation, nor are they ret1ected in the final joint report. As a result, the lent,>thy and 

complex report remains incomplete and factually misleading. In our view, this has resulted in 

the adoption of conclusions regarding INLand Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) 

personnel that are erroneous and not supported by the evidence. 

Because the Department concluded that DOS employees did not engage in misconduct, 

they were not referred for fonnal disciplinary action. DOS concluded the employees did not 

\Villfully provide incomplete or inaccurate information to Members of Congress or the public. 

Coordination before and after the incidents discussed in the joint report sutl'ered tram limited 

legal provisions regarding the presence of US. law enforcement in foreign police operations. 

The Foreign Assistance Act contemplates defensive use afforce by US. law enforcement 

personnel and the need to secure Chief of Mission approval for their presence at foreign police 

operations and for carrying firearms in country but does not address responsibilities for postincident responses. Conflicting agency policies related to the disclosure of information contributed 

to misunderstandings between the participating law enforcement entities pertaining to their 

obligations. This prevented the Chief of Mission tram receiving information that she had every right 

to receive and can be avoided in the future by clearly delineating responsibilities in advance, 

particularly among law enforcement entities. Additionally, transparency in accountability reporting 

and protocols for overseas incident reporting and investigations should be agreed upon. 

Unfortunately, this context was not addressed in the joint investigation or the resulting report. The 

Department earnestly believes that State employees acted in good faith in a chaotic enviromnent and 

accurately reported information as it was made available to them at the time. 
132


25840h-48.eps

INL appreciates the report's identification of weaknesses and has taken measures to 

address them. The State Department has not provided air support to Honduran law enforcement 

operations since July 2012 and all assets have been reallocated to another country program. The 

State Department has provided regular and systematic reporting to Congress on Honduras 

programs since 2012. There has been excellent coordination between Federal law enforcement 

and the U.S. Chief of Mission since 2014. 

Regarding compensation for the Honduran victims of the Ahuas incident, the Government of 

Honduras provided a $200,000 grant to INGW AIA, an indigenous NGO, to assist the families 

affected by the 2012 incident INGW AlA confirms that it has disbursed all funds in support of the 

following: 

Medical support for eight members of beneficiary families; 

Assessment of the current condition of all beneficiary families' homes and purchase of 

materials needed for renovations; 

Delivery of food assistance and school supplies to five of the beneficiary families; 

Support to the establishment of a bakery run by 30 women, including beneficiary families; 

Distribution of rice seeds to 25 male heads of household in the village, including one 

beneficiary household that has a rice farm and benefited from assistance in producing and selling 

rice; and 

Assistance to two beneficiary families on establishing legal title to their properties. 

Question: 

After many years in which Latin American and Caribbean governments were reluctant to speak 

out on democracy and human rights in Venezuela, they are now finding their voices. 

Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro has done an impressive job in 

leading the OAS and its member states in holding Venezuelan President Nicolas Madura 

accountable. So, I was shocked to see that no funding was specified for the OAS in the 

President's FY 2018 budget 

How can the Trump Administration and the State Department exercise moral leadership in the 

hemisphere when we are rejecting the one institution intended to promote democracy and hold 

rogue leaders and human rights abusers accountable? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to be engaged in the situation in Venezuela and to work closely with 

others, including the Organization of American States (OAS), to support peaceful solutions to 

the political and economic crisis in the country. Historically, the State Department has provided 

assessed contributions to the OAS through the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) 

account and voluntary contributions through the International Organizations and Programs 

(IO&P) account. 

The Department is in the process of finalizing how the FY 2018 CIO request of $9964 

million will be allocated among various international organizations to support assessed costs, 

including for the OAS. 

With regard to voluntary contributions to the OAS, the Department prioritized resources 

to focus on our most pressing national security interests. As part of the Department's 

streamlining efforts, the FY 2018 budget does not request funding for the IO&P account, which 

has traditionally funded a voluntary contribution to the OAS. Regardless, the United States will 
133


25840h-49.eps

continue to engage diplomatically to advance prosperity, security, democracy, and the protection 

of human rights in Venezuela and throughout the region. 

l 

Question: 

"What are U.S. diplomats currently doing to revive the peace process for the troubled country? 

Do you believe that, considering the regional equities at play, that a Special Envoy should be 

appointed to help diplomatically resolve this cont1ict in cooperation with other countries' special 

envoys?'' 

Answer: 

In recent months, we have, along with Troika partners (Norway and the United Kingdom), 

encouraged the AU, the UN, and IGAD to play a more active role in convincing all parties in 

South Sudan to implement a cessation of hostilities in conjunction with the resumption of an 

inclusive political process. Following diplomatic pressure from the Troika, IGAD held an 

Extraordinary Summit on June 12 where it called for holding a ''High-level Revitalization Forum" 

of the 2015 peace agreement that would be open to all ''estranged parties." This marked the first 

regionally-sanctioned call for renewed political talks between the core warring parties since the 

resumption of hostilities in July 2016. In order to maintain pressure on the region and spur 

greater progress towards resolution of the cont1ict, we are encouraging regional capitals to 

quickly convene the forum, while noting that we will not be able to continue U.S funding for the 

!GAD-established implementation mechanisms of the 2015 peace agreement indefinitely if the 

parties are not complying with its terms. 

The Ofiice of the Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, led by a Senior Foreign 

Service oflicer, continues to be deeply engaged on these issues and in shaping and supporting 

U.S. policy, in close coordination with leadership of the Bureau of African Atiairs. With the 

ongoing Department-wide organizational redesign, we are evaluating various roles, such as 

Special Envoys. 

Question: 

Bilateral Agreement with Kyrgyzstan 

In 2015, the Government of Kyrgyzstan canceled its bilateral agreement with the United States 

regarding the provision of assistance after the State Department awarded Azimjon Askarov the 

Human Rights Defender award. 

How has the cancellation of this agreement atiected U.S. assistance to Kyrt,>yzstan? Please 

provide an update on efforts to negotiate a new agreement with Kyrgyzstan. 

What are the primary points of disagreement in this negotiation? Are you optimistic that a new 

agreement will be reached? 

Do you have an assessment of when the negotiations are likely to conclude? 

Answer: 

As a result of the cancellation of our 1993 bilateral assistance agreement, some of our 

initiatives are stalled due to tax implications. While we are able to continue many ongoing 

assistance activities, we have directed implementers not to engage in activities that incur taxes 

that exceed minimal amounts required for basic operations. A $6 million parliamentary 

strengthening program for Kyrgyzstan has also been cancelled because of the lack of a bilateral 

assistance agreement. 
134


25840h-50.eps

The Department of State and the US. Agency for International Development (US AID) 

have been in negotiations with the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic over the terms of a new 

bilateral agreement for economic and technical cooperation and humanitarian assistance since 

December, 2015. Since then, the negotiating teams on both sides have engaged in detailed 

discussions both in person and by video conference on a number of issues related to the 

provision of U.S. government assistance to Kyrgyzstan. The main points of disagreement relate 

to defining tax-exempt activity, and to the role of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic in 

reviewing and approving proposed assistance programs. While the State Department and 

USAID negotiating teams remain hopeful that we will eventually conclude a new agreement, we 

are unable to predict at this point when negotiations are likely to conclude. 

Onestion: 

Given the Trump Administration's proposed 31% cut to the State Department and USAID, how 

do you see these cuts affecting our efforts to counter violent extremism in the long-run? 

Answer: 

Countering the terrorist narrative, messaging, recruitment, and inspiration to violence is a critical 

part of defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups and networks. In FY 2018, the Administration is 

requesting $228 million for countering violent extremism programs, which is an increase over 

previous years. This funding would support ongoing efforts to engage communities and reduce 

support for violent extremism in countries ranging from Bangladesh to Kosovo to Nigeria. In 

addition, the Department of State has requested $31.9 million in funding to support the staff and 

operations of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) to counter violent extremist messaging. 

We encourage other donor countries, host-country governments and local partners to also 

take responsibility for these efforts. In fact, we have leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars 

over the last several years from Western European and other donors to fund many countering 

violent extremism initiatives and programming around the world. 

Qnestion: 

Do you understand why national security leaders have urged us not to recharacterize our tight in 

terms of a fight against Islam? 

Answer: 

It is important to understand the role of religion and ideology in the context of violent extremism. 

Research shows that religion can play a role, but is rarely either the only or primary driver for 

violent radicalization. 

CVE efforts must be guided by research and analysis of the specific context, where the 

drivers of violent extremism might be related to institutional and societal failures, such as 

systematic and gross human rights violations, ungoverned or poorly governed spaces, political, 

economic or social marginalization, or corruption and impunity. There are examples of violence 

in which religious ideology has played an important role (e.g. sectarian hate crimes); examples 

where non-religious ideology appears to have been a driver (e.g., racial hate crimes); and 

examples where an ideological component seems almost entirely absent. 
135


25840h-51.eps

Question: 

What are you doing to make sure our rhetoric does not reinforce ISIS recruitment propaganda or 

undermine America's constitutional respect for religious freedom? 

Answer: 

The Department of State advances the mission of promoting respect for religious 

freedom, as enshrined in our Constitution, while pushing back against ISIS's violent extremist 

ideology. The Department supports several interfaith programs around the world, focusing on 

promoting dialogue between religious groups and raising awareness of the unique foundation for 

religious tolerance in the United States. The Department has over 900 Foreign Service public 

diplomacy ofl'icers in the field globally and has led several multi-media and local campaigns that 

foster cross cultural education, including, for example, an IIP project titled "Islam in America" 

that provides perspectives from Muslim Americans and shows the thousands of mosques and 

community centers that are a critical part of American civic society. Through our programming 

and exchange programs, the Department of State highlights the diversity of religious traditions in 

America, which serves as powerful antidote to ISIS's poisonous and violent propaganda. 

Question: 

What lessons have we learned from the last 15 years of CVE programming? 

What are you doing to ensure that these lessons inform the programing we will undertake in the 

future? 

Answer: 

We've learned several lessons over the last 15 years, which we are actively working to 

implement through the Department of State's and USAID's CVE programming. First, we have 

learned that a comprehensive approach to address the drivers of violent extremism is critical to 

advancing the United States' national security and overall foreign policy goals. Second, violent 

extremism is not necessarily tied to a particular religion, ideology, or set of political beliefs, 

although there is consistency in the extremist ideology propagated and exploited by various 

terrorist organizations, particularly ISIS, to justify their violence. 

Third, to be etl'ective, CVE efforts must be guided by ongoing research and analysis of 

the context, drivers, and most efl'ective responses. The nature and range of possible drivers of 

violent extremism can vary significantly from individual psychological factors to community and 

sectarian divisions and conflicts. Actions by states can serve as drivers of violent extremism, 

including state-sanctioned violence and heavy-handed tactics by security actors, corruption, 

systematic denial of fair trial t,>uarantees, discriminatory governance practices, state propagation 

of religious and/or ethnic intolerance. 

Fourth, programming must be community driven. We need to work in neighborhoods 

with the flexibility to address the local issues that make some open to recruitment. From 

program design to implementation, CVE practitioners should work with youth, local government, 

and others to ensure projects that will resonate in their communities. 

Question: 

What lessons have we learned from the last 15 years of CVE programming? 

Under your leadership, how will our CVE efforts seek to address the underlying drivers of 

violent extremism, including security sector abuse, exclusion, and inequality" 
136


25840h-52.eps

Answer: 

We have identified local, regional and global drivers that correlate with a higher risk of 

radicalization to violence, but we recognize that in any community a combination of factors can 

come together to create a higher risk. There is no one single pathway to violence, though there 

are certain common ali ties. 

State-sponsored violence and abuse correlates highly with the emergence of violent 

extremist organizations. Countries with above-average levels of state-sponsored violence and 

abuse double their risk of a violent extremist organization emerging. 

Research has shown that individuals who have been forced to pay bribes for basic 

services may be more likely to support violent extremism. This research indicates that it is the 

personal experience of corruption, rather than general perceptions of corruption, which 

contributes to the spread of violent extremism 

There is a complicated relationship between economics and violent extremism. Terrorists 

are no more likely to be poor or unemployed or come from poorer countries. Those who are 

extremely poor are significantly less likely to support violent extremism than those who are not 

extremely poor. In some cases, however, a negative outlook regarding personal economic 

conditions is associated with violent extremist behavior. 

Data has shown that perceptions of government discrimination against members of ethnic 

or religious groups may be associated with violent extremist behavior. This finding is supported 

by studies that indicate that perceptions of injustice and the belief that one's religion or identity 

is under threat, can drive violent extremism. 

Our CVE efl'orts will continue to address these drivers by being designed and deployed in 

a coordinated fashion, and focused on those geographic areas and populations that are most atrisk of being radicalized and/or recruited by terrorist groups. 

Question: 

What lessons have we learned from the last 15 years of CVE programming? 

What are you doing to develop outcome assessment metrics that can measure whether our CVE 

efforts are making an impact in reducing levels of support for violent extremism? 

Answer: 

Although it can be difficult to quantitatively measure the impact of CVE efforts (e.g., 

number of people not radicalized to violence), we are committed to monitoring and evaluating 

our efforts against specific benchmarks and goals. State and USAID are working on increasingly 

measuring progress towards joint strategic objectives 

Through State and USAID studies and research conducted by think-tanks and the 

intelligence community, we have a good sense of the kinds of people that are radicalized to 

violence and the locations where violent extremists recruit, even down to key localities. We also 

have a good sense of the drivers of radicalization to violence, and we know what kinds of 

programs are more efl'ective against given drivers. We look at polls and surveys that measure 

perceptions and opinions oflocal populations toward terrorist groups, which can provide insight 

into the nonns and beliefs that are evolving in at-risk communities. This information is critical 

for the design of our CVE programming- including specifying their particular metrics. 

Our metrics knowledge continues to be further developed and disseminated across State 

and USAID. USAID, for example, through its Otlice of Transition Initiatives, is developing a 
137


25840h-53.eps

regional evaluation framework for programming in the Lake Chad Basin area. State's Bureau of 

Conflict and Stabilization Operations has developed a Monitoring & Evaluation Guide for the 

Department's CVE programming. 

Question: 

Have you consulted with the Office of the Legal Advisor to determine whether such payments 

violate the emoluments clause? If not, why not? If so, what was the determination? 

Is the State Department doing anything to communicate to other countries that payments to 

President Trump could violate the US Constitution? 

Are you doing anything to ensure that these payments do not influence US policy? 

Answer: 

Questions regarding foreign government payments to businesses in which the President 

has an interest are more appropriately addressed to the White House. The Department has not 

communicated to other countries regarding any such payments. 

Question: 

Have you personally reviewed the President's complete tinancial records so that you know of 

any foreign cont1icts of interest? 

If so, are they now State Department records? If not, how can you be certain the policies you're 

tasked to carry out advance the country's interests and not just the President's? 

Given that the President, in a break with longstanding practice, has not made his tax returns 

public or put his assets in a blind trust, how can you assure us that the State Department will 

continue to put US. interests above the personal business interests of President Trump and his 

senior advisors? 

Answer: 

The Department has not reviewed the President's tinancial disclosure report and other financial 

records, nor would it be standard practice to do so. We would refer any questions regarding such 

records to the White House. 

Question: 

Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (P.L. 114-151) 

Section J(a) of the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (P.L. 114-151) 

establishes a mechanism for restricting the importation of looted archaeological and ethnological 

material from Syria. Pursuant to this section, the Department of State and the Department of 

Homeland Security prepared a Designated List of objects from Syria restricted trom import into 

the United States, which was published in the Federal Register on Aut,'llst 15,2016 (81 FR 

53916). Pursuant to Section 3(b ), the President must mal<e an annual determination regarding 

import restrictions and determine if: ( 1) "The Government of Syria is incapable ... of fultilling 

the requirements to request an agreement under section 303 of the Convention on Cultural 

Property Implementation Act (19 US.C. 2602), including the requirements under subsection 

(a)(3) of that section"; or (2) "[i]t would be against the United States national interest to enter 

into such an agreement." 

What steps are currently underway in the Department to make this determination for the coming 

year? 
138


25840h-54.eps

Answer: 

On Au,,>ust 15, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) and the Department of the Treasury published in the Federal Register a final rule, 

etfective immediately, amending CBP regulations to retlect the imposition of emergency import 

restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material of Syria pursuant to Section J(a) 

of the PPICPA (81 FR 53916). 

The Department is now in the process of assessing the Government of Syria's (in)ability 

to request an agreement under section 303 of the Convention on Cultural Property 

Implementation Act (19 USC 2602) and/or whether it would be against the US national 

interest to enter into such an agreement, which are the conditions set forth in Section J(b )(!)(B) 

of the PPICP A. This assessment, in turn, will inform the Department's annual determination 

required by Section J(b )(I )(A). 

The Department will inform the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 

Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Atfairs and the Committee on Ways and 

Means of the House of Representatives, once a determination has been made. 

Question: 

Section 2 of the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (P.L. 114-151) states 

that it is the sense of Congress that the President establish an interagency coordinating committee 

"to coordinate the efforts of the executive branch to protect and preserve international cultural 

property at risk from political instability, armed contlict, or natural or other disasters" and that 

such a committee should "be chaired by a Department of State employee of Assistant Secretary 

rank or higher[.]" This interagency committee is to include "representatives of the Smithsonian 

Institution and Federal agencies with responsibility for the preservation and protection of 

international cultural property." A May 2017 document titled "Report to Congress on the Status 

ofP.L. 114-151, Efforts of the Executive Branch to Protect and Preserve International Cultural 

Property," states that the Department of State established an interagency committee called the 

Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC) consistent with the sense of Congress in 

Section 2. 

Who is the current chair of the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee? 

Please identify the agencies and their representatives participating on the CHCC, and identify 

any and all agencies and individuals that have been invited to its meetings. 

Is the Department of Defense representative with responsibility over the implementation of the 

1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Contlict 

participating on the committee? If so, please identify that representative. 

Is the Department of the Interior representative with responsibility over 16 U.S. C. section 470a-l 

participating on the committee? If so, please identify that representative. 
139


25840h-55.eps

Answer: 

The current chair, pursuant to presidential and internal DOS delegations, is Acting Assistant 

Secretary of State Mark Taplin. For information about representatives of other agencies I would 

direct you to those agencies. 

Question: 

Section 2 of Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (P.L. 114-151) calls on an 

interagency coordinating committee to "consult with governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations, including[ .. ] museums, educational institutions, and research institutions, and 

participants in the international art and cultural property market on efforts to protect and preserve 

international cultural property[.]" 

To date, what efforts have been undertaken by the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee 

(CHCC) to consult with these stakeholders? 

What efforts were made to include the participation of these stakeholders at the CHCC meetings 

held in November 2016 and March 2017 and in the planning for those meetings? 

Answer: 

The staff of the Cultural Heritage Center in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at 

DOS, which coordinates the CHCC, consult with stakeholders in the course of fulfilling their 

regular ongoing duties to implement the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation 

Act, administer the Cultural Antiquities Task Force, and manage the Ambassadors Fund for 

Cultural Preservation. However, since the CHCC is, per the Sense of Congress in section 2 of 

the PPICPA, a governmental interagency coordinating committee, nongovernmental stakeholders 

have not directly participated in CHCC's meetings to date. That said, non-governmental 

stakeholders in cultural heritage issues are well-known to ECA and other CHCC members, and 

some have been recipients of funding to engage in cultural heritage protection and preservation 

activities around the world. ECA and its CHCC partners are exploring ways to amplify 

engagement of nongovernmental stakeholders with CHCC. 

Toward this end, in early June 2017, just prior to the June CHCC meeting, the 

Department of State in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution held an open public forum in 

Washington, D.C. focusing on cultural preservation in northern Iraq in the wake of the liberation 

of this area from ISIS. Mark Taplin, Acting Assistant Secretary of State and Richard Kurin, 

Acting Smithsonian Provost, made opening remarks. Panelists included moderator Nancy 

Wilkie, president of the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield and member of the Cultural Property 

Advisory Committee (CPAC); Knox Thames, Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the 

Near East and South/Central Asia at DOS; Jessica Johnson, Head of Conservation at the 

Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, and Susan Ackerman, President of American 

Schools of Oriental Research. 

Question: 

Section 2 of the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (P.L 114-151) calls on 

an interagency coordinating committee to "consult with governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations, including the United States Committee of the Blue Shield,[ ... ] on efforts to 

protect and preserve international cultural property[.]" 
140


25840h-56.eps

To date, what efforts have been undertaken by the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee 

(CHCC) to consult with the United States Committee of the Blue Shield? 

What efforts were made to include the United States Committee of the Blue Shield at the CHCC 

meetings held in November 2016 and March 2017 and in the planning for those meetings? 

Answer: 

As the CHCC is, per the Sense of Congress in the Protect and Preserve International Cultural 

Property Act, a governmental interagency coordinating committee, nongovernmental 

stakeholders have not directly participated in CHCC's meetings to date. The Open Public Forum 

at the Smithsonian in June 2017 was an initial effort to engage nongovernmental 

stakeholders. Nancy Wilkie, president of the US Committee of the Blue Shield and member of 

the presidentially-appointed Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), moderated this 

forum As a member of CP AC, Dr. Wilkie has offered regular t,>uidance on issues relating to 

cultural property protection to the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs 

(ECA). ECA and the other CHCC members will explore other ways to engage nongovernmental stakeholders. 

Question: 

The protection, preservation, or restoration of international cultural heritage at risk from political 

instability, armed conflict, and natural disasters has long been an important part of US. 

international engagement. 

Can you provide any examples ofthe protection, preservation, or restoration of international 

cultural heritage at risk in which the philanthropic community has contributed to the funding of 

such activities jointly with the US. Department of State? 

How much funding did the US. Department of State provide? 

Answer: 

The State Department, through the US Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) 

and other mechanisms, has jointly funded a limited number of projects with other governments 

and private philanthropic organizations to protect, preserve, and restore international cultural 

heritage at risk In some countries, such as Libya and Nepal, projects have involved preventive 

conservation and mitigation of risk of damage or destruction from conflict or natural disasters. In 

other countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Thailand, the Philippines, and (again) Nepal, 

projects have focused on post-conflict or post-disaster cultural heritage recovery. In these and 

other cases, State Department support has enabled State Department grantees to leverage 

additional funding from other sources, including foreign governments and philanthropic 

institutions. 

a) In Libya, for instance, the Department has invested more than $1 A million since 2005 in 

cultural heritage risk reduction training and capacity building for Libyan archaeologists, 

museum professionals, and civil society. In 2015, AFCP grantee Oberlin College 

successfully leveraged funding from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation (Washington, 

D.C.) to extend an AFCP-supported month-long U.S.-based training program for Libyan 

archaeologists. Through a separate initiative funded by the Bureau of Near Eastern 

Affairs (NEA), and with the support of non-federal organizations and donors including 

the Getty Conservation Institute, the Whiting Foundation, and the Kaplan Fund, the 
141


25840h-57.eps

American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) is carrying out projects to document, 

protect, and preserve the cultural heritage of war-torn Syria, northern Iraq, and Libya. 

In Nepal between 2009 and 2014, the Department invested $1.24 million in the 

restoration and seismic strengthening of the Patan Royal Palace Museum, a 17th-century 

landmark, World Heritage site, and important driver of cultural tourism in the Kathmandu 

Valley. With AFCP support in hand, the grantee, the Kathmandu Valley Preservation 

Trust (KVPT), successfully leveraged supplementary support from other foreign 

governments, private philanthropic foundations, and a Nepali commercial bank to expand 

the conservation work. That investment in seismic strengthening paid off in late April 

2015, when the museum survived the 7.8 magnitude Nepal Earthquake and was the tirst 

major tourist attraction to re-open. Since the earthquake, State has invested an additional 

$1.5 million in seismic strengthening and post-earthquake restoration of other major 

landmarks in the Valley. With US. funding secured, grantees KVPT and Californiabased Miyamoto Global Disaster Relief have contributed their own resources and have 

successfully leveraged additional funds from the governments of Germany and Austria, 

the Prince Claus Fund (Netherlands), the World Monuments Fund (USA), the Gerda 

Henkel Foundation (Germany), and private donors. 

In Thailand, where the State Department is supporting a major post-disaster cultural 

heritage recovery project at the World Heritage site of Ayutthaya, grantee World 

Monuments Fund (WMF) has taken the lead in raising funds trom private, corporate, and 

other donors to supplement the $700,000 awarded in 2013 through AFCP. 

That said, the jointly supported cultural heritage preservation activities in the Middle East 

and North Atnca, Nepal, and Thailand described above are the exception, not the rule. In 

most countries and communities where the risks to cultural heritage are less well known 

to international donors, State Department funding through AFCP is the main or only 

source of support. A project site's location and notoriety, combined with donor priorities 

and interests, including commercial interests, are, by and large, the main drivers of 

private sector investment in international cultural heritage preservation. 

Question: 

How much funding did the philanthropic community provide? What steps is the Department of 

State undertal<ing to encourage public-private partnerships with US. non-protit organizations 

and other universities to encourage the protection, preservation, or restoration of international 

cultural property that is at risk? 

Answer: 

The total funding provided by the philanthropic community for the protection, 

preservation, or restoration of international cultural heritage at risk is not known because no 

reporting mechanism for such support exists currently. ln June 2017, the Whiting Foundation 

convened a two-day meeting of international cultural heritage preservation donors, which 

attracted American and European donors, both public and private. The purpose of that meeting, 

attended by the AFCP Program Director, was to begin to explore opportunities for collaboration 
142


25840h-58.eps

in international cultural heritage preservation among public and private sector donors with an eye 

towards avoiding double-funding and duplication of effort. Post-meeting conversations among 

the attendees are on-going. 

The State Department welcomes cost participation on AFCP and other State-supported 

cultural heritage preservation projects and is open to the possibility of public-private partnerships 

in the sector. 

Question: 

The Department of State is charged with implementing the Convention on Cultural Property 

Implementation Act, 19 USC sections 2601-13, which established the Cultural Property 

Advisory Committee (CPAC) to advise the President or his designee as to whether to enter into 

and renew bilateral agreements with foreign States to restrict the import of undocumented 

archaeological and ethnological materials. This committee serves an important role in gathering 

feedback from stakeholder groups, reviewing submissions from foreign States, and providing 

advice to the Department Pursuant to 19 US.C. section 2605(e)(l), the Department is required 

to provide to the Committee "such administrative and technical support services and assistance 

as it may reasonably require to carry out its activities." 

Is the Department considering any changes to the way CPAC meetings are conducted, the 

opportunity for public comment and participation in meetings, the Department staff charged with 

supporting the Committee, or the amount of funding or other resources made available to support 

the Committee? 

Additionally, please provide to our committee copies of all reports submitted by the Department 

to Congress, as required by 19 US. C. section 2602(g), related to all bilateral agreements entered 

into or renewed from the past 5 years. 

Please also provide the report submitted by the Department to Congress, as required by 19 US C. 

section 2602(g), in regard to the bilateral agreement with Canada, which was not renewed in 

2002. 

Answer: 

CPAC meetings typically have been held in Washington, D.C. The number of meetings per year 

has ranged from two to four within a 12 month span. In the interest of etl'iciency and cost-saving, 

the Department is considering convening some meetings via video-conference. Public 

participation can also be facilitated via video-conferencing. The CPAC meeting scheduled for 

July 19-20, 2017, is piloting this fonnat. 

In addition to publishing notit'ication in the Federal Register of the receipt of a foreign 

government cultural property request, the Department proactively publishes public summaries of 

such requests on its website. The Department also proactively, through the Federal Register, 

invites comment from outside interested parties, as well as their participation in the open 

sessions of a Committee meeting. Written comments are submitted via 

regulations.gov. Although this is not a statutory requirement, inviting such comment via written 

and oral statement has been a practice for more than twenty years. lt enriches the Committee's 

capacity for broader understanding of the particular matter under consideration. In addition, 
143

f


25840h-59.eps

cultural property analysts whose research supports the work of the CP AC also reach out to 

stakeholders such as museums, experts in the international sale of cultural property, and other 

experts who may have relevant information concerning the required determinations of a 

particular foreign government request under consideration. 

The Department, which is charged by statute to administer and support the CPAC, 

provides the funds necessary for the CP ACto carry out its statutory responsibilities. 

We will forward separately to the Committee all reports submitted by the Department to 

Congress, as required by 19 U.S. C. section 2602(g), related to bilateral agreements entered into 

or renewed within the past 5 years. 

We will also separately forward to the Committee the report submitted by the Department 

to Congress, as required by 19 USC. section 2602(g), in regard to the bilateral agreement with 

Canada, which was not renewed in 2002. 
144

f


25840i.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex W Tillerson by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14,2017 

Please describe in detail any DOS resources or personnel that have been or might be directed 

toward activities in support of the National Ocean Policy. In doing so, please provide specific 

references to FY 2018 budget request line items, if any, that you would intend to use to support 

DOS's continued participation in National Ocean Policy activities, and describe in detail DOS's 

completed and planned National Ocean Policy-related activities. 

Answer: 

As the National Ocean Policy is focused almost entirely on domestic United States issues, 

the Department of State's participation has largely been limited to involvement in interagency 

discussions and meetings. The Department has not requested any new funding for implementing 

the National Ocean Policy. 

Question: 

Given that this unnecessary and overreaching Executive Order cont1icts with the new 

administration's priorities for job creation, economic growih, and reducing red tape and 

regulatory hurdles, what if any steps is DOS taking to review its participation in this 

unauthorized and unfunded initiative? 

Answer: 

The Department is reviewing a broad set of issues, including with respect to the National 

Ocean Policy, to ensure alignment with administration policy and priorities to advance 

America's national security and economic interests. 

Question: 

What if any commitment can you make that DOS will not take part in any turther actions to 

implement the National Ocean Policy until the new administration has had a chance to review its 

position on it? 

Answer: 

The Department is reviewing a broad set of issues, including with respect to the National 

Ocean Policy, to ensure alignment with Administration policy. Any Department action turther to 

the National Ocean Policy would be consistent with administration policy guidance on the 

matter. 
145


25840j-1.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Brad Sherman 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14,2017 

Please submit for the record, how the Department of State would spend a 10%, 20%, or 30% 

increment to its budget? What would your recommendation be if those funds were available? 

Answer: 

The Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

support the President's FY 2018 budget request which will protect our national security, foster 

economic prosperity, assert leadership, and ensure etl'ectiveness and accountability for U.S. 

taxpayer dollars. The Department looks forward to working with Congress as we obligate and 

expend funds consistent with applicable laws. 

Question: 

Can you submit a list of those acting Department of State Assistant Secretaries, Under 

Secretaries, Directors, and other would-be nominated positions that you would recommend hold 

their positions? 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House on the identification of 

qualified candidates for senior leadership positions. Following White House announcements and 

nominations, the Department looks forward to working closely with Congress during the 

conf1rmation process. 

Question: 

Is the Trump Administration committed to implementation oflast year's extension of the U.S.-

Israel MOU on security assistance? 

Answer: 

The United States has a deep and abiding commitment to Israel's security, an important 

component of which is the preservation of Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over 

potential regional threats. With the support of sustained U.S. security assistance, Israel has 

developed one of the most advanced, formidable militaries in the world. The Department will 

continue close consultation with Congress in support of our unwavering security commitment 

towards Israel. 

Under our new ten-year MOU, the administration is committed to request $3.3 billion per 

year in Foreign Military Financing for Israel from Fiscal Year 2019 to 2028. It also commits to 

$500 million per year from the Department of Defense to support cooperative missile defense 

programs. This will help ensure that Israel has the resources it needs to maintain state-of-the-art 

defense platforms and deter any external threat it faces. 
146


25840j-2.eps

Question: 

How do you view America's role in international affairs and the global \Vorld order? On May 3, 

2017, you spoke to the dedicated men and women of the Department of State. In those remarks, 

you made the assertion that our values are different and separate from our policies. I could not 

disagree more. Rather, excluding our values from our work severely diminishes our decades of 

credibility as a leader among other nations, and negatively impacts our ability to support global 

stability based on principles of democratic governance, commitment to international conventions 

and agreements, and respect for human rights. Hmv do you believe that our values are relevant to 

our diplomatic and development efforts overseas? How will you ensure these values drive our 

diplomacy and development \Vork? What are some specific examples of ways in which basing 

our policy on our values benefits our national security? 

Answer: 

Over the course of the past 70 years, America's leadership role in global world order and 

international atiairs institutionalized through a posture of strength from strategic focus on 

security and prosperity, both of\vhich we continue to share extraordinarily w·ith Allies & 

Partners. This posture of strength is the foundation for our ability to build foreign policy upon 

our values of freedom, human dignity, and treatment of people globally. 

"America First" for national security and economic prosperity comes by way of deep 

engagement w·ith Allies & Partners critical to our success. We build foreign policy by balance of 

values and interests. Alliances are bonds oftrust created to protect or complement shared values, 

w·hile Partnerships are interest-concentrated collaborations operationally conditional to values. 

The diplomatic and development work we pursue always ret1ects and advances American values 

as best possible in light of the rapidly shifting global trends that shape realities of our leadership 

The prosperity policy we promote globally premises in fact that as we develop bilateral 

investments, global entrepreneurship, innovative markets, and other major prosperity initiatives 

w·ith Allies & Partners, the value to human rights and of national security directly correlates. 

Question: 

Our assistance program for Nagomo Karabakh has, since FY98, supported life-saving maternal 

health care, provided clean drinking water for families, and cleared mines and unexploded 

ordnance from farms and villages. HALO Trust, which is leading the demining effort, reports 

that it has completed much of its mission, but needs continued U.S. support to finish its lifesaving work. Additional humanitarian needs exist in Nagorno Karabakh- which, aside from U.S. 

aid and help from Armenia, does not receive any international or multi-national assistance or 

development support. Among these unmet needs are rehabilitation services, such as those that 

the Lady Cox Rehabilitation Center seeks- within its limited means- to provide for children, 

adults, and the elderly with disabilities. Are you supportive of continued U.S. assistance to 

Nagomo Karabakh, with a special focus on completing demining efforts and expanding our 

support to include health care and rehabilitation services? 

Answer: 

Since 1998, the United States has provided over $45 million in humanitarian assistance to 

victims of the Nagorno-Karabakh cont1ict, including food, shelter, emergency and medical 

supplies, access to quality healthcare and water, and demining projects. 
147


25840j-3.eps

The FY 2018 budget request supports the President's commitment to make the US 

government leaner and more accountable to the American taxpayer, while maximizing our 

diplomatic and engagement efforts, including with our international partners. 

With respect to Nagorno Karabakh, current US.-funded assistance programs have 

prioritized humanitarian demining. USAID's program with HALO Trust is scheduled for 

completion in September 2017. HALO Trust estimates that by this time, they will have cleared 

97.6 percent of the areas that require demining. The State Department and USAID support the 

demining program and are currently reviewing information from HALO Trust requesting 

additional funds, while taking into account available resources and competing priorities. We 

remain focused on completing demining as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. 

Question: 

Has the Department of State formally requested that the Republic Turkey waive all claims of 

diplomatic immunity for those foreign diplomats or security personnel involved, either directly 

or indirectly in the May 16th assault at Sheridan Circle against peaceful protesters? 

Answer: 

No, the Department has not asked for a waiver of immunity from the Republic of Turkey. 

The Department of State is working with the Department of Justice to examine the findings of 

the investigation and is weighing what additional steps might be appropriate in this context. 

Each case will be considered individually and we will take into consideration the specific 

individual charges in any additional response. 

Question: 

To your knowledge, Has President Erdogan apologized or expressed any regret for the conduct 

of his bodyt,>uards? 

Answer: 

The Department of State has no knowledge of President Erdogan apologizing or 

expressing regret for the May 16 assault. 

Question: 

Armenia has welcomed over 20,000 refugees from Syria and, more broadly, has expressed 

willingness to serve as a regional safe haven for religious and other minorities f1eeing violence 

and intolerance in the Middle East. Are you willing to work with Congress to help 

provide Armenia - a landlocked, blockaded nation of limited means - with the resources needed 

to support transitional programs for at-risk refugees, including short-term housing/rental 

assistance and social and economic integration initiatives? 

Answer: 

The United States commends Armenia's welcoming of over 20,000 Syrians. The United 

States has provided sustained support for Syrians in Annenia, and worldwide, via contributions 

to international humanitarian organizations, including: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 

the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as NGOs such as World Vision, the 
148


25840j-4.eps

American Bar Association, Mission Armenia, the Armenian Red Cross Society, and the Aleppo 

Compatriotic Charitable Organization. The United States is UNHCR' s largest donor, providing 

about a quarter of their budget worldwide. UNHCR continues to provide needs-based assistance 

to persons of concern in Armenia, regardless of citizenship status. 

Question: 

Armenia has welcomed over 20,000 refugees from Syria and, more broadly, has expressed 

willingness to serve as a regional safe haven for religious and other minorities fleeing violence 

and intolerance in the Middle East. Are you willing to work with Congress to help 

provide Armenia - a landlocked, blockaded nation of limited means - with the resources needed 

to support transitional programs for at-risk refugees, including short-term housing/rental 

assistance and social and economic integration initiatives? 

Answer: 

The United States commends Am1enia's welcoming of over 20,000 Syrians. The United 

States has provided sustained support for Syrians in Armenia, and worldwide, via contributions 

to international humanitarian organizations, including: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 

the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as NGOs such as World Vision, the 

American Bar Association, Mission Am1enia, the Armenian Red Cross Society, and the Aleppo 

Compatriotic Charitable Organization. The United States is UNHCR' s largest donor, providing 

about a quarter of their budget worldwide. UNHCR continues to provide needs-based assistance 

to persons of concern in Armenia, regardless of citizenship status. 

Question: 

Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel are leading a bipartisan initiative- known as the 

Royce-Engel Peace Proposals- to keep the peace in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. The 

proposals call for 1) the placement of OSCE-monitored, advanced gunfire locator systems and 

sound-ranging equipment along the line of contact to determine the source of attacks, 2) the 

addition ofOSCE observers along the line of contact, and 3) an agreement on the nondeployment of snipers, heavy arms, and any new military hardware along the line of contact. 

The State Department has endorsed these cease-tire strengthening proposals, as has the OSCE, 

Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Only Azerbaijan opposes the Royce-Engel proposals, 

etiectively obstructing their implementation. Will the Department of State support U.S. ti.mding 

for the Royce-Engel peace proposals? 

Answer: 

As a Co-Chair of the Minsk Group, the United States has played an active role in 

mediating a comprehensive settlement of this longstanding conflict, the resolution of which 

would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the people of the South Caucasus. 

The State Department supports proposals to withdraw snipers, launch an OSCE 

investigation mechanism, and deploy sensors along the Line of Contact and the ArmeniaAzerbaijan international border. We have been a strong advocate in the Minsk Group process for 

these confidence-building measures, which we believe would reduce violence in areas atl'ected 

by the cont1ict. In light of recent ceasefire violations, which have resulted in multiple civilian 

casualties, the urgency of implementing such measures has never been greater. U.S. Co-Chair 

Ambassador Richard Hoagland, together with his Russian and French counterparts, is discussing 
149

f


25840j-5.eps

these proposals with the sides at the highest levels. We also continue to call upon the sides to 

cease military action and return to the negotiation table as soon as possible. 

Question: 

Would you agree to a suspension of US military aid to Azerbaijan until its government ceases 

its attacks against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, ends its threat of renewed war, and agrees to 

the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts? 

Answer: 

U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan promotes US. national security interests, which is why 

every Administration has waived Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act every year since 

2002. The most recent waiver was signed on March 27, 2017. However, as a matter of policy, 

the United States does not approve any security assistance or sales that could undermine efforts 

to find a peaceful settlement of the cont1ict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The United States 

remains actively engaged as one of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs to help the sides move towards a 

negotiated settlement. 

Question: 

In the wake of the 2015 signing of a US.-Armenia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, 

we witnessed a surge in US. commercial engagement in Armenia- including, as reported by our 

Ambassador, Richard Mills, upwards of $500,000,000 in new American investments 

in Armenia's energy and mining sectors. Similarly, a new US.-Armenia Double Tax Treaty, by 

establishing a clear legal framework for investors and individuals who have business activities in 

both jurisdictions, will facilitate the further expansion of US.-Armenia economic relations, by 

eliminating the threat of double taxation. Will you engage the Secretary of the Treasury 

regarding the mutual benefits of negotiating a US.-Armenia Double Tax Treaty? 

Answer: 

The expansion of trade and commercial ties is an important element of the United States' 

bilateral relationship with Armenia. We continue to advocate for reforms that will help improve 

the business climate for U.S. firms in Armenia, including eliminating corruption, increasing 

judicial independence, and strengthening intellectual property protections. While we are 

confident the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIF A) and resulting TIF A Council 

will prove to be useful tools for tackling existing trade issues and boosting levels of trade, the 

recent investments in Armenia's energy and mining sectors were underway before the TIF A was 

signed. The Department of State has discussed the Government of Armenia's interest in 

concluding a new double taxation treaty with the Treasury Department and understands that at 

this time, US. firms operating in Annenia are able to obtain relieffrom double taxation under 

existing US law. 
150


25840k-1.eps

Qnestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Steve Chabot 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

General Coordinator for the High Negotiations Committee Dr. Riad Hijab recently met with 

French President Emmanuel Macron in the Elysee Palace to discuss the opposition's stance on a 

political solution in Syria. In the meeting, Hi jab made clear the opposition's commitment to the 

political process and their willingness to contribute to the implementation of any U.N. 

resolutions. He also noted the need to improve the humanitarian situation for the Syrian people. 

Do you have plans to meet with Dr. Hijab to discuss these matters? 

Answer: 

Members of my team at the Department of State meet regularly with Dr. Hijab to discuss 

the Syrian civil war and the High Negotiations Committee's efforts to reach a political agreement 

to end the cont1ict via the UN-sponsored Geneva intra-Syria talks. Department of State 

personnel spoke with Dr. Hijab as recently as August 2, and also discussed the political process 

with him during the latest round of the Geneva talks in July. Dr. Hijab met with 

Acting Assistant Secretary Stuart Jones on April 6. 

Dr. Hijab is an important contact and the Department of State has relayed the United 

States' appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Hijab for his enduring etl'orts and dedication to the 

cause of a better future for the Syrian people. 

The United States continues to pursue a reduction in the level of violence in Syria, ensure 

the unhindered access to humanitarian assistance, defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations, 

and create the conditions for a credible political resolution. To this end, Department of State 

officials will continue to work with Dr. Hi jab, whose expertise and leadership are invaluable. 

Question: 

Secretary Tillerson, you stated in the hearing that "we are completely committed to the Taiwan 

Relations Act, and fulfilling all our commitments to them under the act" and you indicated that 

the Administration is currently discussing with China, the future of the U.S.-China relationship 

over the next 50 years. You also raised questions regarding the sustainability of the One China 

Policy. It is important to note that any changes to our "One China Policy" may affect not only 

our relationship with China, but also the relationship with our ally, Taiwan. T have several 

questions: 

o Is the Administration currently reviewing the "One China Policy"? 

o If the Administration conducts a review of the "One China Policy", will the State 

Department maintain close consultation with the government of Taiwan during the 

process? 
151

f


25840k-2.eps

o What is the status of our discussion with China as it relates to the US.-Taiwan 

relationship? 

Answer: 

We remain committed to our One China Policy, which is based on the three joint 

communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. 

The United States has a deep and abiding interest in cross-Strait peace and stability. 

Stable cross-Strait ties have been important and beneficial to both sides of the Taiwan Strait, the 

United States, and the region. 
152


25840l-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Gregory Meeks 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Will you address congressional intent that Rangel and Pickering Fellows join the Foreign Service 

by lifting the freeze on AI 00 classes for Pickering and Rangel fellows? 

Answer: 

The Pickering and Rangel Fellowship diversity recruitment programs were created to 

increase diversity in the Foreign Service. Fellows are trained to and expect to join the Foreign 

Service upon the completion of the programs. Historically, the Fellows have entered the Foreign 

Service as career conditional entry level officers. 

As of June 14, the Department was unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows a spot in 

an A-100 class at that time, as had been customary. We value these talented individuals and are 

determined to bring their skills into the Department. Although the Department was not able to 

otier the Fellows a spot in an A-100 class as ofJune 14, the Department o±Iered them the 

opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to waiting until the next A100 class. Fellows were given the option to choose to enter the Foreign Service as a Consular 

Fellow now, or wait until the next A-100 class, depending on their personal and individual 

circumstances. Fellows who would have chosen to begin their service as Consular Fellows 

would have been placed in the next available A-100 class upon completion of their one or two 

two-year Consular Fellows tour(s). 

As of June 29, we are pleased to share that the Department will hold A-100 entry-level 

Foreign Service Officer classes in July and September. All eligible Pickering and Rangel 

Fellows have been offered spots in these classes. The Department looks forward to welcoming 

these talented individuals and the entire future membership of these upcoming A-100 classes to 

our workforce. 

Question: 

Has the state department decided to reduce the number of incoming Pickering and Rangel 

programs from 3 0 to 20? 

Answer: 

No, the Department is not reducing the number of Pickering and Rangel Fellows. The 

number per program remains at 30. The recruitment for the 2018 cohort of Rangel Fellows 

began earlier this month and recruitment for the 2018 cohort of Pickering Fellows will begin in 

October. 

The Department appreciates that Congress authorized an increase in the Rangel and 

Pickering programs each by I 0 Fellows in Section 706 of the 20 I 7 Department of State 

Authorization Act. This increase did not occur in FY2017 as this directive did not come with 

additional funding. 
153


25840l-2.eps

Question: 

Do you plan to issue a waiver to exempt these fellows from the hiring freeze? If not, why? 

Answer: 

A waiver is not necessary. The Department is unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows 

a spot in an A-100 class at this time, as has been customary. However, the Department offered 

Fellows the opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to waiting until 

the next A-100 class. Fellows who chose to begin their service as Consular Fellows would be 

placed in the next available A-1 00 class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular 

Fellows tour(s). 

Question: 

Do you or someone senior on your team have plans to meet with the fellows immediately to 

explain this change to them in-person and allow them to ask questions directly? 

Answer: 

During earlier discussions subsequent to otl'ering positions in the Consular Fellows 

Program as an alternative to the uncertainty of waiting for the next Generalist Orientation Class 

(A-100), the Student and Fellowship Program team was in daily contact with fellows. In the 

interests of fairness, since it was impossible to reach in person all fellows at the same time, the 

Department created a master list of questions and answers which was circulated daily to all 

atl'ected fellows. The Program officers also met with representatives of the Pickering and 

Rangel Fellows Alumni Association as well as with members of the Association of Black 

American Ambassadors. 

Question: 

How much of the diversity currently represented in the Foreign Service is a result of the Rangel 

and Pickering programs? 

Answer: 

The Department is committed to the Pickering and Rangel programs as our premier 

diversity recruitment programs, which together are responsible for 21% of the diversity currently 

in the Foreign Service. 

Question: 

With the recent resignation of Arnold Chacon as Director General and absent a Deputy Secretary 

for Management and Resources, what leadership do you have in place to address and act on these 

issues? 
154


25840l-3.eps

Answer: 

We have a deep bench of experienced career professionals serving in key positions that 

are highly capable and able to help the Secretary lead the Department & advance US interests 

worldwide. The Department is organized into bureaus with regional or functional 

responsibilities headed by an Assistant Secretary or equivalent and each Assistant Secretary has 

a Deputy who is prepared to assume his/her responsibilities on short notice for any length of time 

necessary. Daily decisions are being made. There is an Acting Director General, former 

Ambassador William Todd. 

Question: 

The State Department led US.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic 

Discrimination and Promote Equality (JAPER), and the US.-Colombia Action Plan on Racial 

and Ethnic Equality have been important ways to collaborate and coordinate etforts to address 

systemic racial discrimination. What resources within the State Department are dedicated to 

continued support of these important mechanisms for the advancement of marginalized and 

underserved communities? 

Answer: 

The Bureau of Western Hemisphere Atfairs (WHA) remains committed to promoting 

racial and ethnic equality and social inclusion, and created the Race, Ethnicity, and Social 

Inclusion Unit (RESIU) in 2010 to coordinate and implement bilateral and regional work focused 

on African descendant and indigenous economic opportunities, access to justice, education, 

health, and environmental justice 

Under CAPREE, signed in January 2010, the United States and Colombia work together 

to share best practices, implement programs to address social and economic barriers atfecting 

African descendant and indigenous communities, and promote solutions to the challenges of 

racial and ethnic discrimination in both countries. The Department's ongoing bilateral 

engagement advances these CAPREE goals, including through support for a range of programs 

seeking to expand opportunities for economic empowerment, facilitate access to education, and 

promote youth leadership. 

Public diplomacy resources also complement CAPREE through academic, citizen, 

cultural, and youth exchanges that engage African descendant and indigenous communities in 

both countries, in partnership with key education and civil society stakeholders. Visitor and 

speakers programs, lan,,>uage training opportunities, peace- focused collaborations, as well as 

youth and scholar leadership programs, are key bilateral examples. The Department advances 

CAPREE priorities through ret,'lllar meetings with civil society and high-level engagement with 

the Colombian government. 

USAID programming, such as the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), also 

supports CAPREE. USAID provided $15 million in FY 2015 and $15 million in FY 2016 in 

Afro-Colombian and indigenous programming. USAID's follow-on Inclusion for Peace Activity 

is a four-year initiative that aims to build on progress realized under ACIP and continue to foster 

social and economic inclusion of Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities as a means of 

advancing peace and reconciliation in Colombia. Ioteragency partners and the private sector also 

implement programs supporting CAPREE. 
155


25840l-4.eps

As an upper middle-income country, Brazil does not receive significant foreign 

assistance. Public diplomacy-funded programming complements JAPER through efforts that 

highlight the importance of racial and ethnic equality in education, economic, cultural, and other 

sectors. For example, English-language micro-scholarships have provided two-year 

opportunities for Afro-Brazilian youth to learn English at Binational Centers. The nontraditional nature of JAPER and CAPREE also go beyond bilateral government coordination and 

leverage private sector and civil society's energy to carry out exchanges, entrepreneurial 

activities, and other thematic best practice collaboration, to mutually benefit the United States, 

Brazil, and Colombia. 

Question: 

The Indigenous and Afro-Colombian Communities in Colombia have been some of the 

hardest hit by decades of cont1ict in that nation. The Peace Agreement has the potential to 

lead to advancements, but the post-cont1ict period is a time of increased vulnerability and 

violence in the remote areas that is home to many in these communities. How do you 

envision the FY 2018 budget request 44 percent drop in assistance atl'ecting Afro-Colombian 

and Indigenous populations in Colombia? To what extent is the State Department prepared to 

assist these communities in this post-cont1ict phase? 

Answer: 

As the President reaffirmed in his May 18 meeting with Colombian President Juan 

Manuel Santos, the United States remains committed to helping the Colombian government 

secure a just and lasting peace. In the context of the Administration's focused approach to 

foreign assistance, the United States will continue to help Colombia implement the peace accord. 

The inclusion of historically marginalized groups in accord implementation is essential. We 

were strong proponents for the accord's Ethnic Chapter and continue to encourage the 

Colombian government to implement all aspects of the accord, including measures to guarantee 

the rights of those most affected by cont1ict. 

We employ a holistic approach to promote peace, human rights, and social inclusion of 

indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations and other historically marginalized communities in 

Colombia, and will continue to advance these etl'orts through programming, the US.-Colombia 

Action Plan on Racial and Ethnic Equality, and our annual high-level dialogue with the 

Colombian government. 

Building on prior year programs, our FY 2018 assistance will help the Colombian 

government implement the peace agreement and focus on special US. capabilities and technical 

expertise to catalyze and enhance Colombia's own peace accord implementation etl'orts. Our 

programming focuses US. assistance on: (1) security, including the government's 

counternarcotics etl'orts and reintegration of ex-combatants; (2) the expansion of state 

institutions and presence in former rebel areas, including rural economic development and 

humanitarian demining; and (3)justice services and other support for victims USAID's support 

for these three lines of effort is concentrated in the regions hardest hit by the conflict and assists 

the most marginalized and vulnerable populations affected by the cont1ict. Across US AID's 

portfolio in Colombia, programs engage Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities to build 

licit economies; strengthen citizens' democratic engagement with local, regional, and national 

governments on key issues, particularly those related to peace implementation; and expand 
156


25840l-5.eps

access to justice and other services to victims and vulnerable populations. In addition to tbis 

cross-cutting effort to engage these communities, US AID's Inclusion for Peace Activity (IP A), a 

program which began in 2016 and will continue until 2020, focuses on increasing the economic 

and social inclusion of Afro-Colombians and indigenous communities in targeted regions of the 

country as a means to advance peace and reconciliation 

Question: 

The countries in the Western Balkans are facing internal turmoil and are under external pressure 

to abandon tbeir work towards Euro-Atlantic integration. What is the Administration's plan for 

securing peace and encouraging reform given the important role the U.S. has played in the 

Yugoslav wars of the past decades? 

Answer: 

A stable, prosperous Western Balkans that is integrated into Europe and a strong partner 

on counter-terrorism will help make America safer, open up new opportunities for American 

business, and ensure peace in the region. To accomplish this goal, the countries of the region 

need to commit themselves to the deep refonns needed to make their societies a success. We are 

committed to seeing the region integrated into the European family of democratic, prosperous 

nations and partnered with the United States in advancing our common interest in a continent 

whole, free, and at peace. 

The United States has been active in helping the countries of the Western Balkans to 

confront the various challenges that they face and encourage reforms that will allow the people 

of the region to enjoy stability and prosperity. Perhaps most importantly, we are taking steps to 

shore up the rule of law and stamp out corruption in the region by pressing regional leaders to 

accelerate needed institutional reforms. For example, with our assistance, Albania is 

implementing wide-ranging judicial reforms that will dramatically strent,>then the rule oflaw and 

reduce wide-spread corruption. Montenegro's new Office of the Special Prosecutor has cracked 

down on corruption within the government, bringing charges against nine senior officials and 

opening investigations against several dozen more. In Serbia, a USAID program has helped 

streamline business inspections and automate the building permit process, a reform that was 

partially responsible for Serbia moving up 44 spots in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business 

survey over the past two years, to number 4 7 in tbe world. We are urging political leaders and 

criminal justice institutions to show the will and courage to aggressively investigate, prosecute, 

and punish corrupt actors and the organized crime groups they protect. 

Across the Balkans, we are also working to spur economic growth by improving the 

business climate. We are fostering communication between governments and business leaders, 

which has encouraged improved ret,'lllatory systems, decreased red tape, and a more level 

playing field for foreign investors. We are also helping tbe countries of the Western Balkans to 

develop more competitive economies through our regional and bilateral programming, which is 

aimed at integrating and harmonizing regional markets, with a special focus on bolstering ties 

with the EU. This will increase private sector competitiveness in key sectors, including IT, 

tourism, and agribusiness, as well as improve financial sector stability and growth by 

accelerating market integration and expanding access to capital for small- and medium-sized 

enterprises. 
157

f


25840l-6.eps

We are also pushing the region to make the needed reforms that will transform their 

countries into stable, prosperous societies. In Montenegro, we worked with the government to 

help it make the reforms needed to join NATO. Though Bosnia's political institutions are still 

deeply dysfunctional, we are working with leaders there and with our European partners to 

encourage much-needed political reforms before the 2018 election. And we have been a strong 

backer of the EU-led Serbia-Kosovo Dialogue, with the goal of normalizing that relationship and 

advancing each country's progress on their respective European paths. 

Question: 

The Minsk Accord has proven to be inadequate in stopping the fighting in Ukraine between 

Russia-backed forces and those defending Ukraine. With the war simmering in the East, how 

does the 2018 budget help the democratizing and anti-corruption forces in Ukraine continue their 

work? 

Answer: 

The reduced FY 2018 budget reflects our goal to become more efticient in accomplishing 

our key policy objectives in Ukraine. Funds will continue to be used to fight corruption and 

promote the rule oflaw by supporting non-governmental anti-corruption organizations, 

preventing tratlicking in persons, facilitating access to justice, and advancing judicial reform. 

Anti-corruption measures, such as strengthening ethics codes and conflict of interest policies and 

training, will promote good governance, transparency, and accountability. 
158


25840o-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Ted Poe 

House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing 

June 14, 2017 

In 2008, Russia illegally occupied a third of Georgia. Six years later, Putin's troops seized the 

Crimean Peninsula tram Ukraine and occupied eastern portions of the country. What will the 

State Department's policy be regarding these heinous acts of Russian aggression? Will it be U.S. 

policy to allow Russia to remain in control of these territories? 

Answer: 

The United States strongly supports Georgia's territorial integrity, independence, and 

sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. We participate in the Geneva 

International Discussions, the forum that addresses the ongoing security and humanitarian 

consequences of the 2008 conflict. In response to Russia's actions in 2008, the United States 

provided $1 billion in assistance to support Georgia's sovereignty and continued efforts to 

reform and integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions. Our political and assistance support to 

Georgia continues. Our view is that every country has a right to chart its own future. 

The United States also strongly supports Ukraine's territorial integrity, independence and 

sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. We do not, nor will we ever, recognize 

the occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea and call on Russia to cease its aggression in 

eastern Ukraine. In response to these actions, the United States, together with European and 

other like-minded partners, imposed sanctions on Russia. As we, the EU, and our likeminded 

partners have repeatedly stated, our Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia will remain in place 

until Moscow fully honors its commitments under the Minsk agreements and reverses the actions 

that triggered our sanctions, while our separate, Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place 

until Russia returns full control of the peninsula to Ukraine. 

In addition to our support for Ukraine's territorial integrity, the United States is 

implementing a robust assistance program to build democratic institutions, promote economic 

development, combat corruption, and strengthen Euro-Atlantic integration-which is critical in 

confronting Russian aggression. 

In Georgia and Ukraine, our assistance is focused on building resilience, strenb>thening 

democratic institutions, and improving the economies away tram dependence on Russia. \ 

Question: 

We have been giving Pakistan around $500 million every year in foreign assistance, not even 

counting the funds we send to Islamabad on the defense side. It is my belief that due to 

Islamabad's continued support for terrorist groups with American blood on their hands, we need 

to cut all aid to Pakistan, revoke Islamabad's status as a Major Non-NATO Ally, and designate 

the country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. What will the State Department do under your 

leadership to ensure that Pakistan feels the pressure to stop supporting terrorists? Are any of the 

three policy ideas I support in this regard on the table? 
159


25840o-2.eps

Answer: 

As you know, the State Department is engaged in a rigorous interagency policy review on 

South Asia that will provide us with an integrated approach to advance our interests in the 

region, including combatting terrorism and promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. 

Our primary goal is to keep the United States safe and prevent Afghanistan and the AfghanistanPakistan border region from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists to attack the 

homeland or US. interests abroad. 

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the South Asia policy review. I assure you that 

-along with our counterparts at the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and 

other agencies- we are carefully considering all options. 

US. assistance is designed to advance our national interests. As part of the policy 

review, we are assessing our assistance approach to Pakistan to ensure it continues to e±Iectively 

support our policy objectives in the region. 

Our relationship with Pakistan involves a number of vital national strategic interests, 

including safet,'llarding the US. homeland from threats and maintaining regional stability and 

security. Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan is important in our efforts against 

groups such as al-Qa'ida and ISIS. 

I agree, however, there are elements of our relationship that have proved challenging, 

where we are seeking ways to convince Pakistan to change its actions. These include lack of 

action against Pakistan-based militant groups. The Afghan Tali ban, including the Haqqani 

Network, and other externally-focused militant groups retain the ability to plan, support and 

conduct terrorist operations from Pakistani soil, including attacks that target US. interests in 

Afghanistan. 

We continue to stress to the highest levels of Pakistan's leadership the need to take 

specific and deliberate action to curb the activity of all militant and terrorist groups in Pakistan --

without differentiating among them -- as Pakistan has publicly pledged to do. Our policy review 

will include as an outcome steps we can take to continue reinforcing this message. I can assure 

you we will insist that Pakistan deliver on its commitment to combat all militant and terrorist 

groups, without discrimination. 

Question: 

In the administration's budget proposal aid to Ukraine is to be cut by over $460 million and aid 

to Georgia is to be cut by over $46 million. Given that both of these countries are still facing 

foreign occupation by Russia, how do these cuts serve to protect US. national security interests? 

Answer: 

The assistance levels requested for Ukraine and Georgia are the first- and second-largest 

country-specitic requests, respectively, for the European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau, and this 

fact retlects the high priority we place on these countries and the importance of assistance to 

achieving our goals. This request also supports the President's commitment to make the US. 

government leaner and more accountable to the American taxpayer, while maximizing our 

diplomatic and engagement etl'orts, including with our international partners. 

The Administration's FY 2018 Request for Ukraine is $203.8 million, which is a 

significant investment and demonstrates that Ukraine remains a top priority to the United States. 
160


25840o-3.eps

Since 2014, the United States has provided over $1.3 billion in security and non-security 

assistance in addition to three $1 billion loan guarantees. This assistance has helped Ukraine 

make remarkable progress in advancing macroeconomic, anti-corruption, judicial, and security 

sector reforms. U.S. assistance continues to be a key tool to achieve policy goals essential to 

meeting U.S national security objectives in Ukraine. This includes programming activities that 

support U.S. allies and partners to defend our shared national security interests, most notably by 

promoting a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. Funding will continue to help Ukraine 

become a more capable, reliable security and trading partner to the United States. 

The FY 2018 Request for Georgia is $34.1 million, which represents significant U.S. 

support to counter Russian aggression, as well as to Georgia's future as a strong, democratic, 

strategic, and prosperous partner in the South Caucasus. Since 1992, our assistance has helped to 

build resilience to Russian aggression, strengthen the rule of law, promote good governance, and 

boost economic security, as well as support Georgia's territorial defense and interoperability 

with NATO. Our relationship is stronger than ever, and FY 2018 assistance will continue to be a 

key tool to achieve policy goals essential to meeting our mutual objectives. This includes 

support for reforms that will further advance Georgia's democratic institutions, foster economic 

development, support Euro-Atlantic integration, and build resistance to Russian pressure. 

Question: 

Afghanistan also stands to receive substantial cuts in U.S. foreign assistance to the tune of almost 

$100 million. How does this affect U.S security concerns given the growing unrest in the 

country thanks to the increased presence and capabilities of groups like the Tali ban and ISIS? 

Answer: 

The President's FY 2018 budget request reflects the U.S government's ongoing 

commitment to help Afghanistan become a stable and secure country. The FY 2018 budget 

requests nearly $17 million more for Afghanistan's Economic Support and Development Fund 

(formerly the Economic Support Fund) account compared to the FY 2016 actual level, for a total 

of $650 million. This level enables USAID to maintain critical rule oflaw, good governance, 

economic growth, and civil society programs that address the drivers of insecurity in 

Afghanistan, and to protect gains made in health, education, and advancing the rights of women 

and girls. It will also allow Embassy Kabul's Public Atiairs Section to continue media, 

education, and youth and community outreach programs aimed at countering violent extremism. 

The request also maintains Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related 

Programs (NADR) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding very near 

FY 20 16levels at $37 million and $800,000, respectively. NADR funding will support AntiTerrorism Assistance programs that provide specialized training and mentorship in 

counterterrorism skills to the Afghan Ministry of the Interior's primary counterterrorism 

response units, and a Conventional Weapons Destruction program that includes humanitarian 

demining, munitions destruction, mine-risk education, and national capacity development The 

IMET program helps to build the professionalism of the Afghan National Defense and Security 

Forces and its capacity to protect Afghan territory through professional military education and 

leadership development 

The FY 2018 request reduces the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

(INCLE) account by $90 million from FY 2016. With FY 2018 funds, the Bureau of 
161


25840o-4.eps

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Mfairs (INL) will continue to support its most 

critical counternarcotics activities, notably the operational and intelligence aspects of its 

successful interdiction programming. INL plans to augment its legacy Department of Justice 

program with a new program to he! p Afghan investigators and prosecutors use financial 

intelligence and evidence to dismantle narco-traffick:ing, terrorist, and corrupt official networks. 

In keeping with its long-term transition plan for the Afghan corrections system, INL will 

continue to reduce the level of e±Iort but maintain corrections activities in the same number of 

provinces. Finally, INL will provide limited support to complete the transition of organizational 

capacity building initiatives to the Ministry of Justice, Attorney General's Oftice, Ministry of 

Women's A±fairs, and Supreme Court. These programs will bolster Afghanistan's security by 

depriving the Tali ban and other illicit actors of narcotics revenue in the short term, and 

developing a more capable and transparent justice system for Mghanistan over the long term. 

Question: 

I would like to thank you for your e±forts in bringing my fellow Texan Sandy Gillis, who was 

unlawfully detained in China for over two years, back home to the U.S. However, it's estimated 

that there are still over a hundred Americans detained in China. How will State be pressuring 

Beijing to release these prisoners or at least ensure they are given transparent, fair, and free 

trials? 

Answer: 

One of the highest priorities of the U.S. Department of State is to protect the lives and 

serve the interests of U.S. citizens overseas. This includes providing all appropriate assistance 

when a U.S. citizen is detained abroad. While a U.S. embassy or consulate has no authority to 

intervene in a foreign country's legal process, U.S. consular officers may visit, communicate 

with, and provide support to U.S. citizens detained. When a U.S citizen travels to a foreign 

country they are subject to local laws and reb'lllations, and if they violate those laws, even 

unknowingly, they may be expelled, arrested, or imprisoned. In a few exceptional cases the U.S. 

government may call for a prisoner's release on humanitarian or human rights grounds, based on 

case-specitic facts. 

The case of Ms. Sandy Phan-Gillis was not characteristic of the consular access that the 

Chinese routinely permit. The U.S. Mission in China works closely with local ofticials to ensure 

that consular ofiicers have regular access to detained U.S. citizens, and that those citizens are 

being treated fairly, humanely, and in accordance with Chinese law, to include access to a lawyer 

and a fair trial. In addition to the Mission's daily engagement with Chinese ofiicials on behalf of 

U.S. citizens, the Department's Bureau of Consular Mfairs participates annually with the 

Chinese government in a bilateral Consular Dialogue, during which both parties disucss consular 

issues and cases of concern. The Department routinely presses the Chinese government on the 

treatment of detained U.S. citizens, as appropriate. 

Question: 

Mr. Secretary you have gone on record saying that the State Department will review the status of 

North Korea as being a State Sponsor of Terrorism. My bill which asks the administration to do 
162


25840o-5.eps

just that passed the House in April. Have you started this review process and if so when can we 

expect a decision to be made? 

• As a matter oflaw, in order for any country to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, a 

determination must be made that the government of that country has repeatedly provided 

support for acts of international terrorism. 

• These designations are made after careful review of all available evidence to determine if a 

country meets the statutory criteria for designation. 

• The Department reviews all of the available information and intelligence, from a variety of 

sources, on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK); it is an ongoing process and 

all information is evaluated in its entirety and must be credible, verified, and corroborated. 

Question: 

The budget request for the Counterterrorism and CVE Bureau has a $1.4 million decrease. 

Where are we going to see these cuts? How is this going to affect our ability to use soft power to 

fight against radical extremism" 

Answer: 

Secretary Tillerson has made clear that countering the terrorist narrative, messaging, 

recruitment, and inspiration to violence is a critical part of defeating ISIS and other transnational 

terrorist networks. Protecting U.S. national security and countering terrorism is the 

Administration's top priority and the Bureau of Counterterrorism's budget request reflects this. 

In FY 2018, the Administration is requesting $20.8 million in Diplomatic & Consular Program 

funding for the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism (CT). The 

projected cuts to CT's operating funds will force the Bureau to streamline support to 

programming management, budget administration, research and development with key 

interagency partners, and strategic monitoring activities. 

ln addition to D&CP, the Administration is requesting $228.05 million for foreign 

assistance programs managed by CT. This funding, which includes a request for the 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, is critical to sustaining gains from the surge of assistance in 

FY 2016 and FY 2017 and will allow the Department to continue to address the rapidly evolving 

terrorist threat. 

Question: 

USAID plays a critical role in supporting health and immunization systems in many countries, 

which in tum keeps deadly infectious disease killers at bay. The Ebola outbreak showed that 

cracks in a health systems in any one country can affect the whole world negatively. With each 

new super-bug, it is clear we are under funding research and development of new treatments and 

diagnostic tools to stay ahead of these germs. While supporting global health programs is the 

right thing to do from a moral stance to save lives, it also in turns protects our U.S. citizens by 
163


25840o-6.eps

being more prepared for health threats. With these extreme proposed cuts to global health 

programs, how will the US. keep infectious diseases like airborne, drug-resistant tuberculosis, 

mosquito-spread Zika, or the next Avian Flu under control? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request continues to support Global Health Security by requesting to use 

$72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola emergency funds, which would maintain a straightline of support for global health security in development programs at the FY 2016levels. The 

remaining balances from the Ebola response are an appropriate source of funding for programs 

whose objective is to prevent and contain future outbreaks of existing or new diseases, including 

Zika. Programming these funds will enable the US. government, in partnership with other 

nations, international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent avoidable 

epidemics that could spread to the United States, detect threats early, and respond rapidly and 

effectively to disease outbreaks in an efiort to prevent them tram becoming global pandemics. 

While the United States will continue significant funding for global health programs, as 

well as infectious diseases including tuberculosis, other stakeholders and the partner countries 

must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. 

Question: 

USAID plays a critical role in supporting health and immunization systems in many countries, 

which in turn keeps deadly infectious disease killers at bay. The Ebola outbreak showed that 

cracks in a health systems in any one country can affect the whole world negatively. With each 

new super-bug, it is clear we are under funding research and development of new treatments and 

diagnostic tools to stay ahead of these genns. While supporting global health programs is the 

right thing to do tram a moral stance to save lives, it also in turns protects our US. citizens by 

being more prepared for health threats. With these extreme proposed cuts to global health 

programs, how will the US keep infectious diseases like airborne, drug-resistant tuberculosis, 

mosquito-spread Zika, or the next Avian Flu under control? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request continues to support Global Health Security by requesting to use 

$72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola emergency funds, which would maintain a straightline of support for global health security in development programs at the FY 2016 levels. The 

remaining balances tram the Ebola response are an appropriate source of funding for programs 

whose objective is to prevent and contain future outbreaks of existing or new diseases, including 

Zika. Programming these funds will enable the US government, in partnership with other 

nations, international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent avoidable 

epidemics that could spread to the United States, detect threats early, and respond rapidly and 

effectively to disease outbreaks in an efiort to prevent them from becoming global pandemics. 

While the United States will continue significant funding for global health programs, as 

well as infectious diseases including tuberculosis, other stakeholders and the partner countries 

must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. 
164


25840o-7.eps

The goal of US. aid should be to foster long-term self-sufficiency in partner countries, 

ultimately supporting their transition from foreign aid. However, these transitions should not be 

driven by arbitrary budgets or timelines, but by measurable and realistic benchmarks, such as 

social and economic progress across social groups, public sector capacity, and the enabling 

environment for civil society and the private sector. What do you believe is the appropriate way 

for the US. Government to help countries move along a continuum of partnership with the 

United States? 

a. How will you leverage alternative tlnance mechanisms like domestic resource mobilization 

and co-tinancing that assist countries build self-reliance? 

Answer: 

US AID aims to build country pa1iners' sustainable capacity and to strengthen local 

institutions, vvhile using U.S. assistance catalytically to mobilize more diverse and sustainable 

resources for development, including host country tax revenue and private sector finance. The 

development tinance landscape has changed considerably over the last several years, and USAID 

is taking significant action to adapt to it. 

USAID develops country partnership approaches- with governments and other actors, 

such as businesses and ci vii-society organizations- that are appropriate to the country context 

and in line with pertinent US. policy priorities. In addition to a country's overall level of 

development, other factors that infonn USAID's partnership approach include relevant national 

security objectives, such as countering violent extremism, as well as support for priority global 

issues, such as combating HIV/AIDS and promoting democratic governance. USAID also 

recognizes that many developing countries across a range of income levels, are fragile. Roughly 

two-thirds of countries with USAID missions exhibit signitlcant fragility, by most standard 

measures. Conflict, recurrent humanitarian crisis, and other challenges rooted in social and 

political dysfunction may circumscribe partnership options and imperil sustained progress. While 

supporting sustainable local capacity and self-sufticiency, US AID addresses all of these 

challenges, within its manageable interest, in its country strategies and programs and in close 

collaboration with USG interagency partners. 

A number of former USAID partner countries have grown economically, with 

strengthened domestic institutions and increased revenue, and moved on from USAID assistance, 

including Argentina, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and South Korea, among others. 

Many have entered other partnership regimes, like the European Union, and become donors in 

their own right As countries develop and USAID-s partnerships evolve. the Agency seeks to 

ensure its programs remain strategic and etiective. To this end_ USAID prioritizes continual 

consultation with host governments, donors, implementing partners, and other local stakeholders, 

as well as careful attention to US. and local legal requirements, Congressional consultation and 

notitlcation, statling needs, public messaging, program sustainability, and other operational 

considerations. As recently confirmed USAID Administrator Mark Green noted in his statement 

before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "every program should look fonvard to the day 

when it can end." In this context, USAID works to evaluate how each program dollar moves a 

country closer to that day. 
165


25840o-8.eps

USAID is committed to using its assistance whenever possible to help developing 

countries better mobilize their own domestic resources to finance their development, build selfreliance, and reduce dependence on foreign aid. In particular, USAID is using grant assistance to 

help more than 15 countries strengthen their capabilities in domestic resource mobilization so 

that their systems of public tinancial management including their tax systems are more etlicient, 

transparent, and accountable, and raise more revenue while lowering barriers to economic 

growih. These increases in public revenue provide resources to meet citizens' needs, such as for 

basic education, clean drinking water, and health care. 

In this same vein, USAID also uses grant assistance to support mobilization oflarge and 

growing pools of home-grown institutional capital, particularly local pension tunds. USAID is 

also working through parallel financing and guarantees with more private capital providers to 

spur new lending in sectors critical to development. For example, through its loan guarantee 

program, USAID has mobilized $4.8 billion in private sector tinancing from 382 partners across 

77 countries to support development programming in agriculture, education, health, 

environment, small business and microenterprise expansion, and municipal tinance. 

Question: 

Good quality, transparent infonnation on how and where the U.S. is investing its foreign 

assistance has garnered significant bipartisan support and is a powerful asset. It's a key 

management tool that allows USAID to make better planned, targeted, and evidenced-based 

decision making. The State Department and USAID have put significant etiorts into improving 

the quality and timeliness its aid information, but your leadership is required to tinish the job. 

What is your assessment of the need for and benetit to the State Department and USAID to 

publish transparent, quality aid infonnation? What are the steps that you will take to ensure that 

the United States meets its existing commitments? 

Answer: 

Publishing transparent, high quality information on foreign aid increases the etlicacy of 

USAID's development etiorts and promotes international accountability. In addition to serving 

domestic purposes, aid transparency is essential for helping recipient governments manage their 

aid flows, for empowering citizens to hold governments accountable for the use of assistance, 

and for supporting evidence-based, data-driven approaches to foreign aid. 

Prior to the enactment of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act 

(F ATAA), the Department of State and USAID continually sought to improve transparency and 

accountability and have been publishing detailed information about our foreign assistance 

programs to F oreignAssistance.gov for several years. 

The Department of State and USAID have taken steps to implement FATAA Our 

Agencies remain committed to full implementation ofFATAA 

State and USAID are continually working to improve the quality, comprehensiveness and 

timeliness of information published on ForeignAssistance.gov and are working with other 

agencies to assist them in their reporting. Finally, the Department of State and USAID have both 

published data improvement plans and expect these etl'orts to increase the robustness of data 

reported as well as provide more context to the user. 
166


25840o-9.eps

Question: 

Many important accountability and learning functions that were mandated by my Foreign Aid 

Transparency and Accountability Act are performed by USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning 

and Learning. Can you also explain why the administration has proposed eliminating nearly half 

(40 percent) of this Bureau and what specifically the Bureau would have to give up under this 

budget? 

Answer: 

USAID is committed to advancing the Agency's aid transparency and accountability 

commitments including implementation of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act 

(FATAA). Aid transparency and accountability is an Agency-wide efiort and USAID's Bureau 

for Policy, Planning and Learning works in concert with the Bureau for Management to 

spearhead this effort. Given the importance of the aid transparency and accountability agenda 

and the various international and congressional reporting requirements for which USAID is 

responsible, the Agency will work within the constraints of its budget environment to continue to 

meet its commitments. 

Question: 

The Administration proposes to merge the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and the Development 

Assistance Account (DA). These accounts are distinctly ditierent, because ESF generally 

provides funds for middle-income and politically significant countries like Jordan and 

Afghanistan. Whereas, DA provides funds for poorer, developing countries like Cambodia and 

Ethiopia. Understanding the significant difference between the two accounts and the difference 

between State and US AID's role in implementing the funds from those accounts, how could 

State meet US foreign policy objectives around poverty reduction and development if the 

development experts at USAID don't control the funds? How can you ensure that funds are 

allocated to developing countries most in need of assistance? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 budget request reflects a commitment to ensure every tax dollar spent is 

aligned with the State Department's and USAID's mission-critical objectives. The Economic 

Support and Development Fund (ESDF) requested in the FY 2018 budget is an effort to 

streamline accounts and ensure the most etiective use of foreign assistance funding. The ESDF 

account will continue to support select programs and activities previously requested under the 

Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance accounts, allowing the Department and 

USAID to better assess, prioritize, and target development -related activities in the context of 

broader U.S. foreign policy objectives and partnerships around the world. Even with the 

reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in international development, global 

health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efiorts. 

Question: 

If the accounts are merged into what the Administration proposes with the Economic Support 

and Development Fund (ESDF), how can you ensure that funds for water and sanitation will be 
167

f


25840o-10.eps

equitably disbursed to developing countries that meet the metrics of greatest need in accordance 

with the Water for the World Act? 

Answer: 

The priority country designation processes put in place under the Water for the World 

Act of2014 for FY 2015, FY 2016 and FY 2017 will continue, per Section 5(h) of the Act. The 

Act requires that the designation of a high-priority country to be based a set of criteria laid out in 

the Act (Section 5 f (!)). These fall into four areas (I) the level of need; (2) the opportunity to 

leverage U.S. Government's etl'orts; (3) the level of country commitment; and ( 4) the likelihood 

of making significant improvements on a per capita basis on the health and educational 

opportunities available to women and girls. Need is assessed using global datasets on the number 

and proportion of people with access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and rates ofunderti ve child mortality due to diarrheal disease. The merging of Development Assistance (DA) and 

Economic Support Fund (ESF) accounts into the Economic Support and Development Fund 

(ESDF) will not atl'ect the allocation offunds for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). 
168


25840p-1.eps

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Albia Sires 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia criminally interfered in 

last year's election? 

Answer: 

Yes. As the U.S. intelligence community first reported in October 2016, the U.S. 

government is confident that the Russian government directed the compromise and the 

subsequent release of emails in advance of the November 8 general election. On January 7, the 

DNI released a report detailing Russian actions related to the election. 

The intelligence community assessed that Russia's activities were intended to influence 

the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our 

electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. 

The Department remains concerned by Russian efforts to interfere in elections in Europe 

and elsewhere. Russian tactics include disinformation campaigns, financial influence of political 

parties, and use of cyber operations. 

It is consensus in the intelligence community that Russia has meddled in tbe U.S. election. As 

Secretary of State, how do you plan to provide consequences against Russia for meddling in the 

presidential election? 

Answer: 

While I do not want to get into specifics of my diplomatic conversations, I assure you 

that the Russian government is well aware of our concerns over its cyber activities directed 

against tbe United States, including during the 2016 election. As Secretary of State, I have 

raised American concerns with the Russian government. The U.S. government will take action 

to protect our interests and to harden our defenses against malicious cyber activity. The 

Department also maintains communication with Moscow to ensure that the United States and 

Russia do not misunderstand one another. 

Question: 

100 different cities in Russia had organized protests to spealc out against the level of corruption 

from Putin and his cronies. As a result, Russian authorities beat and jailed hundreds of people 

who were peacefully walking the streets. Have you raised tbese violations of basic human rights 

with your Russian counterparts? 
169


25840p-2.eps

Answer: 

We have strongly condemned the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout 

Russia and believe detaining these protesters and human rights observers is an affront to the 

exercise of free speech. We believe the Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve a 

government that supports an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and accountable governance, 

equal treatment under the law, and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of retribution. 

We regularly criticize Russia for turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, limiting religious 

freedom, stit1ing independent voices, and thwarting the rule of law. Although the space for civil 

society in Russia has become increasingly restricted, Embassy staff regularly reaches out to civil 

society groups and seeks to promote our longstanding American values of freedom, democracy, 

individual liberty, and human dignity. 

Question: 

This Administration has a policy to reduce migration from South and Central America to the 

U.S. but the budget has drastically cut funding that's directed towards tackling the root causes of 

migration. We have already identified the causes for migration and developed a program to 

combat the issue- how does stripping the Department of these funds achieve this goal~ 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request for assistance to South and Central America will advance American 

security and prosperity, including by continuing to address the economic, security, and 

governance drivers of illegal immigration and illicit trafficking. For example, the $460 million 

request for Central America emphasizes U.S. commitment to reducing insecurity and violence, 

enhancing the business climate, and promoting improved governance in the region, all of which 

are essential to addressing the underlying causes of illegal immigration and supporting the safety, 

security, and prosperity of Americans. The United States is providing a total of$13 billion in 

FY 2015 and FY 2016 assistance to Central America. Congress directed an additional $655 

million for Central America in the FY 2017 appropriation. 

FY 2018 tunding will focus etforts in areas with the greatest potential for transformative 

impact on U.S. national security and will continue to address the key drivers of illegal migration 

and illicit tratlicking. U.S. programs take an integrated approach to crime and violence 

prevention through efforts that reduce gang violence and the int1uence of organized crime across 

borders; promote good governance, anti -corruption, and tis cal management; and foster prosperity 

through regional integration and the creation of sustainable jobs for citizens, which in turn will 

create opportunities for U.S. companies. 

U.S. funding also complements the etl'orts of the Northern Triangle countries of 

Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala to tackle these problems through the Alliance for 

Prosperity plan, for which the governments have committed approximately $5.4 billion in 2016-

2017. 

To complement U.S. assistance etl'orts and ensure long-term sustainability, we are also 

encouraging increased private sector investment in the Northern Triangle countries ofEl 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and seeking to mobilize additional support tram other 

partner nations and global financial institutions. For example, the United States and Mexico cohosted the June 15-16,2017, Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America to 
170


25840p-3.eps

reiterate the high-level support for addressing these issues within the Northern Triangle. Seniorlevel representatives from the countries of Central America, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the 

European Union, Spain, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary 

Fund, as well as nearly 60 companies from the region, participated in support of our shared goal 

of promoting a more secure and prosperous region. 

Question: 

WHA: The OAS Secretary General has been one of the leaders bringing theW estern Hemisphere 

together to help the Venezuelan people and hold Madura accountable. Understanding the need to 

make International Organizations more efl'ecti ve. What is the specific rationale for eliminating 

funding for one of the only international bodies that is working hard to bring democracy to 

Venezuela? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to be engaged in the situation in Venezuela and to work 

closely with others, including the Organization of American States (OAS), to support peaceful 

solutions to the political and economic crisis in the country. Historically, the State Department 

has provided assessed contributions to the OAS through the Contributions to International 

Organizations (CIO) account and voluntary contributions through the International Organizations 

and Programs (IO&P) account 

The Department is in the process oftinalizing how the FY 2018 CIO request of $996.4 

million will be allocated among various international organizations to support assessed costs, 

including for the OAS. 

With regard to voluntary contributions to the OAS, the Department prioritized resources 

to focus on our most pressing national security interests. As part of the Department's 

streamlining efforts, the FY 2018 budget does not request funding for the IO&P account, which 

has traditionally funded a voluntary contribution to the OAS. Regardless, the United States will 

continue to engage diplomatically to advance prosperity, security, democracy, and the protection 

of human rights in Venezuela and throughout the region. 

Question: 

WHA: The OAS Secretary General has been one of the leaders bringing the Western Hemisphere 

together to help the Venezuelan people and hold Madura accountable. Understanding the need to 

make International Organizations more etl'ecti ve. What is the specific rationale for eliminating 

funding for one of the only international bodies that is working hard to bring democracy to 

Venezuela? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to be engaged in the situation in Venezuela and to work 

closely with others, including the Organization of American States (OAS), to support peaceful 

solutions to the political and economic crisis in the country. Historically, the State Department 

has provided assessed contributions to the OAS through the Contributions to International 

Organizations (CIO) account and voluntary contributions through the International Organizations 

and Programs (IO&P) account 
171

f


25840p-4.eps

The Department is in the process of finalizing how the FY 2018 CIO request of $996.4 

million will be allocated among various international organizations to support assessed costs, 

including for the OAS. 

With regard to voluntary contributions to the OAS, the Department prioritized resources 

to focus on our most pressing national security interests. As part of the Department's 

streamlining efforts, the FY 2018 budget does not request funding for the IO&P account, which 

has traditionally tunded a voluntary contribution to the OAS. Regardless, the United States will 

continue to engage diplomatically to advance prosperity, security, democracy, and the protection 

of human rights in Venezuela and throughout the region. 

Question: 

President Trump claims that human rights in Cuba are a priority for him but slashes all funding 

to the Cuban people who are fighting for freedom -how can the Administration say he's behind 

them but abandon them as they risk their lives on the island every day? 

Answer: 

The Department of State continues to support and engage with human rights and 

democracy activists in Cuba and to work with regional partners to support respect for human 

rights and fundamental freedoms for the Cuban people, including freedom of speech, assembly, 

and association. On June 16, in announcing a new Cuba policy, President Trump made clear that 

his intention is to demonstrate solidarity with the Cuban people and promote human rights and 

democracy, while maintaining engagement that serves the national security and foreign policy 

interests of the United States. 

As the Department of State and USAID work within a reduced topline funding level to 

ensure eft'iciency and effectiveness of US. taxpayer dollars, we have had to make some tough 

choices about the programming for which we requested funding in FY 2018. The requested 

foreign assistance tunding levels were reduced globally; Cuba was not singled out We continue 

to support the above-described democracy and human rights promotion efforts with the many 

other tools we have, including through our embassy, engagement in multilateral fora and with 

international partners, and through bilateral talks, such as the Human Rights Dialogue. 
172


25840q-1.eps

Qnestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Jeff Duncan (#1a) 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Can you explain how the shift away from governance and economic growih programs will 

address the migration issues to the U.S.? 

Answer: 

U.S. assistance and diplomatic engagement in Central America focuses on securing U.S. 

borders and protecting U.S. citizens by continuing to address the economic, security, and 

governance drivers of illegal immigration and illicit trafficking. The Department and USAID 

plan on continued investments in governance and economic growth programs. The United States 

is providing a total of$ 1.3 billion in FY 2015 and FY 2016 assistance to Central America. 

Congress directed an additional $655 million for Central America in the FY 2017 appropriation. 

The President's FY 2018 request of $460 million for Central America emphasizes continued 

U.S. commitment to reducing insecurity and violence, enhancing the business climate, and 

promoting improved governance in the region, all of which are essential to supporting the safety, 

security, and prosperity of Americans. 

FY 2018 funding will enable us to focus etiorts in areas that will have the greatest 

potential for transformative impact on U.S national security and will continue to address the key 

drivers of illegal immigration and illicit tratlicking. U.S. programs support an integrated 

approach to crime and violence prevention through efiorts that reduce gang violence and the 

influence of organized crime across borders; promote good governance, anti-corruption, and 

t!scal management; and foster prosperity through regional integration and the creation of 

sustainable jobs for citizens, which in turn will create opportunities for U.S companies. 

To complement U.S assistance etiorts and ensure long-term sustainability, we are also 

encouraging increased private sector investment in the Northern Triangle countries ofEl 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and seeking to mobilize additional support from other 

partner nations and global financial institutions. For example, the United States and Mexico cohosted the June 15-16,2017 Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America to 

reiterate the high-level support for addressing these issues within the Northern Triangle. Seniorlevel representatives from the countries of Central America, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the 

European Union, Spain, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary 

Fund, and nearly 60 companies from the region participated in support of our shared goal of 

promoting a more secure and prosperous region. 

Question: 

Is there any evidence that shows that increasing security etiorts alone is a long-term solution to 

the migration issue? 
173


25840q-2.eps

Answer: 

Through U.S. assistance and engagement in Central America, our aim is to secure U.S. 

borders and protect American citizens by addressing the economic, security, and governance 

drivers of illegal migration and illicit trafficking. U.S. programs and assistance in Central 

America support all three pillars of our strategy: security, prosperity, and governance. The cost 

of investing in a secure and prosperous Central America is modest compared with the cost to 

U.S. federal, state, and local governments of managing large illegal immigration flows once 

migrants reach the United States. Similarly, disrupting transnational criminal networks in 

Central America protects American citizens more etl'ectively. 

Question: 

How does the State Department view the corruption in Nicaragua in comparison to the endemic 

corruption plat,>uing El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras? 

Answer: 

Corruption remains a major challenge in Nicaragua, with bribery of public otllcials, 

unlawful seizures, and arbitrary assessments by customs and tax authorities common. 

Corruption is particularly prevalent within the judicial system. Weak governmental institutions, 

deficiencies in the rule of law, and extensive executive control create signitlcant challenges for 

those doing business in Nicaragua. Nicaragua has received substantial otT-budget assistance 

tram Venezuela under a complicated and opaque oil cooperation agreement These funds are not 

subject to any meaningful oversight. 

Laws in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicarat,>ua provide criminal penalties for 

official corruption, but Nicaragua has done little to enforce the law effectively, and otlicials 

often engage in corrupt practices with impunity. The Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, 

El Salvador, and Guatemala have shown some effort to investigate and prosecute official 

corruption, through institutions such as their attorneys general office, and through bodies such as 

CICIG and MACCIH in Guatemala and Honduras, respectively. 

Question: 

How does the Administration plan to prioritize engagement with Central American governments 

to urge greater focus on reducing corruption and preventing the infiltration by organized crime 

on key justice sector institutions? 

Answer: 

U.S. engagement in Central America aims to dismantle transnational criminal 

organizations, combat drug trafficking, halt illegal immigration, and promote sustainable 

economic growth. It specitically addresses insecurity, impunity, and lack of economic 

opportunities, the underlying causes of these problems afflicting the region. Reducing corruption 

and preventing the infiltration of organized crime within justice sector institutions is essential to 

the success of these etl'orts, and the Department is working to provide assistance to strengthen 

the rule of law, promote strong institutions and government accountability, reduce impunity, 

improve budget management, and increase tiscal transparency. 
174


25840q-3.eps

Strengthening governance in Central America is key to the sustainability of promoting 

economic and security reforms in the region. As Vice President Pence stated June 15 at the 

Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America, the United States stands with the 

nations of Central America in their "commitment to root out crime and corruption to stop the 

scourge of drug trafficking once and for all [and to] build a more secure and prosperous tuture 

for the benefit of [its] people and the benefit of the Western Hemisphere.'' 

US programs and engagement focus on capacity building, information sharing, 

professionalizing police and military institutions, supporting the regional's attorneys general, and 

stren6>thening anti-corruption mechanisms such as the United Nations-backed International 

Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization for American States 

Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH). 

Question: 

The FY20 18 budget for Colombia cuts tunding for targeting the cultivation, production, and 

tratlicking of cocaine. Illicit coca production is at significantly high levels. Colombia and the 

US. have one of the closest partnerships in the Western Hemisphere. As the country struggles to 

implement its peace deal with the F ARC, coca production continues to rise rapidly, and social 

activists have been targets of assassination. 

• What are the key areas in the U.S.-Colombian relationship that the U.S. should 

continue supporting? 

• What accounts for the reductions to Colombia in the FY2018 budget request given 

coca numbers in Colombia are soaring? 

Answer: 

Our programming for Colombia focuses U.S. assistance on: (1) security, including the 

government's counternarcotics efforts and reintegration of ex-combatants; (2) the expansion of 

state institutions and presence in former rebel areas, including rural economic development, the 

military's civil engineering units, and humanitarian demining; and (3) justice services and other 

support for victims. 

To counter the increase in coca cultivation, the United States is working with the 

Colombian government to implement an integrated, whole-of-government approach to 

counternarcotics and rural development in strategic areas of concern. Our counternarcotics 

cooperation with Colombia is a critical element of our broader support for Colombia's efforts to 

implement its peace agreement with the FAR C. 

The Congress directed $391 million for U.S assistance to Colombia in FY 2017, with 

particular focus on counternarcotics, security sector assistance, and economic and governance 

programming. 

Our FY 2018 budget request reflects the Administration's focused approach to foreign 

assistance. We prioritized programs that address the coca cultivation increase. Although there 

was a 35.7 percent overall reduction in U.S. assistance requested for Colombia, the request for 

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funding has decreased by just 13 

percent. 
175


25840q-4.eps

Question: 

To what extent do you expect cuts in State Department and US AID assistance to Colombia 

would be offset by increased Department of Defense support? 

Answer: 

The Department of State and USAID have indispensable roles to play in a whole-ofgovernment effort to counter transnational organized crime and illicit drug trafficking in the 

Western Hemisphere. This is a top priority for us, and I believe our FY 2018 request provides us 

with the necessary resources to continue this important work. Through diplomatic engagement 

and more selective and targeted foreign assistance, we can both have a greater impact and 

increase cost-effectiveness for the American taxpayer. We must also encourage national 

governments and local partners to take on more responsibility for addressing the problems in 

their communities; they have primary responsibility and are best positioned to ensure sustained 

success. 

Secretary Mattis and I have committed our departments to work more closely together on 

security sector assistance (SSA) efforts and foreign assistance more broadly. We have 

established a new State-DoD SSA Steering Committee that is working to ensure a coordinated 

approach to our respective assistance programs. Our goal is to promote a joint approach that 

determines how best to leverage our unique resources and authorities to advance national 

security priorities and partnerships in key countries such as Colombia in the most cost-effective 

fashion. Together, we are reviewing how we can best target our FY 2018 to advance our top 

policy priorities, such as countering transnational organized crime and illicit drug trat1ick:ing. 

Question: 

The FY2018 budget request does not include any funding for democracy and human rights in 

Cuba. Yet, human rights abuses on the island and detention of activists and dissidents have only 

increased over the past few years, following the US.-Cuba policy shift under the Obama 

Administration. As of May 8th, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National 

Reconciliation (CCDHRN) reported that there were at least 1,867 short-term detentions for 

political reasons in the ±!rst four months of 2017. Today, Cuba has at least 140 political 

prisoners. Last month, Berta Soler, head of the Ladies in White, was not allowed to leave Cuba 

to attend a reception to honor her in the US. 

a) Does the Administration support democracy programs in Cuba? 

b) What evidence do you see of an improvement in the Cuban government's approach to 

democracy and human rights that has led you to not request any funding for supporting 

democracy assistance in Cuba? 

Answer: 

The Department of State continues to support and engage with human rights and 

democracy activists in Cuba and to work with regional partners to support respect for human 

rights and fundamental freedoms for the Cuban people, including freedom of speech, assembly, 

and association. On June 16, in announcing a new Cuba policy, President Trump made clear that 

his intention is to demonstrate solidarity with the Cuban people and promote human rights and 
176


25840q-5.eps

democracy, while maintaining engagement that serves the national security and foreign policy 

interests of the United States. 

As the Department of State and USAID work within a reduced topline funding level to 

ensure efficiency and effectiveness of US. taxpayer dollars, we have had to make some tough 

choices about the programming for which we requested funding in FY 2018. The requested 

foreign assistance funding levels were reduced globally; Cuba was not singled out We continue 

to support the above-described democracy and human rights promotion etl'orts with the many 

other tools we have, including through our embassy, engagement in multilateral fora and with 

international partners, and through bilateral talks, such as the Human Rights DialQb>ue. 

Question: 

Can you explain the current funding levels for democracy and governance in Ecuador? 

Answer: 

USAID continues to provide assistance to Ecuadorian civil society to preserve 

democratic freedoms, increasing broad-based citizen engagement with national and local 

government as provided for under Ecuador's 2008 Constitution. US AID's current democracy 

and governance programs in Ecuador total approximate! y $1.7 million. 

The US Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) 

also programs foreign assistance resources in support of democracy and governance in Ecuador. 

DRL programs support civil society organizations to etl'ectively and collaboratively promote and 

defend human rights and freedom of expression, and help support transparency and 

accountability within government DRL allocated approximately $1.3 million in tunding in the 

last year. 

Question: 

Specifically, how is (funding for democracy and governance in Ecuador) being used to address 

the needs of civil society? 

Answer: 

USAID and the US. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor (DRL) support civil society to preserve democratic freedoms while increasing broad-based 

citizen engagement with national and local government as provided for under Ecuador's 2008 

constitution. USAID and US. Department of State assistance enhances the ability of diverse 

civil society actors to work etl'ectively and collaboratively to protect citizen rights and 

fundamental freedoms, inform domestic policy, and promote a positive operating space for civil 

society. Programs support civil society in advancing freedom of expression, association, and 

information; promoting government transparency and accountability at all levels; and fostering 

diverse participation and engagement in the creation and discussion of public policy. 

Question: 

Has the Administration evaluated the impact of the freezing/suspension of any current tun ding 

on organizations ability to continue operating and implementing their programs~ 
177


25840q-6.eps

Answer: 

To our knowledge, the Administration has not frozen or suspended any current funding to 

organizations implementing governance and democracy programs in Ecuador. 

Question: 

Energy Resources: As a former top energy company CEO, you no doubt appreciate the interplay 

between geopolitics and energy prices for consumers. Supply disruptions in Libya or political 

instability in Venezuela can have an impact on what a family pays to till up their gas tank Your 

Department has primary authority for the conduct of foreign policy relating to energy. The 

President's budget request makes a modest reduction to the Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR). 

a. Based on your previous experience and from the position you sit today, can you please 

share your perspective on the role of the State Department relating to energy? 

Answer: 

The link between enert,>y security and national security has never been clearer. Access to 

reliable, a±Iordable, and sustainable energy atl'ects every country's economic growth and 

political stability, making energy a fundamental foreign policy issue that demands a well-crafted 

diplomatic strategy. 

The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 expressly gives the Secretary of 

State primary authority and the central role in conducting international energy policy, 1 and I am 

committed to ensuring that the Department, through our Bureau of Enert,>y Resources, continues 

to advance policies that promote the export of U.S. energy resources, increase access to 

competitive and transparent energy markets, ensure fewer barriers to energy trade and 

development, and strengthen the energy security of the United States and our allies. 

Countries look to the United States for leadership on energy and the Department of State 

has a long history of energy diplomacy around the world. U.S. energy abundance promotes 

economic prosperity both here and abroad and strengthens not only our security, but that of our 

triends, allies, and trading partners as welL 

Question: 

The Subcommittee that I chair has taken a particular interest in energy opportunities in Latin 

America. Will energy engagement with the Western Hemisphere be a priority under this 

Administration? 

Answer: 

Energy security and diplomacy is an essential priority for U.S. engagement in the 

Western Hemisphere. The Administration is working closely with partners throughout the 

region, including governments, multilateral institutions, and the private sector, to promote 

greater energy security while continuing to advance the United States' strategic energy interests. 

·· ... the Secretary of State shall continue to exercise primary authori~· for the conduct of foreign policy relating to energy and 

nuclear nonprolilt:ration, pursuant to policy guidelines established hy the Presidenl." 
178


25840q-7.eps

The Western Hemisphere's energy picture has changed dramatically in the last decade as North 

American energy production has increased substantially, providing greater security to the region. 

Canada and Mexico are also our largest energy trading partners. Nevertheless, cost-effective, 

reliable energy is still a pressing issue for many countries, particularly those in Central America 

and the Caribbean. We remain actively engaged with each of these partners as we support their 

efforts to diversify energy supplies, expand electrical grid interconnections, and strengthen 

regional electricity markets, which help governments attract private sector investment 

Question: 

As this Administration reevaluates existing trade agreements, how will you be coordinating with 

Commerce and USTR to ensure that our energy security objectives are being met? 

Answer: 

The Administration recognizes the vital role of enert,>y in ensuring our national security 

as well as our current and future prosperity. The Department of State will work with the 

Department of Commerce, USTR and other relevant Government agencies through the 

interagency process to ensure that our current and future trade agreements incorporate relevant 

national security, trade, economic, and other policy considerations as a part of the policy review 

process. Also, we will evaluate these with respect to our existing commitments to maintain the 

security of energy supply. 

Question: 

In 2013, the State Department submitted a report to Congress in response to legislation that I 

authored in which it characterized Iran's influence in the Western Hemisphere as "waning" but 

provided little support to justify its conclusions. Does the State Department still characterize 

Iran's influence in the region as "waning"? How does the State Department characterize 

Hizballah's activities in the region? 

Answer: 

Iran's influence in Latin America has generally moderated over the past 

decade. However, following the implementation the JCPOA, Iran sought to capitalize on 

potential trade opportunities in Latin America. Most notably, Foreign Minister Zarifled an 

Iranian trade delegation to a number of central and South American countries in 2016 in an etTort 

to strengthen economic and political ties. The Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah has historically 

maintained a presence in the region including the 1992 and 1994 Buenos Aires 

bombings. Hizballah also raises tunds within the Lebanese diaspora communities in Latin 

America. Additional infonnation on Hizballah or the IRGC-QF's capabilities and intentions in 

the regions should be discussed in a classified setting. 

Question: 

How does the State Department plan to respond to the growing activities of Russia and China in 

the Western Hemisphere? 
179


25840q-8.eps

Answer: 

The United States is the political, economic, and security partner of choice for the vast 

majority of the 34 other countries in our hemisphere. We remain vigilant about the activities of 

Russia and China in the Western Hemisphere, particularly efforts to provide economic lifelines 

to the increasingly undemocratic regime in Venezuela. 

Russia's tvio main foreign policy goals are to reassert its influence as part of its efforts to 

challenge the US.-led international system and to regain recognition as a global power on par 

with the United States. Russian engagement in Latin America is largely economic, centered on 

arms sales and the resulting spare parts and training relationship, as well as opportunistic lending 

in the energy sector. We remain vigilant, however, about Russia's increased engagement in 

Nicaragua. Although media have reported on Russian government interest in new basing 

agreements in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Argentina, there are no Russian bases in Latin 

America. It would also be difficult to surpass the United States as the security partner of choice 

in Latin America. Russia Today, a Russian government sponsored information outlet, is present 

throughout the region and may be gaining influence in countries like Venezuela. 

Chinese engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean increased sharply over the 

past decade. China's primary interest in the Western Hemisphere is economic, but it has begun 

to increase its political involvement in some countries to protect its investments, companies, and 

loans. China seeks access to natural resources, stronger trade relations, tourism opportunities, 

and infrastructure investments. China vigorously promotes its "one China principle" in the 

hemisphere, which is home to 11 of Taiwan's 20 diplomatic allies. 

We want to see that China's economic engagement with countries in the region is 

conducted on the basis of internationally-accepted standards, sustainable debt levels, and timetested safeguards for infrastructure investment 

Question: 

How does the State Department plan to counter the illicit networks that criminal groups and 

terrorists may use to profit or ship goods and people to US borders? 

Answer: 

The Department is actively engaged with our regional partners to increase their capacity 

and political will to disrupt illicit networks, dismantle transnational criminal organizations, and 

protect all of our citizens. Together, our diplomatic engagement and capacity building directly 

support US. national security by addressing illicit pathways and create an environment for 

increased US. trade and investment by disrupting transnational criminal organizations, 

strengthening border security, combating corruption and impunity, and reducing the flow of 

illegal migrants, drugs, and illicit goods across our southern border. 

The goal of US. engagement with partner governments in the region- which also 

extends to Washington and multilateral fora- is to strengthen political will to work together with 

the United States and regional partners to share information and expand law enforcement 

cooperation to combat these transnational criminal networks. 

Our programs focus on the areas where these criminal groups and networks operate, most 

notably Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Our capacity building 

programs take a comprehensive approach to addressing criminal organizations and networks by 
180


25840q-9.eps

expanding and strenb>thening the rule of law to increase the capacity of our partner governments 

to deny criminal organizations the permissive environment they need to operate. Key capacity 

building programs related to the movement of contraband and people include enhancements to 

interdiction forces, investigative capabilities, border controls, and migration management. 

Question: 

What role will US. public diplomacy play in countering the information campaign these external 

foreign actors are using in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer: 

The Bureau of Western Hemisphere AtTairs and our Embassy Public AtTairs Sections 

ensure accurate information is delivered to media and regional publics about the United States 

and its policies- by us and by others. We monitor information campaigns by external state 

foreign actors, such as China and Russia, as well as state-sponsored propaganda. Across public 

diplomacy- from communications campaign, to exchange programs to English-teaching centers 

and more- we deliver facts and accurate policy information to the general public and decision 

makers. 

We also work to combat infonnation campaigns mounted by non-state actors. The 

recruitment and radicalization to violence of foreign terrorist tighters is an emerging threat in 

pockets of the Western Hemisphere. 

Question: 

The United States has vitally important priorities for the Western Hemisphere in the areas of 

Security, Energy, and Democracy. These issues are all interdependent on one another, and in 

order to see progress in one of these areas, we need to also see clear progress in the other areas as 

well. How do you view each of these priorities and the need to focus on all three throughout the 

region given their interconnectedness? 

Answer: 

Working with our partners in the Western Hemisphere to advance security, develop 

sustainable energy, and build resilient democracies is critical to US. foreign policy objectives. 

This work contributes directly to the security and prosperity of the United States as our nation 

cannot maintain its own security and prosperity unless our Latin American and Caribbean 

partners make progress on these interconnected issues. 

High levels of insecurity undermine etTorts to make progress in nearly all areas of 

governance, weakening economic growth, social cohesion, democratic institutions, and energy 

production. By the same token, our experience in working with the governments of Colombia 

and Mexico shows that once adequate security is established in target areas, the state must follow 

up with the social and economic programs citizens need and deserve or the initial security gains 

will be undermined and short-lived. It is not enough that the hemisphere is overwhelmingly 

democratic; democracy must deliver tangible opportunities and justice to citizens. Strenb>thening 

democratic institutions, primarily through improvements in transparency, efficiency, and 

governance, are key elements of each of our citizen security initiatives in Mexico, Colombia, 

Central America, and the Caribbean. 
181


25840q-10.eps

Improving energy security through supply diversification (including natural gas and 

renewable energy) and better regional interconnection of electricity grids are also key elements 

for continued economic and social development in the region. Energy security continues to be a 

central issue for most countries in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Central America and 

the Caribbean, where expensive and unreliable electricity hampers economic growth and 

competitiveness. The United States works closely with governments across the Western 

Hemisphere, as well as other bilateral partners, multilateral institutions, and the private sector to 

ensure greater access to affordable and reliable energy. 

Question: 

Given that Mexican heroin production has increased significantly in recent years, why is the 

Administration proposing such large cuts to the Merida Initiative? How likely is Mexico to 

continue seizing illicit narcotics and deterring Central American migrants bound for the United 

States if US. financial support for those efforts declines? To what extent do you expect cuts in 

State Department assistance to Mexico would be otiset by increased Department of Defense 

support" 

Answer: 

We remain committed to supporting the Government of Mexico in combatting organized 

crime and the movement of drugs and other illicit goods throughout the hemisphere. The FY 

2018 budget request ret1ects the Administration's focused approach to foreign assistance. The 

State Department request for Mexico prioritizes issues that directly impact the safety and 

security of the United States, by strenb>thening border security and undermining the transnational 

criminal organizations that trat1ic drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, which are exacerbating 

the US opioid epidemic. 

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) continues to 

build the capacity of Mexican civilian security and justice sector institutions to strengthen 

borders and ports; disrupt the activities of transnational criminal organizations; interdict illegal 

drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines; and disrupt illicit tinancial networks. 

Assistance will improve Mexico's ability to bring offenders to justice by increasing the 

etiectiveness and professionalism of judicial institutions under Mexico's new accusatory justice 

system. In support of the May 2017 US.-Mexico Strategic Dialogue on Disrupting 

Transnational Criminal Organizations that Secretary Kelly and I led, INL is working with the 

Government of Mexico to identify new opportunities to combat transnational criminal 

organizations, including disrupting their business models. We are exploring new ways to 

strefib>then criminal investigations of money laundering, build Mexico's capacity to criminally 

prosecute and sanction financial crimes, and work jointly on detecting and interdicting bulk cash 

shipments from the United States to Mexico. The funding requested in FY 2018 is in addition to 

the $1.9 billion in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funds allocated since 

FY 2008. 

Secretary Mattis and I have committed our departments to work more closely together on 

security sector assistance (SSA) efforts and foreign assistance more broadly. We have 

established a new State-DoD SSA Steering Committee that is working to ensure a coordinated 

approach to our respective assistance programs. Our goal is to promote a joint approach that 

determines how best to leverage our unique resources and authorities to advance national 
182


25840q-11.eps

security priorities and partnerships in key countries such as Mexico in the most cost-etl'ective 

fashion. Together, we are reviewing how we can best target our FY 2018 request to advance our 

top policy priorities, such as countering transnational organized crime and illicit drug tratlicking. 

Question: 

Nicara6'lla I Democracy: Russian int1uence in Nicaragua, especially as it relates to military and 

intelligence support, has increased over the last few years. Daniel Ortega's government has 

continued to violate human rights, weaken and manipulate democratic institutions, and thrive otT 

of corruption. 

a. How has the increase of Russian support atiected US. support for security to Nicaragua? 

Answer: 

We are watching closely Russian etl'orts to assert its int1uence in Latin America and its 

increasing relationship with Nicaragua. For example, Russia has stated that its goal is to train 

law enforcement representatives from Central America on counternarcotics at their newly built 

training center in Managua. 

Despite Russian government etiorts to maintain its Soviet-era ties, the United States 

continues to coordinate with the Government ofNicara6'lla on such security concerns as reducing 

the t1ow of narcotics and migrants to the United States. The United States will continue to 

stren6>then our partnership with the Nicara6'llan people and work on their behalf to achieve a 

more prosperous, secure, and democratic Nicaragua. 

Question: 

What is the outlook for US. foreign aid to Nicaragua and how can it be used to best support and 

develop democratic actors who can begin to int1uence the current political system? 

Answer: 

The Department of State has repeatedly expressed concerns about the state of democracy 

in Nicaragua. The deterioration of Nicaragua's democratic institutions remains an area of 

significant concern. We will continue to press the Nicaraguan government to uphold democratic 

practices and rule of law, including press freedom and respect for universal human rights, 

consistent with its commitments under the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Assistance for 

civil society and democracy is an important aspect of our foreign assistance programming 

worldwide, including Nicara6'lla. 

We believe an engaged civil society and transparent democratic governance is vital to the 

sustainability of our programs, and to the functioning of a healthy democracy. The US. 

government will continue to make necessary adjustments to more effectively support established 

and emerging Nicara6'Uan civil society actors through USAID and Depm1ment of State small 

grants and technical assistance, as they participate in various democratic processes. USAID 

programs help strengthen civil society organizations, independent media, and youth pm1icipation 

and leadership to foster a more transparent, participatory, and democratic society. 
183


25840q-12.eps

Question: 

The QAS General Assembly will be in Mexico next month. How do you see the OAS role and 

the US. role within the OAS moving fonvard on Venezuela? 

Answer: 

The OAS has a vital role to play and the United States remains committed to working 

with OAS member-states in a unified approach to help Venezuela fmd a peaceful, democratic, 

and comprehensive solution to its current crisis. 

We continue strong diplomatic engagement with Secretary General Almagro and our 

regional partners to press ahead with additional measures to bring international pressure on the 

Madura regime. Our goal is to return to the full respect for the rule of law and tbe full respect 

for freedoms of political expression and participation in Venezuela consistent with the terms and 

spirit of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

The Democratic Charter remains an essential element of the inter-American system that 

our nations created together to uphold and defend democracy. 

Question: 

Recent Administration actions sanctioning the Supreme Court justices sent a strong message that 

tbe US. will no longer support corrupt Venezuelan government oflicials that undermine 

democratic institutions in the country. What other actions is the State Department considering to 

support the Venezuelan people? 

Answer: 

The US government is working with democratic governments throughout the 

hemisphere to support a regional approach to help Venezuela find a peaceful, democratic, and 

comprehensive solution to its current problems. Later this month, the General Assembly of the 

Organization of American States will meet in Cancun to discuss growing regional consensus. 

The international community will continue to speak up for democratic principles and respect for 

human rights in Venezuela. The region is deeply concerned about the functioning of democracy 

in Venezuela and we are working with a growing group oflike-minded countries to promote a 

sustainable Venezuelan-led solution. Such a solution should involve all interested parties, 

including civil society and Venezuela's democratically elected legislative body, the National 

Assembly. Such actions reflect the importance of working together to ensure Venezuela is able 

to adhere to the provisions enumerated in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

We will explore every option in our diplomatic and legal toolkit, including tbe use of visa 

restrictions and targeted economic sanctions to hold accountable those individuals, regardless of 

their rank or position, who participate in actions that undermine democratic processes or 

institutions, abuse or violate human rights, and restrict freedom of expression or freedom of 

peaceful assembly. 

Question: 

To what extent has the State Department done contingency planning for a potential government 

collapse or conflict in Venezuela? Is the US. prepared with a humanitarian response plan in the 

event that the Venezuelan government decides to accept assistance? 
184

f


25840q-13.eps

Answer: 

Based on current assessments, Venezuela's crisis is worsening as evidenced by the rise in 

deaths related to violent protests, economic mismanagement, and acute medicine and food 

shortages. The Department of State continues to monitor this developing situation with concern, 

anticipate potential contingencies, and is prepared to respond, as appropriate. The Department 

and US Agency for International Development have a long history of responding to changing, 

destabilizing circumstances in countries around the world and will engage with our partners, 

including the regional institutions of the Inter-American System to address changes to the 

situation in Venezuela. 

Authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the 

annual State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act provide 

some flexibility to reprogram, transfer, draw down, or use funds for contingency needs that occur 

outside the re1,>ular budget cycle. With these authorities, we may have the ability to provide 

initial support, possibly including, but not limited to, humanitarian assistance, stabilization, and 

democracy and human rights programming, as appropriate. 
185


25840r-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Gerry Connolly 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

In his written testimony, Secretary Tillerson said "In several other areas where we have chosen 

to make reductions, we will ask other donors and private sector partners to increase their 

support." President Trump has proposed a decrease of more than $13 billion in foreign assistance 

from FY 2017 to FY 2018. Which countries or companies have already committed to fill the 

gaps created by that reduction in funding for U.S. foreign assistance? How much have they 

committed to contributing? Have you beh'lln conversations with any other donors or private 

sector partners to increase their support in light of such a dramatic decrease? Have you identified 

target countries or partners to reach out to? 

Answer: 

The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request includes substantial funding to address critical 

needs around the world. We are communicating directly with our international partners at the 

highest levels via bilateral exchanges and through multilateral fora to seek their increased 

support and contributions in addressing these global challenges. Even with the proposed 

reductions in funding we will continue to be the leader in global health, humanitarian, and other 

international efforts. We are also looking to maximize the effectiveness of our own programs so 

that we can continue to offer America's helping hand to the world in the most effective and 

efficient way possible. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Deputy 

Secretary of State for Management and Resources. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Under 

Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and Environment. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
186


25840r-2.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Under 

Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Under 

Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Under 

Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for African Atiairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for South and Central Asian AtTairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
187


25840r-3.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for International Organizations. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
188


25840r-4.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Economic and Business Ail'airs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Resources. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Oceans and futemational Environmental and Scientific Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
189


25840r-5.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Political-Military Atl'airs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Education and Cultural Atliars. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Public Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions, however, per Public Law 112-166 Sec. 2: (j) 

Department of State; Assistant Secretary for Public Atl'airs and Assistant Secretary for 

Administration.- Section 1(c)(l) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 

U.S.C.. 265la(c)(l)) is amended- (1) by striking", each of whom shall be appointed by the 

President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and''; and (2) by adding at the end 

the following: "Each Assistant Secretary of State shall be appointed by the President, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate, except that the appointments of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Administration shall not be subject to 

the advice and consent of the Senate'' 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Administration. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions, however, per Public Law 112-166 Sec. 2: (j) 

Department of State; Assistant Secretary for Public Atl'airs and Assistant Secretary for 

Administration.- Section 1(c)(1) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 
190


25840r-6.eps

US.C.. 2651a(c)(l )) is amended- (I) by striking", each of whom shall be appointed by the 

President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and''; and (2) by adding at the end 

the following: "Each Assistant Secretary of State shall be appointed by the President, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate, except that the appointments of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Administration shall not be subject to 

the advice and consent of the Senate'' 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Consular Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. On August 3, 2017, Carl C. Risch was confinned by 

the Senate in the position of Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Diplomatic Security. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
191


25840r-7.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Legislative Affairs. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Director for the 

Otlice of Foreign Missions. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Director 

General for Human Resources of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Director for the 

Otlice of Civil Rights. 

Answer: 

The Director for the Otlice of the Civil Rights is a member of the Career Senior 

Executive Service headed by Gregory B. Smith. 
192


25840r-8.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Ambassador-atLarge for Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Ambassador-atLarge for the Ofiice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Ambassador-atLarge for the Oftlce of Global Criminal Justice. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Ambassador-atLarge for the Oftlce of Global Women's Issues. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Legal Adviser 

for the Ofiice of the Legal Adviser. 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualitied candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
193

f


25840r-9.eps

Question: 

By which date does the President intend to nominate someone for the position of Ambassador for 

the Otlice of the Chief of Protocol 

Answer: 

The Department is working closely with the White House to identify qualified candidates 

for our vacant senior leadership positions. 
194


25840s-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Daniel Donovan 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

The Administration's budget cuts global health by 25 percent and affects some of the most 

vulnerable populations in the world, women and children. 5.9 million children die every year, 

mainly of preventable or treatable conditions, like diarrhea and pneumonia- that's 16,000 

children every day. Over 300,000 women die due to complications with pregnancy. The US. 

alongside 174 other countries committed to ending preventable child and maternal deaths by the 

year 2035- as our part, the US. committed to saving 15 million children's lives and 800,000 

women's lives by 2020. 

Can you say that with these cuts to maternal and child health, nutrition, and other core, global 

health programs will keep us on track for reaching those goals? If not, do you have an account of 

how many lives will not be saved if these cuts are put in place? 

Answer: 

Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for USAID and relies on investment in 

and linkages across health programs including maternal and child health, nutrition, and malaria. 

USAID is committed to averting the deaths of 15 million children and 600,000 women by 2020, 

by working with other partners, including most importantly countries themselves, to mobilize 

additional resources and political will to focus efforts on the most etfective and etlicient 

interventions to prevent child and maternal deaths. 

This commitment remains. The FY 2018 request includes $1.5 billion to prevent child 

and maternal deaths. While the composition ofUSAID funding across the health areas varies 

year-to-year, this etfort has always relied upon partnership from country governments and other 

donors, and its continued success is linked to their sustained involvement by alL Family planning 

and reproductive health interventions are important contributors to maternal and child survival 

and we will work with other donors and host country governments to increase their funding for 

family planning/reproductive health in FY 2018. 

Question: 

A policy of the United States -led by the Departments of State and Treasury- is to confiscate 

funds once an individual or a group has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization or a 

Specially Designated Global Terrorist. It is also the policy of the United States to collect and 

save the interest on the confiscated funds. These funds (the original amount of money plus the 

interest) are then given back to the individual or group once they are no longer deemed a sponsor 

of internati anal terror. 

Can you tell me what lesson is learned if the United States confiscates funds, and then at a later 

date gives back more money than was originally confiscated? 
195


25840s-2.eps

Answer: 

When the US. government designates a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) 

under Section219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or an individual or group as a 

Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) under Executive Order 13224 all property and 

interest in property ofthe designated person subject to U.S. jurisdiction is blocked (i.e. frozen). 

By freezing the assets of those designated, the United States denies them access to funds that 

could be used for terrorism or to supp01t terrorists or acts of terrorism. Sanctions are intended, 

among other things, to incentivize a change in behavior on the part of the designated FTO or 

SDGT. Only if the group or individual is delisted -which mav occur, for example, if the 

circumstances which resulted in their designation ceases 10 exist would the assets become 

unfrozen. 

Question: 

Can you commit the Administration to work on an action plan or strategy to strengthen the 

global frontline health workforce? And can you explain the rationale for eliminating a budgetary 

allocation for global health security, especially given the broad cuts proposed across global 

health and growing threats of deadly disease outbreaks? 

Answer: 

The Administration is working to strengthen the frontline global health workforce to 

detect and prevent the spread of pandemics and promote national-level compliance with the 

WHO International Health Ret,>ulations. The United States promotes best practices in workforce 

development by encouraging countries to strengthen their frontline health workforce and build 

other domestic capacities to tind and stop disease outbreaks before they spread across borders 

and threaten US. citizens and the international community, as well as global commerce. 

The FY 2018 budget request pursues greater etliciencies and leveraging of resources. 

The FY 2018 requests using $72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola supplemental funds to 

support global health security, which would maintain support for global health security in 

development programs at FY 2016levels. 

The FY 2018 funding request will enable sustained support for global health security and 

the building of country-level systems to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging disease threats 

to the American people. These funds will enable the U.S. government, in partnership with other 

nations, international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent avoidable 

epidemics that could spread to the United States, detect threats early, and respond to disease 

outbreaks in an effort to prevent them from becoming global pandemics 

Question: 

USAID plays a critical and distinct role in global health research and development (R&D), 

supporting late-stage and implementation research to advance new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, 

and other health tools intended for use in remote and low-resource settings. Since 2000, the 

agency has supported development of 21 new health technologies with demonstrated track 

records of saving lives and cutting program costs. USAID's research investments are also critical 

for American health, and allow health technologies to be tested in regions of the world with the 
196

f


25840s-3.eps

highest disease burdens, which in turn ensures Americans have access to the most effective, 

high-performing health tools. Despite these returns, the Administration's FY18 budget proposal 

slashes USAID funding for global health R&D-- and even zeros USAID investments in 

HIV/AIDS research, including novel and urgently needed prevention tools like microbicides and 

an HIV vaccine. This work is unique, and not duplicative of research happening at other US 

Agencies. 

Can you detail why global health research is being de-prioritized by the Administration's budget 

at a time when global infectious disease epidemics are on the rise? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 budget consolidates all U.S. assistance for global HIV/AIDS efforts within 

the State Department to simplify the management and coordination of these investments. US AID 

will continue to remain one of the primary implementing agencies for PEPF AR, and will 

continue to implement a significant share of U.S. global HIV/AIDS assistance in this capacity. 

With regard to global health research, USAID intends to increase its efforts to leverage 

partners' expertise and resources, strengthen country capacity to conduct their own research and 

development (R&D), and strategically utilize market shaping and innovative financing tools to 

incentivize private companies to invest in R&D. 

Further, the FY 2018 request continues to support Global Health Security by requesting 

to use $72.5 million in remaining FY 2015 Ebola emergency funds, which would maintain a 

straight-line of support for global health security in development programs at the FY 2016levels. 

The remaining balances from the Ebola response are an appropriate source of funding for 

programs whose objective is to prevent and contain future outbreaks of existing or new diseases. 

Programming these funds will enable the U.S. government, in partnership with other nations, 

international organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent avoidable epidemics 

that could spread to the United States, detect threats early, and respond rapidly and effectively to 

disease outbreaks in an effort to prevent them from becoming global pandemics. 

While the United States will continue significant funding for global health programs, as 

well as infectious diseases, other stakeholders and the partner countries must do more to 

contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. 
197


25840t-1.eps

Question 1: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Keating 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC): OPIC operates annually at a surplus. Yet, the 

President's budget request proposed to eliminate this agency which supports private sector 

investment in development projects. 

I. Explain the justification for cutting agencies at the State Department, and specifically 

OPIC, Zthose are so efilcient and etTective that they save us money. 

Answer: 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) was set up by Congress "as an 

agency of the United States under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State", including 

review and t,'llidance on proposed projects. However, the Department of State is not engaged in 

the funding process for the Corporation. 

With regard to the budget request, the Administration is motivated by a general desire to 

reduce Federal interventions that distort the free market. 

Question 2: 

At a time when we face complex and challenging threats from terrorism and violent extremism, 

explain why there will be cuts to programming that research shows is important for curbing these 

threats? 

Answer: 

Countering the terrorist narrative, messaging, recruitment, and inspiration to violence is a 

critical part of defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups and networks. In FY 2018, the 

Administration is requesting $228 million for countering violent extremism programs, which is 

an increase over previous years. This funding would support ongoing etTorts to engage 

communities and reduce support for violent extremism in countries ranging from Bangladesh to 

Kosovo to Nigeria. However, projected cuts to the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering 

Violent Extremism's administrative funding will impact its ability to support ongoing 

programming and budget efforts, research and development with key CT partners, and strategic 

monitoring and evaluation activities. In addition, the Department of State has requested $31.9 

million in funding to support the statTand operations of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) to 

counter violent extremist messaging; GEC is also allowed to receive substantial additional 

funding from the Department of Defense for its messaging work, but has not yet secured that 

funding. 

Importantly, we encourage other donor countries, host-country governments and local 

partners to take responsibility for leading these etTorts; they have primary responsibility and are 
198


25840t-2.eps

best positioned to ensure sustained success. In fact, we have leveraged hundreds of millions of 

dollars over the last several years from Western European governments and other donors to fund 

many countering violent extremism initiatives and programming around the world. 

Question 3: 

Women and Security: Research has shown how critical women are to our national security and to 

promoting greater security around the world. 

L Will the Secretary support level funding or expanded tunding for the Office of Global 

Women's Issues? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to prioritize the rights and wellbeing of women and girls 

around the world as part of our foreign policy. The FY 2018 request maintains support for the 

Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) and includes $8.25 million, a straight-line ofFY 

2016, to support foreign assistance programs managed by this otlice. Within a constrained FY 

2018 request that required the Department to make difficult trade-o±I decisions, maintaining 

funding for S/GWI within the FY 2018 request ret1ects the high level at which this 

administration values the office and the role of women in national security. In addition, S/GWI 

continues to coordinate with bureaus across the Department to support the implementation of 

programs that address a wide range of women's and gender issues. 

Question 4: 

In directing the policy and initiatives of the State Department, will the Secretary ensure that 

women are meaningful participants across all work within the Department itself, and encourage 

counterparts in other countries to do the same? 

Answer: 

As I have said previously, "I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly empowering women's participation in economic activities in the lesser developed 

part of the world. There is study after study to contirm that when you empower women in these 

developing parts of the world, you change the tuture of the country." The State Department 

remains committed to continuing the important work of advancing the status of women and girls 

globally to support our foreign policy and national security objectives and increase U.S. 

economic prosperity Our diplomatic e±Iorts are more effective when we harness the full 

capacity of our workforce-and when we engage and support women and girls across the globe 

through diplomacy. 

Women are meaningful participants within the work of the Department The Bureau of 

Human Resources (HR) and the Chief Diversity Officer continuously assess and evaluate the 

Department's effectiveness. HR appointed a Senior Advisor on Diversity, Inclusion, and 

Outreach in the Director General's Office to provide strategic direction to the Department's 

diversity outreach activities and to help recruit and retain a workforce that ret1ects the diversity 

of the United States. 

Women now make up 41 percent of our Foreign Service Generalist and 28 percent of our 

Foreign Service Specialist workforce and more than 50 percent of the Civil Service workforce. 
199


25840t-3.eps

Women account for approximately 36 percent of the Generalist Senior Foreign Service- a 200 

percent increase from 16 percent 20 years ago. The representation of women in the Senior 

Executive Service has more than doubled, going from 18 percent to 38 percent over the same 

period. While we have made gains in gender diversity, we know we have more work to do. 

More broadly, tbe incorporation of gender considerations into larger foreign policy 

planning and execution is strategic and imperative. In line with the Department's Gender Policy 

Guidance, tbe Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues plays a central role in ensuring the 

Department has tbe know-how and the appropriate processes to strategically incorporate gender 

into policies and programs. We understand that it is a tun dam ental tenet of foreign policy tbat 

when women are able to participate politically and economically to the same degree as men, 

societies are more prosperous, stable and secure. When we invest in women and girls around the 

world, we are investing in families, prosperity, and peace, which benetits overall US national 

security and prosperity The Department harnesses bilateral and regional diplomacy, multilateral 

diplomacy, public diplomacy, and programming to encourage counterparts in other countries to 

support progress toward gender equality and the advancement of the status of women and girls. 

Question 5: 

Climate: With droughts and food crises in Syria or Bangladesh, it is impossible not to think 

about the connection between climate change and the threat environments across the world. 

Is tbe Secretary promoting the importance of addressing climate change as a national security 

issue within tbe US. government and to the Administration~ If so, what actions have been taken 

to date to promote a greater understanding within the US. government of the nexus bet\veen 

climate change and national security? 

Answer: 

Following the President's June 1 announcement that he intends to withdraw the United 

States from the Paris Agreement, we are re-evaluating many aspects of our international climate 

change policy. The Administration supports a balanced approach to climate change that protects 

the environment and lowers emissions, promotes American economic growth, and addresses 

energy security needs. 

Exchanges 

Educational and cultural exchange programs have long been important for my district and home 

state of Massachusetts. The proposed cuts to these programs are therefore deeply concerning 

because they are not only important for the country economically, but are at the heart of any 

successful foreign policy promoting people-to-people exchanges to increase cooperation and 

decrease the likelihood of conflict. Federal funding for these programs and support for private 

sector exchange programs remains crucial for ensuring that individuals of diverse backgrounds 

are able to participate in exchanges. 

Question 6: 

Provide and explain the evidence and metrics the Department is relying on to justify a 55% cut to 

exchange programs. 
200


25840t-4.eps

Answer: 

With reduced funding, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) will focus 

its resources on programs such as the Fulbright and the International Visitor Leadership 

Programs that provide global reach and allow for broad flexibility in addressing foreign policy 

themes. These and other foundational programs are highly rated by our embassies around the 

world and are models of demonstrated effectiveness. ECA monitors and evaluates its exchange 

programs, beginning with setting goals that advance US foreign policy, monitoring throughout 

program implementation to ensure the highest quality performance. ECA also does long-term 

impact evaluations of its programs, and tracks and engages alumni to ensure return on 

investment. 

In determining which programs and activities require adjustments in resources, ECA's 

leadership turns to multiple sources of data and program feedback, as well as strategic guidance 

from the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Afiairs, Regional Bureaus, the 

National Security Council, the inter-agency, Ambassadors and other field otlicers. ECA 

analyzes impact data required by its grant agreements with implementing partners, performance 

measurement and independent evaluations of individual ECA programs, and results data 

collected through the Functional Bureau Strategy process. ECA's Digital Outreach team also 

contributes to evaluation in the Bureau, using an array of social media analytics to collect data on 

the etl'ecti veness of ECA' s on-line outreach, courses and programs. 

Question 7: 

Explain how these cuts will avoid any detrimental impact on the Department's ability to promote 

peaceful relations with other countries. 

Answer: 

Facing a reduction in resources, the State Department would prioritize its engagement 

with emerging world leaders through United States Government-sponsored exchanges. 

Academic, cultural, and professional exchange programs, at reduced levels, would remain 

significant and effective tools to meet foreign policy goals, while building ties and establishing 

networks with current and future generations of foreign policymakers and leaders. 

Engaging broad audiences at home and abroad leverages the expertise and resources of 

US. academia and the private sector in support of US. foreign policy goals. Through program 

evaluation and performance measurement, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Atiairs has 

developed cost-efl'ective models for its exchanges and also leverages virtual programs, alumni 

engagement, and rapid-response mechanisms to respond to US. foreign policy and national 

security priorities. In addition, Private Sector programs run by US. private sector sponsors 

designated by the Department bring more than 300,000 exchange visitors to the United States 

each year in 13 ditl'erent categories including professors, research scholars, college and 

university students, interns, trainees, au pairs, summer work travel participants and others; these 

programs are funded through fees paid by exchange visitors, and do not require many 

Department resources. 

Question 8: 

Explain the Department's current or proposed plans to curtail each exchange program within its 

purview. 
201


25840t-5.eps

Answer: 

The Department's budget request proposes to retain its portfolio of established and 

effective exchange program models, in most cases, but to scale them back. The Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural A±Iairs will continue its support for core global programs such as 

Fulbright and the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), as well as a nucleus of 

proven programs for American and foreign youth, professional fellows, artists, and athletes, that 

have both the scope and flexibility to serve the US. national interest. 

The Bureau obtains etliciencies through streamlining and consolidating cross-cutting 

program management activities, such as alumni engagement and program evaluation, while 

continuing to track program impact and outcomes. Since U.S. Ambassadors rely on exchange 

alumni, who comprise ready-made networks of citizens prepared to work with us on shared 

goals, sustaining contact with them is imperative. 

Question 9: 

Civil Society: Democratic and inclusive governance and a space for civil society to engage with 

government in a robust and meaningful manner are cornerstones of stability, and stability is 

critical for security. I am therefore deeply concerned about how State Department cuts will 

undermine the ability of the United States to continue programming in countries where e±Iorts to 

promote democracy, governance, and the role of civil society are crucial for creating greater 

security. 

Has the Department conducted an assessment of the anticipated collateral impact of decreasing 

or eliminating funding for democracy, governance, and civil society programming abroad? 

a. If so, was this assessment conducted prior to the submission of the budget request 

to Congress? 

b. Please provide the results of this assessment. 

Is the State Department preparing measures to mitigate identified anticipated negative impacts 

from reducing funding to these programs? 

Answer: 

An independent civil society is not only critical to the delivery of development and 

humanitarian assistance, it is also an important bulwark against state fragility and the political 

radicalization that is linked to extremism. Despite the critical role that Civil Society 

Organizations (CSOs) play in a country's development process, CSOs have faced a mounting 

backlash and closing of the political space in which they operate in many parts of the world. In 

2017, Freedom House reported the eleventh consecutive year of global decline in civil liberties 

and political rights. 

In response, the Department of State and USAID's FY 2018 budget request includes $1.6 

billion for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) programs, of which, $261.6 

million is dedicated to civil society. This level support CSOs working in closing and closed 

spaces by building their capacity to galvanize citizen participation, foster a positive shift in 

government responsiveness to citizen demands, improve ±reedom of information, and expand 

civic participation and CSO engagement with governments for improved accountability. 

As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and e±Iectiveness of U.S. taxpayer 

dollars, we acknowledge that we have to make some tough choices about our approaches and 
202


25840t-6.eps

programming pnont1es. We \Vill strategically allocate our resources to our most important 

policy priorities. It is also important to highlight that resources do not equate to outcomes nor 

the entirety of our commitment to these etl'orts. Our Ambassadors and our diplomats also 

advance DRG objectives in country. 

Question 11 and 12: 

Mr. Kushner's Role: To follow· up on the Secretary's response during the hearing that it would 

be necessary to ask Mr. Kushner himself about whether he had engaged in foreign policy 

conversations without first consulting with the Secretary: 

11. Explain hmv regularly Mr. Kushner takes part in foreign policy discussions w·ith the 

Secretary or other o±ncials within the State Department. 

a. As a principal member of the National Security Council and the chief foreign 

atiairs adviser to the President, the Secretary of State ret,'lllarly communicatesvia multiple fora -with the President, the Special Assistant for National Security 

Atiairs, and other senior advisors to the President on foreign policy matters. 

12. Is there an established protocol for communication or collaboration between Mr. Kushner 

and the State Department when Mr. Kushner is engaged in matters of foreign policy? 

a. As a principal member of the National Security Council and the chief foreign 

atiairs adviser to the President, the Secretary of State regular! y communicatesvia multiple fora -w·ith the President, the Special Assistant for National Security 

Atiairs, and other senior advisors to the President on foreign policy matters. 

Question 13 

Have the Russians committed to any change in behavior in North Korea? 

Answer: 

Russia can play a constructive role in encouraging the DPRK regime to cease and roll 

back its nuclear program. However, Russia (along w·ith China) has resisted and watered dmvn 

all the sanctions measures the United States and partners have proposed in response to the 

DPRK's continued unlav\itul development of it nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Russia 

opposes tighter sanctions despite having allowed the passage of several recent UN Security 

Council resolutions in response to DPRK nuclear and missile tests, out of belief that additional 

political and economic pressure on North Korea will destabilize the entire region and possibly 

lead to armed cont1ict. Russia also states that the sanctions so far have failed to prevent North 

Korea nuclear and missile tests. We continue to urge Russia to downgrade its DPRK guest 

\Vorker program as their remittances are siphoned off by the regime to fund the banned weapons 

programs. We also continue to urge Russia to cut its oil exports to DPRK and cut tinancial ties 

w·ith the regime. 
203

f


25840t-7.eps

Question 14 

Has the State Department recommended any action be taken against Russia for their 

undermining of sanctions against North Korea? If so, what recommendations have been made 

and are there any plans to carry out any of those recommendations? 

Answer: 

We will utilize all tools at our disposal to choke off resources that fund the DPRK' s 

nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation programs. This Administration will go wherever the 

evidence leads to impose targeted tinancial sanctions on entities or individuals that support North 

Korea's proscribed programs. We have already imposed sanctions against Russian entities and 

individuals found to be aiding the DPRK If we find other bad actors supporting DPRK's illegal 

activities, we will take appropriate action. 

Question 15: 

What are tbe Department's policy recommendations for addressing the threat posed by North 

Korea if Russia does not stop aiding North Korea? 

Answer: 

Witb our allies and partners around the world- and we hope this includes Russia- we 

will show the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) that the only path to a secure, 

economically-prosperous future is to abandon its unlawful programs that endanger international 

peace and security. We will utilize all tools at our disposal to choke otf resources tbat tund the 

DPRK' s nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation programs. This Administration will go 

wherever the evidence leads to impose targeted tinancial sanctions on entities or individuals that 

support North Korea's proscribed programs. We have already imposed sanctions against 

Russian entities and individuals found to be aiding the DPRK. If we tind other bad actors 

supporting DPRI\.'s illegal activities, we will not hesitate to sanction them as well. 
204


25840u-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Ann Wagner 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

This week, Panama switched diplomatic relations from Taiwan and to China. China's 

checkbook diplomacy is a dangerous provocation to cross-Strait relations, and its cheap tricks in 

our own backyard are particularly concerning. I was impressed with President Trump's call to 

President Tsai Ing-wen, and I am adamant that we fully engage with Taiwan through high-level 

official visits, weapons sales, and pressing for Taiwan's inclusion in international organizations. 

Secretary Tillerson, how will you respond to China's actions, ensure that Taiwan will not be 

used as a bargaining chip in U.S. relations with China, and build stronger ties with our 

democratic partner in the Asia-Pacitic? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to oppose unilateral actions by either side to alter the status 

quo across the Strait We have a deep and abiding interest in cross-Strait stability and believe the 

dialogue between the two sides has enabled peace, stability, and development in recent years. 

The United States urges all concerned parties to engage in productive dialogue and to avoid 

escalatory or destabilizing moves. We consider the People's Republic of China's e±Iorts to 

persuade Taiwan's diplomatic partners to switch recognition from Taipei to Beijing to be 

destabilizing, and we reaffirm our commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the region. 

This Administration has reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to our one China policy, based 

on the Three Joint U.S.-China Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act Under the umbrella 

of our unofticial relationship, the United States and Taiwan conduct the tull range of normal 

interactions, including anns sales, visits, trade negotiations, and education and cultural 

exchanges. In addition, we share strong economic ties: Taiwan is our lOth-largest trading 

partner and 7th-largest agricultural export market, and Taiwan's robust participation in events 

such as the Select USA Summit, wherein the delegation announced its intention to invest nearly 

$34 billion in the United States, demonstrates the importance of our economic relationship. We 

continue to pursue avenues of deepening our unofticial relationship with Taiwan, including 

working towards implementing a Global Entry program for Taiwan and coordinating Global 

Cooperation and Training Framework (GCTF) events to address global problems. Taiwan is a 

beacon of democracy in Asia, a reliable partner of the United States, and a force for good in the 

world, and we value advancing the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. 

Qnestion: 

What is the State Department doing to counter Iran's use of proxy militias to project power? Will 

the Administration apply sanctions to Iranian-backed militias that are working under the 

direction of IRGC Quds Force and with Hezbollah7 
205


25840u-2.eps

Iran's destabilizing activities in the region are a threat to the United States and its 

partners. Iran continues to provide military equipment, financing, and training to the Assad 

regime and has mobilized foreign fighters in Syria. Iran has supplied Lebanese Hizballah with 

millions of dollars and arms and has trained thousands of its fighters. 

Iran is providing military equipment, including sophisticated weapons, funding, and 

training, to Yemen's Houthi rebels to use against the Yemeni government, Saudi Arabia and its 

coalition partners, and to threaten the Red Sea shipping lanes. Iran also continues providing 

weapons, support, and training to militant groups in Bahrain. 

Iran remains subject to a variety of US. sanctions, including a US. embargo on most 

trade with Iran, numerous restrictions related to Iran's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, 

and other sanctions authorities targeting its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, 

support for terrorism, and destabilizing activities in the region. This administration is committed 

to aggressively enforcing these authorities and has already announced numerous sanctions 

designations in response to Iran's malign behavior and has not hesitated to take action against 

Iran when its behavior warrants a firm response. 

Iran's proxies, including Hizballah, also are subject to a variety of sanctions, including, 

the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act (HIFPA), which was passed in December 

of2015, gives us the authorities to take action against any foreign financial institution that 

knowingly facilitates significant transactions for Hizballah, including any Iranian financial 

institution that facilitation such transactions for Hizballah. 

We also continue to work extensively with likeminded countries, including those who are 

members of the multilateral export control regimes, our Gulf partners, and Israel to deter and 

disrupt Iranian threats. Examples of such cooperation include military and diplomatic efforts to 

prevent Iranian weapons shipments into Yemen and efforts to interdict ballistic missile 

technology destined for Iran. We also work with partners in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and 

Asia to bolster their capacity to investigate and prosecute Hizballah's illicit activities around the 

world. 

Question: 

I very much appreciate the President's serious commitment to theft of US. intellectual property, 

which costs us hundreds of billions per year. How will the State Department hold Chinese actors 

accountable for American IP theft? 

Answer: 

The Administration remains committed to ensuring that US. owners ofiP have a full and 

fair opportunity to use and profit from their IP around the globe. We continue to press China to 

strengthen the legal and regulatory systems for entrepreneurship and innovation through highlevel discussions including the Comprehensive Economic Dialo6'lle announced by Presidents 

Trump and Xi, the "Special301" and Notorious Market reports, and State Department programs 

to build public awareness of the value ofiP rights. The State Department also works closely 

with the US. Trade Representative, Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and Homeland 

Security, as well as with international partners to use our available tools to combat the theft of 

American IP. 
206

f


25840u-3.eps

Question: 

As a former U.S. Ambassador, I cannot support such large cuts in foreign aid, but I do genuinely 

appreciate your efforts to reorganize the State Department, and ensure safety for U.S. citizens, 

our allies, and partners. But with these goals in mind, I would like to better understand the 

rationale behind cutting State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons-which 

has done fantastic work-by 68% from FY16levels? 

Answer: 

The reduction in our FY 2018 request for anti-tratlicking assistance largely ret1ects the 

Administration's broader reduction in economic, development, and law enforcement 

assistance. In a constrained budget environment, ditlicult trade-oft' decisions must be made, 

however the request continues support for targeted bilateral and regional anti-tratlicking 

programs as well as $17 million in centrally-managed INCLE funds for the Otlice to Monitor 

and Combat Tratlicking in Persons (J/TIP) to strengthen the ability of partner governments and 

civil society to prosecute tratlickers, protect victims, and prevent human tratiicking. The 

Administration has reaftirmed its commitment to counter traftick:ing in persons as part of the 

l'residenlial Jixeculive Order on lin,forcing Federal Law wilh Respec//o li'ansnalional Criminal 

Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking. 
207


25840v-1.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative David N. Cicilline 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Has the President ever asked you to pledge your loyalty to him on any occasion? If so, please 

describe the circumstances. 

Answer: 

I took an oath of office wherein I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the 

United States. 

Question: 

Secretary Tillerson, when you are speaking with leaders from allies or adversaries, are you 

confident that you are speaking accurately on behalf of this administration and the presidenC Do 

you believe that foreign leaders see you as having the authority to convey American positions 

and decisions? 

Answer: 

Yes, when I am speaking with leaders and allies I am confident they believe I am 

representing the administration and President accurately. 

Question: 

Based on your experience, what do you think are the comparative advantages of State and 

US AID's missions, timelines, projects, and personnel? Where do you see efficiencies that may 

be gained? 

Answer: 

These matters- the comparative advantages of State and USAID's missions, timelines, 

projects, and personnel, as well as possible efficiencies to be gained- will be discussed and 

articulated during our redesign process. We look forward to sharing our findings with you and 

seeking your feedback prior to implementation. 

Question: 

Was it your intention, by zeroing out the budget for family planning and reproductive health 

programs, to cause more unintended pregnancies, more maternal and newborn deaths, and more 

unsafe abortions around the world? 
208


25840v-2.eps

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request includes $1.5 billion to prevent child and maternal deaths. While 

the composition ofUSAID funding across the health programs varies year-to-year, this effort 

has always relied upon partnership from country governments and other donors, and its 

continued success is linked to sustained involvement by alL Family planning and reproductive 

health programs are important contributors to maternal and child survival and we will work with 

other donors and host country governments to best coordinate all sources of health assistance in 

FY 2018. 

Question: 

You and others have consistently said that it is the intention of the Administration to ask other 

countries to step up and fill the gaping funding gaps that this proposed budget would leave. Have 

you conveyed to various countries what you expect their contributions to be, and received 

specific commitments for funding? 

Answer: 

The Department of State and USAID must advance our efforts to engage other countries 

to address global challenges. As part of our efforts, we will work to ensure that other donor 

countries contribute their fair share. We will continue to engage diplomatically with allies and 

partners to advance shared policy priorities and bilateral partnerships. Our allies are taking our 

calls for increased support seriously. 

Even with reductions in timding, we will continue to be the leader in international 

development, global health, democracy and good governance initiatives, as well as humanitarian 

etiorts. As we work to streamline efforts to ensure et1iciency and etiectiveness of U.S. taxpayer 

dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritize and make some tough choices. Focusing our 

etiorts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals and national security interests. 

Question: 

During your tirst trip to Beijing, in a departure from the practice of your predecessors, you chose 

not to take traveling press, including to China which is a country that is notorious for limiting its 

citizen's access to information. On the same trip, the Korean press reported that you did not 

attend a dinner with government ot1icials due to ''fatigue." You later denied these claims, stating 

that the South Korean press had misrepresented the issue. 

a) What did you mean when you said you weren't a big press access person? 

b) In previous administrations, advancing free an open press has been a foreign-policy goaL 

Is that no longer the case? 

c) Do you believe your exclusion of U.S. press - a break from longstanding practice -

inevitably gave foreign media undue power to spin the narrative? 

d) Do you see the media as an important amplifier for U.S. diplomatic leadership and soft 

power? 

e) Will you tal<e press with you on future trips? 
209


25840v-3.eps

Answer: 

We believe in the importance of a tree and open press in all societies. I would point you 

to my World Press Freedom Day statement this year, which reaffirmed our commitment to 

promoting the fundamental principles of a free press around the world: 

h.!1g~j/w\vw.state.gov/secretarv/remarks/20l7i05/2,}Q§07.htm. 

The Department is committed to transparency and accountability to the American people. 

We have multiple ways to ensure that US. and foreign publics remain informed about US 

foreign policy. One important point to clarify, the US and international media were part of my 

March 2017 trip to Japan, South Korea and China. I fielded reporters' questions a press 

conference at each stop, including in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing as well as a TV interview with a 

US. network while standing on the North Korea side of the DMZ. My meetings, both in 

Washington and during my overseas travel, typically have a press component 

Question: 

The FY 16 omnibus requires you to certify and report to Congress that the Egyptian government 

has met a number of benchmarks on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law before 

releasing 15 percent ($195 million) of Egypt's military aid. Can you tell us if the Egyptian 

government, for example: has released political prisoners, is implementing laws or policies to 

govern democratically, is taking consistent steps to protect and advance the rights of women and 

religious minorities, and is providing detainees with due process of law? Mter President el-Sisi 

signed a draconian new law restricting ci vii society and reports of an escalated crackdown 

against civil society organizations in Egypt, do you believe the Egyptian government is 

implementing reforms that protect "the ability of civil society organizations and the media to 

function without interference"? What examples, if any, can you provide as evidence of those 

actions by the Egyptian government? What examples, if any, can you provide as evidence of 

the Egyptian government violating those principles? 

Answer: 

The Egyptian government periodically grants pardons and a fairly large number of 

prisoners have been released over the past few years. However, few political prisoners have 

been included in this process. Some notable exceptions are religious dissident Islam el-Beheiry, 

who was pardoned in November 2016, and Aya Hijazi, her husband, and their colleagues, who 

were acquitted in April 2017. Thousands of individuals remain detained on charges of violating 

Egypt's Demonstrations Law. 

The government of Egypt conducted elections for the presidency and parliament that, 

were professionally administered in accordance with the country's laws. Nevertheless, there 

were concerns about restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and expression 

and its negative impact on the political climate surrounding the elections. Turning these 

institutional structures into a functioning democratic system of governance requires greater 

respect for civil liberties, including allowing civil society to treely operate and permitting 

opportunities to treely express dissent 

Egypt has made some positive steps on religious minorities and women's rights by 

improving the status of Christians and passing legislation restricting female genital mutilation. 

The passage of a new church construction law marked a positive development for ensuring more 

equal treatment of the Coptic population, and allowed the government to finance the construction 
210


25840v-4.eps

of churches destroyed under the previous government. However, perpetrators of violence against 

the Christian community still generally escape justice through the use of "reconciliation 

sessions." Courts generally acted independently, although individual courts sometimes lack 

impartiality and arrive at politically motivated outcomes. We remain concerned by lack of 

respect for fair trial guarantees, and about excessive use of preventative custody and pretrial 

detention, trials involving hundreds of defendants, and the use of military courts to try civilians. 

I testified previously that we were extremely disappointed by President Sisi's signature of 

the NGO law. This legislation as written raises concerns about Egypt's commitments to reforms 

protecting the ability of civil society to function without interference. The law's implementation, 

however, will depend on the re6'lllations that will determine how to apply the legislation. Civil 

society activists are regularly subjected to asset freezes, travel restrictions and arrests. The 

government has thus far failed to resolve the ongoing "foreign funding case" which involved 

convictions against US. citizens and Egyptian employees ofUS.-registered non-profits. Egypt 

recently blocked access to more than a hundred web sites including those of some of the best 

known news and human rights organizations. We have raised- and will continue to raise- our 

serious concerns about the NGO law, and stress the fundamental importance of respect for 

human rights and the need for a robust civil society with the Egyptian government at the highest 

levels. 

Question: 

This budget requests $75 million in economic assistance to Egypt, which includes money for 

democracy and development programs. Egyptian President el-Sisi recently ratified a draconian 

new NGO law which would make it virtually impossible for independent civil society to operate 

in Egypt through restrictive registration and funding processes. According to the Project on 

Middle East Democracy, Egypt's new NGO law will also require international NGOs to obtain 

"prior approval from the National Authority to operate in Egypt. They have to purchase a 

$20,000 pennit; this fee would increase by 20 percent every t1 ve years." A longstanding 

provision ofU.S.law known as the "Brownback Amendment" asserts that "with respect to the 

provision of democracy, human rights, and governance activities, the organizations 

implementing such assistance, the specific nature of that assistance, and the participants in such 

programs shall not be subject to the prior approval by the government of any foreign 

country'' In your view, does Egypt's new NGO law violate the Brownback Amendment by 

giving the Egyptian government veto power over US.-funded democracy programs? More 

broadly, with this new law in place, what kind of economic, development, or democracy 

programming is even possible for US. assistance to support in Egypt? Do you believe that 

repeal of this NGO law should be a pre-requirement to the United States providing continued 

economic aid to Egypt? 

Answer: 

The Egyptian government is an important partner on a number of key US foreign policy 

priorities. Since the Trump Administration came into otllce, we have seen some progress in 

various aspects of the bilateral relationship: the release of American citizen Aya Hijazy, 

increased military cooperation (including agreement to move forward on Bright Star), and 

agreements with three US companies totaling $750 million over ten years, including a $575 

million letter of intent to purchase GE locomotives US. businesses. However, in the wake of 
211


25840v-5.eps

President al-Sisi's signature of the problematic NGO law, Secretary Tillerson has expressed his 

disappointment. From the time parliament proposed this legislation until President al-Sisi 

approved it, the US. clearly and repeatedly communicated our concerns about the law and urged 

the GOE to revise it. 

We are actively considering how best to address this deeply problematic legislation, and 

are watching closely the development of the implementing re6>ulations for this law. We are also 

examining the implications of the law for the implementation of US. assistance programs. We 

will continue to press the Egyptians to enable US. assistance programs and provide civil society 

the necessary freedom to operate. 

The Department of State and USAID implement programs consistent with the 

Brownback Amendment. Many of the practical implications of Egypt's new NGO law remain 

unclear at this point, and we are trying better to understand the law, how it will be implemented, 

and how it might impact our programs and implementing partners. 

Question: 

This budget eliminates foreign military financing grants for every country in the world except for 

four, including $1.3 billion for Egypt A May 2016 report from the GAO indicated that a lack of 

cooperation from Egyptian authorities "limited US. efforts to verify the use and security of 

certain equipment." Since that time, a disturbing video from April 2017 shows members of the 

Egyptian military shooting unarmed detainees to death at point-blank range in the Sinai 

Peninsula and staging the killings to look as if they had happened in combat. I am deeply 

concerned about the United States continuing to provide military assistance to Egypt while 

Egyptian authorities continue to deny access to US. o±licials seeking to verify that such 

equipment is not being used to commit gross human rights violations, in accordance with the 

Leahy Law. Have your Egyptian counterparts assured you that US. officials will have full 

access to the Sinai to make such verification? In your view, is the Egyptian military currently in 

compliance with the Leahy Law? 

Answer: 

The Foreign Military Financing program with E6>ypt underpins the U.S.-Egypt security 

partnership and promotes key US. security interests in a volatile region, including in the effort to 

defeat ISIS. 

IS-Sinai continues to target Egyptian military, security, and government personnel and 

increasingly civilians in the Sinai. ISIS attacks in the Nile Valley, including the Palm Sunday 

bombing of churches in the Nile Delta cities of Tanta and Alexandria, are also increasing. We 

remain concerned by reports of repressive counterterrorism tactics in the Sinai that include 

curfews and raiding of homes. The Department is also deeply concerned by the recent video 

purportedly showing extra-judicial killings in the Sinai. The Department is continuing to analyze 

the video and working to identity those who have committed these actions. Senior Department 

officials have conveyed these concerns directly to the Egyptian government and urged the 

Egyptian government to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation, and hold the 

responsible individuals to account The Department will continue to follow developments 

closely from both Washington and Cairo, and will continue to express US. concerns at senior 

levels. 
212


25840v-6.eps

The Egyptian government continues to limit outside access to the conflict area in 

northern Sinai, apart from official travel to Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) facilities. 

In the summer of2016, the government allowed US. officials to tour development projects in 

the Sinai near the Suez Canal and the Egyptian 2"d Field Army Headquarters on the Sinai side of 

Ismailiyah. However, at senior levels, the Departments of State and Defense continue to press 

the Egyptian government for greater access to northern Sinai to conduct required end-use 

monitoring. 

We have applied and continue to comply in full with the Leahy Law in Egypt. The 

Department continuously reviews information from all sources on potential gross violations of 

human rights by foreign security force units. If a unit is credibly implicated in a gross violation 

of human rights, the unit would not eligible for assistance under the Leahy Law. 

Question: 

Can you explain the rationale for completely eliminating the Emergency Refugee and Migration 

(ERMA) account, as the President's Budget Request would do? This account is authorized at 

$100 million and is drawn down by authority of the President so that the Department of State can 

respond to displacement emergencies and prevent regional instability. The President's Budget 

Request claims that these functions can be carried out under the Migration and Refugee 

Assistance (MRA) account, and yet that account would also be cut by 10%, rather than increased 

by $100 million. Can you explain the rationale for eliminating this tool of diplomacy? 

Answer: 

We remain committed to providing lifesaving assistance to those who need it most. The 

MRA request, in concert with FY 2017 resources, will enable the US. Government to respond to 

the major humanitarian emergencies around the globe. For several years, the MRA account has 

supported emergency refugee needs. The FY 2018 budget request still includes support for 

emergency refugee and migration needs within the MRA account, but eliminates duplication and 

streamlines support for refugee and migration needs into one account. 

We will continue to ensure that we are using funds as efficiently and etTectively as 

possible in order to meet current and unforeseen needs. Other donors will need to do more to 

assist in responding to humanitarian crises around the world. 

Question: 

Despite the fact that the two executive orders to stop the refugee resettlement program for four 

months were halted by a series of court injunctions, it appears that: 

• The USC IS Refugee Corps interviews of refugee applicants have slowed down. 

• Delays in the processing of security checks for refugee applicants has resulted in 

different parts of these clearances expiring at ditl'erent times and since each step in 

the security check process is time limited, this has created setbacks and longer waits 

for refugees in the pipeline 

How is this in keeping with the court injunctions on the retugee executive order, as well as the 

congressional intent, made clear in the FY17 CR and Omnibus funding, that resettlement is to be 
213


25840v-7.eps

maintained? Congress has appropriated the same amount of funding to both the Bureau of 

Population, Retugee and Migration \Vithin the State Department, and the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement within Health and Human Services, as last year, when close to 85,000 refugees 

\Vere admitted. 

Answer: 

It is important to note that the Department of State is only one of the federal agencies that 

implements the U.S. Retugee Admissions Program. The budgets and operational capacity of the 

State Department and all of our interagency partners affect the pace of refugee admissions. The 

Department of State defers to the Department of Homeland Security regarding questions about 

the pace of U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services Refugee Corps interview·s and defers to 

our la\v enforcement and intelligence agency partners regarding questions related to security 

check processing. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by the President on May 5, provided full 

year funding for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, including for the Refugee 

Admissions Program. Previous limits on the number of refugees who could travel to the United 

States had been put in place to operate \Vi thin the budget allocated under the Continuing 

Resolution. After the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed, the Department of State 

instructed its overseas partners to schedule refugees for travel \Vithout any numerical restrictions 

after they have completed the highly rigorous and necessary security vetting and other 

processing. This instruction \Vas given in conformity with Department of Justice guidance 

regarding the Hawaii Court's injunction, in consultation with our interagency partners, and 

consistent with our operational capacity. The September 2016 Presidential Determination states 

that up to 110,000 refugees may be admitted to the United States in FY 2017. This language 

represents a ceiling on retugee admissions-it is not a mandatory target We are not in a position 

to speculate as to the final number of refugees that will be admitted by the end of this fiscal year. 

Question: 

How many retugees does the President plan to admit this next fiscal year, and how does this 

compare to the historical average since the 1980 Refugee Act? 

Answer: 

Each year, the President makes an annual determination, in consultation with Congress, 

regarding the retugee admissions ceiling for the following Fiscal Year. That determination is 

expected to be made prior to the end ofFY 2017. We do not have further information on this 

issue at this time. 

Question: 

Our assistance program for Nagorno Karabakh has, since FY98, supported life-saving maternal 

health care, provided clean drinking water for families, and cleared mines and unexploded 

ordnance from farms and villages. HALO Trust, \Vhich is leading the demining etiort, reports 

that it has completed approximately 88% of its mission, but needs continued U.S. support to 

finish its life-saving work. Additional humanitarian needs exist in Nagorno Karabakh- \Vhich, 

aside from U.S. aid and help from Annenia, does not receive any international or multi-national 
214


25840v-8.eps

assistance or development support. Among these unmet needs are rehabilitation services, such 

as those that the Lady Cox Rehabilitation Center seeks -within its limited means -to provide for 

children, adults, and the elderly with disabilities. 

Are you supportive of continued U.S. assistance to Nagorno Karabakh, with a special focus on 

completing demining etl'orts and expanding our support to include health care and rehabilitation 

services? Which regions might you anticipate a need for funding that is not in the current budget 

request? 

Answer: 

Since 1998, the United States has provided over $45 million in humanitarian assistance to 

victims of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including food, shelter, emergency and medical 

supplies, access to quality healthcare and water, and demining projects. 

Within our limited resource envelope, current US.-tunded assistance programs have 

prioritized humanitarian demining. USAID's program with HALO Trust is scheduled for 

completion in September 2017. HALO Trust estimates that by this time, they will have cleared 

97.6 percent of the areas that require demining. The State Department and US AID support the 

demining program and are currently reviewing information from HALO Trust requesting 

additional funds, while taking into account available resources and competing priorities. We 

remain focused on completing demining as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. 

Question: 

Has the Department of State formally requested that the Republic Turkey waive all claims of 

diplomatic immunity for those foreign diplomats or security personnel involved, either directly 

or indirectly in the May 16th assault at Sheridan Circle against peacetul protesters? 

Answer: 

No, the Department has not asked for a waiver of immunity from the Republic of Turkey. 

The Department of State is working with the Department of Justice to examine the findings of 

the investigation and is weighing what additional steps might be appropriate in this context. 

Each case will be considered individually and our actions will be responsive and proportional to 

the charges. 

Question: 

To your knowledge, has President Erdogan apologized or expressed any regret for the May 16th 

attack by his bodyguards against peace±ul protesters on American soil? 

Answer: 

The Department of State has no knowledge of President Erdogan apologizing or 

expressing regret for the May 16 assault. 

Question: 

Are you satisfied with the Turkish government's response to your statements and other 

official US. reactions to the May 16th attack by President Erdogan's bodyguards against 

peaceful protesters on American soil? 
215


25840v-9.eps

Answer: 

We are, of course, disappointed in the Turkish government's failure to take responsibility 

for the criminal actions committed by of some of President Erdogan's bodyguards. 

Question: 

Do you agree with Senators Graham and Leahy regarding the potential implications of the May 

16th attack on future US assistance to Turkey? 

Answer: 

Any actions taken in regards to the May 16 assult should not undermine greater foreign 

policy goals such as destroying ISIS and promoting regional stability in the Middle East 

Question: 

Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Patrick Leaby of the Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs warned, in a May 18th letter 

to Turkey's Ambassador to the United States, that the May 16th attack by President Erdogan's 

bodyguards against peaceful demonstrators in Washington, DC will result in "potential 

implications for assistance to Turkey." 

In connection to that assault, I have several questions: 

e. Has the pending sale of small arms to the Turkish government previously noticed to 

Congress been placed on hold or stopped altogether? 

Answer: 

I share your concerns regarding this issue. Following the May 16 incident between 

members of President Erdogan' s security detail and protestors outside the Turkish Ambassador's 

residence, the Department determined that formal Congressional notification would not occur 

until Diplomatic Security and local law enforcement authorities completed a thorough 

investigation. As this investigation is now substantially complete, the Department is currently 

assessing the investigation's findings and considering how to proceed. 

Question: 

Annenia has welcomed over 20,000 refugees from Syria and, more broadly, has expressed 

willingness to serve as a regional safe haven for religious and other minorities t1eeing violence 

and intolerance in the Middle East 

Are you willing to work with Congress to help provide Armenia- a landlocked, blockaded nation 

of limited means - with the resources needed to support transitional programs for at-risk 

refugees, including short-term housing/rental assistance and social and economic integration 

initiatives? 

Answer: 

The United States commends Armenia's welcoming of over 20,000 Syrians. The United 

States has provided sustained support for Syrians in Annenia, and worldwide, via contributions 

to international humanitarian organizations, including: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 

fbe Ioternational Committee of the Red Cross, as well as NGOs such as World Vision, the 

American Bar Association, Mission Armenia, the Armenian Red Cross Society, and the Aleppo 

Compatriotic Charitable Organization. The United States is UNHCR' s largest donor, providing 
216


25840v-10.eps

about a quarter of their budget worldwide. UNHCR continues to provide needs-based assistance 

to persons of concern in Armenia, regardless of citizenship status. 

Question: 

Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel are leading a bipartisan initiative- known as the 

Royce-Engel Peace Proposals- to keep the peace in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. The 

proposals call for I) the placement ofOSCE-monitored, advanced gunfire locator systems and 

sound-ranging equipment along the line of contact to determine the source of attacks, 2) the 

addition ofOSCE observers along the line of contact, and 3) an agreement on the nondeployment of snipers, heavy arms, and any new military hardware along the line of contact. 

The State Department has endorsed these cease-fire strengthening proposals, as has the OSCE, 

Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Only Azerbaijan opposes the Royce-Engel proposals, 

effectively obstructing their implementation. 

Will the Department of State support US funding for the Royce-Engel peace proposals? 

Answer: 

As a Co-Chair of the Minsk Group, the United States has played an active role in 

mediating a comprehensive settlement of this longstanding conflict, the resolution of which 

would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the people of the South Caucasus. 

The State Department supports proposals to withdraw snipers, launch an OSCE 

investigation mechanism, and deploy sensors along the Line of Contact and the ArmeniaAzerbaijan international border. We have been a strong advocate in the Minsk Group process for 

these contldence-building measures, which we believe would reduce violence in areas atl'ected 

by the cont1ict. In light of recent ceasefire violations, which have resulted in multiple civilian 

casualties, the urgency of implementing such measures has never been greater. US. Co-Chair, 

Ambassador Richard Hoagland, together with his Russian and French counterparts, is discussing 

these proposals with the sides at the highest levels. We also continue to call upon the sides to 

cease military action and return to the negotiation table as soon as possible. 

Question: 

Would you support a suspension of US. military aid to Azerbaijan until its government ceases 

its attacks against Ar.menia and Nagorno-Karabagh, ends its threat of renewed war, and agrees to 

the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts? 

Answer: 

US. assistance to Azerbaijan promotes US. national security interests, which is why the 

President has waived Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act every year since 2002. The 

most recent waiver was signed on March 27, 2017. However, as a matter of policy, the United 

States does not approve any security assistance or sales that could undermine etTorts to find a 

peaceful settlement of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The United States remains 

actively engaged as one of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs to help the parties find a way forward. 

Question: 

In the wake of the 2015 signing of a US.-Armenia Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreement, we witnessed a surge in US. commercial engagement in Armenia- including, as 
217


25840v-11.eps

reported by our Ambassador, Richard Mills, upwards of $500,000,000 in new American 

investments in Armenia's energy and mining sectors. Similarly, a new U.S.-Armenia Double 

Tax Treaty, by establishing a clear legal framework for investors and individuals who have 

business activities in both jurisdictions, will facilitate the further expansion of U.S.-Armenia 

economic relations, by eliminating the threat of double taxation. 

Will you engage the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the mutual benefits of negotiating a 

U.S.-Armenia Double Tax Treaty? 

Answer: 

The expansion of trade and commercial ties is a critical element of the United States' 

bilateral relationship with Armenia. We continue to advocate for reforms that will help improve 

the business climate for U.S. firms in Armenia, including curbing corruption, increasing judicial 

independence, and strengthening intellectual property protections. While we are confident the 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIF A) and resulting TIF A Council will prove to 

be useful tools for tackling existing trade issues and boosting levels of trade, the recent 

investments in Armenia's energy and mining sectors were underway before the TIF A was 

signed. The Department of State has discussed the Government of Armenia's interest in 

concluding a new double taxation treaty with the Treasury Department and understands that at 

this time, U.S. firms operating in Armenia are able to obtain relief from double taxation under 

existing U.S. law. The United States government will continue to assess the need for a new 

double taxation treaty on the basis of confirmed reports from U.S. businesses active or interested 

in Armenia that they are being harmed under U.S. and Armenian tax laws in the absence of a 

new treaty. 

Question: 

In December 2015, the General Assembly approved the UN Reb'lllar Budget, which was about 

$400 million less than the prior biennial budget, and moved to reassess statl' compensation in 

order to save the organization more money. In addition, the UN has implemented a strateb'Y to 

improve the cost-efficiency of peacekeeping missions, helping to reduce the cost per 

peacekeeper by 18% and reduce the number of support personnel in the field by 3,000. These 

reforms came as a result of the U.S. being fully engaged at the UN. Currently, Ambassador 

Haley and UN Secretary-General Guterres are working closely together to push forward on 

further reforms to the institution, particularly with regards to its peacekeeping missions. How do 

the President's proposed cuts to UN funding fit into that overall strategy? Aren't we undermining 

our own negotiating position by pushing for deep cuts before Ambassador Haley's reform push 

has even fully gotten otl'the ground? Why would any other UN member states, to say nothing of 

our allies, support any U.S.-backed reform proposals with the knowledge that the U.S. just plans 

to unilaterally reduce its financial contributions anyways? 

Answer: 

The President's budget proposal for FY 2018 reflects the U.S. commitment to remain 

engaged with the UN, even as we seek to spur long-needed reforms and more equitable burdensharing among UN member states. As President Trump told UN Security Council ambassadors 

on April 24, "the United Nations has tremendous potential,'' but "for the United Nations to play 

an effective role in solving ... challenges, big reforms will be required." 
218


25840v-12.eps

By demanding fiscal discipline, the United States is leading the effort to rethink the way 

that the United Nations and other international organizations operate. This budget reinforces the 

expectation that the United Nations and other international organization must become more 

efficient and efiective, and that Member States must agree to distribute the costs of collective 

action more equitably. 

Question: 

Do you feel that UN supported peacekeeping is an important example of burden-sharing by 

countries across the globe? 

Answer: 

UN peacekeeping is an example of burden-sharing by countries across the globe, and 

provides a collective benefit to the entire international community. However, we believe all 

nations should share equitably in the costs. Currently, the US pays a disproportionate share of 

the burden for UN peacekeeping, while other countries contribute far less than could be 

considered equitable burden-sharing. 

The President's budget request reflects the Administration's commitment to reducing the 

United Nations' dependence on a single large contributor to finance UN peacekeeping 

operations. The request assumes greater burden sharing by other countries and a US. 

contribution rate below 25 percent. 

Question: 

The Administration's FY' 18 budget proposes cutting the Contributions for International 

Peacekeeping Activities (CIP A) account, which funds our peacekeeping dues, by more than $700 

million from final FY' 17 levels. This would potentially deny critical resources to peacekeeping 

missions that are manifestly in our interests and that we voted to support on the Security Council; 

withhold troop reimbursement payments from countries who contribute troops to peacekeeping 

operations; and alienate our allies, ef1'ectively undercutting our refonn ef1'orts. This 

Administration, and many in this very body, have complained that the US. assessment rate for 

UN peacekeeping activities-which is currently just over 28.4%--is too high. While I'm 

sympathetic to the idea that all member states need to pay their fair share for core UN activities 

and functions, this fixation on the US. assessment rate ignores the significant personnel 

contributions made by other countries to UN peacekeeping operations. This is not a trivial 

matter: peacekeeping has increasingly become more dangerous in recent years, and over the last 

decade, more than 1,100 UN peacekeepers have died in the field. Do you think these types of 

contributions should be taken into account when considering the appropriate level of US. 

financial support for peacekeeping? When we fail to honor our financial commitments to UN 

peacekeeping-as your budget request would have us do-what message does this send to 

countries who send their sons and daughters into harm's way to carry out Security Council 

mandates that we ourselves have drafted? 

Answer: 

With over 100,000 uniformed and civilian peacekeeping personnel and an annual budget 

close to $8 billion, UN peacekeeping is a powerful tool to address global challenges to 

international peace and security. However, reform is needed to achieve better, smarter 

peacekeeping operations that are able to more effectively and efliciently address conflicts, 
219


25840v-13.eps

support political solutions, and meet the needs of people on the ground. As President Trump told 

UN Security Council ambassadors on April 24, "the United Nations has tremendous potential," 

but "for the United Nations to play an effective role in solving security challenges, big 

reforms will be required." 

The President's FY 2018 budget request proposes to reduce funding for the Department 

of State's Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIP A) account by 

approximately fifty percent from the previous year to $1.2 billion. By demanding fiscal 

discipline, the United States is leading the United Nations to rethink the way peacekeeping 

missions are designed and implemented. This budget reinforces the expectation that the UN 

must make peacekeeping more efficient and effective, and that UN Member States must agree to 

distribute the costs of collective security more equitably. 

Question: 

Some have argued that the U.S should withdraw from the l)N Human Rights Council. Over the 

past six years though, we have seen a number of positive outcomes from U.S. engagement The 

Council voted to dispatch a team to investigate human rights violations committed by ISIS in 

Iraq; continues to scrutinize and bring attention to the dire human rights situation in Iran; 

authorized a groundbreaking investigation into human rights violations in North Korea; created a 

mechanism to push for the prevention and elimination of child and forced marriage, and saw a 

dramatic reduction in the number of special sessions on Israel. This record of success is 

markedly difl'erent than when the U.S. was not involved in the Council from 2007-2009. While 

the Council still has its t1aws, the overwhelming view of human rights organizations is the U.S 

should continue to engage with it Is it the U.S.'s intention to withdraw from the UNHRC? If so, 

why? What impact would you expect withdrawal to have? If the U.S. does not see the lJNHRC 

as a viable body, will the Trump Administration seek to replace it or enact serious reforms? 

Answer: 

We have ongoing concerns about the membership and anti-Israeli bias of the United 

Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Although, at its best, the UNHRC calls out human 

rights violations and encourages positive action, all too frequently it fails to act as it should- not 

addressing critical situations for political reasons- and undermines its own credibility. 

Countries with poor human rights records are routinely elected to the Council, where they use 

their position to shield themselves and frustrate efl'orts to safeguard fundamental freedoms. The 

HRC maintains a clear anti-Israel bias in the persistence of Agenda Item 7. 

This Administration believes that reforms are urgently needed to strengthen the Council's 

membership and revise its agenda. We are calling on member states to join together in the 

months ahead to develop and enact changes to the Council's election procedures, accountability 

measures, standing agenda, and operations to ensure that the world's most critical human rights 

situations- regardless of where they take place- are efl'ectively addressed. If such reforms are 

not possible, we will have to reevaluate our participation in the UNHRC. 

Question: 

In a June 5th press statement entitled "Pulling U.S. from UN Human Rights Council Could 

Endanger Lives around the Globe'', HRC Global Director Ty Cobb argued that "U.S. foreign 

policy must protect and promote human rights. Turning away from the Council would signal to 
220


25840v-14.eps

brutal regimes-and all those they oppress-that the US is looking the other way. Without US. 

leadership, despotic leaders will be emboldened to control the agenda and push their own goals." 

Given the central role played by the US elevating discussion ofLGBT rights at the Council, 

what message do you think a US. withdrawal would send to advocates ofLGBT equality and 

inclusion around the world? 

Answer: 

Whether as a member of the UN Human Rights Council or not, the United States will 

remain steadfast in its commitment to the protection of human rights of all persons, including 

members of the LGBTI community, wherever they may be. The establishment last year by the 

Human Rights Council of a UN independent expert to address violence and discrimination on the 

basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which we strongly supported, should send a clear 

message of broad multilateral support for addressing this important issue. 

That being said, the Administration believes reforms are urgently needed to strellk,>then 

the Human Rights Council's membership and revise its agenda. We are calling on member 

states to join together in the months abead to develop and implement reforms to ensure that the 

world's most critical human rights situations are addressed fully and effectively. If such reforms 

are not possible, we will have to reevaluate our participation in the UNHRC. 

Question: 

The Administration's FY' 18 request seeks to reduce tunding for the Contributions to 

International Organizations (CIO) account, which tunds US. assessments for more than 40 

multilateral organizations, by nearly $400 million from tina! FY' 17 levels. The CIO account 

tunds US. contributions to the UN Regular Budget, which in turn finances the UN's sanction 

monitoring activities. How do you square the Administration's support for multilateral sanctions 

on North Korea, with its unwillingness to fully tund its share of mechanisms-such as the UN 

panel of experts and North Korea sanctions committee--that monitor international compliance 

with these measures? 

Answer: 

The President's FY 2018 budget request proposes to reduce funding for the Department 

of State's Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account by approximately thirty 

percent from the previous year to $1 billion. By demanding tiscal discipline, the United States is 

leading the etiort to rethink the way that the United Nations and other international organizations 

operate. This budget reinforces the expectation that the United Nations and other international 

organizations must become more etlicient and etiective, and that Member States must agree to 

distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

Question: 

The Global Development Lab at USAID is among the many cuts in the President's proposed 

budget. The Lab is structured to bring in new ideas, new partners, and a new way of thinking into 

government. It can also be argued that part of its rationale for existing is that it ascribes to the 

theory that all of the best ideas don't come from inside government. How does zeroing out an 

office that seeks to bring in new partners and ideas from outside the government fit into your 

ambitions to transform development" 
221


25840v-15.eps

Answer: 

USAID, through the U.S. Global Development Lab (Lab) and the broader network of 

USAID innovation teams emerging in Bureaus and Missions, continues to build an adaptable 

organization that is focused on bringing new partners and the best ideas to the Agency to lead the 

transformation of development. The tools and approaches the Lab brings to USAID remain 

critical for delivering on the broader mission. In a tight budget climate, what the Lab does is 

even more important, including finding transformative solutions to accelerate development 

results, engaging new actors, and taking advantage of advancements in science and technolot,>y. 

The FY 2018 request includes $15.5 million for the Lab. The Lab will continue to deliver on its 

two part mission to produce breakthrough innovations and transform the development enterprise 

but in a more focused way. The Lab will focus on working with Missions to take advantage of 

advancements in science, technology, innovation and partnership to achieve development 

objectives more cost-effectively, and to institutionalize the use of these tools, approaches, and 

technologies. 

The Lab and this broader network of innovation teams provide USAID with a critical 

future-forward advantage by not only being ready for the changing development landscape, but 

by helping US AID lead that change. 

Question: 

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment of USAID - our lead development agency - as part of this 

administration's reorganization efiorts. It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully 

capable of achieving our aid objectives abroad. Please tell me 

a) How will you advise the President regarding the role of and independence needed for 

USAID to successfully achieve its mission? 

b) How will a Senate-confirmed USAID Administrator engage in the administration's 

reorganization efiort? Particularly since the administration requires agencies to submit a 

draft plan to OMB by June 30°'? 

c) Given the importance of any reform and reorganization effort, will you commit to 

consulting with Congress and the development community throughout the reorganization 

process" 

Answer: 

The USAID Administrator nominee is awaiting Senate confirmation. When confirmed, 

he will work with me to review various options to ensure the efilciency, effectiveness, and 

accountability of the United States' diplomatic and development operations. There are no 

preconceived outcomes for a potential reorganization, and the Department is committed to 

engaging with external stakeholders, including the Congress and development community, 

throughout the process. We will advise the President on the joint State and USAID 

transformation planning effort when recommendations are available. 

Question: 

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment of USAID - our lead development agency - as part of this 
222


25840v-16.eps

administration's reorganization efforts. It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully 

capable of achieving our aid objectives abroad. Please tell me 

d) How will you advise the President regarding the role of and independence needed for 

USAID to successfully achieve its mission? 

e) How will a Senate-contirmed USAID Administrator engage in the administration's 

reorganization effort? Particularly since the administration requires agencies to submit a 

draft plan to OMB by June 30°'? 

f) Given the importance of any reform and reorganization effort, will you commit to 

consulting with Congress and the development community throughout the reorganization 

process? 

Answer: 

The USAID Administrator nominee is awaiting Senate confirmation. When contirmed, 

he will work with me to review various options to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accountability of the United States' diplomatic and development operations. There are no 

preconceived outcomes for a potential reorganization, and the Department is committed to 

engaging with external stakeholders, including the Congress and development community, 

throughout the process. We will advise the President on the joint State and USAID 

transformation planning effort when recommendations are available. 

Question: 

Based on your experience, what do you think are the comparative advantages of State and 

USAID's missions, timelines, projects, and personnel? Where do you see efficiencies that may 

be gained? 

Answer: 

These matters- the comparative advantages of State and USAID's missions, timelines, 

projects, and personnel, as well as possible eftlciencies to be gained- will be discussed and 

articulated during our redesign process. We look forward to sharing our tindings with you and 

seeking your feedback prior to implementation. 

Question: 

Please describe the relationship between the administration's reorganization planning that is 

currently underway and the State Department-USAID Joint Strategic Review process and how 

these etiorts are being coordinated. 

Answer: 

Both agencies are coordinating closely on the report due to OMB in September, which 

will include tindings from our eftlciency review, ideas for redesign, and a joint strategic plan. 

State and USAID will continue to partner throughout the process on the execution of the 

Executive Order 13781. 
223


25840v-17.eps

Question: 

Starting with President George W. Bush's 2002 national security strategy, there has been 

bipartisan consensus that US. global leadership is a three-legged stool of defense, diplomacy, 

and development. Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Administration have carried 

out significant reforms to our diplomatic engagement and how we ensure that development 

activities are effective and aligned with broader US. foreign and national security policy. Do 

you agree that these three tenets are critical to an effective US. foreign policy? How are you 

coordinating with Secretary Mattis and the Pentagon on a comprehensive national security 

strategy that effectively utilizes both our military and civilian tools? 

Answer: 

Defense, diplomacy, and development are indeed critical components of the United 

States' National Security Strategy. Combining these key elements of statecraft in the right way 

and at the right time ensures the protection of the United States' core national security interests. 

The three-legged stool is a useful conceptual model for understanding the complementary nature 

of these elements of national power, but must be applied accordingly to match the context of the 

day based on the worldview and security framework established in the National Security 

Strategy. The Department of State, Department of Defense, USAID, and the other national 

security agencies are collectively working through the established interagency process to deliver 

a balanced, flexible National Security Strategy-one that balances the application of defense, 

diplomacy, and development in the most logical and prudent way to achieve our foreign policy 

and national security objectives. Additionally, the Department of State and USAID as well as the 

Department of Defense are in the process of developing their respective agency-level strategic 

plans. The development process includes interagency collaboration and engagement at the 

highest organizational levels to ensure alignment across their respective agency plans as well as 

with the broader objectives outlined in the National Security Strategy. 

Question: 

China's otllcial development assistance to African countries has increased by more than 780% 

since 2003. And just last month, President Xi Jinping pledged $124 billion for a new global 

infrastructure and development initiative called "One Belt One Road'' At the same time, the 

Administration is proposing to close nine USAID missions and eliminate economic and 

development assistance to 37 countries around the world. Are you concerned that these cutbacks 

could provide an opening for countries like China and Russia to exert additional int1uence? 

Answer: 

The Fiscal Year 2018 budget request will allow us to advance our foreign policy goals, 

while ensuring we are using US taxpayer dollars as etiectively and etliciently as possible. It 

includes substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs, but we have made tough 

choices to reduce funding for other foreign assistance initiatives. The budget request 

acknowledges that our operations must become more efficient, that our aid must be more 

effective, and that our primary mission must always be advocating for the national interests of 

our country. Focusing our etiorts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals. We 

will continue to be the leader in international development, global health, democracy, good 

governance initiatives, and humanitarian e±Iorts around the globe. At the same time, we are 
224


25840v-18.eps

mobilizing a broader effort beyond U.S. development assistance to attract private sector 

investment and exploring new approaches that engage other countries that share the same 

objectives for the region as we do to provide an alternative to Chinese state-directed financing. 

Question: 

Given the uptick of anti-Semitic hate crimes both in the United States and abroad. Where on 

the State Department's priority list will fighting anti-Semitism fall and in particular US. 

cooperation with law enforcement to protect Jewish communities in Europe? What is your 

timeline for nominating a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism? Should this be 

elevated to an Ambassador-at-large position? 

Answer: 

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a statutorily-required 

position that will be maintained within the Department I want to assure you the Department is 

addressing anti-Semitism in the most effective and efficient method possible. We are exploring 

the best means to continue to do so. 

The Department remains concerned by high levels of anti-Semitism in many countries. 

We continue to monitor acts of bigotry and intolerance internationally and condemns attacks on 

Jewish communities and individuals. 

We consistently urge governments around the world to address and condemn antiSemitism and work with vulnerable Jewish communities to assess and provide appropriate levels 

of security. The Department and our Missions abroad encourage and engage other governments 

to combat anti-Semitism bilaterally and multilaterally, and with outreach to Jewish communities. 

Complementing our diplomatic work, the State Department continues to devote 

significant resources towards programs combatting anti-Semitism online and off, as well as 

building NGO coalitions in Europe to promote tolerance. 

Our broader etiorts to counter violent extremism reinforce our countering anti-Semitism 

mission. For example, we support bringing religious leaders to the United States to, among other 

things, learn how faith communities work internally and across faiths to prevent radicalization to 

violence, counter hate speech, and build tolerance. 

Question: 

Two Russian diplomatic compounds, in Maryland and New York respectively, were determined 

by the Obama Administration in December to have been "used by Russian personnel for 

intelligence-related purposes," and 35 Russians determined to be intelligence operatives were 

expelled from the United States. I am troubled by reports that the Trump Administration is 

considering returning these compounds. Does the Administration plan to return these 

compounds" What are we getting in return'' 

Answer: 

We are working on certain issues in our bilateral relationship with Russia to try to 

stabilize our relationship in a way which protects United States interests. The Department's 

actions in December were part of a comprehensive response to Russia's interference in the US. 

election and their harassment of our personnel in Russia. The United States' actions sent a clear 

message that such behavior is unacceptable and will have consequences. The Department of 

State has the authority to determine how and for what purposes Foreign Missions can utilize their 
225

f


25840v-19.eps

properties. We are committed to using those authorities appropriately to protect the interests of 

the American people. 

Question: 

Does this Administration support Duterte' s extrajudicial killing of drug addicts? Do you 

personally agree with this policy? What actions is the Department taking to assert our position 

on human rights while also ensuring that we don't rupture the US.-Philippines alliance 

relationship? 

Answer: 

The United States and the Philippines have a longstanding alliance, a relationship built on 

shared sacrifices, common values, and people-to-people ties. The United States government is 

working with the Philippines on addressing the shared objectives of eliminating the scourge of 

illicit drugs; there are US programs in the Philippines that combat the transnational shipment of 

drugs and work on drug demand reduction. We have serious concerns, however, when elements 

involved in the drug war are operating outside the rule oflaw This Administration condemns 

extrajudicial killings. 

We have discussed our human rights concerns with the Philippine government on 

multiple occasions, and will continue to do so. We encourage our Philippine partners to conduct 

transparent investigations into reports of extrajudicial killings, and to ensure that all investigative 

and enforcement efforts uphold the rule of law. 

We have also voiced these concerns publicly at the United Nations, including in the 

Universal Periodic Review for the Philippines held in Geneva on May 8. We will continue to 

work with the Philippines on this and other issues as we advance shared objectives in our 

multidimensional relationship. 
226


25840w-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Brian Fitzpatrick 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Secretary Tillerson, as you know, last year the "North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement 

AcC went into effect This law mandates that the Administration sanction individuals and 

companies engaged in North Korea's ongoing illicit activity, including the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction and arms sales, cyber-attacks against the United States and our 

allies and human rights abuses. 

While Treasury recently sanctioned several more entities that continue to do business with North 

Korea, it should be noted that no Chinese entity has been targeted with secondary sanctions. Can 

you assure the Committee that the Administration plans to implement this bill and other 

sanctions to the full extent of the law? If China and Chinese financial institutions do not step up, 

how will you proceed? What other countries are we proactively engaged with regarding North 

Korea? 

Answer: 

The Administration is fully committed to implementing the "North Korea Sanctions and 

Policy Enhancement Act." As part of our implementation of this law, we are using targeted 

financial sanctions to impede North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. 

China's efforts to curtail North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and address 

North Korea's sanctions evasion have been insufiicient. We have made clear to China that it has 

a responsibility to exert much greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the North Korean 

regime if it intends to prevent further escalation in the region. We want to work with China, but 

we've said many times that we would not hesitate to act alone, including by sanctioning Chinese 

or other third-country individuals and entities that provide support to North Korea's unlawful 

activities. 

We continue to call on all countries to take appropriate steps to apply maximum pressure 

on the DPRK to change its calculus and return to serious and meaningful talks aimed at 

denuclearization. In each of my diplomatic engagements, whether with interlocutors from 

Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, or Central and South America, I urge governments to fully 

implement the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and exercise to the fullest extent their 

leverage to convince the DPRK to abandon its destructive path. I have personally instructed 

each of our Chiefs of Mission to do the same. 

The international community has made clear that North Korea will face consequences for 

its continued development of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and 

violations of UN resolutions. We are seeing unprecedented levels of cooperation from the 

international community in response to North Korea's unlawful and provocative actions. Likeminded countries including the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Australia have implemented their 

own unilateral sanctions. EU partners are augmenting autonomous restrictive measures to 

implement UN Security Council resolutions, and key European partners, particularly the UK, 

France, and Germany, are collaborating with us to maximize pressure on the DPRK. 
227

f


25840w-2.eps

Question: 

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, I want to ensure that our allies in Ukraine 

know that we have their back Regarding Russian aggression in Ukraine, what is our position 

regarding the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbas? And what is the State 

Department committed to doing with regards to these two ongoing affronts to Ukraine's 

sovereignty? Furthermore, how does the FY20 18 budget request specifically address the threat of 

Russian propaganda? What is the Administration proposing to do with FY2018 funding to help 

"frontline" states, like Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, combat Russian propaganda? 

Answer: 

From the beginning of the crisis, the United States has stood united with the EU and our 

G-7 partners in defense of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We do not now, nor 

will we ever, recognize Russia's purported annexation of Crimea. We expect Russia to honor its 

commitments under the Minsk agreements, beginning by de-escalating the violence in eastern 

Ukraine. Moreover, we consistently urge Russia to use its influence with the so-called 

separatists it funds, trains and leads so that there is a visible, verifiable, and irreversible 

improvement in the security situation starting with a real ceasefire, pullback of heavy weapons, 

disengagement along the line of contact, and full access for OSCE monitors. 

The United States' commitment to the Minsk agreements remains steadfast and we will 

continue to hold Russia accountable to its pledge to implement its security-related commitments. 

As Secretary Tillerson has said, U.S. sanctions will stay in place until Russia meets its Minsk 

commitments. Our separate Crimea-related sanctions will remain until Moscow returns the 

peninsula to Ukraine. We believe the existing sanctions regimes, in coordination with G7 and 

EU sanctions, provides us with leverage to compel Moscow to fultill its commitments. We have 

also been clear with Russia that aggression in Ukraine is the key obstacle to the improvement of 

our bilateral relationship. 

The FY 2018 budget request prioritizes funds to counter Russian aggression and malign 

influence. In addition to maintaining support for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova in sectors 

where U.S. assistance has a transformative impact, the FY 2018 budget request also funds other 

countries in the region- including the Balkans, Central Asia, and, via regional programs, 

countries that no longer receive bilateral non-security assistance such as the Baltic States- in 

support of a comprehensive strategy to build resilience, reduce vulnerability to Russian 

aggression and malign influence, protect U.S. national security and economic interests, and 

provide continued support for enduring commitments and non-crisis programming. In particular, 

U.S. foreign assistance programs will seek to counter Russia's covert and overt actions, 

including propaganda and disinformation, by strengthening democratic institutions, including 

through justice sector and anti-corruption reforms and by expanding the voice and watchdog role 

of civil society and a strong and independent media. 
228


25840x-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Ami Bera 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Secretary Tillerson, in your testimony both before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 

the House Foreign Affairs Committee, you stated that the implementation of the Mexico City 

policy was designed to mitigate its impact on the delivery of health care by our partners in global 

health: 

What discrete actions did the State Department take in consultation with our global health 

partners to mitigate the policy's specitic impacts? 

Answer: 

Interagency representatives continue to meet regularly to assess progress and challenges 

related to implementing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy. 

Operating units from relevant agencies have begun meeting with partners to describe the policy's 

applicability and implementation. The State Department is working with affected agencies and 

departments to collect information on the extent to which the PLGHA may atTect our global 

health programs. 

Question: 

What specitic actions is the State Department currently taking to monitor the impact the Mexico 

City Policy in delivering healthcare to those in need? 

Answer: 

Ambassadors and agency heads in our overseas missions with PEPF AR or other global 

health programs have been notitied about implementation of the expanded Mexico City Policy. 

Atiected agencies and departments, including US AID, HHS, DOD, and the State Department, 

have be,,>un notifying implementing partners and other stakeholders about the expanded policy. 

Training on the policy's applicability, implementation and key provisions for headquarters and 

tield staff is underway. State Department and US AID are also working with the interagency to 

develop a publicly available web-based training module as well as webinars for tield-based stati 

Atiected departments and agencies are discussing implementation of the policy and its impacts 

and preparing for a review of the policy's etTect on programs. The review will provide an 

opportunity to recommend changes to the policy's implementation or scope, should they be 

needed to address unintended consequences. 

Question: 

Secretary Tillerson, in your testimony before the House Foreign Atiairs Committee, you stated 

that the State Department would be completing a check in six months to determine the Mexico 

City's policy unintended consequences 
229


25840x-2.eps

What criteria will the State Department use in evaluating the Mexico City's unintended impacts 

at this six month check? And do you plan to review these impacts at periodic intervals for effects 

that may not be obvious in the short term? 

Answer: 

Interagency discussions regarding the review of the impact of the expanded policy are 

ongoing. While this process is not yet finalized, we plan to review data, implementation steps 

and issues identified to date, and any other new information affecting implementation going 

forward Newly covered programs, including PEPF AR the President's Malaria Initiative, and 

other global health programs, will be given special attention under this review. 

Question: 

Finally, you also stated that you would be able to issue waivers for funding under the Mexico 

City policy in consultation with the Secretary ofHHS: 

In assessing the inadvertent impact on healthcare delivery, what will be the process and criteria 

for determining these waivers? And could you detail the specific coordination that has already 

taken place with the Department of Health and Human Services to lay the groundwork for the 

waiver process? 

Answer: 

As I testified, it is vital to retain a measure of flexibility to ensure the Protecting Life in 

Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy does not afl'ect life-saving assistance in unintended 

ways. However, it is my expectation that any waivers would be used judiciously, and only after 

carefully weighing the immediate need for the assistance, other available options, and the 

potential effect on implementation of the policy. All of our assistance will continue to be subject 

to applicable legal requirements, including the Helms Amendment and the Siljander 

Amendment This is a complex issue that deserves the most careful and thorough consideration 

possible. We intend to keep all interested parties, including Congress, updated as we move 

forward. 

Question: 

The FY 18 budget proposes steep cuts to maternal and child health. The United States has had a 

tremendous impact on reducing maternal and child mortality but far too many children and 

mothers die each day. In 2012, the United States committed to ending preventable child and 

maternal deaths by the year 2035- and the United States set in place a plan to save 15 million 

children and 800,000 women's lives by 2020. 

Will the United States still be able to accomplish its goal of saving 15 million children by 2020 

in light of these cuts? If you still believe the United States can despite the cuts, what steps have 

you taken to ensure that the US will meet its pledge? 
230


25840x-3.eps

Answer: 

Preventing child and maternal deaths is a priority for USAID and relies on investment in 

and linkages across health programs including maternal and child health, nutrition, and malaria. 

USAID committed to averting the deaths of 15 million children and 600,000 women by 2020, by 

working with other partners, including most importantly countries themselves, to mobilize 

additional resources and political will to focus efforts on the most etl'ective and etlicient 

interventions to prevent child and maternal deaths. 

This commitment remains. The FY 2018 request includes $1.5 billion to prevent child 

and maternal deaths. While the composition of US AID funding across the health areas varies 

year-to-year, this etl'ort has always relied upon partnership from country governments and other 

donors, and its continued success is linked to their sustained involvement by all. Family 

planning and reproductive health interventions are important contributors to maternal and child 

survival and we will work with other donors and host country governments to increase their 

funding for family planning/reproductive health in FY 2018. 

Question: 

The President's FY 18 budget request makes substantial cuts to foreign humanitarian assistance at 

a time when tens of millions of people around the world are at risk of starvation. In particular, it 

eliminates the McGovern-Dole program and Food for Peace. How is the State Department 

working with our allies, partners, and other international actors to reduce the impact of American 

withdrawal in the areas offood insecurity and famine? 

Answer: 

The response to the question is Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information and will be 

sent via separate correspondence. 

Question: 

The Feed the Future Initiative was begun by the Obama administration to take a whole of 

government approach to reduce hunger, malnutrition, poverty, and food insecurity around the 

world. Does the Trump administration plan on still continuing the program? And if not, how are 

the State Department and USAID working within the government with the Department of 

Agriculture and others, and outside the government with implementing partners, such as our 

universities, to ensure that its progress and work is being brought forward? 

Answer: 

We remain committed to implementing the Global Food Security Act to reduce hunger, 

malnutrition, poverty, and food insecurity. We will continue to mobilize the entire array of tools 

and approaches across the U.S. government, including, partnering with the U.S. research and 

university community, leveraging investments from the U.S. private sector, and working with 

host country governments and civil society to achieve tangible results. 

Question: 

The FY18 budget requests proposes merging the Development Assistance (DA), Assistance to 

Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA), Democracy Fund, and the Economic Support Fund 
231


25840x-4.eps

into a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF). The State Department was chosen 

as the lead for the account. 

Why was the State Department chosen as the lead for the new ESDF account? And what specific 

steps are being taken to ensure USAID expertise on foreign aid is being incorporated into the 

new ESDF account" 

Answer: 

The Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) requested in the FY 2018 budget 

is an effort to streamline accounts and ensure the most etl'ective use of foreign assistance 

funding. The ESDF account will continue to support select programs and activities previously 

requested under the Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance accounts, allowing the 

Department and USAID to better assess, prioritize, and target development -related activities in 

the context of broader U.S. foreign policy objectives and partnerships around the world. Under 

this construct, USAID's role in advising the Secretary of State on development priorities and in 

implementing programs will remain unchanged. Having one streamlined account for economic 

and development assistance will increase State and USAID's t1exibility to trade-otT needs on an 

even footing within one account, rather than having budget and strategic priorities skewed by 

artificial distinctions. 

Question: 

How will the transfer ofUSAID-led programs impact program monitoring and evaluation in the 

new ESDF account" And what specific steps is the State Department taking to ensure that funds 

under the new ESDF account will be held to the same program monitoring and evaluation 

standards they were while under USAID0 

Answer: 

The Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) requested in the FY 2018 budget 

is an effort to streamline accounts and ensure the most etl'ective use of foreign assistance funding 

by allowing the Department and USAID to better assess, prioritize, and target developmentrelated activities in the context of broader U.S. foreign policy objectives and partnerships around 

the world. Under this consolidated account construct, USAID will continue to implement 

programs where it has the technical expertise and will continue to promote the use of program 

monitoring and evaluation to advance learning and improve decision-making. Having one 

streamlined account for economic and development assistance will simply increase State and 

USAID's flexibility to trade-ofT needs on an even footing within one account, rather than having 

budget and strategic priorities skewed by artificial distinctions. 

Question: 

USAID plays a major and important part in global health research and development (R&D) 

USAID' s support in developing new health technologies helps to save lives and reduce program 

costs, while allowing these treatments and technologies to be deployed in regions of the world at 

the greatest risk for certain diseases, and returning the benefits to the United States. Due to the 

fiscal austerity of the last several years, global health R&D funding has stayed relatively t1at, and 
232

f


25840x-5.eps

the State Department budget proposal cuts USAID funding for global health R&D. Among other 

items- it zeroes out investments in HIV/AIDS research. 

Can you explain why the administration chose to deprioritize global health research in its budget 

request? And if the idea is for other international partners to step up, what steps are the State 

Department and USAID taking to increase the involvement of our partners in the global health 

R&D field? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 budget consolidates all US assistance for global HIV/AIDS efforts within 

the State Department to simplify the management and coordination of these investments. USAID 

will continue to remain one of the primary implementing agencies for PEPF AR, and will 

continue to implement a significant share of US global HIV/AIDS assistance in this capacity. 

With regard to global health research, US AID intends to increase its etl'orts to leverage partners' 

expertise and resources. strengthen country capacity to conduct their own research and 

development (R&D), and strategically utilize market shaping and innovative financing tools to 

incentivize private companies to invest in R&D. 

While the United States will continue significant funding for global health programs, 

other stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. 
233

f


25840y.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Frankel 

House Foreign A±Jairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Do you agree that it is Congress's prerogative to set the State and Foreign Operations Budget? 

Do you pledge to fully implement the budget that Congress passes? 

Answer: 

The Department of State and USAID will obligate funds appropriated by Congress consistent 

with applicable law, including congressional notification requirements 

Question: 

In your communications with the Director of the OMB, did you at any time advocate for funding 

above the level ret1ected in the president's budget proposal. 

Answer: 

Executive branch communications between agencies and OMB regarding budget planning are 

deliberative and pre-decisional in nature, but the Department and US AID work close! y with 

OMB on all budgetary matters. 
234


25840z-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Gabbard 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Like many Americans, I'm confused about the inherent contradictions in the Trump 

Administration's support for Saudi Arabia and the previous strongly stated commitment of 

President Trump to combat the spread of radical Islamist ideology. 

I've attached a few articles that document the well-known fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the 

biggest state sponsors of terror in the world, as they pour billions of dollars into countries like 

Syria and Yemen to support al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is 

without question the number one exporter of the extremist Wahhabi Salafi ideology which fuels 

terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Saudi Arabia has spent billions building mosques, 

funding radical Imams, creating extremist madrassa schools around the world, from Indonesia to 

India to Europe, creating fertile ground for the creation of future generations of terrorist recruits. 

Can you explain the contradiction between President Trump's rhetoric and his actions supporting 

Saudi Arabia? Why hasn't the US designated Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terror? 

Answer: 

The United States has worked closely with Saudi Arabia to combat terrorism for many 

years. Saudi Arabia strengthened its counterterrorism efforts in the early 2000s, when al-Qaeda 

launched a protracted series of attacks in Saudi Arabia in an etl'ort to destabilize the government, 

and after 9/11. The United States has worked with the Saudi government to defeat al-Qaeda, and 

this has helped build a strong foundation for counterterrorism cooperation. For instance, in 

October 2010 Saudi Arabia provided vital intelligence that helped the United States discover 

bombs planted inside printer cartridges on airplanes destined for the United States. Saudi Arabia 

has made significant progress in cracking down on terrorist financing with regards to such 

groups as Hamas and Lashkar-e Tayyiba, and in May 2017, the US and Saudi Arabia 

announced the joint designation of Hashem Sa±ieddine, a senior leader in Hizballah, as a 

Specially Designatied Global Terrorist (SDGT). Saudi Arabia also hosted the inau6>ural meeting 

of the coalition to defeat ISIL in 2014 and has been a key partner in that etiort since then, coleading the Counterterrorism Working Group among other initiatives. 

Many Saudi religious officials have made public statements, held public conferences, and 

taught university courses condemning the misuse oflslam to justify terrorism. To address CVE 

issues, the government has issued new regulations regarding Saudi proselytization abroad and 

has increased monitoring of mosque sermons for violent extremist content The government has 

set up numerous institutions to rehabilitate violent extremists, and to counteract online 

recruitment including the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, the inauguration of 

which the President attended on May 21. 

Salatism has been interpreted and practiced by some in a way that promotes intolerance 

toward non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims, and the past writings of several prominent Saudi 

clerics are still used by violent extremists today to justify violence and hatred of others. 
235


25840z-2.eps

However, we cannot draw simple causal linkages between a given interpretation oflslam and 

violence or terrorism. The question of how a person becomes radicalized to violence is complex; 

exposure to a fundamentalist ideology may play a role, but it is only one of many factors -

particularly social-psychological ones- that drive radicalization to violence. The vast majority 

of Saudi and non-Saudi Salafists around the \Vorld are peaceful and do not advocate violence. 

Furthermore, in recent years, the Saudi government has removed anti-Shia fatwas from 

government \vebsites, restricted the power of the religious police, and made some small first 

steps toward improving the status of women. More work needs to be done, and we will continue 

to press Saudi Arabia on this. 

As a matter oflav\1, in order for any country to be designated as a state sponsor of 

terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of that country has 

repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. These designations are made 

after caretul reviev\1 of all available evidence to determine if a country meets the statutory criteria 

for designation. Currently there are three countries designated as a state sponsor of terrorism: 

Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Saudi Arabia does not fit that description. 

Question: 

In January, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HIS). 

Why is it that the State Department has still not updated or listed this al-Qaeda organization as a 

terrorist organization? Is this simply an oversight that you plan to correct or has there been an 

official change in U.S. policy regarding al-Qaeda in Syria? 

Answer: 

The core of HIS is al-Qa'ida's atliliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusrah, also known as Jabhat 

Fatah al-Sharn, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global 

Terrorist entity under Executive Order 13224. These designations apply to Jabhat al-Nusrah 

regardless of what name it uses or what groups merge with it. Jab hat al-Nusrah's long-term 

goals have not changed and the group remains al-Qa'ida's a±liliate in Syria, committed to alQa'ida's objectives, including eventually conducting attacks against the United States and our 

partners. We remain committed to taking any and all steps toward countering Jabhat al-Nusrah. 

Question: 

Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American citizen to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, 

ISIS or other terrorist groups. Yet the U.S government has been violating this for years, by 

quietly providing direct and indirect support to allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, and other 

terrorist groups \Vith money, \Veapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the 

Syrian government. Our government has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi 

Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and 

al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish 

strongholds throughout Syria. 

Answer: 

Defeating terrorism, including the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is one of our 

foremost foreign policy priorities. Our security and intelligence cooperation with our regional 
236

f


25840z-3.eps

allies is critical to our ability to combat ISIS, AQ and other terrorist groups in the region and 

elsewhere. Regional allies and partners are also key members in the Global Coalition to Defeat 

ISIS, providing invaluable resources to support not only Coalition military efforts, but also to 

track foreign terrorist fighters and disrupt terrorist financing networks. For example, Al-Udeid 

Air Base in Qatar is an important facility for our air operations against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, 

and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey also supports the Syria component of the Defeat-ISIS campaign. 

Further, over the past several years, efforts by regional allies and partners have led to a 

significant reduction in foreign terrorist fighter flows into Syria, including via Turkey, and the 

constriction ofiSIS supply lines and networks into and out of Syria and Iraq. Through bilateral 

information sharing arrangements and agreements we have exchanged identities on known or 

suspected terrorists, including foreign terrorist fighters, with key allies and partners which has 

helped facilitate a greater ability for governments and their border screening and law 

enforcement entities to identify and interdict terrorists from travelling. Further, countries in the 

Gulf have improved their terrorist financing regimes in recent years, including in implementing 

targeted financial measures and prosecuting terrorists and their financiers, but we continue to 

push Gulf countries to improve implementation of their counterterrorism financing laws, 

including in the informal financial sector. Most recently, we signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the Qatari government on combatting terrorism, including terrorist 

financing. We will continue to work with the Qataris to ensure they meet the commitments 

outlined in the MOU. 

Along with our military colleagues, State and USAID play an important role in the 

campaign to defeat ISIS through diplomatic initiatives and the provision of humanitarian, mine 

action, and stabilization assistance. Department of State and USAID non-lethal and stabilization 

assistance to the moderate opposition and Syrian people in liberated areas enables the restoration 

of essential services and empowers moderate local actors to serve as a bulwark against terrorist 

groups like ISIS and AQ who seek to exploit the vacuum in security and services. This 

assistance is often the only lifeline keeping Syrians inside Syria, which helps to stem the tlow of 

refugees to Syria's neighbors and beyond. It also keeps moderate Syrians who share our values 

employed and, therefore, able to play a role in a future Syrian state. 
237


25840aa-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Joaquin Castro 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14,2017 

Pickering I Rangel/ Payne Fellows· How will the hiring freeze atiect the Pickering, Rangel, and Payne 

programs0 How will it affect fellows' appointments to the Foreign Service? What are the budgets for each 

program in FY2018 and what were the budgets for each program in the prior three fiscal years (FY2017, 

FY20 16, and FY20 15)0 

Answer: 

The U.S. Department of State's Pickering and Rangel Fellowship diversity recruitment programs were 

created to increase diversity in the Foreign Service. Fellows are trained to and expect to join the Foreign 

Service upon the completion of the programs. Historically, the Fellows have entered the Foreign Service as 

career conditional entry level officers. 

As of June 14, the Department was unable to offer this year's cadre of Fellows a spot in an A-100 class 

at that time, as had been customary. We value these talented individuals and are determined to bring their skills 

into the Department Although the Department was not able to offer the Fellows a spot in an A-1 00 class as of 

June 14, the Department offered them the opportunity to join the Consular Fellows Program as an alternative to 

waiting until the next A-100 class. Fellows were given the option to choose to enter the Foreign Service as a 

Consular Fellow now, or wait until the next A-1 00 class, depending on their personal and individual 

circumstances. Fellows who would have chosen to begin their service as Consular Fellows would have been 

placed in the next available A-100 class upon completion of their one or two two-year Consular Fellows tour(s). 

As of June 29, we are pleased to share that the Department will hold A-100 entry-level Foreign Service 

Officer classes in July and September. All eligible Pickering and Rangel Fellows have been offered spots in 

these classes. The Department looks forward to welcoming these talented individuals and the entire future 

membership of these upcoming A-100 classes to our workforce. 

We refer you to USATD for questions about their Donald M. Payne International Development Fellows. 

Below is a chart that shows the FY -2015 -FY -2018 budgets forth e Pickering and Rangel programs· 

Program Program 

Year Name Proaram Budget 

2015 Pickering $ 3,636,000 

Ranoel $ 3,711,750 

2016 Pickering $ 3,654,771 

Ranoel $ 3,711,750 

2017 Pickerino $ 3,654,944 

Rangel $ 3,789,788 

2018 Pickerino $ 3,655,125 

Rangel $ 3,720,938 

Question: 

I understand the State Department oilers centrally-funded professional development programs for mid-career 

and senior employees. What is the race/ethnicity breakdown, by program, over the past three years, for Foreign 

Service and Civil Service personnel selected for long-term professional development programs outside the 

Department at war colleges, the NSC, the Pentagon, and the Hill? 
238


25840aa-2.eps

Answer: 

The Department offers long-term training and detail assignments to our Foreign Service and Civil Service 

workforce, including at academic institutions, other government agencies, and non-governmental organizations 

Through these opportunities, employees develop and demonstrate the management skills and breadth of 

technical knowledge important for advancement, up to and into the senior ranks. Although the race/ethnicity 

breakdown by program is not available, the overall results for the last three assignment cycles are as follows 

2014-2015 

Asian-American 6 

African-American 10 

Hispanic/Latina 8 

Native American 0 

White/Did not self-identify 164 

Total Assignments 188 

2015-2016 

Asian-American II 

African-American 5 

Hispanic/Latina 8 

Native American 0 

White/Did not self-identify 108 

Total Assignments 132 

2016-2017 

Asian-American 27 

African-American 14 

Hispanic/Latina 14 

Native American 0 

White/Did not self-identify 192 

Total Assignments 247 

Data Calls: I understand there have been instances where the State Department has failed to fully respond to 

data calls through OPM and from the Hill concerning personnel issues. How confident are you in the way 

human resources data are captured and reported? What efforts have the State Department's Human Resources 

and Civil Rights divisions taken to correct improve data collection and reporting issue? Has the State 

Department's capacity to provide accurate data improved? 

Answer: 

The Department has instituted a series of checks and balances to ensure data integrity and reporting These 

include internal data review processes that expose inconsistencies in our databases and reporting 

systems. These steps have improved the timeliness and accuracy of data collection and analysis. -We adhere 

closely to all data security and privacy legal requirements as required by law. Staff from the Bureau of Human 

Resources and the Office of Civil Rights are committed to working continually to improve data reporting 

whenever necessary 
239


25840aa-3.eps

Diversity Strategy· What is the Department's strategy for addressing the underrepresentation of people of color 

among Civil Service and Foreign Senrice ranks? What e±Iorts is the Department undertaking to correct the 

severe underrepresentation of minorities and women in the Senior Foreign Service and Senior Executive 

Service? 

Answer: 

The Department of State's diversity efforts are outlined in the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, 

which aims to attract and cultivate a workforce reflecting the strengths of our nation, promoting an inclusive 

merit-based culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness. The Department's Diversity and 

Inclusion Strategic Plan can be found on the Office of Personnel Management's website: 

h_HQ_$:}_!_y:-~f.t_l"l,_QmrLgQyr_JJ_Ql_i~y_:da._t,:t-:_QY~I~igbJ!;ji_v_QL~~t_;::-rtJ1_d:jJJ~l_~,~.~i_Qq[ 

The Department remains committed to the Pickering and Rangel programs as our premier diversity 

recruitment programs, which together are responsible for 21 percent of the diversity currently in the Foreign 

Service. We look forward to welcoming these talented individuals to our workforce. 

As of2015, the Department of State and USAID Civil Senrices were more diverse in terms of gender, 

race, and ethnicity than the Federal workforce as a whole. The trend for increasing diversity in the Foreign 

Service has also gained momentum over the past two decades via targeted outreach, internship opportunities, 

and our flagship Pickering and Rangel Fellowships. Women now make up 41 percent of our Foreign Senrice 

Generalist (FSG) and 28 percent of our Foreign Service Specialist (FSS) workforce and more than 50 percent of 

the Civil Service workforce. Women account for approximately 36 percent of the Generalist Senior Foreign 

Service (SFS)- a 200 percent increase from 16 percent twenty years ago; the representation of women in the 

Senior Executive Service (SES) has more than doubled, going from 18 percent to 38 percent over the same 

period. Minorities constitute 24 percent of the Foreign Service (FS) workforce and 42 percent of the Civil 

Service (CS) workforce. 

The Department is committed to providing a climate that is conducive to people with diverse 

backgrounds and that is supportive of our employees throughout their careers. We are detennined to preserve a 

future leadership pipeline and provide a variety of training opportunities, mentoring, and career development 

programs, such as the International Career Advancement Program, to ensure that all employees have the skills 

necessary for current and future work assignments. For the SES, the Department hired a dedicated Executive 

Diversity Outreach Manager to ensure a broad applicant pool. We recently advertised for admission into the 

Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, which trains and prepares rising leaders for entry 

into the Senior Executive Service. TheSES Qualifications Review Panels are themselves diverse 

The gains we have made in hiring a diverse workforce are not yet reflected at the leadership levels and 

may not be for another 10 years, but we are determined to retain our talent and presenre our pipeline for future 

leadership. As entry and mid-level cohorts advance in their careers, they will populate more and more of the 

senior level positons. And, as these targeted groups' progress, we will continue to provide mentoring and career 

development counseling to help them develop the skills necessary for advancement while strengthening the 

leadership and adaptive capacity of our workforce. We have also developed a centralized exit survey process 

for all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees separating from the Department. This survey will 

systematically capture reasons for attrition and address ways to improve retention While we have made gains 

in diversity, we know we have more work to do 

Question: 

Representation in Policy Positions: The State Department's MD-715 report reveals that people of color are 

severely underrepresented in civil service policy-related job codes as compared to administrative job codes. 

What efforts is the Department undertaking to yield more diverse representation in policy positions? 
240


25840aa-4.eps

Answer: 

The Department's 2016 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP) aims to attract and cultivate a 

workforce ret1ecting the strengths of our nation, promoting an inclusive merit-based culture that encourages 

collaboration, flexibility, and fairness. The DISP also seeks to ensure that the Department's workforce reflects 

the strengths of our diverse nation, while promoting an inclusive culture that encourages collaboration, 

f1exibility, and fairness throughout the organization. Key objectives include improving and enhancing 

mentoring programs, expanding outreach to managers who make hiring decisions, and encouraging 

collaboration with external partners. 

One of the primary goals of the DISP is to use data analytics to drive performance excellence To that 

end, the Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR), in coordination with HR, examined whether there were barriers for 

multiple underrepresented groups. The FY 2014 barrier analysis in the Management Directive 715 (MD-715) 

report focused on African Americans in senior leadership due to their low representation in theSES as 

compared with the Federal workforce (FW) SES representation (3.8% vs. 11.4%). The FY 2015 barrier 

analysis focused on representation of women in theSES and SFS. The FY 2016 barrier analysis focused on 

Hispanic employees in the GS-12 grades and above in accordance with an EEOC and OPM memo on low 

representation of Hispanics in the FW. Specific corrective strategies are developed based on the barrier analysis 

conducted. 

For instance, as reported in the FY 2016 MD-715, applicant flow data showed Hispanic employees 

apply and qualify at rates at or above their representation outside the Department However, in the 2210 job 

series (Information Technology Management, an important feeder pool into the senior ranks), this did not occur 

Based on this analysis, S/OCR is interviewing managers in key bureaus to ascertain what criteria they use to 

hire employees and ensure that they adhere to merit system principles. In addition, S/OCR is working with HR 

to evaluate why Hispanic employees are not participating in career development opportunities at a rate 

commensurate with their representation at the Department, and develop strategies that can benefit Hispanics as 

well as underrepresented groups 

Question: 

Is there anything preventing the State Department from publishing its Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission :MD-715 reports and related data tables on the State Department website? Other agencies make 

their reports available on their website. 

Answer: 

The State Department currently posts the MD-715 report on its internal website and is in the process of 

posting on the Department's external website as well. 

Security Clearance Denials It is our understanding that denials and delays in granting security clearances affect 

people of color disproportionately. Have these denials been examined as a factor in hiring barrier analyses? 11 

Answer: 

During the course of the investigation and adjudication of a security clearance, the race of the applicant 

is never requested in the documentation (i.e. Standard Form 86), interview, or any contact with the Subject or 

sources. Security records, therefore, do not reflect an applicant's race. In part, this helps to ensure that the 

security clearance process remains impartial to the Subject's race and is not considered in the 

determination. Moreover, per ODNI's 2015 Annual Report on Security Clearance Determinations, the number 

of Department final security clearance denials is relatively small, with only 0 I% of applicants being denied a 

security clearance. Internal data for 2016 indicates a DOS security clearances denial rate of 0.2%. Thus the 

impact of security clearance denials as a factor in hiring would appear to be very limited, and the Department 

would not be able to calculate the effects ofrace on denials and hiring. 
241


25840aa-5.eps

Question: 

Schedule C Appointees: What consideration is given to promoting a diverse and inclusive workforce in 

selecting political appointees to serve in the State Department? 

Answer: 

Tt is a priority of the State Department to promote a diverse and inclusive workforce The Department is 

working closely with the White House on the identification of qualified candidates for our senior political 

appointees 

Statement on Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity· The State Department's careers webpage 

previously included a statement by the Secretary on the importance of diversity. Do you plan to publish a 

similar statement? 

Answer: 

The Secretary's statement on diversity is currently available on the State Department owned site, 

careers.state.gov. The direct hnk to the statement is: h.!t~.fl.Jeers.state.gov/l.:arn/diverc;itv-indusion/ceoQQliu,i The statement reads as follows: "At our core are our people and we are committed to having a 

workforce that reflects the diverse people that we represent. Not only because embracing diversity enhances the 

development of human capital resources, increases proficiency levels, promotes a workplace culture that values 

the efforts of all members, and enhances the professional experience of our valued public servants, because we 

represent the United States to the world. 

To that end, the Department is committed to equal employment opportunity (EEO) and ensuring that the 

Department's work environment is free from prohibited discrimination in all phases of employment- including 

recruitment, hiring, evaluation, promotion, and training. This includes improving and enhancing our 

mentorship programs, expanding outreach to managers who make hiring decisions, and encouraging 

collaboration with external partners. 

The Office of Civil Rights works to resolve workplace conflicts and complaints in a prompt, impartial, 

constructive, and timely manner. Those found to have violated this commitment to non-discrimination, 

including retaliation for participating in an EEO-protected activity will be discipline appropriately. 

lam ho:1ored to reaffinn ~na iong-standing Department cvmmitmenl to diversity. in background as \Vell 

as idea::;, tcday and f(Jf the future .. , 

Question: 

Personnel Reductions: In a time when the Department is projected to experience significant personnel cuts and 

undergo a complete reorganization, how will the lack of diversity within the Foreign Service and Civil Service 

be addressed? Are we correct in understanding that the reduction of State Department personnel will be based 

on attrition and buyouts for retirement-eligible individuals by bureau? How many buyouts do you anticipate? At 

what costs? What are the RNO (Race or National origin) breakdowns for the group of personnel who meet the 

criteria for buyouts? 

Answer: 

In the near term, we plan two cohorts of Rangel and Pickering fellows in our July and September 

Foreign Service intake classes. We anticipate continued Rangel/Pickering hiring in FY2018 as well 
242

f


25840aa-6.eps

As I stated in my testimony, the reduction of State Department personnel will be accomplished without 

Reductions-in-Force. Rather, the reduction would be accomplished through limited attrition intake hiring and 

possibly be supplemented with buyouts The Department is still exploring the buyout alternatives based on the 

criteria laid out !rom OPM, and exact skill categories and demographics are still to be determined 

What role do you envision for employee affinity groups in the State Department under your leadership0 What 

regular engagement do you plan to have with these groupso 

Answer: 

In recent years, employee atfmity groups (EAGs) have collaborated with Department leadership and 

stakeholders on significant issues affecting their constituencies and the Department at large, such as revising 

assignment preclusion regulations and promoting awareness of affirmative hiring for people with disabilities. 

The Department's Oftice of Civil Rights and Bureau of Human Resources liaise regularly with EAGs to 

promote diversity and inclusion, career development and in support of the Department's retention and 

recruitment efforts. We also keep our Unions informed of collaborations with the EAGs and put the EAGs in 

direct contact with the Unions as appropriate. 

Last year, during ongoing Diversity Forum meetings hosted by the Deputy Secretary, EAG leaders 

identified three crosscutting issues of interest: diversity data, unconscious bias training, and recruitment and 

retention. I support the Department's ongoing dialogue with EAGs and plan to continue this collaboration by 

engaging personally or by delegation to a senior member of my team. 
243


25840ab-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Titus 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 14, 2017 

A new round of exploratory drilling of natural gas fields in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

of Cyprus is due to begin this July. This exploration is critical to US interests, as it could lead to 

sources of energy that would enable key allies and strategic partners like Israel and Cyprus to 

become energy independent while decreasing the reliance of European states on Russian gas. 

Turkey has already issued threats against this exploratory drilling. The United States has 

consistently supported the rights of Cyprus to explore and exploit its EEZ What diplomatic 

pressure are you exerting or are prepared to utilize on Turkey to encourage them not to interfere 

with the lawful exploration set to begin in Cyprus' EEZ? 

Answer: 

Finding a resolution for Cyprus is a priority for the Administration. We continue to press 

all sides, including Turkey, to show maximum f1exibility, and we have and will continue to 

encourage Turkey to show restraint in its response to EEZ drilling activities. We believe 

hydrocarbon resources should be shared equitably with all Cypriots, and that a durable settlement 

to the Cyprus problem is the best way to ensure the stability and predictability necessary for the 

full development of Cypriot enert,>y resources. 

Qnestion: 

Many refugees are currently stranded in Greece, which given its economic crisis has little ability 

to care for them, and Greece continues to be susceptible to increased t1ows of refugees because 

of its location and vast shoreline. Is the State Department prepared to assist Greece in the event 

of a new refugee crisis? Does the United States currently provide Greece with technical 

assistance, intelligence, or equipment? Is there a plan in place should there be a new surge in 

refugees to Greece, as well as to Europe as a whole? 

Answer: 

The United States understands Europe's refugee and migration challenges will continue, and 

significant humanitarian needs must still be addressed. In addition to actively supporting the 

development of comprehensive, coordinated, and humane responses, we continue to focus on 

addressing the primary drivers of global migration, including protracted cont1icts, poverty, and 

instability. 

The United States has contributed close to $72 million in humanitarian aid in response to 

Europe's refugee and migration crisis. This funding supports the efforts of humanitarian partners 

to provide food, water, shelter, and other types of assistance. Most of this funding has been 

contributed to the Ofilce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for 

activities in Greece and the Western Balkans, but it is contributed without earmarks for a specific 
244

f


25840ab-2.eps

country, activity, or location, so UNHCR has the flexibility to respond to new and emerging 

needs in the region. UNHCR continually undertakes contingency planning, and if the need 

surpasses a designated threshold (usually $10 million), it will issue a new emergency appeal. 

The United States has been working with Greece since mid-2016 to help authorities develop 

an identification management system that enhances border security. 
245


25840ac-1.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Norma Torres 

House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing 

June 14, 2017 

Following revelations of criminal activity at the highest levels of the Honduran National Police, 

the Government of Honduras appointed a Police Reform and Purge Commission. How does the 

President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request support the work of the Honduran Police Reform 

and Purge Commission and other police reform etl'orts in Central America? 

Answer: 

The Department of State's main objectives in reforming the Honduran National Police 

(HNP) are to build the institutional capacity of Honduran law enforcement officials to prevent, 

address, and combat crime and to provide services that meet the needs of communities. 

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) supports 

comprehensive law enforcement reform through training and advisory opportunities, as well 

equipment and limited infrastructure support. With INL support, the Purge Commission has 

been assisting the Honduran Congress in the creation of a new organic police law which, if done 

correctly, will further bolster the institution and reduce impunity in Honduras. INL is assisting 

the HNP to develop and implement new, more rigorous standards for candidate qualifications, 

including a high school diploma, successful financial and criminal record background check, 

investigator interview of family and associates, and completion of an !!-month basic training. 

INL provides recent graduates from the basic training academy with mentoring and advising to 

help put into practice lessons learned from the academy and appropriate, professional, and 

practical application of skills learned upon assignment into areas of the HNP where INL is 

working, including: Police Investigative Directorate, TIGRES, and Community Police. 

With the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request of $36.7 million for Honduras, INL 

will support the continued development of the HNP through training and advising as well as the 

renovation and outfitting of facilities for the HNP' s Criminal Investigations School (EIC). INL 

support to police education is a critical component of the police plan to build a competent and 

educated force to 27,000 by 2022; the EIC is intended to become the driving force towards 

increased specialization of the HNP. This assistance will complement INL's ongoing law 

enforcement etl'orts to include providing advising and training to specialized units; promoting 

and enhancing community policing throughout the country; and supporting telecommunications 

abilities between and among law enforcement entities. 

As part of regional etl'orts in Central America, INL law enforcement reform programs 

address the security-related drivers of illegal immigration tram Central America to the 

United States. Focusing primarily on the Northern Triangle, FY 2018law enforcement programs 

will continue to strenb>then the ability of Central American partners to dismantle criminal 

networks, combat gang and localized violence, and modernize and increase the transparency of 

law enforcement institutions. This will be accomplished through a three-pronged approach of 

bottom-up, top-down, and operations coordination. Bottom-up community security efforts 

address the security-related causes of illegal immigration through U.S. law enforcement capacity 
246


25840ac-2.eps

building programs, including the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program, 

Model Police Precincts, and the Place-Based Stratet,>y programs in Guatemala, Honduras, and El 

Salvador. These programs are responsible for a 30-70 percent reduction in homicides in targeted 

areas. 

Top-down institutional reforms, primarily implemented through the Central America Police 

Reform Initiative (CAPRI), strengthen and standardize police academies and foster inter-country 

information sharing, such as the nascent Gang Information Sharing Platform, which is being 

implemented across the Northern Triangle. Specialized advisors ensure sustainability and longterm results by strengthening police and addressing destabilizing conditions of corruption, 

impunity, and weak institutions. Through operational coordination with partner country law 

enforcement, INL helps dismantle transnational criminal organizations by supporting specialized 

task forces and interagency vetted units throughout the region, which address immediate highthreat security issues related to gangs, money laundering and financial crimes, and human 

trafl!cking and smuggling. 

Question: 

Sexual violence against women and children is widespread in Central America and is an 

important driver of migration to the United States. How does the President's Fiscal Year 2018 

budget request prioritize etTorts to address issues of sexual violence in Central America? 

Answer: 

The United States is committed to prioritizing e±Torts that deter sexual violence. Genderbased violence (GBV), which includes sexual violence, is a global epidemic that hinders the 

ability of individuals, especially women and girls, to fully participate in and contribute to their 

families, communities, and societies- economically, politically, and socially. US etTorts in 

Central America aim to deter GBV by increasing policing capacity to recognize victims and 

perpetrators, strengthening the judicial sector, assisting survivors, and facilitating enhanced 

messaging to increase public awareness of GBV and women's rights. The Administration has 

made a clear commitment to the region by seeking $460 million for programs in the FY 2018 

budget request These programs will build on existing etTorts, including specific programs to 

prevent sexual violence as well as components of larger capacity-building initiatives. A good 

example is in Guatemala, where USAID supports the Government of Guatemala's institutions in 

establishing and implementing coordinated prevention strategies for mitigating GBV. USAID is 

responsible for the successful establishment of eight, 24-hour courts. US AID adapted a 24-hour 

court model to respond to the needs of female victims of violence and implemented a 24-hour 

court that specializes in cases of violence against women. 

Question: 

Corruption has also enabled the growth of transnational criminal organizations in Mexico, and 

the Mexican Congress recently approved reforms to address growing concerns about government 

corruption. How does the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request support Mexico's efforts 

to combat corruption, including the implementation of the new National Anti -Corruption 

System? 
247

f


25840ac-3.eps

Answer: 

Through the Merida Initiative, the United States and Mexico have forged a multi-faceted 

partnership to combat transnational organized crime and drug trafficking and to support 

Mexico's etTorts to strengthen its security and justice institutions, enhance rule oflaw, improve 

border security, disrupt illicit financial networks, and promote respect for human rights. 

U.S. support for Mexico's ongoing transition to an accusatorial criminal justice system 

has been, and continues to be with the FY 2018 request, an integral component of our strategy to 

combat organized crime and the corruption it breeds. A transparent, efficient, and etTective 

criminal justice system is essential to the Administration's goal of dismantling transnational 

criminal organizations, and helps the Government of Mexico combat impunity and corruption. It 

also strengthens the rule of law by protecting due process, promoting assistance to crime victims, 

and strengthening human rights. As Mexico advances these reforms, the United States continues 

to provide essential support for law enforcement professionalization, strengthening judicial 

institutions, training prosecutors and judges, curriculum support for law schools, accreditation of 

federal and state forensic laboratories and certification of their personnel, and improving the 

corrections system. 

Our assistance complements the Government of Mexico's own etTorts to promote 

accountability, professionalism, integrity, and adherence to due process among the country's 

350,000 federal, state, and municipal law enforcement officials through training and police 

professionalization, including improved vetting and internal atTairs. In addition, we support the 

etTorts of civil society and the private sector to transform the underlying culture of justice sector 

institutions. 

The U.S Agency for International Development is working with the government, private 

sector, and civil society to implement the new National Anti-Corruption System to address 

impunity and corruption in Mexico. The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor also currently provides support, through prior year funds, that builds the 

advocacy skills of civil society organizations, including through engagement with the private 

sector and universities to bolster their role in promoting anti -corruption measures, and 

encourages policymakers to act more e±Tectively on issues of corruption. 
248


25840ad-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by 

Representative Brad Schneider 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

As Chairman Royce said in his opening statement, I wish you and our nation success in your 

tenure. As Ranking Member Engel said in his opening remarks, I am deeply skeptical of this 

budget proposaL In the Politico article, Why Foreign Aid is critical to U.S national security, by 

Admiral Mike Mullen and General James Jones, the authors state that investing in prevention is, 

on average, 60 times less costly than war and post-conflict reconstruction costs. Adequately 

funding diplomacy and development up front makes sense, and saves money and lives in the 

long-term. How then can you justify drastically reducing funding to manage political and 

development challenges before they become full-blown crises in favor of inevitably having to 

pay far more in financial and human resources in the tuture? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request for the State Department and USAID will allow America to 

continue to assert U.S. leadership, defend national security, and foster opportunities for U.S. 

economic interests. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in 

international development, global health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and 

humanitarian etTorts. The U.S. government is actively engaging with partners to reduce tragility 

and promote stability in conflict-affected states. This includes enhancing the ability of fragile 

countries to mitigate shocks and prevent conflict, and advancing the stabilization of con±lictatTected areas so that they can transition to long-term political, economic and social stability. 

Question: 

I firmly believe that the national security of the United States relies on what I refer to as a threelegged stool diplomacy, development, and defense. If you take away one leg of the stool you 

destabilize the others, and the national security of the U.S. becomes precarious. I am afraid this is 

exactly what the President's drastic cuts to the FY 2018 budget request will do. How do you 

view the roles of diplomacy and development in ensuring the national security of the United 

States? 

Answer: 

Diplomacy and development play an indispensable role in protecting our nation's safety 

and advancing prosperity for the American people. With such a broad array of threats facing the 

United States, our FY 2018 budget request aligns with the Administration's objective of mal<ing 

America's security our top priority. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be 

the leader in international development, global health, democracy and good governance 

initiatives, and humanitarian efforts. As part of our etl'orts, we will continue to partner with key 

allies to protect Americans and American interests, advance bilateral partnerships, open new 

markets for U.S. businesses, and promote American interests abroad, in a manner that puts 
249


25840ad-2.eps

America first. Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals and 

national security interests, while ensuring that other donor countries contribute their fair share 

toward meeting global challenges. 

Question: 

As you mentioned in your prepared remarks, we are living in extraordinary times and 

consistently dealing with more and increasingly complex challenges all over the world. These 

immediate challenges include threats from North Korea, Iran, and Russia, as well as Islamic 

extremist non-state actors such as ISIS, AI Qaeda and others. We are also confronting challenges 

ranging from the emerging global reach and influence of China, to failing and failed states such 

as Syria and South Sudan, and severely at risk states like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Venezuela. 

And let's not forget the global refugee crisis with the greatest number of refugees since World 

War II, increasing food insecurity caused by global warming trends, and increasingly 

sophisticated networks involved in transnational crime and human trafficking. In every one of 

these examples and numerous others, I share the view of countless foreign policy experts, that 

diplomacy and development initiatives--the foreign aid and assistance the U.S. people 

generously provide around the world, and the dedicated professionals who are devoted to these 

national priorities-are vital to overcome these challenges. I would like you to explain how 

pulling back on our commitments and investments in diplomacy and development, as is the case 

with the President's FY 18 budget request, can have any etl'ect other than diminishing our 

leadership and hampering our ability to protect our national interests and achieve our strategic 

objectives. 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request for the State Department and US AID will allow America to 

continue to assert U.S.leadership, defend national security, and foster opportunities for U.S. 

economic interests. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in 

international development, global health, democracy and good governance initiatives, and 

humanitarian etl'orts. As part of our efforts, we will continue to partner with key allies to protect 

Americans and American interests, advance bilateral partnerships, open new markets for U.S. 

businesses, and promote American interests abroad, in a manner that puts America first. 

Focusing our etl'orts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals and national 

security interests, while ensuring that other donor countries contribute their fair share toward 

meeting global challenges. 

Question: 

How do you view America's role in international atl'airs and the global world order? On May 3, 

2017, you spoke to the dedicated men and women of the Department of State. In those remarks, 

you made the assertion that our values are different and separate from our policies. I could not 

disagree more. Rather, excluding our values from our work severely diminishes our decades of 

credibility as a leader among other nations, and negatively impacts our ability to support global 

stability based on principles of democratic governance, commitment to international conventions 

and agreements, and respect for human rights. How do you believe that our values are relevant to 

our diplomatic and development efforts overseas? How will you ensure these values drive our 
250


25840ad-3.eps

diplomacy and development work? What are some specific examples of ways in which basing 

our policy on our values benetits our national security? 

Answer: 

Promoting US. values-such as the pursuit of democratic governance and commitment 

to human rights and the freedom of religion, press, and speech-contributes to the long-term 

US. strategy of strengthening the international order. An example of one of the many ways we 

promote such values is through our annual reports on International Religious Freedom and 

Trafficking in Persons-two recently released reports in which we both publicly highlight 

countries that have made progress and expose those that continue to commit abuses. 

The security of American people is the highest priority in our foreign policy, and 

protecting our country sometimes necessitates hard choices to partner with countries that may 

not share our values in order to achieve that goal. As we grow trust and cooperation in 

relationships rooted in maintaining our international security, we will continue to identify new 

ways to promote our values and raise human rights issues with our partners. 

Question: 

Reports indicate that career staff who have served under Republican and Democratic 

administrations, who have deep knowledge and expertise on complex international issues, are not 

being consulted by you and your personal aides. Tt strikes me that excluding these committed 

public servants from key policy discussions can only be detrimental to our national security. In 

addition, purposely disengaging from those who literally put their lives on the line for our 

country on behalf of the State Department and US AID is extraordinarily detrimental to staff 

morale and all but disregards the sacrifices that these officers make. If these rumors are true, why 

are you not engaging the career staff in policy making and program management? 

Answer: 

These rumors are false. Our employees are our most valuable resource. Their continued 

engagement and candid input are vital to the success of the Department, as well as the employeeled assessment and redesign initiative on which the Department is now embarking. 

Per Executive Order 1378 I of March 13, 20I 7, the Department of State (Department) is 

looking at aligning resources, people, and our overarching mission, including restructuring the 

Department's operations, in order to deploy the talent and resources of the Department in the 

most efficient way possible. This review has no preconceived outcomes, and our discussions of 

the goals, priorities, and direction of the Department are robust exercises that involve all 

stakeholders. To guide how we approach both our work process design as well as our 

organizational structure, the first question we are asking is: How do we deliver on 

mission? Once we understand how we get the work done, then we will put the organization 

structure in place to support it. Ultimately, we expect our talented workforce to be more satisfied 

with their daily work because they will know exactly how what they do every day contributes to 

our delivery on mission. And in the process we will have removed obstacles that divert attention 

away from the priorities at hand. 

In May, we asked all Department employees to complete a survey to shape the future way 

in which the Department will deliver on mission and think creatively about work process design. 

Over 35,000 surveys were completed. From the report produced by the consulting firm we hired 
251

f


25840ad-4.eps

to review the surveys, the overarching theme is the extraordinary dedication and patriotism of the 

men and women in the Department and why they undertake careers with this agency. That is a 

strength that we will build upon. We will take a good, hard look at employee feedback, which 

includes needing greater clarity around how our mission is det!ned; reducing duplicative layering 

of work processes and approvals; and addressing a number of leadership areas. Overall, the 

feedback has been extremely valuable to begin to help us focus on where the greatest 

opportunities are to remove obstacles for people to get their work done more effectively and 

more efficiently. 

Question: 

When you choose to accept the responsibilities of Secretary of State, was your purpose to build 

up and strengthen America's role in making the world a safer place? Or, did you take this job to 

captain the retreat from our nation's long-held position of leader of the free world? 

Answer: 

---The 21 ''century has presented many evolving challenges to U.S leadership, including 

our national security and economic prosperity. Our diplomatic efforts around the world are 

motivated by the conviction that we will engage with other nations on issues of security and 

prosperity while also continuing to be the leader in international development, global health, 

democracy and good governance initiatives, as well as humanitarian efforts. Our mission is at all 

times guided by our longstanding values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty and human 

dignity. As Secretary of State, I will continue to uphold this mission to advance American 

interests while holding high the aspiration that all will one day experience the freedoms and 

peace that our great nation has known. 
252


25840ae-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Adriano Espaillat 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Do you believe President Trump's Tower in the Philippines poses a potential conflict of interest? 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 

Question: 

Do you believe President Trump's International Hotel and Tower in Azerbaijan poses a potential 

conflict of interest? 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 

Question: 

Do you believe the Cap Cana Resort in the Dominican Republic poses a potential conflict of 

interest? 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 

Qnestion: 

Do you believe the Hotel and Tower in Vancouver poses a conflict of interest? 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 

Question: 

Do you believe the golf course in Aberdeen poses a potential conflict of interest? 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 

Question: 

Do you believe the victory from a Chinese court that ruled in Trump's favor in a trademark 

dispute that had been going for more than a decade poses a conflict of interest?\ 

Answer: 

Questions concerning the President should be addressed to the White House. 
253


25840ae-2.eps

Question: 

And finally, do you value our relationship with the Caribbean? 

Answer: 

We deeply value our relationship with the Caribbean. Geographic proximity, strong 

societal ties, and a fruitful tourism and trade relationship have yielded tangible benefits for US. 

citizens. The United States is the primary trading partner for the Caribbean, representing a 

robust economic partnership that in 2016 saw a $4.6 billion trade surplus for the United States, 

14 million US. tourists, and 11,042 Caribbean students studying in the United States. 

Our commitment to strong relations was made clear through our multi -year strategy on 

the Caribbean, which we submitted to Congress June 19 under the United States- Caribbean 

Strategic Engagement Act of2016 in coordination with USAID. This strategy, the first of its 

kind for this administration, establishes a framework for enhancing US.-Caribbean relations in 

six broad areas: security, diplomacy, prosperity, energy, education, and health. The Department 

has already begun to deliver on the commitment to enhanced diplomatic relations delineated in 

the strategy. Our Under Secretary for Political Afl'airs, Tom Shannon, traveled to Grenada July 

5-6 to meet with Caribbean leaders and Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of the Caribbean 

Community's annual heads of government meeting. Under Secretary Shannon was the first 

high-ranking US. oflicial to attend this annual meeting. We have also bet,>un planning a 

Caribbean trade conference, scheduled to take place in Miami this fall, which will facilitate trade 

and investment opportunities for US. and Caribbean companies alike. This will be the first time 

the State Department has ever hosted a Caribbean focused trade conference. 

The Department remains committed to working closely with Congress, as well as 

members of the Caribbean diplomatic and diaspora communities, as we continue to develop 

more robust US.-Caribbean relations. 

Question: 

Have you consulted with the Oflice of the Legal Advisor to determine whether such payments 

violate the emoluments clause? 

Answer: 

Questions regarding foreign government payments to businesses in which the President has an 

interest are more appropriately addressed to the White House. 

Question: 

Is the State Department doing anything to communicate to other countries that payments to 

President Trump could violate the US. Constitution? 

Answer: 

No. Related questions remain in active litigation, and the Office of Legal Counsel at the 

Department of Justice has the relevant Constitutional law expertise in the Executive Branch. 

Question: 

How much of the State Department time and money have gone to support Trump Organization's 

efl'orts in these countries? 
254

f


25840ae-3.eps

Answer: 

The Department of State does not provide preferential support to the Trump 

Organization; we approach matters involving the Trump Organization as we approach matters 

involving other similarly-situated companies. All federal employees are bound by federal ethics 

rules, which prohibit working on matters in which they have conflicts of interest, and which 

prohibit misusing public otlice for private gain. 
255


25840af-1.eps

Qnestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Tillerson by 

Representative Lieu 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 14, 2017 

Does the Saudi-led coalition have the capacity to decisively end the conflict in Yemen through 

military action? 

Answer: 

No. There is no decisive military solution available to either side to end the cont1ict. An 

enduring solution will only come through a comprehensive political agreement, which will 

require compromise from all sides. 

Question: 

During a May, 2017, press conference that you held with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, you 

stated: 

"In tenns of the situation in Yemen, our emphasis is on finding a political solution. We 

view it as a tragic situation, obviously of millions of people on the brink of starvation, 

because of the impact of the fighting. But we also think it's important to put the pressure 

on the parties to come to the table and talk." 

Does the Trump administration support a political solution along the lines of the roadmap 

developed by former Secretary Kerry and the UN Special Envoy? If so, what leverage does the 

administration plan to use to ensure that the Government of Yemen and the Saudi -led coalition 

engages constructively in talks to achieve it after President Hadi torpedoed the last round of 

negotiations? If not, what is the administration's strategy for reaching a political solution? 

Answer: 

We support a framework for an agreement in which political concessions from the 

Yemeni Government are traded for security concessions from the Houthi/Saleh group. We have 

impressed upon both sides that there is no other option available than to reach agreement. Saudi 

Arabia engaged in good-faith to promote negotiations to reach an agreement during more than 

100 days ofUN-led peace talks in Kuwait last summer and continues to remain engaged. The 

Yemeni Government has also publicly indicated its support for the UN Special Envoy's etl'orts to 

reach a compromise solution for management of Hudaydah port. We remain engaged with both, 

and have urged compromise as soon as the Houthi/Saleh group demonstrates a willingoess to 

negotiate in good faith. We view the UN Special Envoy's proposal to hand management of 

Hudaydah port to a neutral, local third party, as the best way to reinvigorate the political track. 

Question: 

What specific diplomatic steps, to date, has the administration taken to achieve a political 

solution toY emen? 
256


25840af-2.eps

Answer: 

The Secretary of State, in his discussions with regional interlocutors, to include members 

of the Coalition, has urged a speedy end to the conflict and emphasized the need for a political 

solution. Our Ambassador to Yemen, Matthew Tueller, is based in Saudi Arabia and actively 

engages with all parties to the conflict all over the region in an effort to urge a return to political 

negotiations. We recently hosted Saudi and Emirati delegations at the Department of State to 

discuss practical next steps for ending the conflict and impressed upon them the urgent need to 

reach a resolution through an agreed-upon framework of priorities and principles 

Question: 

On March 13, 2017, 53 of my colleagues and I sent you a letter urging the Department of 

State to use all diplomatic tools at your disposal to help open the Yemeni port ofHodeidah to 

international humanitarian aid organizations to allow them to deliver critical food, fuel and 

medicine into northern Yemen. Nevertheless, famine continues to plague Yemen, aid 

organizations struggle to deliver aid through Hodeidah, and the World Food Programme has 

been unable to deliver a U.S.-sponsored crane to the port. What steps have you taken to increase 

or improve the U.S. response to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen? 

Answer: 

We share your deep concern regarding the devastating humanitarian impact of the 

conflict, particularly the ongoing cholera and food security crises affecting millions of Yemenis, 

both of which are the largest crises of their kind in the world. As a result, we have increased our 

assistance and remain one of the largest donors to the Yemen response. The United States is 

providing nearly $467 million in humanitarian aid for the Yemen response in the region to date 

in Fiscal Year 2017. U.S. government humanitarian assistance includes the provision of health 

care, support for clean water and sanitation, food distribution, emergency shelter support, 

emergency relief supplies, protection, and other types of aid. We continue to call on all parties to 

the conflict to ensure unfettered access for humanitarian aid workers to populations in need. 

While moving humanitarian goods into and around Yemen remains challenging due to the 

ongoing conflict, humanitarian organizations continue their heroic work to reach Yemen's 20.7 

million people in need. 

Regarding Hudaydah port, we support the UN Special Envoy's proposal to place 

Hudaydah port under the control of neutral Yemeni authorities as a confidence-building measure 

to bring the parties back to peace negotiations. If successful, the neutral control ofHudaydah 

would enable further capacity improvements at the port and also provide assurances needed to 

emplace the U.S. government-funded cranes in Hudaydah. As imports at Hudaydah account for 

approximately 70 percent of commercial food imports into Yemen, the U.S. is also continuing its 

support and funding for the U.N. Verification and Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM) By 

providing an eftlcient, neutral clearance process, UNVIM has facilitated the flow of commercial 

goods to Red Sea ports and improved the confidence of commercial shippers. 

Question: 

Your budget request cuts USAID's Global Health programming for Yemen. Yemen is 

currently the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with a cholera outbreak that is rapidly 

spiraling out of control and could reach epidemic levels by mid-summer. A child dies every 10 

minutes in Yemen due to preventable diseases and now is infected with cholera every 35 seconds 
257


25840af-3.eps

due to the elongation of the civil war, and the Saudi-led coalition airstrikes that have destroyed 

the country's vital health and sanitation infrastructure. There is also a Saudi-led, US-aided naval 

blockade preventing medicine and other assistance from entering the country. What is your 

strategy for ending Yemen's humanitarian crisis, and how would cutting US AID's Global Health 

programming for Yemen affect that strategy? 

Answer: 

We will continue providing humanitarian assistance to alleviate the crisis, continue 

supporting the U.N.-led efforts to negotiate a sustainable political solution, and work with 

international partners to prepare for recovery and reconstruction. In partnership with the World 

Health Organization and UNICEF, among others, USAID's humanitarian partners are 

responding to the cholera outbreak by training health care workers, supporting cholera treatment 

centers and mobile health and nutrition teams, implementing basic water, sanitation, and hygiene 

(WASH) activities, providing medical supplies, and promoting messaging campaigns on 

cholera. 

USAID's humanitarian assistance in the health sector is not supported with funds from 

Global Health. USAID uses Global Health funding for longer term health development 

programs. While Yemen was not allocated Global Health funds in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, health 

remains a key priority area in USAID's early recovery response. USAID is using other funds to 

support critical activities to prevent the further erosion of health services across the country. 

Using FY 2016 and prior-year Global Health and WASH funds, we are planning to increase our 

early recovery health activities by the end of this FY. USAID also coordinates closely with the 

World Bank and other donors to ensure unity of efl'ort, economy of resources, and effective 

oversight of development assistance. 

USAID is also supporting the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM) to 

facilitate the flow of commercial goods and services to Yemen by providing timely and impartial 

clearance services for shipping companies transporting commercial imports to ports outside of 

the authority of the Yemeni government. 

Question: 

In the case of Yemen, U.S. support, in part, has contributed to an extreme blockade by 

the Saudi-led military coalition on the import of humanitarian assistance and commercial imports 

that has led to nearly 20 million people facing extreme hunger and more than 7 million people on 

the brink of famine How do you respond to those who say that a policy of supporting a military 

coalition in Yemen that is directly contributing to the humanitarian crisis, coupled with extreme 

cuts to our humanitarian and development assistance account, will make us less secure, as these 

policies drive radicalization and extremism against the U.S.? 

Answer: 

We are deeply committed to alleviating Yemen's devastating humanitarian crisis. The 

United States is providing nearly $467 million in humanitarian aid for the Yemen response in the 

region to date in FY 2017. This exceeds our FY 2016 total of more than $327 million in 

humanitarian assistance for theY emen response. 

We firmly believe the only solution to this cont1ict is a political solution, in the form of a 

comprehensive political agreement. Our efforts are focused on supporting the UN as it works to 

restart dialogue and de-escalate military activity. Our support to the Saudi-led Coalition is 
258


25840af-4.eps

limited and focused around core US. national security priorities. We have serious concerns 

about Iranian-supported Houthi military actions, including the use of anti-ship cruise missiles 

and explosive boats that threatens vital Red Sea shipping lanes and ballistic missiles that threaten 

the Saudi border and have killed Saudi civilians. We are also deeply concerned about civilian 

casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure resulting from Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, and 

we continue to press the Saudi-led Coalition at the highest levels to take all appropriate measures 

to mitigate the impact of the conflict on the civilian population. We also continue to call on all 

parties to the conflict to ensure unfettered access for humanitarian workers to reach those in 

need. 

Question: 

What commitments did the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia make to the US. government 

regarding changes to their operational conduct and targeting procedures to prevent civilian 

casualties in their war in Yemen? 

Answer: 

The Saudi government has told us it supports a political resolution to the conflict, is 

committed to complying with the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and mitigating civilian 

casualties, and in this regard has told us the following 

o It is taking steps to create a more thorough vetting process for target selection, to 

address concerns over civilian casualties and comply with LOAC. The Saudi-led 

Coalition strives to meet NATO standards for targeting and training. 

o The Saudis have expanded their no-strike list and restricted target list to over 

33,000 targets, with items on the list provided by the UN, other humanitarian 

organizations on the ground in Yemen, and other governments including the 

United States. 

o The Saudis have put in place stricter rules of engagement. 

o The Saudis plan to grant access to US military personnel to the Saudi Air 

Operations Center and any other targeting facilities. 

o The Saudis plan to consult with the US. government on further assistance in 

improving the targeting process. 

o The Coalition is implementing the recommendations of the Saudi Joint Incidents 

Assessment Team (JIAT). 

o The Saudi Ministry of Defense is consulting with DoD to increase US support 

for operations, including targeting. 

The Saudi Ministry of Defense has also committed to take training from US forces on 

LOAC and minimizing civilian casualties, including as part of a $750 million, multi-year FMS 

training case. We have already delivered courses and planned future training events for the 

Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) that will specifically include further training on LOAC and airto-ground targeting processes. We are expanding professionalization training to improve RSAF 

targeting capabilities and reduce the risk of civilian casualties. Future bilateral and multi-lateral 

training is designed to improve the RSAF's understanding of identifying, targeting, and engaging 

correct targets while minimizing collateral damage and civilian casualties. 

Additionally, we intend to renew LOAC and civilian casualties training at lower levels, 

send senior current or former military ofticers to periodically consult and encourage Saudi 

progress on their etl'orts, and review what other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
259


25840af-5.eps

(ISR) or other capabilities we can provide to the Saudis to help their processes. We also will 

continue to emphasize at all levels of the Saudi government the importance of continued 

adherence to LOAC and taking all feasible steps to protect civilians. 

Question: 

The State Department has agreed on several occasions to share with Congress the written 

commitments that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent to the administration to address concerns on 

civilian casualties. When will you provide those documents to Congress? 

Answer: 

These documents have been shared with the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign 

Relations Committees; we would be glad to coordinate further opportunities for Members or 

Staffto review tbese documents. 

Question: 

What safeguards has the Trump administration put in place to address any additional 

misuse of US -made munitions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, especially if credible third 

parties again detennine that the Saudis have committed violations of the laws of armed cont1ict? 

Answer: 

We take reports of violations of the laws of armed cont1ict seriously and look closely into 

such reports. 

The US. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy requires that arms sales take into 

consideration, among other factors, "the likelihood that tbe recipient would use the arms to 

commit human rigbts abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law, retransfer 

tbe anns to those who would commit human rights abuses or serious violations of international 

humanitarian law, or identify the United States with human rigbts abuses or serious violations of 

international humanitarian law'' Whether there is credible information that a proposed recipient 

unit has committed a gross violation of human rights or violated the Laws of Armed Cont1ict, 

and whether effective steps are taken to hold individuals or military units accountable for such 

abuses, are critical elements to this analysis. 

Question: 

What progress has the Royal Saudi Air Force made in improving its targeting capabilities 

from the beginning of the conflict until now? Can you provide data to justify that assessment? 

Answer: 

The Saudi-led Coalition reported to us that they have instituted more rigorous rules of 

engagement and arrangements to ensure that targets are thoroughly vetted. According to the 

Saudi military, the Coalition joint force commander must approve targets, taking into account a 

wide range of factors, including what the target is, what is around it, how it affects the overall 

mission, tbe legal aspects oftbe strike, and collateral damage estimates. He tben delegates the 

air tasking order to an appropriate unit, which determines the rigbt weapon for the target. If 

tbere is a time sensitive target, such as information about the imminent launch of a ballistic 

missile, tbe target vetting process has to be shortened, but pilots have a five-step vetting process, 

in which tbey have to positively identify the target, check the rules of engagement, check the 
260


25840af-6.eps

target against the no-strike list, and make a collateral damage estimate; then, he has target 

engagement authority (which allows the pilot to abort the mission if he is unsure for any reason). 

The Coalition has informed us it also has placed stricter protocols for strikes called in by 

Yemeni government forces, which led to problems in the past; now Yemeni government forces' 

calls for airstrikes must go through the aforementioned vetting process led by the Coalition joint 

force commander. We understand that the coalition has civilian and military legal advisors 

embedded in the air operations center. The Saudi military briefed us on these improvements. 

(Note we believe they provided this briefing to Congress, as well) We assess that faulty target 

selection and vetting has contributed to the majority of incidents that resulted in civilian 

casualties, so these process improvements have the potential to reduce the risk of civilian 

casualties. 

The Saudi military also informed us they have changed procedures in line with the 

recommendations of the Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT), though we have not yet been 

able to verify this. 

We do not have definitive data at this point to assess whether the Royal Saudi Air Force 

made improvements in its targeting capabilities. Such an analysis is significantly complicated by 

the changing nature of the cont1ict, making it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between 

different time periods. 

Question: 

In State's assessment, have Saudi-led coalition strikes on civilians and civilian targets 

increased radicalization among the Yemeni civilian population~ 

Answer: 

We are deeply concerned by the sutl'ering this cont1ict has brought upon Yemeni 

civilians. De-escalating this cont1ict is a priority for the Secretary of State. The instability in 

Yemen has allowed terrorist groups like AQAP and ISIS to expand their presence, and Iran to 

exploit the political and security vacuum. All parties to this cont1ict bear responsibility for this 

suffering. While we do not assess that the Saudis are intentionally targeting civilians, we 

continue to have deep concerns about civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects and 

infrastructure resulting from the Saudi-led Coalition's conduct of the air campaign in Yemen. 

Our message- both publicly and privately at the highest levels- has been that although we 

understand Saudi Arabia's strategic goals and the real threat that it faces from cross-border 

attacks, that the protection of civilians and civilian objects must be a top priority. Houthi-Saleh 

forces have also engaged in attacks that have killed civilians, including through shelling and the 

use of land mines in civilian areas. They have allowed Iran's presence in Yemen to increase, and 

continue to engage in aggressive military actions that destabilize Yemen and the entire region. 

Question 

Secretary Tillerson, were you asked by President or President-elect Trump to take a loyalty 

pledge before being otl'ered your current position or at any time since you were offered the job? 

Answer: 

I took an oath of otiice wherein I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the 

United States. 
261

Æ


25840af-7.eps

Question: 

Education otTers the hope of a better future for millions of children and youth worldwide, 

including the poor, people with disabilities, women and girls, and those living in countries 

atTected by contlict. Beyond that, education is a critical building block for the development of an 

inclusive, democratic society and must be a central component of US. efforts to promote 

stability around the world. A quality basic education also equips children and youth with 21st 

century skills needed for gainful employment. For every dollar spent on preschool programs, 

there is a $4 to $9 return to individuals and society, a return on investment that could drastically 

improve the trajectories of countries working towards economic independence. US. government 

support for these programs serves American values and is in our national interest. However, the 

President has proposed cutting global basic education programs by more than 50 percent in his 

FY 18 request. Will you elaborate on the reasoning for ending these critical interventions and the 

etTect they will have on children and youth in the countries where USAID currently works? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 request for education is robust, at more than a half billion dollars, and 

$377.9 million alone for basic education. Our etTort to streamline resources is in keeping with 

the Administration's priority of ensuring e±Tectiveness and accountability to the US. taxpayer. 

This does require some tough decisions. However, we recognize that investments in basic 

education creates pathways not only for learning, but also for greater economic growth, 

improved health outcomes, democratic governance, and more resilient societies. 

For that reason, USAID basic education programs are targeted on supporting countries' 

achievement of specific, measurable results: children reading; children and youth- particularly 

girls -accessing safe, quality education in crisis and contlict; and young people learning the 

skills they need to gain employment and contribute to society. USAID basic education programs 

also invest in countries where additional donor resources can be leveraged, another priority of 

the new Administration.