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

24–830PDF 2017

THE BUDGET, DIPLOMACY, AND DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 28, 2017

Serial No. 115–18

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

WITNESSES 

Stephen D. Krasner, Ph.D., senior fellow, Hoover Institution ............................. 5

Ms. Danielle Pletka, senior vice president, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute ..................................................................... 13

The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of Diplomacy and International Relations, Belfer Center for Science 

and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University (former Under Secretary for Political Affairs, U.S. Department 

of State) ................................................................................................................. 21

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Stephen D. Krasner, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................. 7

Ms. Danielle Pletka: Prepared statement .............................................................. 16

The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns: Prepared statement ...................................... 23

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 68

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 69

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

of New York: 

Chart submitted for the record ........................................................................... 71

Article submitted for the recod ........................................................................... 72

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

of California: 

Article submitted for the record .......................................................................... 75

Letter submitted for the record .......................................................................... 77

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

of New Jersey: Material submitted for the record ............................................. 85

The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida: Material submitted for the record .......................................... 93

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

of Illinois: Material submitted for the record .................................................... 99

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

State of California: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 106

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 107

Written response from Ms. Danielle Pletka to question submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel .............................................................. 109

Written responses from the Honorable R. Nicholas Burns and Stephen D. 

Krasner, Ph.D., to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable 

William Keating, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 110

Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for the record 

by the Honorable Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Illinois .............................................................................................. 112

(1)

THE BUDGET, DIPLOMACY, AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

Two weeks ago the administration presented its budget blueprint—or as they called it, ‘‘the skinny budget,’’ as the press has 

called it—which proposes significant reductions to the programs 

and operations of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, and the elimination of several independent 

agencies. Being ‘‘skinny,’’ this budget raises more questions than it 

answers, but here is what we do know. 

While it proposes an overall cut of some 32 percent, the budget 

‘‘protects’’ several programs that enjoy strong congressional support, including for HIV/AIDS, for malaria, and for vaccines. Funding for Embassy security and security assistance for Israel are 

maintained at current levels. These are good priorities. 

But I am concerned about how cuts would impact other priorities, including efforts to combat terrorists, poachers, human traffickers. U.S. leadership was key to stopping Ebola in West Africa, 

and continued engagement is needed to address future threats before they hit our shores. And many are rightly worried about how 

proposed cuts will impact humanitarian assistance at a time when 

more than 65 million people have been displaced around this globe 

by conflict and at a time, frankly, when famine looms in four countries. 

When it comes to development, our top focus should be rule of 

law. It should be economic growth. Promoting reforms to create environments for growth, as much of Asia did, several decades ago, 

is really crucial to development success. No amount of aid can overcome corruption. No amount of aid can overcome statist economic 

policies and weak property rights. 

But just as aid can’t be an entitlement for those overseas, it 

shouldn’t be an entitlement here at home. This includes food aid, 

which for too long has been treated as an entitlement for some 

shippers rather than as a humanitarian program meant to save 

lives. I am very proud of the bipartisan reforms that this comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032817\24830 SHIRL
2

mittee has achieved to make food assistance more effective and 

more efficient, and I look forward to doing more. 

As the budget process advances, and the committee establishes 

its priorities, we look forward to hearing from Secretary of State 

Tillerson. His management background will be a real asset as we 

focus on the Trump administration’s attempts to reorganize the 

State Department. 

One thing I would like to see is national security agencies with 

the flexibility to shape their workforce to meet the challenges of 

today. Agencies should have the authority to add civilian personnel 

with needed skills and eliminate positions that are no longer needed. Too many resources and personnel are focused in Washington, 

not in the field, and that is at every level. 

Everyone can agree that our assistance programs should be improved. Yet the State Department has continually failed to develop 

a meaningful strategic planning process that would align aid and 

our national security objectives. There have been innumerable 

studies detailing aid shortcomings, and their countless recommendations, I am afraid to say, have mainly been ignored. Here 

Congress deserves some blame, by writing foreign aid laws that 

burden the agencies with too many objectives and too many restrictions. We will do our part to improve this, and I look forward to 

working with the administration, because many of these programs 

are frankly very critical to our national security. We shouldn’t be 

cutting to the bone. 

And with that I turn to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel, 

of the Bronx, New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got to get you to 

the Bronx one of these days. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We 

are grateful for your time and expertise. I must say that I find myself deeply troubled by the direction American foreign policy is 

heading. Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have 

worked hard to advance American diplomacy and development efforts. We may not always agree 100 percent of the time on the best 

way forward, but I like to think we all see the value in robust bipartisan support for American international affairs. So I am sure 

other members were as shocked as I was when the White House 

released its Fiscal Year 2018 budget calling for a 31 percent cut to 

American diplomacy and development efforts. 

In my view, cutting the international affairs budget by even a 

fraction of that would be devastating. We haven’t seen many details, but a cut that drastic would surely mean that too many efforts and initiatives that do so much good would end up on the 

chopping block. 

And then last night, we learned that the administration is seeking $2.8 billion in cuts to the international affairs budget, not down 

the road, but right now. I can just imagine an American diplomat 

sitting at a negotiating table who gets passed a note saying, sorry, 

our funding for this meeting just ran out. 

But here is the bottom line. Slashing diplomacy and development 

puts American lives at risk. If we no longer have diplomacy and development as tools to meet international challenges, what does that 

leave? The answer is simple: The military. Don’t get me wrong; I 

3

have always supported a strong national defense, but I also support 

using military force only as a measure of last resort. We should not 

send American servicemembers into harm’s way unless we have exhausted every other option. If we are not investing in diplomacy 

and development, we aren’t even giving those other options a 

chance. 

We rely on diplomacy to resolve conflicts across negotiating tables, at multilateral gatherings, and in quiet corners so that we 

don’t need to resolve them down the line on the battlefield. Our 

diplomats work to strengthen old alliances and build new bridges 

of friendship and shared understanding. Development helps to lift 

countries and communities up today so they can become strong 

partners of us on the global stage tomorrow. 

A lot of us think we have a moral obligation to help cure disease, 

improve access to education, and advance human rights. But even 

if it weren’t the right thing to do, it would be the smart thing to 

do because those efforts lead to greater stability, more responsive 

governments, stronger rule of law, and populations that share our 

values and priorities. Poverty and lack of opportunity, on the other 

hand, provide fertile ground for those who mean us harm. 

All these efforts, by the way, cost cents on the dollar compared 

to military engagement. People think international affairs and foreign aid are a massive chunk of the Federal budget. The chart behind me shows how it actually stacks up: 1.4 percent, less than 2 

percent. And if we make that sliver of the pie even smaller, it will 

come back on us in spades. 

The diseases we don’t combat will reach our shores. The communities on which we turn our backs may be the next generation of 

people who mean us harm, and the conflicts we fail to diffuse may 

well grow into the wars we need to fight later at a much higher 

cost in terms of American blood and treasure. Just imagine having 

to tell the parents of a young American soldier that their son or 

daughter was killed in battle because we weren’t willing to spend 

the tiny sums needed to prevent the conflict. 

Fortunately the Congress is a coequal branch of government. We 

decide how much to invest in our international affairs, not the 

White House. Congress will devote resources to push back against 

the Kremlin’s efforts to spread disinformation and destabilize our 

allies, just like they did to the United States during last year’s 

election campaign. 

I don’t understand this willingness to play footsie with Vladimir 

Putin. I think that we know him for what he is. So I am hopeful 

that as we move forward with next year’s spending bills, we continue to provide our diplomatic and development efforts the support 

they need and the support they have received under Republican 

and Democratic Presidents alike. 

However, there are things we cannot control when it comes to 

foreign policy that I want to briefly mention in closing. As far as 

I can tell, this administration is doing all it can to sideline the 

State Department. Aside from Secretary of State, the permanent 

representative to the U.N., and four ambassadorships, the President has not nominated a single State Department official. The 

State Department cannot make policy without leaders in place. 

4

It is also clear that our career diplomats’ expertise is being ignored. In 2 months we have suffered embarrassments in our relationships with Mexico, Australia, the UK, Germany, and NATO. 

We handed China what is being viewed as a major diplomatic victory and sent confusing signals to our friends in the Asia Pacific 

when the Secretary of State used language that aligns with China’s 

world view. 

The Secretary of State, and I had a nice conversation with him 

on the phone, but he has not delivered a major policy address or 

held a press availability. And on his last trip he took a single journalist, a writer for a right-leaning blog, which is a major departure 

from the longstanding practice of Secretaries of State travelling 

with the press corps. The Secretary told her that he is not a big 

media press access person. He said this on a flight to China. 

And last night we learned that the State Department is stopping 

the daily press briefing. The world’s window into American diplomacy and foreign policy is closing. No speeches, no press conferences, no media briefings. Does that sound like the way the 

United States makes policy or leads on global issues? And then we 

couple it with this tremendous proposal of kickbacks. 

Together, taken with the draconian budget proposal, I feel what 

message are we sending to the world? The United States is the 

global standard bearer for freedom, justice, and democracy. If we 

cede our role as a global leader, make no mistake, someone will 

step into the void. It could very well be another power that doesn’t 

share our values or our interests. Think Russia, think cozying up 

to Putin. Frankly I don’t understand it. So we cannot allow that 

to happen. I am committed to ensuring that it doesn’t. 

And I am interested to hear the views of our witnesses and colleagues on the committee. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We are joined this 

morning by a distinguished panel. We have Dr. Stephen Krasner, 

senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Previously Dr. Krasner served at the State Department, where he focused on foreign assistance reform. 

We have Ms. Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign 

and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. 

Previously Dani was a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she specialized in the Near 

East and South Asia. 

And we have Ambassador Nick Burns, the Roy and Barbara 

Goodman Family Professor of Diplomacy and International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He served in 

the United States Foreign Service for 27 years, during which time 

he served as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and 

as an Ambassador at multiple posts. 

And so without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements 

will be made part of the record, and all of the members here will 

have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or any questions 

or any extraneous material that they wish to submit into the 

record. 

And, Dr. Krasner, we would ask that you begin and ask our panelists to please summarize your remarks to 5 minutes, and then we 

5

will go to questions back and forth from the members of the committee. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN D. KRASNER, PH.D., SENIOR 

FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION 

Mr. KRASNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ranking 

Member Engel. 

Chairman ROYCE. And one other thing, Dr. Krasner, make sure 

all of you hit the red button right there. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KRASNER. The talk button. Thank you. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and other distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you this morning. 

American national security requires that we use all three critical 

tools in our arsenal: Defense, development, and diplomacy. Losing 

any one of these instruments of national power would threaten the 

security of the United States and the global order from which we 

have benefitted. Poorly governed, failing, or weak malign States 

pose three threats to the United States and our core allies. 

First, failed and badly governed states provide safe havens for 

radicalized Salafist Islamic groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, 

places where they can train adherents, propagate their message, 

and refine their ideology. 

Second, and the chairman has already alluded to this, naturally 

occurring pandemic diseases could kill hundreds of thousands or 

millions of people. The most well known of these diseases, 

HIV/AIDS and Ebola, have been difficult to transmit. A disease, 

however, that was transmissible through the air instead of via bodily fluids could kill hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans. 

Stopping these diseases when they first break out is our best line 

of defense. 

Third, massive migration threatens liberal and humanitarian 

values. There are no good policy options to address such movements once they begin. Accepting unlimited numbers of individuals 

is untenable. Sending refugees back to unsafe countries could bring 

humanitarian crises. Our best policy option is to prevent such flows 

in the first place. We ignore badly governed, failed, and maligned 

states at our peril. 

At the same time, it is very difficult to put countries securely on 

the path to democracy and a market-oriented economy. There is no 

natural progression from poverty to prosperity, from autocratic rule 

to democratic rule. Although foreign assistance has been a widely 

accepted practice for 70 years, its record of accomplishments is 

thin. 

We need to rethink the objectives of foreign assistance to distinguish foreign assistance from humanitarian programs, which save 

lives, even if they do not change political orders. We need to identify programs that are consistent with our interests and with the 

interests of political elites in target states. 

The fundamental objective of our foreign assistance program 

should be what I have called SHE: Security, health, and economic 

growth. These three goals are consistent with our interests and 

with the interests of elites in target countries, even autocratic 

6

elites. All leaders want effective security. Leaders will welcome programs that improve health, such as PEPFAR. Better health is the 

big success story of the postwar period. Life expectancies have gone 

up 20 or 30 years, even in the poorest countries. 

All leaders will accept some economic growth if that growth does 

not threaten their own position. The most effective way to encourage economic growth is to provide incentives for leaders in poorly 

governed states. One example of such a program is the Millennium 

Challenge Account, which I worked on when I was at the NSC, and 

which has not been replicated in any other country. 

In addition to security, health, and economic growth, there are 

two other objectives that American foreign assistance broadly understood can address. First, we can limit the impact of humanitarian crises. USAID has expertise in addressing such crises. Second, we may be able in some special circumstances to stop conflicts 

before they spread. I have been a member of the Board of Directors 

of the United States Institute of Peace since 2008. The Institute 

works in very dangerous places in the world, such as Afghanistan 

and Iraq. It has helped to mitigate conflict in places like Tikrit. 

The entire budget of USIP is $35 million a year, about the cost of 

maintaining one platoon in Afghanistan for a year. 

Our foreign assistance should aim then at these three modest objectives: Better security, improved health, some economic growth, 

and should address humanitarian crises and attempt to mitigate 

conflict. Diplomacy and development are complements to defense, 

not rivals. 

Effective American leadership requires the three Ds: Defense, diplomacy, and development. Cutting development and diplomacy 

would make us weaker, not stronger. The United States needs all 

three instruments of national power, not just one. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to share these views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krasner follows:]

7


24830a-1.eps
8


24830a-2.eps
9


24830a-3.eps
10


24830a-4.eps
11


24830a-5.eps
12


24830a-6.eps
13

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Dani. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DANIELLE PLETKA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Ms. PLETKA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Engel, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me. Anything you disagree with, please blame on the DayQuil that I 

pounded before I came to sit down at the dais. 

We are here to talk about the 2018 budget, and frankly I think 

a lot of us agree on some of the base issues. We are talking about 

a 28.7 percent reduction in the 150 account, plus or minus. What 

worries me most about this budget presentation is that the spirit 

that seemed to animate it was more a list of budget cuts rather 

than what is really needed, which is a new vision for our foreign 

policy. 

The Trump administration suggested to the American people 

that the reason that they were making these cuts was because we 

want to plus up in the fight against ISIS, which is certainly a worthy goal. But the Defense Department’s budget is actually not the 

10 percent it was portrayed to be. It is, in fact, a 3 percent increase 

over the 27 requested number from the Obama administration. So 

we are not going to be beating ISIS with that extra 3 percent. I 

hate to say it. 

In addition, while the optics of a cut to the State Department 

and USAID and all related agencies may on the surface appear to 

prioritize this ISIS/al-Qaeda fight over the soft power activities of 

the State Department and AID, there is really nothing to suggest 

that the fight against Islamist extremism is a job for DOD alone. 

Both of you have said this. I think the three of us agree about that. 

In a statement, last week actually, at the Global Coalition to 

Counter ISIS Conference in Washington, Secretary of State 

Tillerson said, and I am quoting here, ‘‘We must ensure our respective nations’ precious and limited resources are devoted to preventing the resurgence of ISIS and equipping war-torn communities to take the lead in rebuilding their institutions and returning 

to stability.’’ That sounds right. But the military alone cannot, to 

paraphrase the Secretary, rebuild institutions and return nations 

to stability. That is really a job for State and USAID and others. 

What we have learned, as Dr. Krasner said, in the post-9/11 era 

is that stable government is really the sine qua non of stopping 

these groups from moving in and beginning to threaten the local 

populations and us. Okay. There is the case against it. 

On the other hand, I have to say, I am a little thrown off by the 

complete hysteria that has attended the announcement of the 

President’s proposed budget cuts. First of all, OCO numbers, Overseas Contingency Operation numbers, have plused up the State Department budget to the point where it is actually above where it 

was. Now, I understand that OCO is not a good way to do business. 

Nonetheless, we do need to understand that there is extra money 

there. 

In addition, and I have to disagree with Dr. Krasner here, as 

somebody at a nongovernment-funded think tank in Washington, I 

14

have an objection to using my tax dollars and the American people’s tax dollars to pay for think tanks all over Washington. There 

are places where we can cut the budget. 

The right reaction here is somewhere between complacency and 

hysteria. First, the American people may indeed be wrong to think 

that vast quantities of our GDP are being shipped off to ungrateful 

foreigners, but they are not wrong in assuming that some of it is 

wasted. The State Department inspector general testified earlier 

this month before House Appropriations and said that she identified top five challenges for USAID, and I will just paraphrase some 

of it: That they were a weak project design, monitoring, lack of internal controls, lack of local capacity and qualified personnel to 

execute projects, complexity in coordinating and implementing foreign assistance, and leaving vulnerable projects to fraud, waste, 

and abuse. Now, that is not what any of us want to hear about how 

AID is operating. 

So to expand on that theme, it is totally appropriate for the 

American people to ask what has happened with the $20 billion we 

have spent in Pakistan over the last 15 years or the $100 billion 

that we have spent in Egypt. Has it, in fact, served our interests 

and our values? Much of the irritation has focused on AID, but 

State has its own issues. It really hasn’t evolved, as I think you 

have said, as an organizational structure since 1945. It has dozens 

and dozens of special envoys who are workarounds where there 

need to be genuine reforms. 

So the right question to ask here for authorizers and appropriators is not how to restore every single penny back to the 150 account. It is rather where judicious cuts and reforms can be made 

that will enable effective programs to continue. Because what all 

of us know is that what the American people will support is effective programs. 

As you consider the question, set aside input-oriented programs. 

Don’t ask what they have put in. Ask what we get out. Ask who 

is doing the contracting. How many people are being hired? How 

many people are working? 

One last bugaboo—and I am going to go 30 seconds over or 20 

seconds over my time if you don’t get cross with me about it. Isn’t 

it time that Congress ask itself why the State Department’s Office 

of Inspector General has an appropriation of $66 million last year 

and employs more than 200 people at main State? It is increasingly 

a major component of all of our aid programs. If there is that much 

waste and fraud and abuse built into our assistance programs, 

shouldn’t we be looking at the system itself rather than hiring 

more auditors and inspectors? 

Last, if the foreign policy machinery that has been operating 

under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for all too long—I know 

because I was born after 1961, I am happy to say—isn’t it time to 

start to consider whether we need a new authorizing mechanism, 

something new and something fresh? I know you have amended it 

tens of thousands of times, but it is time to look at the underlying 

statute. 

Last, a world led by the United States of America really is a better world, and foreign assistance is a wise investment; but even the 

15

best of investments need close supervision, rethinking, reform, and 

aggressive oversight. 

Thank you and especially for the extra time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pletka follows:]

16


24830b-1.eps
17


24830b-2.eps
18


24830b-3.eps
19


24830b-4.eps
20


24830b-5.eps
21

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Pletka. Ambassador Burns. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE R. NICHOLAS BURNS, ROY 

AND BARBARA GOODMAN FAMILY PROFESSOR OF DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, BELFER CENTER 

FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

(FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE) 

Ambassador BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I just have a couple of points, Mr. Chairman, to summarize my 

written testimony. And you correctly noted I was a career member 

of the Foreign Service. I worked in Republican and Democrat administrations in the White House and State Department, and 

based on that, first, I think that the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts that do total 31 percent for State and AID will 

put American national security at risk. It will cripple the work of 

our career diplomats and our AID professionals because these are 

enormous reductions by historical standards. 

I don’t think they can be implemented over the next year. I know 

there is some thought that perhaps they could be implemented over 

the next 3 or 4 years. I think that would do great damage to the 

effectiveness of the men and women of the State Department and 

USAID. There has even been a suggestion that perhaps we are entering a historical period of no foreign conflicts, and therefore the 

State Department can wind down its work. In my testimony I detail the most complex foreign policy agenda that any American 

President has faced. That is what President Trump faces now. We 

are certainly not going to see an end to conflict in Asia or the Middle East. 

Second, the budget takes direct aim at essential programs. A 30 

percent cut in counternarcotics, that is of direct interest to protect 

the American people against the drug trade, that program. 

You mentioned Mr. Chairman, the fact that there are four famines underway in the world today. We need to be on the front lines 

with USAID to fight them. You mentioned very correctly Ebola and 

our necessity of preventing and dealing with pandemics in the 

world as we have. There is a massive reduction in funding for the 

very U.N. agencies—the food programs, the public health programs, the development programs—that actually do work that the 

United States then does not have to do. In zeroing out institutions 

like the U.S. Institute for Peace, I think it is extremely ill—advised. 

Third point, Mr. Chairman, the budget breaks the vital link that 

every Republican President and Democratic President have always 

seen to be essential, and both of my colleagues have mentioned it, 

that defense and diplomacy and development have to coexist together. And that was certainly one of the takeaways of my professional career, that we in the State Department can often not be 

successful unless we are linked up in terms of budget and mission 

with the Defense Department, with the U.S. military. And in that 

sense, you all received a letter from 120 generals and admirals saying they appreciate the link with the State Department and 

22

USAID. This budget ignores that link. It rewards one part of the 

triangle and it deprives, starves, the other two. 

But look right now where our diplomats are leading. Our diplomats are leading on the North Korea nuclear issue right now. 

Our diplomats are leading on the effort to convince Iran to comply 

with a nuclear deal, and I hope sanction Iran further over ballistic 

missiles. Our diplomats are leading in the containment of Putin in 

Eastern Europe and strengthening NATO. So that is a very important set of values and set of responsibilities for the State Department to undertake. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, these proposed budget cuts are a slap in 

the face to our Foreign Service professionals. I have never seen morale so low, and I first started in the U.S. Government as an intern 

in the Carter administration in the summer of 1980. I think we 

have a good leader at the State Department in Secretary Tillerson. 

He has succeeded in his business career. I think you are right, Mr. 

Chairman, there should be a review of the State Department and 

AID. There should be a new look at some of the programs I have 

documented in my own testimony, four or five ways that I think 

we can have cost savings. 

But morale is important. And if the message from the President 

is that somehow the administrative state needs to be deconstructed 

so that we find ourselves for the first time since well before the second world war without a Deputy Secretary of State, with one 

Under Secretary of State, with no Assistant Secretary of State. We 

are nearly into April, no Secretary of State can be successful unless 

he or she is given the people, both political appointees and career 

officers, to succeed. This is an extraordinary situation, and it shows 

a lack of faith in diplomacy by this administration. So I would hope 

that the Congress would restore the balance between the State Department, USAID, and the military. 

I have been very encouraged, Mr. Chairman, by your statements, 

by the ranking member’s statements, and other Members of both 

parties who say that we can certainly do better than this. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Burns follows:]

23


24830c-1.eps
24


24830c-2.eps
25


24830c-3.eps
26


24830c-4.eps
27


24830c-5.eps
28


24830c-6.eps
29


24830c-7.eps
30

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador Burns. 

One of the questions I would like to raise here, and maybe, Ms. 

Pletka, you would like to respond to it. But over the years I think 

we have learned something about the aid that we have transferred 

to other governments, and I am thinking specifically about Mobutu 

and visiting Congo and seeing at that time as he was on his way 

out, what wasn’t done with that aid, and maybe contrasting that, 

or also we talked about Egypt a little bit. 

I know from my observations that it looks like, in North Africa, 

one of the big problems there is an issue of governance across 

North Africa. If you look at the self-immolations that occurred 

across North Africa, in the interviews to family members or survivors afterwards, it seemed as though what sparked it in every 

case was the fact that those doing business couldn’t get a license 

any longer to even take care of their families. If you are in that 

kind of an environment and you are trying to start a business and 

you can’t do so without going through months and months worth 

of, shall we say, fees to some 22 different government agencies to 

start your bakery—I can think of one student I talked to who had 

finished pharmacy school, 22 separate fees to go into business as 

a pharmacist—you don’t have that opportunity really to provide for 

your family. 

And as the Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto made the observation, there is something about how we got the fundamental 

property rights correct, in Western Europe and the United States, 

that provided a foundation for economic success. So we could transfer billions into the Congo and not change that environment unless 

we figure out a way to change the fundamental structure. 

I guess one of my frustrations is across North Africa, DeSoto did 

a lot of work in order to try to look at that informal sector in Cairo, 

90 percent private, or 90 percent, shall we say informal—in other 

words, people didn’t have property rights—and try to determine 

how to convert it over so that people could actually own their property, borrow against it, build, open a bakery if that is what they 

wanted to do. But instead we are in a system in much of the world 

where without the approval of the government, you cannot go forward and start an enterprise. You can’t unleash that human capital. 

I wonder if part of the problem here is that we are not focused 

enough on getting to what actually creates economic growth in 

these societies and bringing in the expertise on the ground—I am 

not talking about in Washington—but putting that expertise on the 

ground and using that leverage so that the next Mobutu isn’t encouraged simply to move that to a foreign bank account, but instead is encouraged to change the fundamental laws so that you 

have economic growth and opportunity for the children in each of 

those societies going forward. 

But I would like your view on that. 

Ms. PLETKA. Thank you very much, sir. 

I couldn’t agree more. I spent 10 years working for Senator Jessie Helms, who was the chairman the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, and he used to talk about the fact that we needed an 

America desk at the State Department, something that often offended our friends in the Foreign Service. But what it really meant 

31

was that we need a spokesman for an aggressive foreign policy that 

shows American leadership, we need to be able to explain to the 

American people how this has value for them, and I think that is 

what has been missing for so long. 

So what you are talking about here is fundamentally a lack of 

vision. It comes down to that. It comes down to programs that start 

to feel like an entitlement. For whatever reason, whether it is 

Egypt and Camp David or it is countries in Africa. We are not talking about humanitarian assistance here because there is not a lot 

of argument about that, although there are questions about efficiency. The argument is about institution building and how much 

we have succeeded at that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, to me the frustration, and maybe I can 

go to one of the other members of our panel here, but even when 

DeSoto worked out how to transfer over ownership to the people 

who live on that property in Cairo and how to register that for title 

transfer, et cetera, it was resisted. Even when he put together a 

plan on how everybody could be given a right to open a garage to 

fix automobiles on your own. 

Nobody can do it without the approval of the state and it takes 

years to get the approval of the state, and all of these fees or you 

could call it corruption or whatever you want to call it, all across 

North Africa the same problem, Middle East the same problem. 

How do we fundamentally get engaged in changing, Dr. Krasner, 

in changing that dynamic? 

Mr. KRASNER. So I think your analysis is correct. I mean, one 

thing I would say is that we should recognize that the kind of liberal open access orders that we live in have been rare in human 

history. I mean, if you look at human history, I mean in only a few 

places in the world, North America, Western Europe, East Asia, 

have you actually had political systems where political leaders 

acted for the benefit of their own population. So it is not easy to 

do this. 

What I think we need to do is to—and this is why I think we 

need the State Department. We need people on the ground, we 

need to be able, in places that are not functioning very well, we 

need to be able to identify islands of excellence. People for whatever reasons, maybe it is their own personal views or their religious views or their political incentives, actually want to do the 

right thing. It is no accident that DeSoto failed in Egypt. He failed 

because the government wanted him to fail. The government wanted him to fail because they needed all these fees to keep themselves in power. So we have to be able to identify and find islands 

of excellence in these places and build on them. 

This is something that I think the MCA has done very well. Days 

to start a business is one of the indicators that the MCA has used. 

It actually works because days to start a business is a measure of 

all of these fees that you are talking about. And if you give people 

incentives, they may alter their behavior. Simply lecturing them 

won’t work because it is not by accident that they are doing the 

wrong thing. They are doing the wrong thing because——

Chairman ROYCE. And we should differentiate, this was the 

former government in Egypt, not the current one. But when the 

work is done for them and it is handed off to them and they still 

32

turn a blind eye to reforms in that system and then it is followed 

a year later by the self-immolations of part of the population in 

frustration, at about that point you realize we have to find a more 

effective way at leveraging and forcing these changes. 

I need to go to Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. My time has expired. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Burns, I would like to throw out a few things and 

ask you to comment on them. 

Obviously I am concerned, all three of you are concerned, about 

the damaging impact these cuts will have on our national security. 

So let me ask you these things. Firstly, Vladimir Putin just attacked American democracy and has been undermining our European allies for years. We need to resist the Kremlin’s campaign to 

destabilize the West. How will these cuts impact our ability to help 

our allies respond to President Putin’s dangerous influence in their 

countries? 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Engel, if these cuts are instituted, if 

they are implemented, if the State Department and AID take a 31 

percent overall cut over the next couple of years, the only place to 

cut in the State Department is personnel. We don’t have battleships. We don’t have big bases that we can put into mothballs in 

the interest of budget austerity. 

And I have been through lots of budget cutting, and it always 

cuts people. We are a very small corps. The Foreign Service is essentially two heavy brigades. So ultimately—you know, Putin is 

going to be a priority obviously, containing Putin in Eastern Europe. I worry, I think that will be well-served by any administration, but I worry that other necessities will not be. Colombia, for 

instance, which is just winding up a good period of a peace accord. 

Are we going to maintain the faith that we have had since the 

Clinton administration through Republicans and Democrats on aid 

there? And so you are going to have to make some very cruel 

choices. 

The State Department is not big. As Bob Gates said when he was 

Secretary of Defense, there are about as many members of the 

armed forces marching bands as there are American diplomats. 

That puts it in perspective. So that is one reason I worry about the 

future of our great Foreign Service. It will be demonstrably smaller, and then we won’t have the resources we need to protect our 

interests. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask you this, Ambassador. ISIS is getting 

weaker. Its territory has been shrinking. Secretary Tillerson has 

discussed a three-step plan to defeat ISIS: A military campaign, a 

transition phase, and a stability program. And Secretary Mattis 

has made clear that his strategy to defeat ISIS requires a strong 

partnership with the State Department. So what would these cuts 

mean for stabilizing Iraq and Syria after the defeat of ISIS? 

Ambassador BURNS. It gets to this issue that some people, in justifying these budget cuts, say we are going to withdraw from these 

conflict zones. Even if there is a ceasefire tomorrow, and there 

won’t be, in Syria, you would really need the State Department to 

go in. Not as much DOD. We are not going to put major American 

33

forces on the ground to help stabilize, to negotiate a ceasefire, to 

begin working with some new entity in Syria. 

The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition actually pinpoints this 

question and says that part of what the State Department and AID 

have been doing, over the long term, is to engage in programs that 

try to strike at the roots of terrorism and delegitimize the terrorist 

groups themselves, and those programs are at risk if this budget 

is put forth. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask you this one. The danger of climate 

change for the United States is crystal clear, in my view. Unfortunately, President Trump’s announced plans today to decimate 

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. But as we look around the 

world, we see coastal cities which could be enveloped by the sea in 

a decade or two, famine deepening in already drought-stricken climates, and populations on the move, destabilizing key countries. 

How will steep cuts to American diplomacy and foreign assistance make us less safe by taking away our ability to make regions 

threatened by climate change more resilient? 

Ambassador BURNS. This I think is one of the most worrisome 

aspects of this budget, because climate is being targeted in the 

budget, not just the EPA, but also research, and particularly U.S. 

funding for research through the United Nations, which is a playing a central organizing role. And I certainly accept the science. I 

think the climate change agreement, the Paris Agreement, was one 

of President Obama’s great achievements and one of the great 

achievements of American diplomacy over the last many decades. 

We now have commitments. If we don’t meet those commitments, 

or as is rumored, if there is a debate in the White House that 

somehow we might even pull out of the Paris Accords, it is going 

to fundamentally affect not just the climate science and diplomacy, 

but it will affect American credibility. 

I know you all travel. You go to many parts of the world; climate 

is the number one issue. When you go to Europe it is the number 

one issue of the population, not just the politicians. So if the largest 

economy, second leading carbon emitter, says we are no longer 

going to be a part of this, there is going to be a dramatic reduction 

in American credibility. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

And finally let me ask this question of any of the witnesses who 

might want to comment on it. Last week the New York Times published an op-ed entitled: ‘‘The Real Threat to National Security: 

Deadly Disease.’’ The authors provide just a sampling of the substantial infectious threats we currently face: The H7N9 bird flu 

spreading in China, a potential Yellow Fever outbreak in Brazil, 

and the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections that could become a 

greater threat than cancer within our lifetimes. 

So I ask for unanimous consent that the article be included in 

the record. 

In the midst of these threats, the administration intends to slash 

funding for the State Department, USAID, and the National Institute of Health, all of which defend Americans against diseases before they reach our shores and provide us with the tools needed to 

protect ourselves if they eventually do. 

34

The question I have for any of you is, would it be fair to say that 

the cuts included in the President’s budget make us more vulnerable to international disease threats? Can you speak broadly as to 

what the human and economic repercussions of these cuts might 

be, particularly for the American people? 

Mr. KRASNER. I did read the op-ed. I thought it was exactly correct. There have been 400 diseases since 1940 that have jumped 

from animals to humans. What we need to do is have an effective 

monitoring system, which, for instance, the Nigerians did have 

which enabled them to deal with the potential Ebola outbreak effectively. So at a minimum, we need to have budget support to 

have monitoring in places where these diseases might arise, which 

are mainly in tropical areas and in less developed countries. 

Mr. ENGEL. And this budget would take that support away? 

Mr. KRASNER. It would. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We now go to Mr. Ted 

Yoho of Florida. He is chairman of the Asia Subcommittee and also 

the chair of the Effective Foreign Assistance Caucus. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you all 

being here. 

I want to come back to the Ebola discussion if I have enough 

time. Today America is confronting unprecedented instability and 

growing humanitarian crises around the world, all of which have 

a direct impact on our national security and economic interest at 

home. Completely slashing the 150 account will not address our 

debt crisis. 

Understand I am one of the guys that came up here to get rid 

of foreign aid. But after 4 years, I have become learned in this area 

and realize we can’t, as much as I would like to get rid of all foreign aid. We have to use it responsibly, and we rely on people like 

you to direct us and make sure, Ambassador Burns, our foreign aid 

is used properly. 

When you look with 95 percent of the world’s consumers living 

outside of our borders, U.S. global economic leadership and foreign 

assistance generates significant returns on investments here at 

home. You know, and I can go on here. Just the investment in foreign aid, when it is targeted and managed correctly, can yield great 

returns and help increase trade, trade that is vital not only to my 

State of Florida where it supports over 21⁄2 million jobs, but to the 

entire United States and the world economy. 

And if you look at some of the largest importers of U.S. goods 

and services, they are countries that have received U.S. foreign assistance. Look at South Korea. It was a donor state that we gave 

a lot of foreign aid to. Today it is our sixth largest trading partner. 

My goal, and I hope the goal of this committee, and I hope the goal 

of the President and the State Department, is to do a paradigm 

shift of getting away from aid and developing it from aid to trade, 

and that is what our goal is. 

And, Dr. Krasner, you were talking about MCC. I appreciate the 

work you did in helping develop that. I thank you for the success 

of that. Along on those lines is OPIC, the Global Food Security Act, 

and Electrify Africa. And, again, coming from a strong conservative 

35

side, to stand up for the Global Food Security Act and Electrify Africa wasn’t real popular in my district. But when you explain the 

benefits of that, and if you look at this country in the early 1900s, 

we had very little electricity in the rural areas. 

Government came together to form the co-ops and invest in our 

electrification. If we do that in Africa, as Chairman Royce pointed 

out, we can keep throwing money in there, but if you don’t bring 

the basic essentials of developing a society, and by bringing electricity and power to the people, you empower the people of Africa, 

the empowered people of Africa will change the dynamics in that 

country or any other country. And so for that reason, I am 100 percent behind this. And to cut it I think is a mistake, and as General 

Mattis said, to cut foreign aid, go ahead and do it, but you are 

going to need that money to buy more ammunition. I think that is 

a pretty good dialogue there or description of what would happen 

if we were to do that. 

So knowing the budgetary restraints that we have that are coming down the pike, that are going to get worse in the future if we 

don’t change course in this country, there will be less foreign aid. 

Ambassador Burns, you were talking about cuts, the 30 percent 

cuts, especially into drugs. That is one I think we should cut. Since 

1971, under Richard Nixon, the war on drugs, we spent over $1 

trillion, and I would ask anybody on the panel, have we gotten better on this? Is there less drugs or more drugs? They are coming in 

our southwest borders, our coastlines, any border, they are coming 

in. 

You know, and I look at the poppy fields in Afghanistan. They 

are still as productive as they have been. Or the Colombian cocoa 

plantations, they have more hectares planted today than they had 

before we started this war. So it comes down to effective foreign 

aid. And that is why I like the MCC model that you guys have developed and OPIC because it is a way of holding those countries 

accountable. And if they don’t, pull out and invest in another country—and so let me get to my questions. I got them right here. 

Should we be working in fewer countries or fewer sectors? If so, 

which ones? Dr. Krasner, if you want to start with that. 

Mr. KRASNER. Yeah, so let me just say I think that your basic 

premise is exactly correct. We need to find incentives. We need to 

find programs that are incentive compatible with the people we are 

giving money to. That is trade. Cell phones have been a big success 

in Africa because they could get around the government. It is 

OPIC. These are things which people in these countries want, not 

things we are telling them to do. 

So what I would say, I am not sure about the fewer countries or 

fewer areas. I think what we have to do is find programs which are 

incentive compatible with the recipients so that we can build islands of excellence, and out of those islands of excellence, you 

might be able to get governments in countries that are functioning 

more effectively. 

Mr. YOHO. Doc, I would like to finish out here, but I am done, 

and I am going to be respectful of the committee’s time. Thank you 

all. I appreciate the work you do. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ted. 

Now we go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

36

Mr. SHERMAN. The chairman is right. Our foreign operations expenditures deserve review. There are appropriate cuts. Some of 

that review will take place in this room, but what is most important is that we have a State Department leadership team that is 

getting the most for the dollars we spend. Unfortunately, as others 

have said, there are virtually no under secretaries or assistant secretaries at the State Department now. 

Now, I always prefer to blame the United States Senate for any 

problem, but certainly for the failure of officers to be confirmed; but 

in this case, they haven’t been appointed, and we are running into 

a situation where as we speak, on the one hand we get a skinny 

budget that says the money is being mismanaged or can’t be spent 

effectively. 

And on the other hand, they don’t appoint anybody to spend it 

effectively. This 28 to 31 percent cut is dangerous. It is shortsighted, and without objection, I would like to put into the record 

a letter signed by 121 3- and 4-star flag officers. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Which states: ‘‘The State Department, USAID, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put 

our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.’’ It goes on to quote 

now Secretary James Mattis when he was commander of the U.S. 

Central Command: ‘‘If you don’t fully fund the State Department, 

then you need to buy me more ammunition.’’

So these cuts are a problem. They are dangerous. I am glad the 

witnesses are here to answer our questions, but the real question 

is for us. Will members of this committee stand up to these draconian cuts? Will we draw a line in the sand, and will we say we will 

not as individuals support the increase in defense appropriations 

bill going through until we are sure that the State Department and 

foreign operations are going to be adequately funded? 

Now, certain functions are protected, such as malaria, AIDS. 

That means the unprotected functions are going to be cut more 

than 28, more than 31 percent, such as public diplomacy, broadcasting, social media. But I want to focus on jobs for Americans. 

Export promotion, other foreign ministries do a lot more work on 

that than the State Department, but now we are going to cut that 

probably by well more than 31 percent. OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, makes $300 million or $400 million a year for the Treasury. And that is not a 

one-time thing. That is year after year for 30 years. Plus, its main 

function is providing development abroad, and it provides jobs for 

Americans here. It makes money, yet it is zeroed out in this budget. 

But I want to focus on visas, because without foreign investment, 

without tourists, without international business deals that require 

face-to-face meeting, we are going to lose an awful lot of money. We 

grant 10 million visas every year for visitors; business, tourism, investment. They get over 15 million applications. If they screw up 

on just one application, we may have a terrorist incident. That is 

why our President has promised extreme vetting. But extreme vetting with extremely few visa officers is extremely stupid. It won’t 

happen. 

37

Ambassador Burns, are we going to be able to quickly evaluate 

businesspeople that want to come here and do deals and do an extreme vetting of those applications if we have a cut of, say, 31 percent in our State Department visa officers? 

Ambassador BURNS. Congressman Sherman, because I think we 

are going to have to cut people if there is a 30-percent cut, then 

the answer to your question is, no, we will not have it. It is the 

State Department officers, and they are generally our first and second-tier officers who interview all the tourist visas, business visas, 

student visas, refugees. It is a big responsibility. We have very few 

people to do it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the President believes we are not doing it intensely enough. And many of us have faced the other side of that 

where you hear from a local business and they say somebody’s 

going to come in. They are going to invest. The deal has to take 

place tomorrow or the next day, and they can’t get a visa yet because they can’t even get an appointment. 

So I know you see it from the operations standpoint, the foreign 

policy standpoint, but the business standpoint of telling businesses, 

oh, wait another couple of months because we have extremely few 

people, and we have to do extreme vetting, the effect that will have 

on jobs in our districts will be significant. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, folks, for being here. 

We are all talking about the priorities, I think, of what money 

we have and how we are going to spend it and how it is going to 

be most effective. And as a person who has been privileged to wear 

the United States Army’s uniform, and who has fought to stay on 

this committee and be on this committee, I think that many of us 

understand and agree that money spent on diplomacy, as opposed 

to on uniforms and bullets, is wisely spent if it can reach the intended goals. So we are talking about priorities here. 

I just want to tell you a story and get your reaction. I think there 

is credible evidence that during the last administration USAID 

used funds to promote foreign policies that seemed to me at least 

to serve no clear national security interest, and I know you are all 

students of history. You must be if you are in these positions. And 

I just think about John Service in the Roosevelt administration and 

how it ended up with Mao Tse-Tung or Chiang Kai Shek, or how 

it didn’t end up for Chiang Kai Shek, and how it worked out to the 

United States relationship vis a vis a Communist China. Now, Ambassador Jess Bailey has come under scrutiny over the accusation 

that he has shown a political bias against the Macedonian Conservative Party, the VMRO, and that he has facilitated coalition negotiations between the main leftist party and ethnic Albanian parties, 

and I don’t think that the main leftist party generally speaking is 

the same thing tantamount to Republicans and Democrats in the 

United States, but that is what people might think when they read 

that. 

Now, the Embassy has also selected George Soros’ NGO, Open 

Societies Foundation, as the main implementer of USAID projects 

in Macedonia. And as of February 7, 2017—so it is just recently, 

38

right—about a month ago USAID announced a $2.54 million contract with the Open Societies Foundation, which revealed the 

project included paying for training and civic activism, mobilization, and civic engagement. 

Now, in the case of Macedonia, not only has our American Ambassador meddled in their political process, not that we don’t and 

not that others don’t meddle in ours, but American taxpayer dollars 

have been dispersed to a known nonpartisan organization to promote civic activism and mobilization. While civic engagement is an 

important aspect of every healthy democracy, it is not, in many 

people’s idea, the role of American aid to organize and promote 

civic activism. 

So the question is when the Department of State or USAID is 

evaluating organizations to receive grants or program money, what 

role does the organization’s political motivations play in such evaluations and is it coordinated with the objectives of the national security strategy and the national military strategy? 

Ladies and gentlemen. 

Ambassador BURNS. Congressman Perry, I would just say this, I 

don’t know the particulars of this case so I do not want to second 

guess Ambassador Bailey or say anything critical of him. I don’t 

know the facts. I can just make a general statement, since the fight 

against communism in the 1980s became an animating feature of 

our foreign policy, and I served in the Reagan administration, the 

Bush administration, we did, the State Department, Congress, fund 

both International Republican Institute and National Democratic 

Institute activities, and we funded a lot of American NGO’s to go 

into Eastern Europe to promote democracy and freedom of the 

press. 

And so I don’t see on the face of it, although I don’t know the 

particulars, I have no objection to open society, I think it is a very 

fine institution, that has done a lot of good in Eastern Europe. 

Ms. PLETKA. May I? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, you may. 

Ms. PLETKA. With all respect, which is actually genuinely due to 

Nick. 

Of course that happens. I don’t know the particulars of the case 

in Macedonia either. Does the State Department choose sides? You 

bet. Does AID give grants to people who they think are going to 

tilt things one way or another? Sure they do, but guess what? That 

is your job. This is the oversight committee. We ought to be looking 

at those sorts of things. 

Mr. PERRY. So when we are selecting do we also include the objective of the NGOs or their program and how it dovetails or nests 

with the national security strategy, or the national military strategy, because from my person, as one who’s worn the uniform, we 

are headed one direction and State always seems to be headed in 

another. 

And in this case it seems to be that is the instance and we are 

picking priorities with short resources. With limited resources, we 

have got to choose very wisely and make sure that we are all headed in the same direction. 

Ms. PLETKA. I don’t think it is fair to suggest that the State Department is always headed in the opposite direction from the 

39

United States Congress or the American people. It is their job to 

make the case, in each instance—in each congressional notification 

that they send up, that, in fact, what they are doing has a rationale that is in the interests of both the national security strategy 

and of the American people. That is their job to do that in each and 

every case and it is the job of the Congress to ask them whether 

they are doing it or not. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. Well, I am out of time, but for the record, I 

am asking. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Perry. 

We go now to Gregory Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first make sure the record is clear on my behalf, and I 

don’t think that it is clear on behalf of the budget that is proposed 

by the 45th President of the United States. What I can speak for 

is the 720,000 people of the Fifth Congressional District of New 

York. And I want to say to all of the women and men of the State 

Department: Thank you. Thank you for your service, your dedication to this great country. 

Just as I say thank you to every person that is in the United 

States military for what you do for our country, those women and 

men of the State Department are the very best. They make sacrifices on a daily basis on behalf of the United States of America. 

And this budget does not give them the kind of respect and the 

kind of credit that they deserve, because they represent our country well. 

So I can speak on behalf of the 720,000 people that I represent 

in the Fifth Congressional District, and I want all of them to know 

how much we appreciate their service to this great country. We 

would not be who we are today without your leadership and without your sacrifices. 

And so I think that this budget is devastating—devastating—to 

the leadership of our country and to the service that you have rendered to it. And I wanted to make sure that that first was on the 

record. 

I am just shocked at this budget, to be quite frank with you. And 

I think that it is a bipartisan and it should be a bipartisan effort, 

because it always has been, where we have been bringing this together. 

This proposed budget envisions a different role for America in 

the world—that is what it really does—where one does not lead 

based upon principles or ideas but, rather, an America that is driven by what is our bottom line. 

And so what does that mean to those of us and to the world who 

looks to the United States for leadership? The liberal democratic 

world order is one that we built to protect our country and everyone else’s. It is to protect democratic interests. And that is what 

the State Department does. 

When you look at the protests, the recent protests in Belarus and 

Russia, places where it is awfully—and the protesters are awfully 

brave and taking real risk of brutal suppression, I worry about 

what the new generation of freedom fighters will have in that regard. In an America-first world, these brave freedom fighters are 

40

separate from our interests, whereas I see a free world as one 

where America does, in fact, benefit. In fact, humankind benefits. 

So let me get off my—I have a couple of questions that I do want 

to get to. And I guess I will go to Mr. Burns, because I know that 

you stated the State Department’s main resource is its personnel, 

and you have talked about that over and over again. 

How might we help attract and retain a committed and dedicated 

workforce now, after this hiring freeze and going into the future? 

Because I am concerned about also the future. What kind of message does it send to our men and women of the State Department? 

Ambassador BURNS. Congressman Meeks, as I said in my testimony, I have never seen morale so low. I am not blaming Secretary 

Tillerson, by the way. I think he is doing his best; he just doesn’t 

have any lieutenants around him. 

And so there needs to be a message from the White House that—

in addition to respecting, as you say, the military, as all of us do—

our diplomats are doing vital work for America. And in my written 

testimony—I won’t go into it—I outline some of what diplomats do 

every day: Commercial work, consular work, political work. We are 

embedded, our political officers, with our troops in Afghanistan and 

Iraq. And so that is service to the country. 

I teach now at a school that produces students who want to go 

into the Foreign Service and the military. And a lot of our students 

are wondering, will our work be valued? And that concerns me 

greatly. 

Mr. MEEKS. And, by the way—and I think Mr. Sherman touched 

on some of this. Because there are Americans that believe that the 

cuts would not directly impact their lives. But what if I told you 

the Department of State’s role in advancing—and I think Mr. 

Krasner indicated—U.S. trade policy objectives by opening new exports and job opportunities for American businesses and workers 

through trade initiatives supported over 315,000 U.S. jobs in 2015 

in just my home State of New York? 

And what if I told you that more than 1,700 exchange visitors, 

as indicated, from overseas visited New York and nearly 1,000 New 

York residents traveled overseas as part of the Department’s education and cultural exchange funded programs in 2015 and 2016? 

What would happen to American jobs and cultural and education 

exchange as a result of these drastic cuts? We will be hurt. 

I see I am out of time. I just want to make sure I put in for the 

record that—because I wanted to talk about Colombia—we don’t 

have enough time—and how important it is to continue that. But 

because of a bipartisan way—former Republican Senate Majority 

Leader Bob Dole recently made a statement in The Washington 

Post which I would ask to be submitted for the record. 

It says:

Eliminating the McGovern-Dole program would have a 

disastrous effect on the planet’s most vulnerable children. 

Without a reliable source of nutrition, these children face 

a lifetime of stunted physical and mental development and 

unrealized opportunity. 

This global school meals program remains one of the 

proudest achievements of my lifetime. It embodies the very 

41

best of America’s values. Saving this program means saving lives. It is as simple as that.

And I ask for unanimous consent that the quote from the Washington Post article be submitted into the hearing record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

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

First of all, let me note that the bravery of our military is not 

and should not be used to justify specific military actions or justify, 

actually, an overall budget that is based on those specific military 

objectives. Either those objectives are right and they are being handled right, or they are not. The bravery and courage of our military 

is not what you are deciding. 

And it is the same way with the State Department. The State 

Department has people who are very—these are high-quality people who are working for us, and we are lucky to have them. But 

it does not justify the policies that we have toward the State Department by saying what good-quality people they are. Yes, they 

have our thanks, and, yes, they are wonderful people. And I reaffirm that that is in my heart, not just something I am supposed 

to be saying today. 

What we need to be looking at is the policies that we are following and what we demand as a Congress and the level of spending we demand as a Congress. 

I say, number one, the President of the United States wants to 

cut the money that we are spending in this foreign arena, in the 

foreign affairs, in terms of the State Department and foreign aid. 

Terrific. Somebody finally got the message from the American people that we are not going to put up with the corruption, with the 

financing of our enemies that we see over and over again when we 

look at our foreign aid budget. 

How much have we given to the United Nations, and how much 

of that is being wasted? How much of that is going to people who 

hate our country and undermine the peace of the world? We are 

financing the Palestinians, for Pete’s sake, after all of these years. 

Does it make sense that we finance people who will not come to 

grips and will not go and actually seek a real peace with Israel 

after all of this time? 

We are spending money while those other countries are run by 

people, such wonderful people like Lumumba, who got billions of 

dollars from us, and Karzai. How about Karzai, the Karzai family? 

Oh, how wonderful it is that we are giving foreign aid to them 

while billions of dollars are being stolen. 

And, by the way, where do those billions of dollars end up? Well, 

they end up in banks, of course. And when these dictators and 

when the Karzai family finally gets arrested somewhere, who has 

the money? These big international banks. We need to reform that. 

We need to make sure that when some dictator is ripping his own 

people off, that instead of going to the American taxpayers—let’s 

just pour some more money in there—that we take care of the 

banks and those dictators and cut them off from the flow of money. 

By the way, just my note. Karen Bass has a bill that wants to, 

you know, help the people of South Sudan. We have heard about 

that today. That is what we should be focusing on, are emergency 

42

situations and situations where you have a natural catastrophe or 

an emergency is putting people at risk, putting millions of people 

at risk. 

Yes, we can afford to do that. That is our moral obligation. It is 

not our moral obligation to build the economy of these other countries, especially when there is so much corruption involved that 

that gets drained away and taken from the American taxpayers. 

So I would suggest that, yeah, this administration is going to demand that we take a second look and a close look at what we are 

financing. 

And, yes, that is right, we should not have our State Department 

people out trying to justify and push certain sexual mores in a 

country, change their basic values to be like us. That is not the job 

of the State Department. And that is a way to make enemies, is 

to go in and tell people that your fundamental beliefs are wrong 

and we are going to push you on it. 

So we need to make sure, when we go in, yes—we also have, of 

course—we mentioned climate change today. Isn’t that wonderful, 

that all these centuries of mankind we have these climate cycles; 

now, instead of trying to help people who are in an emergency, no, 

we are going to try to change the climate. We are going to try to 

change the climate of the world. 

By the way, there are—I know my good friends are going to say, 

well, there are so many scientists who say that we are causing that 

climate change. No, there are lots of prominent scientists, as well, 

who say just the opposite. But we have noted that throughout the 

history of mankind we have had cycles of drought and famine. And 

we need to work with our fellow countrymen to help those who are 

in need when those cycles appear. 

In fact, I remember that—I think it was Joseph that went to 

Egypt and told the pharaoh that, by the way, there is a cycle here. 

You are fat now, but there is going to be something coming where 

you are going to need to have your food, and you are going to need 

to make right policies now to deal with that cycle. And you know 

what? The pharaoh did that, and it saved the people of Egypt. Of 

course, I think the people of Israel wanted to get free from that, 

you know, as payment for trying to save the people of Egypt that 

way. 

But, anyway, with that said, Mr. Chairman, I hear all of these 

naysayers and criers here about having to reduce the foreign aid 

budget. Three cheers for President Trump for, at last, getting rid 

of the waste in our foreign affairs, in our foreign aid that often goes 

to crooks and enemies of the United States. 

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

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Engel. Thank you for holding this hearing in light of President 

Trump’s draconian cuts to the State Department. 

I join my colleagues in sharing my deep concerns on how such 

drastic cuts will impact the government’s ability to keep Americans 

abroad and right here at home safe. 

As ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, 

I have seen firsthand how U.S. engagement is critical in achieving 

our goals. Without U.S. presence in the region, countries like Russia and China are waiting to take charge in the countries closest 

43

to our borders. Countries like Cuba and Venezuela will no longer 

have to worry about Western democracies pushing back against 

their authoritarian leadership. And pulling back on our engagement in Central America would give the green light to human 

smugglers who bring tens of thousands more children across the 

northern border to the U.S. border. 

Concerns regarding this budget should not be partisan. Since 

Trump announced his plans to cut nearly 30 percent of the State 

Department’s budget, policy experts, senior military officials, and 

faith-based groups have all spoken out about the dangerous ramifications. 

Over 100 Christian leaders, including the 2017 inauguration 

speakers Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, 

wrote to congressional leaders on March 16 and stated that ‘‘it is 

our moral responsibility to urge you to support and protect the 

international affairs budget. We cannot turn our back on those in 

desperate need.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter be submitted for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. And, without objection. 

Mr. SIRES. As we go through this, can you please tell me what 

would cuts to the efforts in Colombia mean in the near future if 

we, at this point, step away from helping Colombia continue? 

Ambassador Burns? 

Ambassador BURNS. Congressman, this has been a bipartisan effort. It was started by President Clinton, continued by President 

George W. Bush, then President Obama. I hope President Trump 

will support the extension of our support of Plan Colombia. 

Now they are at the critical point where they have a peace agreement. It needs to be implemented fully. It is going to be difficult. 

American foreign policy most often succeeds when we have a longterm view, when we keep at it. I hope that the Trump administration will keep at this, in the tradition of its predecessors. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you comment on that, Dr. Krasner? 

Mr. KRASNER. Yeah, the only thing I would say is that we 

shouldn’t expect—I mean, Plan Colombia has been a tremendous 

success. The country would have fallen to the FARC without Plan 

Colombia. But we shouldn’t hope for too much. I mean, as one of 

your colleagues pointed out, there is actually more coca being 

grown in Colombia now than was the case 20 years ago. 

So all I would say is don’t expect miracles. I think we have a 

pretty good administration in Colombia. Our help has been effective. It has provided better security in the country. It doesn’t mean 

that the place is going to become nirvana, you know, in the next 

decade. So, just modest objectives. 

Mr. SIRES. I am also concerned about the Northern Triangle 

countries and our engagement in trying to get the youth involved. 

I was recently in Guatemala and Honduras, and they were very 

concerned about these cuts. 

Can you talk a little bit about if we pulled away and just did not 

participate in any of the social programs that we have been implementing lately? 

Mr. KRASNER. So I want to be modest here, because I don’t know 

well enough. But it seems to me, you know, this notion that we 

could somehow export our problems by sending all of the gang 

44

members back to these countries doesn’t seem to me like a very 

wise policy in the long run. 

So I think we need to continue to be engaged in these programs, 

again, without the expectation that they are going to turn into 

Switzerland or wherever, but where they could be more reasonable 

places, especially for younger people. 

Mr. SIRES. Anybody else? 

Ambassador BURNS. I think these are very important programs. 

I am not an expert on them, but I am familiar with them. And we 

have to have a commitment that is ongoing to the people of Central 

America, given the symbiotic relationship we have with them people-to-people across the border. 

Ms. PLETKA. I have kept my mouth out of this because I don’t 

know very much about Latin America. 

The case that is the right one to make is that people will come 

and try to immigrate illegally to the United States when the situation in their homeland is untenable. This is something that 

serves—and not in every case. And you have to make a persuasive 

case that it serves the American people to ensure that those in 

Central America are not fleeing or sending their children, worse 

yet, fleeing from their capitals, from gangs, from terror, to across 

the border. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

And one last question—well, I don’t have time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

We go now to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been a Member of this institution for about two decades 

now, about 20 years. Prior to that, I was for 5 years a county commissioner, and 5 years prior to that, 4 or 5 years, I was a member 

of Cincinnati City Council. And I know how governments oftentimes work when it comes to having to balance budgets, make cutbacks, and things of that nature. 

And, typically, at the city council level, if they have to make 

cuts—and maybe they are thinking of a tax levy or something 

along those lines—they have a tendency to put out the things that 

people just can’t do. You know, we are going to have to cut back 

on police, we are going to have to close the parks. And sometimes, 

you know, they literally did close the parks to get the public, kind 

of, incensed to basically support whatever it is they are trying to 

do, the argument being, at that level, you know, we have cut to the 

bone, there just isn’t any waste. 

And I will give the President credit for drawing attention to the 

fact that, yes, we do have a $20 trillion debt hanging over our 

head, and we are going to have to cut in certain places, we are 

going to have to freeze in certain places, we are going to have to 

reduce the rate of growth in other places. And there aren’t a lot of 

easy choices here. 

And at least with the public’s point of view, when it comes to foreign aid, that is one of the things—everybody always says, we are 

spending way too much on foreign aid. And you would see these 

surveys, how much should we spend? Well, no more than 10 percent. Well, we are spending less than 1 percent, and that kind of 

shocks the public. So I understand that. 

45

And these cuts, let’s face it, when you look at it—certainly, if I 

worked in the State Department, you know, a 30-percent cut for 

State Department, or USAID is a very significant percentage cut. 

And the odds of that happening ultimately, getting through Congress, is pretty slim, knowing the way these things operate. 

But that being said, let me ask the panel this. We do need to 

save some money somewhere. Okay. And I understand how much 

good a lot of our State Department, our diplomats do around the 

world. I have seen them in action. I know how hard most of them 

work. But, again, that being said, if you have to cut somewhere, 

where is there waste within either USAID or within the State Department portion of the budget where we could actually make cuts, 

reductions, without, you know, jeopardizing U.S. security or our 

posture around the world or whatever? 

I see you champing at the bit maybe, Ambassador, so I will let 

you go first, and then I will ask the other folks. 

Ambassador BURNS. I will be very brief. 

I put in my testimony: Reform has to be ongoing. Cost-cutting 

has to be part of the culture. Secretary Tillerson, obviously an impressive manager, has a good opportunity to do this. And people 

should be open to change and reform. 

We are top-heavy. Right now, there are two Deputy Secretary of 

State positions. I think we can survive with one. 

Second, there are too many under secretaries. Push authority 

down to the line officers, the assistant secretaries. They are the 

people who run the State Department. 

In addition to that, there has been a proliferation of special 

envoy offices. I think we work better when the Assistant Secretary 

for Europe or Asia has full authority, not encumbered by lots of different special envoys. 

And, last—this may sound like special pleading from a former career Foreign Service officer—an excessive number of political appointees. You have to let career people aspire to positions of responsibility. 

That is what I put in my testimony. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. And I certainly agree with you on that last 

point. I think, on both sides, this has been abused for years by both 

Democrats and Republicans, where people who really aren’t qualified are the faces of the American people around the world. They 

ought to be people who know what they are doing. They ought to 

know the language. That ought to be a requirement. 

Ms. Pletka? 

Ms. PLETKA. I fully agree with Nick that the State Department 

needs to be in a constant process of reform. I don’t think they are 

going to have two deputies in this administration. At least, that is 

what I understand. 

But look, I mean, we listed some of the big targets out there. We 

provide vast amounts of foreign assistance to countries for political 

reasons: Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, others. Those programs, 

including Israel’s economic support funds, need to be looked at seriously when we are in the process of budget-cutting. We need to actually make cost-benefit choices with all of them. 

46

And in the case of places like Pakistan and Egypt, we need to 

ask ourselves whether our programs have been designed in a way 

that has been effective. And I think the answer is manifestly no. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And Dr. Krasner? Briefly. 

Mr. KRASNER. Yeah, so I don’t think this is a question of waste; 

I think it is a question of policies. And I want to talk about our 

development assistance, not the State Department, which is a pretty small organization to begin with. 

You know, I do think that we need to focus on programs which 

actually serve our national security. That may mean security assistance. It may mean even giving money to some guys we don’t 

like that much, because they provide security. It means health, 

which has actually been a big success in the post-war period. And 

it means some modest economic growth. 

But it doesn’t mean a set of programs which are attempting to 

transform these countries. I think, as Congressman Rohrabacher 

said, telling them what we think our values are and thinking they 

are going to accept them isn’t going to work. 

So I think focusing on security, health, modest economic growth 

is what we ought to do in our development assistance. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do want to begin by saying you don’t make America great again 

by unilaterally withdrawing from the world. Since World War II, 

we have been and remain the essential nation. Ronald Reagan used 

to talk about being that shining city upon the hill. I think what he 

meant was a beacon, a place people could look to for succor, human 

rights advocacy, and protection. That is who we are. The budget in 

front of us reflects none of that. 

Dr. Krasner, you were quoted as saying the nature of our national security, as well as our ideals, requires a commitment to 

long-term development. Do you reaffirm that statement? 

Mr. KRASNER. I do. And I would say there are clearly challenges 

we have in the world. Look, I think Russia—since I am not a diplomat, I can say this—is basically a mafia state. But let me say, 

I wore this tie today. The tie is from China. It is the nicest tie I 

have. The Chinese are really a challenge to our national values and 

ideals. And if we simply withdraw from the world and cede areas 

to them, that is not a good thing for United States security in the 

long run. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I couldn’t agree with you more. And I assume 

you would agree that both Russia and China, for different reasons 

and in different ways, are adversaries. Sometimes we cooperate, 

but in terms of the overall relationship, it is an adversarial relationship. Is that correct? 

Mr. KRASNER. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So when we withdraw, as you say, they win. 

Mr. KRASNER. Vacuums will be filled, as we have seen in Syria. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Burns, with all due respect, I hardly 

think talking about whether we have one or two deputy secretaries 

or how many under secretaries or, for that matter, even political 

47

appointees—I think that begs the question of a 31-percent cut. I 

mean, you are not going to achieve efficacious savings with those 

changes, even if every one of them were adopted. 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, that is right. We were asked to do two 

things here: Comment on the budget, but also look at reforms. I 

submitted my ideas on reforms. I am not as competent as Steve on 

the aid side. I defer to him. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Ambassador BURNS. But I did say, Congressman Connolly, that, 

from my perspective, a 31-percent cut is going to cripple the Foreign and Civil Service and USAID. It will not be effective. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I am going to run through three sets of 

questions real quickly because of time. 

Diplomacy, it is not just a matter of bodies. Obviously, we are 

going to have to shrink our Foreign Service if this cut is sustained. 

Is that correct? 

Ambassador BURNS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And it isn’t just, well, numbers. So we go from 

10,000 to 7,000. It is also who those people are, is it not? We are 

going to lose skilled diplomats, and we are going to have trouble 

recruiting others to replace them if this budget, in fact, were to be 

sustained. Is that correct? 

Mr. KRASNER. That is right. It takes decades to produce someone 

like Ryan Crocker, our great Ambassador, area expert in the Middle East. You just can’t produce these skill sets. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. I think that is a really good point. 

Take North Korea. If we end up having multilateral talks again, 

not just anybody can represent the United States, or should, at 

that table. It requires somebody with lots of skill sets. And we may 

even need to have very specific skill sets. It helped us with the 

JCPOA, for example, to have Ernest Moniz in that room because 

he was an expert in the nuclear field. 

Humanitarian aid. Mr. Rohrabacher went through a list of failures and a correlation between corruption and foreign aid. But humanitarian aid can be very efficacious and can save lives, can it 

not? 

Ambassador BURNS. Without question, in global public health 

and development. Think of the Haiti earthquake. Think of the 

SARS epidemic, Ebola. These things happen; we don’t live in a conflict-free world. We have to have the men and women prepped to 

act the day it happens. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, finally, the United Nations, a favorite whipping boy for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Let’s 

take peacekeeping operations. Do peacekeeping operations serve 

U.S. interests? And what might happen if we were to defund them? 

What could go wrong with that? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, when U.N. peacekeepers deploy, it 

means the United States military does not have to deploy to really 

difficult places. And the U.N. Development Programme, the World 

Food Programme, the U.N. efforts to monitor Iran’s adherence to 

the nuclear accords, this all comes out of the United Nations. We 

created the organization, that is in our interest. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am wearing a Save the Children tie, not a Chinese tie today, Mr. Krasner, to underscore that point, by our inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032817\24830 SHIRL
48

vestment in UNICEF and other NGOs who have saved millions of 

lives in some very simple programs that weren’t there before. 

Ambassador BURNS. And it is a great organization. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I just thought I would hold this up for a moment. So the vision of me with this gavel in my hand is bound to 

create repercussions somewhere overseas. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I can make comments, but I won’t. 

Thank you all for being here. 

I want to briefly piggyback on Mr. Connolly’s comments. The 

United Nations needs a ton of reform. And anybody that argues 

against that, I think it is a very difficult argument to make. 

But I see the U.N. as a force multiplier. First off, we have outsize 

presence in the United Nations. I went to Liberia a few years ago. 

That is a U.N. mission. That is a mission that U.S. troops are not 

doing right now, and you are seeing folks from all over the world 

brought in to do that. I am sure there is mismanagement and there 

is waste in that too, but we don’t want to throw the baby out with 

the bathwater in this. 

I think one of the unsung things that the State Department does 

is conflict mitigation. We hear people talk all the time about, you 

know, for instance, when it comes to security, the security apparatus has to be right all the time, and you never see where the 

FBI, for instance,successes are in unraveling a potential terrorist 

attack. I think the same holds for the State Department. When 

conflict mitigation occurs which stops a war from happening that 

could ultimately lead to the deaths of either the locals or, in some 

cases, the U.S. military, we have to go in and fix it, that is something that is never talked about. 

One of the things I like to talk about is what I call the nextgenerational war on terror. And that doesn’t mean we are declaring 

war on terror against the next generation; it means we are trying 

to prevent having to declare war on terror with the next generation. 

I was in Turkey recently and went, as many on this committee 

have been, to the refugee camps. Seven-, eight-year-old kids there 

and Turkey is doing their best and host nations—Lebanon, Jordan—are doing their best to educate these children—but it is a 

very huge strain on their own society. And what we see are kids 

that are growing up without proper education, that are in an environment where they are the prime recruits for ISIS or the next alQaeda or the next Boko Haram or something we haven’t even 

thought of yet, because they are in a position, without having the 

knowledge and education of what is going on, to believe that it is 

the West holding them down and the values of radical Islam are 

what they need to subscribe to. 

I think it is completely shortsighted when we talk about just simply cutting the State Department but boosting the military. I will 

tell you, as a military person myself, I believe in boosting the military. In fact, I would go $50 billion even beyond what the President 

has suggested. I think we need a $100 billion increase just to get 

us back where we should be. 

49

But I also think cutting the State Department makes our need 

to use that military far more likely. This is not a world anymore 

where we can put up walls. I mean, by the way, why would you 

need a military as big as we are talking about creating if we were 

just going to use it to defend ourselves? If everything outside of our 

shores didn’t even matter, as what we are saying with this State 

Department cut, why would we even need a big—we could have a 

military that is $100 billion that could defend us against Canada 

and Mexico pretty easily. 

So my question—and I will start with you, Dr. Pletka. When I 

talk about that next-generational war on terror, when I talk about 

the fact that we can defeat ISIS but our concern needs to be with 

the 7- and 8-year-olds in the region right now, can you talk to me—

and maybe all three of you if we have time—about what impact a 

40-percent cut to the State Department would have on our ability 

to prevent the next war on terror? 

Ms. PLETKA. At the outset, in our statements, I think all of us 

came out pretty strongly against the wisdom of a 28- to 31-percent 

cut at the State Department, even understanding that it was going 

to be plussed up with OCO funding, which it is, very substantially, 

in fact, beyond the scope of the cut. 

Look, this is something that none of us are going to disagree on. 

We have to invest in the future of the Middle East. We have to ensure that people have places to go back to. You can have an argument until the cows come home about how many refugees we are 

going to take into the country. We are not going to take 41⁄2 million 

Syrian refugees. Even I, who advocate taking a lot more than we 

are now, am not going to take them. They have to have somewhere 

to go back to. And that place, unfortunately for them right now, is 

Syria. 

That means that we need to invest in the future of these countries. That is why, when I hear people say that our values aren’t 

things we need to talk about and that nation-building isn’t something the United States is about, it doesn’t make sense to me, even 

as a realist, because they need to go somewhere. If they don’t go 

somewhere, they turn into exactly what you suggested. They are Al 

Shabaab; they are Boko Haram. 

I will say, since you allowed me the microphone, though, that not 

every U.N. operation is actually the most important or necessary 

operation. Nor is it strictly necessary that we pay 28 percent of 

peacekeeping, when, in fact, the statute suggests we should pay 25 

percent. 

There are places to get savings. Is that going to pay for everything that we want to do? No. Are these cuts too much? Yes. But 

they should be a reason to look at rational and reasonable reforms 

that prioritize the way that you just did. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I don’t disagree with you. 

And, unfortunately, the others, I will have to cut you short. 

But I just want to say, you know, look, when you have 1⁄2 million 

dead Syrians, almost 50,000 of which are children, and we sit back 

and say that doesn’t matter to us or the answer is to empower a 

strongman or Russian regime, and then we wonder why an entire 

world, in essence, is turning against us, because maybe they don’t 

like to be oppressed, even though maybe we think they do someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032817\24830 SHIRL
50

how, which obviously they don’t, I think what you see as a result 

is easily to understand what is happening. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. And next is Ms. Karen Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I wanted to ask several questions related to the President’s proposed budget and the cuts and your views on how we might respond. 

So, for example, if the cuts were to go through and we had the 

Ebola crisis, how would we be able to respond to that? One thing 

Ebola taught us is that the crisis might have been in Africa but 

it could quickly come to our shores. So if a 30-plus-percent cut did 

go into effect, how would we be able to respond? 

Ambassador Burns? Any of you. 

Ambassador BURNS. One of the reasons we were successful in 

Ebola was the U.S. military and its work with the State Department on the ground in the four countries. In fact, I include Nigeria 

because there was a near outbreak there. 

And this nexus is so important. Every President, when they do 

their budgets, has always tried to integrate defense and the State 

Department and USAID. This budget doesn’t do it, which I think 

is one of its main weaknesses. 

Ms. BASS. And so I wonder, how is the State Department functioning now? So, for example, you mentioned that there are not assistant secretaries. I worked very closely with the Assistant Secretary for Africa. I know there is not one in place now. I don’t understand why the sitting Assistant Secretary wasn’t left in place 

until a new Secretary could be appointed. I don’t even know who 

to call. 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield 

is one of our great Foreign Service officers. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. I agree. 

Ambassador BURNS. I have enormous respect for her. 

What happened over the last 2 months is that several of our 

most senior and experienced career diplomats were asked to resign. 

They weren’t asked to leave their current jobs and then perhaps be 

available to serve elsewhere. Asked to resign. It is an enormous 

loss. You know the names. We all know the names. And that is a 

great mistake. 

And to be near April and not to have a leadership on the seventh 

or sixth floor of the State Department, it doesn’t make sense for 

the interests of the Trump administration. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador BURNS. We want the President to succeed. But he 

can’t succeed—cannot—if he doesn’t have a State Department leadership in place. 

Ms. BASS. And it is my understanding, too, that some of them 

just went ahead and resigned before they were asked because they 

saw the writing on the wall, including her. 

So, currently, we are dealing with famine, and I have introduced 

a bill to respond to the famine that is happening in South Sudan, 

although it is in other African countries too. How would we respond? 

51

Ambassador BURNS. Well, you know, as the chairman said, there 

are four countries at risk of famine: Yemen and South Sudan and 

Nigeria and Somalia. This is unprecedented. 

And what you need in an emergency situation—we saw this in 

the tsunami of 2004, the Haiti earthquake—you need to have 

trained people who are on the job, who can go into action in 24 

hours. That is why the Ebola crisis was contained. That is why, 

way back in 2004, it was the U.S. and Japan, India, and Australia 

that led the rescue effort to the people who were victims of the tsunami. You can’t just create that on the fly. 

And, again, I know I have said this a lot, but I do want to repeat 

it: The State Department is very different than Homeland Security 

and the Defense Department. We basically have people. And it 

takes decades to train a Linda Thomas-Greenfield. You just can’t 

produce somebody and hire someone off the street to do that job. 

Ms. BASS. You know, my focus on Africa has been promoting 

trade. And I know that OPIC is due to be cut. And, I mean, that 

helps us promote U.S. business involvement, so I don’t quite understand the rationale for that. 

I am also concerned about the elimination of the African Development Foundation that specifically builds the capacity of Africans 

to do for themselves, which, to me, is exactly how our foreign aid 

should be. 

And I just wondered if either of you had a comment on that, Dr. 

Krasner or Ms. Pletka. 

Ms. PLETKA. We didn’t speak specifically about it, but I think in 

everybody’s testimony we alluded to the fact that there is a lot of 

support for OPIC. I do think that it is vital, again, to make the 

case about how OPIC works. What works in development? What 

works in development is not development dollars from the American taxpayer. It is private business——

Ms. BASS. Exactly. Excuse me. Before my time runs out, have 

any of you talked to Secretary Tillerson? I mean, because he 

doesn’t speak to the press. So what is he saying? How is he doing 

his job, or not? 

Ambassador BURNS. I have not talked to him since he took office, 

no. 

Ms. BASS. Have either of you spoken to him? Do you know anybody that has? 

Then how do they say he is doing his job? Because I also don’t 

understand why he is silent and won’t speak to the press. So do 

you know anybody that has talked to him, and what have they said 

about how he is doing his job? Isn’t he concerned that he doesn’t 

have any staff? 

Ms. Pletka, you look like you know. 

Ms. PLETKA. I am not the next Sean Spicer. I am not going to 

speak for anybody in this administration. And I don’t know the 

Secretary or what he thinks, and I would never presume to speak 

for him. We have many of the same questions. 

Ms. BASS. I wasn’t asking you to speak for him. I was just saying 

if anybody has a clue. This is a mystery. 

Ms. PLETKA. I don’t know. I don’t know. 

Ms. BASS. Dr. Krasner, do you mind? 

52

Mr. KRASNER. This is an advantage and disadvantage of living 

in California. It is a long way from Washington. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much. 

And let me remind our colleagues that one of our witnesses, Dr. 

Krasner, has to leave at noon. 

And you have 5 minutes; it is yours. But if you could use a little 

less time, it would be easier for the rest of your colleagues to get 

a chance to ask the whole panel their questions. 

And now I go to Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And in respect for my colleagues, I am going to just ask one 

question of all of you. 

Waste, lack of metrics and results, bureaucracy, lack of transparency, duplication—these are all major concerns about foreign 

assistance which these proposed cuts claim to address, in part 

through the elimination of some of the agencies. 

It is some of our leanest, most efficient agencies, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Inter-American Foundation. 

My friend Karen Bass talked about the U.S. African Development 

Foundation. They systematically evaluate. They have clear results. 

They have access to long-term impact, leverage outside resources, 

and reach a level of needs where others cannot—are on the chopping block for elimination, to be either cut totally or subsumed by 

a larger agency like USAID. 

When we look to prioritize our cuts, shouldn’t we first protect the 

agencies or the efforts that are working? And why would we sacrifice or fold in some of the most cost-efficient models, like those 

that I just mentioned, that encourage competition and local ownership, while keeping intact some of the agencies that have exhibited 

some of the gravest examples of waste, intractable inefficiencies, 

and weak results? 

I would just like your comments on how we are choosing these 

agencies or these organizations that will either be eliminated in 

total or consumed by some larger agencies like USAID. 

Mr. KRASNER. I agree entirely with what you have said. I think 

the MCA was really a——

Chairman ROYCE. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. KRASNER. Yeah, it is on. Okay. 

I mean, it was really a leader in developing metrics and measurement. But I think that challenge has actually been taken up by 

other aspects of the assistance community, including USAID, as I 

said. I have been on the board of directors of the United States Institute of Peace, and I know there that they have systematically introduced measures that are designed to assess programs. 

So I think, looking at cutbacks, it would make much more sense 

to look at agencies which are evaluating their programs rather 

than what looks to me like a blanket cut. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

Ms. PLETKA. You know, the right question to ask is not how 

much you want to cut, it is what you want to achieve. 

Ambassador BURNS. And I would just add—I agree with you as 

well. I would just add the Trump budget cuts don’t appear to be 

embedded in a strategy. And I would agree with you, we have to 

53

be demanding about transparency, about metrics. And there are a 

lot of these institutions that you mentioned that are going to be 

cut, perhaps, that meet those criteria. So I just don’t see the strategy here. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Ambassador. 

I yield the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you. And I would hope that our 

colleagues might use you as an example. 

Next, Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. 

The proposed cuts that President Trump has submitted to Congress are disproportionate, shortsighted, and would be devastating 

for U.S. national security interests around the world. As already 

mentioned here today, a wide range of diplomats, security experts, 

Members of Congress, and other experts have condemned these 

cuts and described the devastating consequences they would have 

to our national security interests. 

I would like to submit for the record and ask unanimous consent 

that an op-ed written by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist 

that explains that these proposed cuts would have severe moral, 

national security, and economic impacts that would negatively affect U.S. interests and U.S. leadership in the world be made part 

of the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, so ordered. 

And let me remind my colleagues that you can also put questions 

into the record for our witnesses, and they will answer and give 

you a response at the same time. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Frankly, it is sort of shocking to me that it is the responsibility 

of the Foreign Affairs Committee to educate the President of the 

United States on the value of investing in diplomacy. It would 

seem like everyone would understand the consequences of this kind 

of massive disinvestment, but apparently not. 

So I would like to ask you, Ambassador Burns: If the United 

States were to reduce our assistance efforts around the world in 

the kind of magnitude that the President has suggested, are there 

other governments that would seek to fill that space? And what 

might increased assistance from foreign governments with differing 

strategic aims than the United States have on our long-term national security interests? 

Ambassador BURNS. Congressman Cicilline, I would just echo 

what Steve Krasner said a little while ago. Every vacuum is filled. 

Certainly, the Russian Government, adversary of the United 

States, wants to take the place of the United States in Eastern Europe. The Chinese Government pushing out in the South China 

Sea. As the Trump administration said no to the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership, which I thought was a great strategic mistake, China 

will now set the trade agenda. 

So, over and over again, we have been the liberal world order 

leader since Harry Truman’s administration. Both parties have invested in that. And I think these budget cuts, they worry a lot of 

people that they could be indicative of a larger retreat by the 

United States from its global responsibilities. 

54

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

I would like to now turn to the United Nations. 

As you know, the Security Council has adopted sanctions targeting terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and rogue regimes 

like North Korea in recent years. These include legally binding 

arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, and other measures designed to increase pressure on these groups, undercut their ability 

to carry out nefarious activities, and hold countries, businesses, 

and individuals that do business with them to account. 

U.S. dues payments to the U.N. regular budget help finance efforts to monitor international compliance with these measures so 

that we can assure they are being implemented effectively and adjust accordingly. For example, in late November, the Security 

Council adopted new sanctions against North Korea which are expected to lead to a decline in North Korean coal exports, a major 

source of revenue for the regime, by as much as 60 percent. 

Do you think it is important for the United States to continue 

to engage with the U.N. on these types of efforts? And how would 

cutting U.S. funding to the U.N. negatively impact our ability to 

push for full implementation of these sanction measures and to be 

sure that they are, in fact, followed through with consistency? 

Ambassador BURNS. I think we have to stay with the U.N. It is 

a deeply flawed institution. It needs major managerial change. 

Every administration has to fight that battle. But as you were asking your question, I thought: On food aid and famine, on global 

public health, on nuclear proliferation, and on peacekeeping, we 

turn to the U.N. because that saves American effort and American 

dollars and American participation. 

It is the institution that we created, so we have to stand by it, 

but we do have to be concerned about U.N. reform. And there are 

aspects of the U.N.—I think Danielle mentioned one of them—that 

are objectionable to us, and I think Ambassador Haley has been a 

very vigorous, positive defender of American interests there. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

And I will yield back the remaining 47 seconds, in the spirit of 

making sure Mr. Deutch has enough time. 

Mr. DONOVAN [presiding]. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. Thanks to the chairman and ranking 

member for holding this important hearing. 

Every priority of this committee, every priority of our committee 

is threatened under the President’s proposed budget. But I am encouraged by what I have heard today from members on both side 

who remain committed to defending a robust foreign policy and all 

pillars of that foreign policy. 

In that vein, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request permission 

to enter into the record a statement from Madeleine Albright and 

Stephen Hadley on America’s role in the world, which serves as a 

good bipartisan reminder of what is at stake in this discussion. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Without objection. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the President’s budget is an attack 

on the security of this country. And there should never be a debate 

between diplomacy and military strength, a debate between hard 

55

power and soft power. Everyone in this room knows that those priorities are all essential parts of a unified whole. Our development 

work makes the world more prosperous. Our humanitarian efforts 

create stability and goodwill. And our diplomats ensure that, when 

the United States acts, it need never do so alone. 

All of this reduces the ranks of our enemies while creating a 

safer world for our allies and for our citizens. When the United 

States is engaged abroad, it is less likely that we will need to fight 

costly wars overseas, and it is harder for terrorist organizations to 

recruit individuals to attack us at home. 

All of this was true when President Reagan argued that international assistance would, and I quote, ‘‘enable the United States 

to continue its contribution to the achievement of a secure and stable international environment.’’ It was also true when President 

George W. Bush said, and, again, I quote, ‘‘that no national security strategy is complete in the long run without promoting global 

health, political freedom, and economic progress.’’ And it is true 

today. 

Despite decades of bipartisan support for diplomacy and development, President Trump has decided to slash this funding with a 

staggering one-third cut. If these cuts are not motivated by partisan politics, then we are left to wonder what is motivating them. 

It cannot be the pursuit of national security, because that has 

been ignored, and the appeals of his own Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint Chiefs, 121 retired generals and admirals that we have spoken of already today, who have argued that diplomacy and development are essential complements to a strong military. 

It can’t be a desire to make government more efficient, because 

the President is trying to eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

and a host of other initiatives that generate massive returns for 

taxpayers while advancing our interests abroad. 

And it cannot even be an attempt to tackle our deficit, because 

the President is proposing to spend every dollar that he cuts from 

the international affairs budget on other government programs. 

If partisanship and national security and fiscal concerns aren’t 

motivating the President to slash the foreign affairs budget, the 

only thing that can remain is ideology. And the President is a newcomer to foreign policy, but his closest advisers have pushed for 

years to see the United States retreat from the world, even as they 

have celebrated the rising influence of countries like Russia. 

Put simply, the President’s budget undercuts U.S. prestige and 

influence abroad. And I look forward to joining with my colleagues 

to defend America’s leadership role in the world now and every 

time that the President and his team challenge it. Unfortunately, 

Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that we will have plenty of opportunities to do just that. 

Ambassador Burns, if you could just speak to the long-term effects of how the President’s positions in this budget are likely to 

affect our national security, long-term effects on the readiness at 

State, at AID, and other foreign policy agencies if these cuts go 

through. My concern is that it is not just a question of this year’s 

budget, but that it would take years to undo the damage. 

56

Ambassador BURNS. I agree with your statement, Congressman 

Deutch. The State Department, the men and women are trained 

over the course of a lifetime, and so you have to continually invest 

in them. It is good value. 

I worry about the trade policies of this administration that are 

giving an undue advantage to China in the Far East. And I certainly worry about the inattention to the Russia problem, both Russia’s interference in our election but also Russian aggression in 

Eastern Europe. And Angela Merkel has stood up to Putin; I don’t 

see President Trump doing that. 

So I think it is a problem with ideology. And I would just add 

something that was mentioned before. If some in the White House 

want to dismantle the Federal Government, the executive branch, 

and hollow it out, it is going to make their foreign policy, our foreign policy, ineffective. That is the only explanation, now that we 

are March 28, that I can figure out for why we have no appointees 

in the State Department. This has never happened before. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the 

House Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses. 

You know, General Mattis—and you may have heard this prior 

to me saying this many times, but—before the NSC meeting, stated 

that ‘‘if you don’t fully fund State Department, then I need to buy 

more bullets.’’ And, you know, I have seen the combination of hard 

power and soft power play its role, and I think he is absolutely 

right about this. 

I have been a student of terror for many years, dating back to 

being a Federal prosecutor doing counterterrorism. And it always 

seems to breed and this ideology seems to spread in areas that are 

underdeveloped, where there are poverty situations, where we have 

governments in chaos, or where there is no government, where we 

have basically failed states that become safe havens, and then the 

terrorists go there, breed, out of which external operations can be 

conducted. I think that is the biggest threat that we face as I look 

at the homeland. 

So these cuts concern me because of the impact it will have on 

our diplomats’ ability on our soft power to change that part of the 

world. And, quite frankly, the counternarrative is so important 

here. We can kill 50,000 ISIS fighters, as we have, in the caliphate, 

but we need to kill the ideology. And that is, I think, within the 

purview of the State Department to do that. 

So my question is very simple. How will these cuts, in your 

view—both of you—how will they impact our efforts in this conflict 

that we have against Islamist-based terror? 

Ms. PLETKA. I don’t think the cuts are going to be helpful. I think 

we established at the outset that soft power is a key element to any 

strategy to defeat ISIS and to defeat Islamist extremism. 

I also think we need to look back over the last 15 years and recognize that the strategies that the State Department has employed 

to defeat Islamist extremism have not been a huge success. 

57

And that is why, while we have all stood up, jumped up and 

down and said that 30 percent is not an appropriate cut to the Department of State given the vitality of its role in fighting terrorism, 

nonetheless it is an opportunity to sit down and go back and see 

what is effective, what should be done, what works and what 

doesn’t, and get rid of what doesn’t in favor of what might work 

in the future, with an honest look at all of our programs. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yeah. I think that is a great point. We need to reform the State Department’s efforts in this area. And you are right, 

it has not worked very well. We haven’t had a countermessage that 

has worked effectively against the jihadists. I think you are absolutely right on point. 

Ambassador? 

Ambassador BURNS. Mr. Chairman, when I worked for Secretary 

Powell, former military man, he felt very strongly—this was in the 

wake of 9/11—that we had to have a counterterror policy that was 

focused exactly as you said. There is a military component; there 

is an intelligence; judiciary; but there is a diplomatic. 

And I think the answer to your question, I would suggest, would 

be there are programs to combat the ideology and defeat it, and 

that takes a long time. That is State’s responsibility, in conjunction 

with the military. 

And, second, State is a coalition-builder for the military. So you 

saw Secretary Tillerson convene 58 countries last week at the State 

Department against the Islamic State. So we are in this with the 

military. And the budget that has been presented by the Trump administration cuts the State Department out. I favor an increase in 

military spending, but you have to have a balance here, and that 

is what is lacking. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, I think diplomatic power, and particularly 

the Sunni-Shia world, we have—Syria, basically, as you know, is 

the civil war that created this mess that has led to the creation of 

ISIS, the hundreds of thousands of refugees, millions. And without 

the ability to resolve that political conflict, again, we can fire as 

many bullets as we want in that area, but we are not going to get 

to a resolution of the underlying problem. 

And would you both agree with that? 

Ms. PLETKA. I don’t think either of us are going to disagree with 

you. That is the key. But I think that it is vital that we understand 

how it is that we are going to combat this ideology effectively. Because, as you said, so far, we have not had great success. 

We started 10 years ago with ISIS and al-Qaeda, ISIS not existing and al-Qaeda in fewer than a dozen countries. We now have 

both in more than two dozen countries, expanding as we speak. 

And so we absolutely need to focus on how it is that we are going 

to effectively combat them. 

Mr. MCCAUL. In closing, Mr. Chairman, if I could just add, because my time has expired, for both of you, I would love to get your 

suggestions on how we can counter this narrative and this ideology 

effectively. Because we haven’t done it, and now it is a global internet phenomenon that is not just to the caliphate; it is a global extremism issue. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. Thank you. 

58

Dr. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we all agree this is a dangerous budget. You know, I believe America is a great Nation, but this is not the budget of a 

great Nation. You know, great nations don’t withdraw from the 

world. And if we just look at our history post-World War II and the 

second half of the 20th century, you know, the three pillars that 

you talked about—defense, diplomacy, and development—you 

know, created a better world. 

And, Ms. Pletka, in your opening comments, you said a world led 

by the United States is a better world. I absolutely agree with that. 

And I think most of the world would agree with that. But the problem with this budget is it is not a budget that shows American 

leadership. And the problem is, if we withdraw from the world, 

other nations are going to fill that void, and they won’t necessarily 

share the values that we share. 

Again, this is a dangerous budget. You know, on both sides of the 

aisle, we understand the vacuum that this would create. You know, 

listening to our defense experts, you know, our Secretary of Defense, our retired generals, they think this would be a mistake. 

And, again, that is the danger of this budget. 

It disturbs me that—you know, this is my fifth year in Congress, 

and it is my fifth year on the Foreign Affairs Committee. When we 

discuss the State Department budget, we have the Secretary of 

State doing the courtesy of sitting there and defending that budget. 

The fact that we don’t have any State Department employee, let 

alone the Secretary of State, willing to defend this budget—I hope 

he does come before this committee so we can ask him questions 

directly—I think we, as Members of Congress, ought to be offended 

by that. 

Look, we want to work with the administration. We want to 

maintain the strength of the United States. We are a great Nation, 

but we need a budget that reflects who we are, not just soft power, 

but the moral power of who we are as the United States. And that 

is not this budget, and that is the danger here. 

You know, yes, every department across this government could 

use evaluation, and they should on an ongoing basis evaluate each 

program, look for efficiencies, look for ways to return money to the 

taxpayer, or outdated programs should be phased out. Nobody is 

going to argue with that. That should be an ongoing responsibility 

of Congress but also the heads of those departments. 

But, again, you know, doing things in a haphazard way—as Secretary Mattis said, if we don’t fund the State Department, then you 

are going to have to fund the military. And that is exactly what 

this budget does, and I think that is a dangerous mistake. 

Ambassador Burns, you looked at this—and I will continue with 

Mr. McCaul’s line of questioning. We have had multiple hearings 

on ISIS and how best to combat it. Yes, we have to fight them over 

there, but there clearly is a role of the State Department in countering some of the propaganda, in using our broadcasting powers, 

working to use the internet and social media in different ways, 

and, you know, working hand-in-hand with our diplomacy. And I 

believe this budget makes us more susceptible to threats in the 

homeland, makes us more susceptible to not defeating ISIS. 

59

And I would be curious about your thoughts there. 

Ambassador BURNS. I would just say, I agree with Danielle 

Pletka when she said that the terrorism problem is worse than it 

was 10 or 15 years ago. And so, as we look ahead—and we have 

to plan budgets with policy—we are facing another generation of a 

struggle against Islamic terrorist groups, Muslim terrorist groups, 

in the Middle East and in Africa. 

And you also inferred this; we are competing with China for influence in East Asia. We are competing with Russia in Eastern Europe. We are the great power, and we don’t want China and Russia 

to be in the ascendency. And we want to be effective and successful 

in the war against these groups. You need to be active and in fifth 

gear. And that means fully funding State and AID, as well as the 

military. 

Mr. BERA. And I believe the rest of the world would prefer a 

world led by American values, as opposed to the other ideologies. 

You know, Ambassador Burns, you were a career diplomat. I 

don’t know if you were at the State post, the Afghanistan conflict, 

initially, you know, when we defeated the Russians, but what did 

we do? Did we stay there? Did we help rebuild Afghanistan? And 

what filled that vacuum? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, way back, we actually left Afghanistan. 

Mr. BERA. And what happened in the aftermath? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, then al-Qaeda took root, and the 

Taliban made a partnership with al-Qaeda. So that was the big 

strategic mistake of the 1980s and 1990s leading up to 9/11: We 

left. 

Mr. BERA. Well, let’s make sure we don’t make that same mistake. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you to the witnesses for very good testimony today. I 

would have liked to have Mr. Tillerson join you. 

Maybe another time, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that if the Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, was 

here, he probably would have agreed with a lot of the testimony 

today—the need for diplomacy, development, and defense. We are 

living in a world with a lot more danger and terror, and decimating 

the State Department is, I will say it respectfully, not smart—

dumb, not smart. We should evaluate, I agree with that; refine, 

possibly; but trash, no. 

But I have another concern. We have heard today criticism about 

vacancies. As a Member of Congress who happens to represent 

Palm Beach County, it has become obvious to me and maybe to 

many of you that the White House is running the State Department out of Mar-a-Lago. 

The President, in my opinion, sees himself as schmoozer-in-chief. 

He thinks playing golf at the Trump golf course or dining the 

Prime Minister of Japan at the club at Mar-a-Lago is a substitute 

for, let’s say, helping Japan after their earthquake. 

And what really bothers me is that the President actually profits 

from each visit to Mar-a-Lago. It is a private club. Since he has become President, the cost of joining this club has gone from 

60

$150,000 to $300,000. People are paying money to dine in the ambience of world leaders. 

And I think it was said here today a number of times that corruption, corruption at the very top, around the world, in governments, has been the underpinning of a lot of these governments. 

And I ask the question, how does our President have the moral 

authority when he is profiting off of every foreign visit—and he has 

the Chinese delegation coming next week. The Chinese delegation 

is coming to Mar-a-Lago next week. How does he have the moral 

authority to sit across the table from a world leader and say, 

‘‘You’ve got to keep it clean. You’ve got to count the votes?’’

So I have a question, and here is my question to you. Could you 

just give me some examples of what you think, how corruption has 

led to instability in this world? From your experience, maybe give 

some examples. 

Ambassador BURNS. I think we have all said today that corruption is endemic in parts of the world. We have seen it in Afghanistan. We have seen it in Pakistan. We see it in China. We see it 

in Russia, in abundance in Russia. And so our country, however 

flawed we are—and we are not perfect—we have to be immune 

from charges of corruption, certainly, in our leadership. 

You also made an earlier point—I just wanted to say quickly, we 

want the President to be fundamentally involved in foreign policy. 

If the White House is strongly involved, it is not necessarily a bad 

thing. 

But the most effective administration, most people would say, in 

the last 40 years, was George H. W. Bush. He delegated to his Secretary of State, James A. Baker III. They were a team. You want 

delegation to your major Cabinet agencies. Right now, it looks like 

the State Department is not plugged in to the White House. I 

would hope that that could be fixed and that Secretary Tillerson 

could be given broad authority. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Norma Torres of California. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing. 

Before I begin with my questions, I would like for unanimous 

consent to be included in the record a letter from the American 

Academy of Diplomacy and the Council of American Ambassadors, 

stating, ‘‘We believe the proposed magnitude of the cuts to the 

State Department budget poses serious risks to American security.’’

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think that we pretty much all agree that diplomacy and 

development are essential to advancing our national interests and 

protecting our national security. 

As the co-chair of the Central America Caucus, I have been particularly involved in the Northern Triangle of Central America. 

Many Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, have recognized that we have a strong national interest in security, development, and the rule of law in the Northern Triangle. There has been 

bipartisan commitment to provide assistance to the region in support of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle. 

61

Over the past 2 years, these countries have begun to see real 

progress in key areas. The United States has been a catalyst for 

change and has stood behind the efforts of Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorians who are working to improve conditions 

for their constituents. Especially the attorney generals of all three 

countries have had excellent international partners as well, especially the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala and now the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption 

and Impunity in Honduras. 

Ambassador Burns, what kind of negative effects could we see if 

assistance to this region was sharply reduced? 

Ambassador BURNS. Oh, I think it would be a great mistake. We 

have an integrated life with the countries of Central America and 

Mexico, as well as Canada. And these programs in the Northern 

Triangle, especially the fight against corruption and the activities 

of our American Ambassadors in trying to work with the Governments of Guatemala and Honduras and other places, they are critical to us and critical to our security. 

I think a larger point here, too, is we cannot afford to have a 

troubled relationship with Mexico, and we have to straighten that 

out as well. But a key part of American power in the world is stability in Central America and North America. 

Mrs. TORRES. I have been specifically impressed with the work 

of all three Ambassadors and the work that they have done to empower the people, you know, to work to ensure that future generations have an opportunity to see a future for themselves in their 

own home country and not have to travel 1,000 miles to get to our 

southern border to ask for refuge because their country is just too 

dangerous to see them grow into successful adults. 

Ambassador Burns, you also mentioned that possible 30-percent 

cut to our counternarcotic efforts abroad. How could drastically reducing the budget for international narcotics control and law enforcement impact our efforts to combat corruption and strengthen 

rule of law? 

Specifically, I want to hear, also, how would it impact regional 

security, whether in the Caribbean or in Central America or at the 

border. 

Ambassador BURNS. Congresswoman, one of my responsibilities 

when I was Under Secretary of State for Condoleeza Rice was to 

oversee the bureau, INL, that conducts our counternarcotics programs. 

I would be the first to say that the United States has not always 

been successful in these programs—a lot of problems over many 

decades. But it doesn’t make sense to me to say, since we have had 

problems, we should quit. We can’t. We can’t afford that. We can’t 

afford it for the stability of the countries, Colombia or Central 

America. And we can’t afford it for our kids, who are victims of 

drug abuse. 

Mrs. TORRES. Right. 

Ambassador BURNS. And so I think they are very important to 

continue. We have a very fine leader, Ambassador Bill Brownfield, 

in INL right now. He is one of our best Foreign Service officers. 

And the proposed 30-percent cut to that program is deeply concerning to me and many other people. 

62

Mrs. TORRES. I am very concerned about what is happening in 

Costa Rica and Panama and what they are seeing within the Atlantic Ocean, with the increase of narcotics that are there from Colombia. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Robin Kelly of Illinois. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you to the witnesses. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I join my colleagues in expressing concern about the President’s 

proposed skinny budget. Maintaining a robust diplomatic presence 

around the world is vital to U.S. national interests, as you know. 

The new budget represents a total reduction of roughly $17.3 billion, or 311⁄2 percent, from last year’s budget. This reckless slashing of the State Department and USAID limits America’s influence 

and leadership in the world. 

In the complex global world that we are currently living in, we 

cannot afford to retreat into isolationism. Cutting foreign aid is not 

only bad policy; it is also dangerous, as you have heard. 

Military leaders always talk about tackling problems left of 

boom. This is exactly what foreign aid accomplishes. Secretary 

Mattis has made clear that his strategy to defeat ISIS involves a 

strong partnership with the State Department. And, as you know, 

he has said in the past, if you don’t fund the State Department 

fully, then I need to buy more ammunition. We have said it over 

and over. 

Research has also proven the importance of aid in combating terrorism. According to the RAND Corporation, the evidence since 

1968 around how terrorism ends indicates that terrorist groups are 

almost never defeated as the result of a military campaign. Rather, 

most groups end because of operations carried out by local police 

or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this report be 

submitted into the hearing record. 

Our international affairs budget funds global diplomacy, development, and governance programming, all of which work together to 

increase State’s capacity to negotiate peace processes. Increase the 

capacity of states’ police and justice systems and build healthy 

communities and civil society organizations that can sustainably 

build peace in their communities. 

My question: Ambassador Burns, terrorist organizations like 

ISIS have established footholds in Iraq, Syria, and Northern Africa. 

How would cutting international aid affect U.S. efforts to combat 

terrorism? And, in your view, how do the State Department and 

USAID complement the military’s efforts to counter ISIS and extremists around the world? 

Ambassador BURNS. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

We need a full U.S. Government effort. Our intelligence community, our military, obviously, are on the front lines of this. But as 

I suggested earlier, the State Department is the organizer of our 

coalitions against terrorist groups. Secretary Tillerson did that last 

week when he hosted the summit against the Islamic State. And 

we also have these programs to try to combat the ideology of these 

63

terrorist groups. That takes time to work, and I don’t think you can 

expect instant results. And so we have to stick with this. 

And I suggested earlier, I just want to say, Secretary Powell had 

this universal view that every part of our Government had to be 

involved. So we shouldn’t take one part of the government out of 

the fight. 

Ms. KELLY. And then just as an aside, what do you think is the 

effect that the Secretary is not going to NATO or didn’t go to 

NATO? I didn’t know if someone asked you that. 

Ambassador BURNS. My understanding is that there has now 

been an attempt to work out a different date so that Secretary 

Tillerson, as he should, can be at the meeting with Xi Jinping at 

Mar-a-Lago, and he obviously should be there, but that he can also 

then attend the NATO foreign ministers meeting. I think that is 

a very good result, and I am very pleased, congratulate Secretary 

Tillerson on that. 

Ms. KELLY. Right. I am glad to hear that also. 

And the other thing as my colleague mentioned is that when he 

came here he wanted to take away all foreign aid. And I was glad 

to hear what he said, but—I also agree with what he said, but, 

also, I think that we do need to take a close look at evaluating how 

we are spending the money and making sure we are not wasting 

any money. Because I think that, no matter Democrat or Republican, that is everyone’s concern. We want to make sure the money 

we are putting forth is used very effectively. 

And I yield back the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Robin. 

We go to Mr. Espaillat of New York. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the members 

of this committee, because in the short time I have been here, this 

is perhaps the most important effort that I see to speak in a way 

that we can reach a consensus. And I think that members from 

both sides of the aisle have expressed their interest in having a 

real budget for State Department and for our men and women of 

the State Department to do the work that is so important to our 

Nation. 

And I think it is important, also, for the American people to hear 

the negative impacts the cutting of the State Department would 

have on our obligations abroad. As my colleagues and I have stated 

throughout this hearing and time and time again, Trump’s budget 

is a threat to national security and is a threat to the interests of 

the American people. 

This so-called skinny budget, which I call an anemic budget, 

prioritizes building border walls over diplomacy. If Trump is serious about curbing ‘‘illegal immigration,’’ then we need to invest in 

the root causes of child and family migration from Central America, particularly from the Triangle. If Trump is serious about keeping Americans safe, then we need to listen to more than 120 retired 

U.S. generals and admirals who have warned us that elevating and 

strengthening diplomacy and development, alongside the fence, are 

critical to keeping Americans safe. 

If Trump is serious about draining the swamp, then the President needs to release his tax returns so the American people can 

64

rest assured that his proposed budget does not conflict with investment abroad. The American people deserve to know who the President’s overseas partners are, who his creditors are, and where he 

has invested. 

If Trump is serious about stopping the illegal drug flow, then we 

need to be investing more and more, not cutting back, on programs 

like the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. 

And, finally, if Trump is serious about making America great 

again, than I urge all of my colleagues to reject this anemic budget. 

This budget gambles with American lives and makes Americans 

last. As members of this committee, we have seen that making an 

investment abroad is not about charity; it is about keeping violence 

and hatred from America’s shore. 

I hope the committee rejects this budget and will, instead, 

prioritize our commitments abroad, including investing, for example, in emergency preparedness in the Caribbean, the U.S. strategic 

engagement in Central America, funding for the Caribbean Basin 

Security Initiative, investing in energy potential in many places 

throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, and increasing funding for the United States Agency for International Development. 

My questions are to you, Mr. Ambassador. I mentioned the issue 

of the tax returns, Mr. Trump’s tax returns. And, obviously, if we 

adopt this budget, our diplomats will not have the necessary tools 

to be able to do their job efficiently and be able to determine 

whether, in fact, they are advocating for our diplomatic goals and 

objectives or, in fact, may be pushing or looking to advance 

Trump’s profits abroad. 

Do you think it is important that the tax returns are released so 

that we were able to have a diplomatic corps that is more transparent in the way they do business, the way they conduct diplomacy across the globe, and ensure that there are no conflicts of interest with the Trump profit-making machine? 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, Congressman, I am a foreign policy 

person. I normally don’t express views on domestic issues. But, as 

a citizen, I would hope the President would emulate all of his predecessors for many decades and release his tax returns. 

I would also hope that there would be a full investigation of Russia’s interference in our election. It seems to me there should be 

a bipartisan commission to do that now because of the breakdown 

of trust, apparently, in the House Intelligence Committee. 

The last thing I would like to say is that the most disturbing 

part of the budget, to me, as a former career official, is the explicit 

lack of faith in government. And I will be the first to say that government is not perfect. We do have to pay attention to reform. But 

trying to deconstruct the government and hollow it out, it belies 

the truth that government can do an enormous amount of good in 

the world. And look at all of our great Secretaries of States and 

Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, who built the liberal world 

order. They didn’t fail, and we are not failing as a country. 

I think that is the most disturbing part of this, is that this is a 

slap in the face to our diplomats, this 30-percent cut. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have exhausted all my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you Mr. Espaillat. 

65

We now go to Tom Suozzi from New York. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to everyone for sticking around. I appreciate it 

very much. And I appreciate your testimony and your expertise and 

the lives that you have devoted to this very important work that 

you do. 

I think that we have heard so many people talk about why this 

cut is just so absurd. I don’t think that there is any—there is very 

little disagreement that this just doesn’t make any sense. We have 

heard it from people in the military. We have heard it from the 

diplomatic corps. We have heard it from experts like yourselves, 

from policy experts, from Republicans, from Democrats. No one 

really thinks this makes much sense, to cut this amount of money. 

But I do want to ask the question. In every large organization, 

there is waste, fraud, and abuse. There are things that don’t work 

well. What would be your two best suggestions to save money in 

this area of the budget? And it has to be worth—you know, it can’t 

be six people or five people. It has to be something big. 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, I am biased. I serve in the Foreign 

Service. I think we are so small that to somehow think you can 

downsize the number of people in the civil and Foreign Service and 

be successful, I don’t think it will work. 

So where can you look? If you are looking at the State Department and USAID, I think you have to look at the aid budget and 

make sure that its conditional, make sure that we are tough-minded. We can’t be all things to all people. I don’t think we should 

have an aid budget in every country in the world. We should be 

very selective, as I think Dr. Krasner was suggesting. And if that 

is the question——

Mr. SUOZZI. That is the question. 

Ambassador BURNS [continuing]. Err on the——

Mr. SUOZZI. So was there a particular area of aid that you think 

would be a good place to cut? You are an expert; I am not. 

Ambassador BURNS. Well, I think that we have to look hard at 

some of the U.N. funding. I support many of the U.N. programs but 

not all of them——

Mr. SUOZZI. As do I, but there is inefficiency and need for reform 

there. 

Ambassador BURNS [continuing]. But not all of them. And there 

have been some problems in the conduct of some of the peacekeeping missions—in Congo, for instance. 

And so we have to be a very tough internal critic of those programs. That might save money but, more importantly, might do 

some good as well. 

Mr. SUOZZI. You didn’t think you were going to get that question 

from me, did you? 

Ms. PLETKA. No. I am delighted. I am delighted to answer it and 

to not to have to hear about bullets again. 

The United Nations, we should reduce our assessment in peacekeeping. We should try and use our leverage within the United Nations to end some of the peacekeeping operations that have existed 

for longer than most of us have been alive and are highly ineffective—UNMOGIP, UNIFIL, UNTSO, I could go on. I think that we 

should reduce our assessment to the United Nations and withdraw 

66

from some of the suborganizations of the U.N. that don’t serve our 

interests and are, in fact, created solely to attack the state of 

Israel. 

I think we should look at assistance programs, economic support 

funds that go to—and budgetary support, which is basically cash 

handouts, that go to places like Pakistan, that go to Egypt, and, 

yes, economic support funds to Israel as well. Those are big chunks 

of money. They should be reassessed every single year. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So you think we should be looking at the U.N., Pakistan, Egypt, and Israel? Those are the main places that you 

would——

Ms. PLETKA. Those are the main recipients of our foreign assistance programs. Jordan is in there, as well, but I think there is a 

much stronger case to be made that Jordan stands on the front 

lines and is very supportive in a variety of ways. 

I think our military assistance, our FMF, to Israel should continue. It is the vast bulk of our assistance to Israel, and it serves 

us as well as the state of Israel. But I think our economic support 

funds provided to Israel, given that the per capita income of the 

state of Israel is higher than in certain sectors of the United 

States, is something that we could revisit. I think that the Israeli 

Government would be amenable to that. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I just want to say very strongly that, when you look 

at the front lines, I think Israel is really on the front lines. 

Ms. PLETKA. That is why I said the FMF should continue. But 

do they need our economic support funds? 

Mr. SUOZZI. Okay. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Tom. 

I just would say in closing, I would like to thank our witnesses 

for being here today. 

These are critical issues. I think Congress needs to be fully engaged. I look forward to continuing to work with the members here 

as we seek to ensure that the international affairs budget is efficient and effective and that budget reductions do not have unintended consequences for the security interests, the economic interests, and the humanitarian interests of the United States. 

So thank you very much to our panel. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

68

f


24830n.eps
69


24830m-1.eps
70

f


24830m-2.eps
71

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

f


24830d.eps
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


24830e-1.eps
73


24830e-2.eps
74

f


24830e-3.eps
75

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


24830f-1.eps
76

f


24830f-2.eps
77

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


24830g-1.eps
78


24830g-2.eps
79


24830g-3.eps
80


24830g-4.eps
81


24830g-5.eps
82


24830g-6.eps
83


24830g-7.eps
84

f


24830g-8.eps
85

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ALBIO SIRES, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY


24830h-1.eps
86


24830h-2.eps
87


24830h-3.eps
88


24830h-4.eps
89


24830h-5.eps
90


24830h-6.eps
91


24830h-7.eps
92

f


24830h-8.eps
93

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE THEODORE E. DEUTCH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


24830i-1.eps
94


24830i-2.eps
95


24830i-3.eps
96


24830i-4.eps
97


24830i-5.eps
98

f


24830i-6.eps
99

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ROBIN L. KELLY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS


24830j-1.eps
100


24830j-2.eps
101


24830j-3.eps
102


24830j-4.eps
103


24830j-5.eps
104


24830j-6.eps
105

f


24830j-7.eps
106

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE NORMA J. TORRES, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

f


24830k.eps
107


24830l-1.eps
108

f


24830l-2.eps
109

f


24830o.eps
110


24830p-1.eps
111

f


24830p-2.eps
112


24830q-1.eps
113

Æ


24830q-2.eps