Provider. Now deputy secretary of John Sullivan testifies about reorganization plans. My question for you is, is there an ability to keep some of these important entities like the Global Engagement specifically from being weakened by a hiring freeze or other reorganizations that could lead to it having more difficult time carrying out its mportant responsibility . We would certainly entertain that. I think that the threats we talked about do present a National Security threat to the United States of america and ertainly that would qualify. Its more important than ever. I thank you for that. Like you to do is to get back to me on that and see why they have not mea a request. On the reorganization in general, like you to do i know an opportunity to speak about the this. The many entities that you now have oversight over in your role as deputy. The military financing. I think fmf is a critical component. That was to be reduced by 19 by 2017. With 95 of the request allocated to just four countries. I think the remaining 200 million was to be placed in a global account. Does this reflect broader structural changes and the reorganization . In other words, is this something the sTate Department is considering as part of its reorganization . And what do you perceive as the benefits of such changes to the current fms structure . The redesign that were undertaking is independent of the budgeting process. Secretary tillerson has made clear that even if we were the Defense Department andber getting more money from the budget that he would undertake a redesign to look at the mission of the department and how were organized. One of the work groups thats been constituted for the redesign focuses on foreign assistance programs and incheweded in that is fmf. So we are considering reviewing that as part of our redesign effort with input from Foreign Service, Civil Service, senior level career people to make recommendations on improving our foreign assistance programs. Are you looking at loans instead of grants . Were looking at both. I want to thank you for your help most recently, and then generally i wish you good luck on the reorganization. I do think theres room for reform and ways to more effectively ways to represent our interests around the the world. What do you authorize . While i appreciate the efforts of the chair to include many of the provisions senator rubio and i worked on, the bill merely offers permissive suggestions for the secretary saying there should be a bureau within the department that is authorized to promote democracy and promote human rights is very different from mandating that bureaus existence. I worry given this such strations cutting language would give cover for not supporting a bureau. So in my view to create the structure to authorize it. Thats the congress view. This bill does not address a critical component, u. S. Assistance that promote Economic Development support good governance, are essential elements of a comprehensive American Foreign policy that promotes our interest in bills more stable and resilient allies and partners. Ive heard the possibility of rolling u. S. Aid nto state is alarming. Even though we reject it here it says what the administrations objective is s. Public reports of the survey you reference in your testimony indicate a high level of confusion and demoralization among the ranks of career plopets and Civil Servants who express concerns about their futures. Youve explained these measures as saving money and i ask at what cost . The sTate Departments core is being gutted. Tillerson is running foggy bottom the way a corporate raider might take over a company, firing half the workforce, scaling back its operations across the globe. Officers are being shutrd. Since this is the beginning of this debate, i assume, i just want to take most of my time to say that. Can you share with me whether during your nomination hearing before this committee in may you noticed the cultural and policy differences between u. S. Aid and state. Can you give me a sense of whether it is true that proposals to merge u. S. Aide into the sTate Department is in fact taking place or to reduce the agencys aut my . To f so how do you intend i think rate this perspective you said under oath . The first i would say is we our ncluding both on Steering Committee which is the broad organizing committee that i chair and on all of the five working groups including the foreign assistance working groups, senior and less senior career aide people who dominate on every one of these working groups and the Steering Committee, and there is representation so aid is well represented the aid perspective which you just articulated with which i agreed during my confirmation hearing and still agree. How many people . Approximately 50. And how many from aid . Ill get to that number but its a breakdown based on the size of the sTate Department versus aid. But i will get you those precise numbers. Ut aid we believe is completely its view is articulated by senior people who are represented fairly op all of these committees. My time expired. You told me that theyre represented. That wasnt my question. My question was, is it part of the policy reorganization intention to fold aid into state . And if so how are you dealing with the differences in culture . The answer to that question is no, there is no intention to fold aid into state. That has been proposed by people outside the department. It is something that could be considered by this working group. But if it were it would be with the full input of all of these aid leaders this involved. But i can commit to you that there has not been there is nonnot an intention of this u. S. Aid. To absorb as i understand youre beginning the process by meeting the others and trying to figure out the best way to go forward. Correct. And it will be in close consultation with this committee. I get what the secretary is saying but i have serious concerns. Fill out a form and do memos talk about how your service would be moved into another direction. Maybe thats not your attention. I have many other questions i will submit them for the record. Im not trying to lead. I just dont want his response misunderstood based on what i know to be other context. Also, i dont think theres an intent to move it in any particular direction. I think thats fair. I think its also fair that you want input and others want misu input. Senator shaheen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you to you and senator cardin for holding this hearing which i think is very important. Because as so many of my colleagues have said it is critical that Congress Play an oversight role in this reorganization effort and our engagement as a committee when we are in the process of a state reauthorization process, i think, is particularly important. And i have some rezz vagues that i have shared with Committee Chairman about moving forward with this kind of reorganization at the department while were also doing a reauthorization that and we have no idea what is going to come out of the reorganization, and what your recommendations will be. So i have some specific questions. But before i get to those i just want to raise a topic i know this committee has concerns about. I know it was raised last week. And that is the report of undersecretary shannons meeting with the Russian Deputy inister today. Eve had experts i raised this last week before the Armed Services committee when we were talking about russias influence in the monte negro and coup attempt. What kind of message would it send if we returned those facilities that were seized on attack on our elections. The witnesses were unanimous in saying that is absolutely the wrong message for us to be sending. So i just want to raise this again because i think. I raised this last week before the Armed Services committee it very big issue and i hope you will keep the Committee Informed about any updates on these talks and what happens on this issue. Certainly senator shaheen. Ive had this conversation with senator cardin last week. Those properties to which you refer have are part of a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation involving sues for example the russian png issue the plolets who were expelled. There were a whole host of issues that were discussing with the Russian Federation. I understand there is a meeting going on as we speak but my undertaking commitment to senator cardin and to you is that we will consult with you this issue before any final implementation of an agreement that we dont have yet with the ussian federation. If it were raised we would consider but it would be considered with the understanding that both the cons Legislature Affairs function and prm are important to the department of state. Thank you. I appreciate that. Consular affairs as you know has been charged with setting visa policies since 1952 when we passed the immigration and nationality act. I think to shift that to the department of Homeland Security especially in a time when the refugees and immigration is so controversial would be the absolutely wrong approach. I will just tell you right now that if thats the case i will be one of those opponents leading the charge. Thank you. I know you have concerns about he piece of legislation. What i dont understand is i know we talked about it some on the floor. I dont understand why waiting to do an authorization until after the sTate Department has acted i dont see why that would benefit anybody. I dont understand that. We are continuing to build up a state Department Authorization each year we make it larger and larger and at some point we will have the whole thing done. I dont understand how because they are going through not taking action benefits us. I know we talked about that, and income any one person can keep it from happening and we got it. I dont understand how that retains authority i just want to raise that point. As i understand the authorization that we are looking at, we dont deal with usaid is that correct . Which is how we setup the process on the front end again to accomplish as much as we thought we could under unanimous consent. I guess it feels to me like if there were a reorganization that makes a recommendation for the bureau of consular ffairs that when that goes into effect we dont have a ehicle that we can help to move to raise the congress is concerned about those organization policies. When something goes into effect its harder to undo it. We dont have a vehicle at present. Im just missing the psychology here and i want to understand it because i would like for us to continue as a committee to build out where we have an ndaa authorization process. Each year its getting broader. How t understand withholding has any effect on the reorg when theyre telling us theyre going to come back and consult with us any way. But its a conversation we need to continue to have. Its toif the buildup to a place that we actually have this type of authorization process each year. It doesnt have any effect whatsoever when they are telling us theyre going to come back. Im with you on that. I think it is the reality. Tonight there was a press report that the secretary of state is considering the elimination of the special coordinator for global criminal justice issues which basically deal with atrocities and war crimes. Theres great interestthere is great interest in this committee on both sides of the aisle for syrian war crimes, accountability, preventing atrocities etc. And although i understand the secretary wants to reorganize, its being broadcast as downplaying the importance of holding criminals accountable. In that environment, its going to be difficult for us not to respond. So i think dealing with usaid, yes, we have agreed framework would not include the usaid but the administration is taking fundamental changes and i understand the secretary bbs hat is not the case but if they were taking fundamental changes on the organization of usaid, and we remained silent on that it is a challenge and if they are going to do major changes in criminal war crimes accountability and we are silent, that is a nonstarter for both democrats and republicans on this committee. So, i think it is a reality we will have to respond to some of the things getting done but i want to get to the finish line. And each year there is an authorization that comes up, and each year, you know, you can write things in and make them law and i dont see how the remaining silent by not acting in any way causes it to remain silent so again i dont get the psychology, but i obviously need to understand it for us to be able to move. Senator menendez and then senator markey. I understand your question. Let me just give you a few cuts at this. As you may remember, i didnt want to move forward on the state. Out of deference to the chair i yielded and stopped my objection on the floor. We put together many things so this is not an ideological issue but it is one of the most critical things the committee can do and how it does it is incredibly mportant. The. If we are having legislation that was creating certain parts of the sTate Department and in need of reform versus a permissive form i would say that it is not in our benefit to wait but when we create the permissive cross the board of the second complicated vector in addition to if it i dont believe it should be permissive acrosstheboard. Its taking place and might be getting an ok thats what you end up doing is actually okay. And for some of us i accept your word since you are engaged far more with the secretary of the sTate Department that the intentions are good. But, for example, i know that the omb director he had a different view than the secretary. So, he may be pushing that view from the administration and it may not even be the secretary at the end of the day. But the point being i dont want to be responsible for things that i fundamentally dont have a problem and the last point is, you know, the question of it will be far more difficult having sat where you sat in having the administration in my Party Standing up to this when i personally believe they were wrong in the policy basis to challenge in next years authorization assuming you do this years authorization something the administration will not survey structure that asso they structured itas they wish and pursue their organization without any meaningful effort legislatively to construct what that should ook like. When you ask me why wait, thats my answer. Were in that situation either way. If we act in the nextif we act in the next 60 days 60 daysor we dont act in the next 60 days we are in that same situation but we havent built it out for that. I understand what youre saying about permissive versus mandatory. Thats a point well taken, but by not acting, or acting, we find ourselves in the same place when the timing of what they do is going to occur later on. But go ahead. Ii just wanted to make one point to clarify that i support the reauthorization. In fact, i think this committee should have the same kind of the process that the Armed Services committee has where we do an authorization every year. Its debated. He goes to the floor and theres an understanding that its going to be part of what we do annually. Because i think what we need to do is to elevate the role of diplomacy and the sTate Department, and having that kind of the process does that. So im told an agreement with you on that and we are just disagree about time. Thats fine. I moved to senator markey by saying each year there seems to always come in issue, and i really appreciate both of you actually. I think last year on the floor the two of you were actually somewhat resistant for different reasons. I appreciate you building out at allowing us to continue to bill out. I should with the cheesy and senator cardin. I dont come at this with any i share with you and senator cardin. I can make this with what you just said exactly. I want this committee to determine the policies that take place at Tate Department and usaid. Its more important for me to meet each year that we build that outcome whatever direction it takes just so we continue to build it out. I thank you both for allowing last year to go i dont know stopping it this year benefits as but im still listening to enator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Are you going to be in an echo chamber . I will just say that if, if there is going to be an effort by this administration to eliminate special envoys, and this legislation makes it possible for them to eliminate special envoys, we are talking about the special representatives for nuclear nonproliferation, the special representative for biological and Toxin Weapons Convention issues. The representative to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, the special negotiator for plutonium, the special envoy for climate change, the office of the special coordinator, the special representative for International Labor affairs, the special envoy for human rights of lgbt persons, the coordinated for sanctions policy, the special representative for religion in Global Affairs and the representative or Northern Ireland issues. And so i am very concerned that the language in the state authorization bill will have the effect of the cutting all of these positions unless the administration chooses to fill them. And i think it would be better of us to kind of know hat their plan is so that we an then respond to their roposal rather than giving them this authorization to do so without having an idea as to how many of these positions might be eliminated, if not all of them. So can ask you, mr. Sullivan, how many of these positions are you contemplating right now liminated . Senator markey, there is no preconceived view on any of those, those offices. The goal is for all of those issues and all of the issues that are represented or addressed by those offices all are important. Our overriding goal is to make sure those issues are addressed properly. One concern we have with a special envoy is, speaking generally, is that they are delinked from the substantive bureau. So for example, for the Northern Ireland representative, its not part of the european bureau. So it wouldnt be the case, i dont think, with a prejudging but just as an example, for that special envoy rather than being a special envoy outside of the Organizational Bureau who reports directly to the senator, excuse me, to the secretary, and, therefore, is somewhat insulated from this committee because of the assistant secretary for European Affairs who can be called before this committee, the special envoy reports to the secretary. Its really a question of how we address those important issues and structure our bureaucracy accordingly. Right, but as you know, mr. Sullivan, it took a long time to get a special envoy to Northern Island, right . So thats a special thing but ach one of these other special envoys kind of reflects a priority that was established to ensure that a little special attention that otherwise the ssue might not be received from the department in general, was given that special role. So none of these are incidental. Each one of these areas has a reason why they have a special envoy. And if they moving to kind of larger part of the agency that dont have any squarely aligned responsibility with a senior person in sight of the department, itches would run the risk of slipping through the cracks, not getting the attention it needed or not aving the focus, which clearly we have tried over the years to ensure that each one of these areas receives. So i just say that to you, mr. Sullivan. Thats a concern i have and i think others have as well. And Northern Island is another xample. Maybe we can say now who cares, but its moved on to a more mature area. But in the area of brexit, theres likely to be an exacerbation of tensions that we havent seen n a long, long time. And to be honest the formation of the government, the new government in Great Britain is dependent upon this alliance with a Northern Ireland party that may or may not square up with cut of the objectives which the United States has been trying to advance over the years. I just point that out to you and i would hope that we might be able to get the sequencing correct. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank ou very much. Senator udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you, deputy secretary sullivan, for oining us do you believe Career Foreign Service and Civil Service officers serve an Important Role in our nations diplomacy . Im hoping you can help us answer these questions. There are properties all over the world with the trump name displayed on them. Many areas that have been targeted. Earlier i wrote a letter asking what if any taxpayer resources are being spent to secure his real estate around the globe . First will the sTate Department respond to this letter soon . You have my apology that we havent responded already. Its important for us to be esponsive. Has anyone requested assistance to help secure a trump property . Not to my knowledge. Ive seen the press reports. I asked about it. Understanding is that the steel h sTate Department as we in ther agencies, we assist bookings. My understanding is that these were for the secret senior viss, they werent for the sTate Department. Because we have a consulate boo. My there we didnt seek out that booking. They werent our people who were staying there. So it was for another government agency. So you dont know whether or not anybody in the Trump Organization or administration requested assistance from state to help secure a Trump Administration property. Youll look into that and get us an answer. Yes. Im sure you understand the thrust of the questions. When i serve on different questions, one is appropriations, i really believe that taxpayers are entitled to know how their money is being sent. Spent. Has the department of state rented property or purchased additional goods or services from the Trump Organization to facilitate sTate Department missions . Not to my knowledge, but i will undertake to get a definitive response to your question promptly. If so, is there an agreement in place for the Trump Organization to reimburs the federal government for those costs . I assume youll also get us an answer to that. Yes, senator. I would like a full written response to these and other questions. Since the administration has not responded to our letter i will respond all of these questions and ask that you give a prompt response. Thank you. You have my word on it. A number of recren reports have high lighted a significant morale problem at the sTate Department as well as many of the concerns regarding the steep budget cuts being proposed at state and the top leadership is very isolated from the nations diplomats. Do you believe that Career Foreign Service and Civil Service officers deserve an Important Role in our nations diplomacy . Unquestionably. Will you increase efforts to ingrate the new Political Leadership with career staff to best represent americas abroad . I will and i have. I spoke at the Foreign Service institute a couple weeks ago to 700 Foreign Service officers. I had prepared remarks and i put them aside and i picked up the microphone and opened it up for questions and said hit me with your best shot. Those men and women are the backbone of the the president and i have and the secretary has an enormous amount of respect for them and their views. I couldnt agree with you more. In my travels around the world meeting the people that are living in the countries and there, career people are so dedicated and making sure our country gets it right. I want to thank you for your talk with them and taking this approach. Mr. Chairman i want to ensure that any state report should ensure oversight language. Thank you. Senator cardin. I just really want to underscore our hope about how you and this committee can work ogether. What i dont understand is i know we talked about it some on the floor. I dont understand why waiting to do an authorization until after the sTate Department has acted i dont see why that would benefit anybody. I dont understand that. We are continuing to build up a state Department Authorization each year we make it larger and larger and at some point we will have the whole thing done. I dont understand how because they are going through not taking action benefits us. I know we talked about that, and income any one person can eep it from happening and we it was reversed to allow them to join the class this year and pleased about that. But as i mentioned in my Opening Statement we have a challenge before mr. Trump was elected president of the United States in diversity pleased abo sTate Department. Its been a challenge. Weve had hearings in congress about this. Weve had numerous opportunities to try to change diversity. Can you just give can you just give us some assurances, a, that when Congress Passes appropriations and authorizations, that it should be carried out . It shouldnt be should. It must be carried out by the sTate Department. And then secondly how you deal with the diversity issue with the overriding policies of contraction which is currently the pressure that youre under. Sure. Senator, as deputy secretary and as a lawyer, i can affirm to you that we will comply with the law, excute the law, follow the of congress. We are a nation of laws and the department abides by the laws. So you have my of congress. That we are in your power to carry that out. Thats one of the reasons weerp so pleased to support your nomination. I think its going to be more difficult than just those words so we wish you you will do everything well. Well, well, and i will seize on that point, senator, to address your second point, and i made this, i said this when i spoke to the Foreign Service institute students. Actions speak louder than words, and i can offer all the platitudes that one can think of on diversity and how important it is. But actions speak louder than words to what i said to the fsi students was i expect them and you to hold us accountable for what we commit to do. We commit, i commit to having to doing all we can to have a diverse state its important as a policy matter not just as a moral or legal matter. So you have my commitment on that. And if i dont follow through, you can bring me back up here and tell me where ive fallen down on the job. We appreciate the fact that youre there and we appreciate your commitment to these principles. I thank you for being here too. I know we will keep the record open until the close of business wednesday. I know there will be a number of questions. I do want to balance out to a degree this special envoy discussion. Listening tours. I know there was an outside consultant who generated a report from the listening tour. It confirmed what many of us have said at years. That they do more harm than good. They do more harm than good. I think they hurt the culture of our professional Foreign Service officers, candidly, because i think they see them in many cases as a work around. All of us have been in organizational situations where xyz is in a job. What do we do . We create a workaround. It hurts those professionals who are doing their jobs well. We know that and they know that. Look its kind of like base closings. I hear people talk about their special issues. Its the best base ever because you have people in your own state employed. Thats what we hear a lot of. I know its a special thing for a special state or special interest. I hope well do away with all of them that are unnecessary. And most of them are unnecessary. Ipping the professionals believe they are unnecessary. We just had one created unfortunately for ukraine. Here we have the secretary of state says that most of these things are unnecessary rand then he creates one. Well, this person is going to carry out some important policy for our nation. Right . This ukraine issue is very important. If theyre going to do that hey ought to at least be confirm. If we have somebody carrying out policy, we ought to be able to confirm them. So these positions are duplicative, waste none, have huge staff. We may end up having some special envoys which are important. But just like this senator, i get one vote, i think its mostly a waste of money, waste of time rgs hurts our culture and i hope you will go everything you can to do away with most of them if not all of them. Any way, i hope thats balancing out some of the other comments. I thank you for being here today. I thank you for your great spirit and wanting to work with us. I think you are bringing a lot to the department which is needed at this particular time. So thank you for coming. Please answer our questions promptly. Adjourned. Is this week in congress the house is back today beginning a fiveday workweek, the centerpiece, the spending package. Before members get to that heyre expected to take up a ce bull that would impose new saunchingses oben russia, iran and north korea. The senate back todd holding a confirmation vote. As for health care majority lear Mitch Mcconnell said he plans bull that would to hold the pro vote as early as tuesday but details are still being worked out. You can follow the house here on cspan and the senate live 2. Cspan thank you for joining us. You