Transcripts For CSPAN3 Secretary Tillerson Pushes Back Against Charge Of Recless And Radical... 20170627

Fiscal 2018 budget request. Id like to bell coupwelcome ou, secretary of state tillerson. After opening statements, well hear from the secretary. Well accept your written testimony and anything you would like to tell us personally. So this is going to be a little bit longer than normal. This is a very important issue for the country. Passion of mine. I like the way you represent our country. I think you have a style thats pretty good for the world as it is today. Youre a man of few words. I think when you talk, people listen. Your view of qatar i share, what youre doing in north korea is beginning to penetrate. Just met with the chinese. I think they get your message. I think youre looking for ways to people to get to yes and always leaving back doors to hard situations. So in terms of your style and your attitude towards the job, i very much appreciate it. As to the budget, were hear today because the budget balances in ten years. We need to increase defense spending. But once you do that, then if youre not going to deal with entitlements, you have to go to defense Discretionary Spending to find the offsets. This account gets pretty much devastated. Im not blaming you. Im not blaming anybody. I just want the country to know i think this budget request is in many ways radical and reckless when it comes to soft power and i look forward to working with you, mr. Secretary, to find a better budget, but also to find a better state department. Youve just gotten there. Youve been there a few months. A year from now, i think youll have a better understanding of how the state department can be reformed and i intend to be your partner and champion to reform the state department. Give it a good once over. See what works, what doesnt. How many people do we actually need. All of that is long overdue. I welcome that kind of analysis. But what we have today is a number basically driven by the requirement to balance the budget, increase defense spending and this account gets hit pretty hard. I dont think as a result of scrutiny of how the state Department Works as much as budget pressure. Given from increased military spending. So the first chart i have is to my right. If you dont fund the state department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition. General mattis. And i think we have other generals cutting the International Affairs budget unilaterally. We have the effect of disabling our countrys capability, stop new conflicts from forming, the lives of our men and women in uniform at risk. 16 retired four star generals. I believe after 42 trips to iraq and afghanistan were never going to win this war by killing terrorists alone. That there has to be soft power connection. That the day after you have to hold. And the terrorists offer a glorious death and we must offer a hopeful life. Usda included to give the capability the day after to form a better life for those who are having to choose between terrorism and modern thought. I believe as the generals do, if you dont believe me, listen to the generals, that the state departments role in the war on terror is just as important to me, just as important as any military power we have. Now, how much do we spend on soft power . We spend 1. 4 . So a lot of people think foreign aids about 25 of what we spend. But compared to hard power, which is about 20 of what we spend, we spend a very small amount on soft power. That 1. 4 includes things beyond just traditional soft power. I want the country to know if you eliminated the state department, you would not even begin to move the debt needle. The question is, if you cripple the state department, its not about debt, its about security and American Values being impeded. So lets look at gdp on defense. And nondefense. What you see is the gdp on hard powers about 3 of gdp. On socft power. And this chart shows you were going downward dramatically on soft power and upward on hard power. So comparison of dod state department workforce. How many people do we have in the hard power world and soft power world . Okay. You see over here the numbers of state usid, which is a very small percentage. And we have well over 1 Million People in uniform. So if you believe soft powers important and the generals tell me you do, look at the balance. So heres what i would suggest. We do need more hard power because sequestrations hurt hard power. But youre going to have a hard time convincing me that soft power can stand a 29 cut. And well talk about that more. Thats the comparability of the workforce basically. International Affairs Budget historically. Look here. Look at the big drop in 2018. Plus, up in 2017. The worlds gone to hell in a hand cart. Now, our response is to increase hard power. Which i agree with. But at 29 reduction in hard power in 2018 doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Given the role soft power plays according to the generals is this wise . I really dont think so. Embassy security funding. We all remember benghazi. Look at this reduction in funding for security of our embassies. All i could say, given the threats that i see, nows not the time to decrease Embassy Security funding unless youre going to really close a lot of embassies. Im not sure nows the time to be closing a lot of embassies. Hiv aids. One last thing. Heres what the benghazi accountability review board told us. For the state department to be miss driven rather than resource con stained. So heres the question. The Mission State department and a world falling apart, is it greater or smaller . If you think its greater, than the budget should follow the need. Not just some artificial number. All right. Lets go to hiv aids. As a republican, i am proud of president 43 bush. Who came up with a program called pet far supported by almost every democrat, president obama continued this, and as you can see, in the return on the dollar for the pet far program has been absolutely astounding. Millions of Young Africans are alive today because of the pet far program. Mother to child aids transmission has gone down about 75 . Every american taxpayer should be pleased that your hardearned dollars went to a continent being consumed by a vicious disease called aids and were beginning to turn the corner. Were not there yet. But there are five countries who are going to be selfsufficient and this budget cuts it by 1 billion when were inside the 10 yard line. I could give you the numbers of what it means to the programs, but theres a lot, hundreds of thousands of people will not be treated because of this budget cut. I think its just a penny wise and a pound foolish. Humanitarian assistance. 65 Million People forcefully displaced worldwide. Thats the highest level in modern history. Who role does state play in this . 20 Million People are currently at risk of famine. So you have famine and you have manmade wars and disasters. Look what were doing with the assistance. Were cutting it at a time when disast disast Disaster Assistance needs are at an alltime high. Cutting by 3. 4 billion. 77 below the 2017 numbers. The terrorists love this. The terrorists hate the idea that america shows up with some food and education. From a terrorist point of view, this is really a recruiting tool. From an American Point of view, weve got to fix this problem because if we cut back, other people follow and youre going to pay now or pay later. Youre going to deal with these people now while they can still be helped or wind up killing them later when the young people become terrorists. So got a real problem with that one. Georgia, not my neighbor georgia, the country. For the record, i like the people in georgia. Georgia is fighting in afghanistan without any caveats. Theyre one of the few countries that go to afghanistan to partner with our soldiers and do whatever we ask them to do. Theyve died in fairly large numbers. They have absolutely no restrictions on their force to help us win a war in afghanistan we cant afford to lose. Their neighbors a pretty bad ombre, the russians. Im not going to bore you with telling you what russians been doing to their friends in the region, particularly georgia, but its not good. What signali are we sending to georgia when we cut their assistant 66 . At a time when russias on the prowl and we need more help in afghanistan, not less. This just really is the wrong message to our friends and certainly the wrong message to russia. I am at a loss of why we would cut aid to georgia given what russias doing in the region now and im at loss of why wed want to send a signal to people who are sending their troops to afghanistan without any conditions. Sri lanka. Small place. This, within 20 miles of sea lanes that carry over twothirds of the worlds Oil Shipments and half the worlds container cargo. Chinas a big player there. Just ended a 26year conflict. Democratic progress is in our interest to have a democracy that close to the worlds shipping lanes. Chinas a competitor. And unfortunately, were reducing our assistance to sri lanka. As china is going all in. Not a wise move. Now, this is to you, mr. Secretary. I think you ran one of the best businesses in the world. Youre a really smart guy. But heres whats on your plate. That i could think of. Isis. Youre going to beat them momentarily, but if you dont have a plan for the day after, were going to lose again. What do you do with raqqah . What do you do with Anbar Province . How do you hold it . So defeating isis permanently has to have a hold and bill strategy. Thats where usaid and all your really smart people come into play. Qatar. If you read the oped today from the uae ambassador, things are not going well. You got qatar right from our point of view. You got 10,000 airmen and soldiers there. We cant let this get its of hand. Youre going to be pretty busy with qatar. Russia. Dont have time to talk about whats on your plate with russia, its just a lot. Syria. If we can ever find a way to end the war, it will be in geneva and youll be at the table trying to find a way to put syria back together to make sure that the war doesnt start again in lebanon and jordan dont fall because of endless war. The resources necessary to repair the damage in syria makes iraq look like a walk in the park. And part of those resources will be you and your talented people who will go in there and help the Syrian People deal with the devastation. North korea. I like what youre doing in north korea. I dont think were out of the woods yet. So youre going to be a busy guy. 65 billion people displaced on your watch. By the way, the war in afghanistan. We need more soldiers. I think the president s going to give the gem generals what they want. We also have to make sure the soldiers sacrifice is not forsaken because you better have a plan to rebuild those areas weve lost from the taliban once we take it back or were going to lose them again, so thats where your people come in. The president said the Iranian Nuclear agreement is terrible and he wants to replace it. If you have nothing else to do but that, that would be a full time job. Good luck. The ukraine. Doesnt seem to be Getting Better to me. China. I really like what youre doing with china regarding north korea. I think youre making it real to the chinese. They Better Change their game because president trumps not going to allow them to get a missile near our homeland. You got a pretty good approach. But chinas tough. 20 Million People impacted by famine. And they tell me were going to start the middle east Peace Process all over again. You the man. Youre going to do all that and cut the budget by 29 . Thank you for coming. I was going to be tough. What ill start off by saying is, like he said, i agree with senator graham. We worked together on this subcommittee for a long time. Part of the time hes been chairman. Part of the time, ive been chairman. Usually the bills we brought out of here have got a virtually unanimous vote. Republicans and democrats. Because we care about it. Let me just read a few passages from a may 25th guest column in the new york times. Colin powell who served as chairman of the joint cheech ch staff under president george h. W. Bush and secretaclinton an secretary of state under george w. Bush. He wrote, i quote, our best at being a great nation has always been a commitment to building a better, safer world. Not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren. This is meant leading the world in the advance of the cause of peace, responding when disease and disaster strike. Lifting millions out of poverty. Inspiring those yearning for freedom. This calling is under threat. Administrations proposal to slash approximately 30 from the state department and foreign assistance budget signals an american retreat. Proposal to bring resources for our civilian forces to a third of what we spent at the height of Ronald Reagans peace restraint years. It will be internationally irresponsible. Distressing our friends, encouraging our enemies. Undermining our own economic and National Security interest. The idea of putting America First requires withdrawal from the world is simply wrong headed. He goes on to speak on his own experience. Many thought the end of the cold war would allow us to retreat. Do we really want to slash the state department and the usaid at such a perilous moment . No. What were saying, were talking about making america great, well, were talking about were stepping aside. Let other countries come in, fill the vacuum, make the United States irrelevant. I like to think our values are the relevant ones, not relevant countries. I want to know why you may disagree. Obviously you do disagree with secretary powell. Believe that eliminating thousands of personnel position, cutting billions of dollars from programs administrated by the department of state usaid is in our best interest. I would ask the chairman to put the powell article in objection. Without objection. Secretary powell also said that many would assume the cold wars end would allow us to retreat from the world cuts that may have looked logical at the time came back to haunt us. As tensions rose in the middle east, africa, the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Confronting such challenges requires not just the military thats second to none but also our resource with diplomats and aid workers. I think general powell and others have said much of the world has looked to the United States for leadership. Were walking away from that leadership. Let somebody else take over. We go around talking about well, look at the huge amount of money we spend on foreign aid. Its a little over 1 of our budget on a per capita basis, a lot of countries spend more. Why would we give up that input . Does that make us safer . Why do we want to let some of these totalitarian regimes expand their influence versus american influence . Does that make us safer . Does it make us safer if we allow epidemics to accelerate around the world . Does it make us safer if we dont do anything to help with the refugee situation thats overwhelming allies of ours like jordan . Does it make us any safer if we pretend we can go fortress america . Remember how well that worked . And 9 11, when saudi arabia sent so many people to fly airplanes. Into the twin towers. We faced a terrible we faced a terrible terrorist attack, one of the worst ever in this country, by an american, in Oklahoma City. Now suddenly we face it with saudis coming in here, saudi citizens. Were not we cant be fortress america. We face problems at home of course. Use Oklahoma City as an example. We face problems from abroad. Those who came from saudi arabia and destroyed the twin towers. So i dont need to give you a speech, but i want you to know i agree with the chairman. And we have very strong views on this. Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. Thank you for coming. Thank you, chairman graham. Ranking member leahy. Distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the administrations state department and usaid budget request for fiscal year 2018. Americas Global Competitive challenge. The dedicated men and women of the state department and usaid carry out the important and often perilous work of advancing americas interest every single day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That mission is unchanged. However, the state department and usaid, like many other institutions here at home and around the world, have not evolved in their responsiveness as quickly as new challenges and threats to our National Security have changed and our changing. We are challenged to respond to a post cold war world that set in motion new global dynamics. And a post9 11 world characterized by historic threats that present themselves in ways never seen before enabled by technological tools that we have been illprepared to engage. The 21st century has already presented many evolving challenges to the u. S. National security and economic prosperity. We must develop proactive responses to protect and advance the interest of the American People. With such a broad array of threats facing the United States, the fiscal year 2018 budget request of 37. 6 billion aligns with the administrations objective of making americas security our top priority. The first responsibility of government is the security of its own citizens. We will orient our diplomatic efforts towards fulfilling that commitment. While our mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interests of the American People, the state departments primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home and abroad. Our mission is at all times guided by our longstanding values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty and human dignity. The conviction of our countrys founders is enduring. That all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We hold high the aspiration that all will one free madoms we have known. We are motivated by the conviction the more we engage with other nations on issues of security and prosperity, the more we will have opportunities to shape the human rights conditions in those nations. History has shown that the United States leaves a footprint of freedom wherever it goes. Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American People in advancing our values has necessitated difficult decisions in areas of our budget. The fiscal year 2018 budget request includes substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs under the auspices of usaid and the state department. But we have made hard choices to reduce funding for other initiatives. Even with the reductions in funding, we will continue to be the leader in international development, Global Health, democracy and Good Governance initiatives and humanitarian efforts. If natural disasters are epidemics strike overseas, america will respond with care and support. I am convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to offer americas helping hand to the world. This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure every tax dollar is spent, that is spent is aligned with the departments and usaids Mission Critical objectives. The request focuses the state department and uasids efforts on missions which deliver the greatest value for the American People. The state department and uasid budget increased over 60 , from fiscal year 2007, reaching an alltime high of 55. 6 billion in fiscal year 2017. Recognizing that this rate of increase in funding is not sustainable, the fiscal year 2018 budget requests seeks to align the Core Missions of the state department with historic funding levels. We believe this budget also represents the interest of the American People, including responsible stewardship of the publics money. I know there is intense interest in prospective state departments and uasid redesign efforts. We have just completed collecting information on our organizational processes and culture through a survey that was made available to every one of our state and usaid colleagues. Over 35,000 surveys were completed. We also held in person listening sessionings with approximately 300 individual, to obtain their perspective on what they do and how we do it. I met personally with dozens of team members who spoke candidly about their experiences. From this feedback, we have been able to get a clearer overall view of our organization. We have no preconceived cussions are not token exercises. The principles of our listening sessions and subsequent organization are the same as those which i stated in my confirmation hearing for Foreign Policy. We will see the world for what it is. Be honest with ourselves and the American People. Follow the facts where they lead us. And hold ourselves and others accountable. We are still analyzing the feedback we sketched and we expect to release the findings of the surveys soon. From all of this, one thing is certain, i am listening to what my people tell me are the challenges facing them. And how we can produce a more efficient and effective state department and usaid. We will work as a team and with the congress to improve both organizations. Throughout my career, i have never believed, nor have i experienced, that the level of funding devoted to a goal is the most important factor in achieving it. Our budget will never be determined, will never determine our abuilt ility to be effectivr people will. My colleagues at the state department and usaid are a deep source of inspiration. And their willingness to make sacrifices for our country are our greatest resource. Im confident the u. S. State department and upsaid will continue to deliver results for the American People. I thank you for your time. Im happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Well do sevenminute rounds. I look forward to your effort to reform the state department, get the feedback, come to us and say this is what we can do without, this is what we need more of, and then you got the perfect right attitude, but we got to live with this budget until you get there is unaccept aable for me. Between 2007 and 2017, would you say the world is more dangerous or less . The world is changing. Yes. And it is in a very difficult place today. All right. So if weve been spending more in the last ten years, theres probably a good reason. And i would say that increasing military defense spending by 10 is absolutely long overdue. Do you support the president s budget to increase hard power by 10 . I do. Do you believe, as general mattis and other generals, that soft powers an integral part of our National Security strategy . Without question. Okay. So weve got the general construct that soft power strategy . Without question. So weve got the general construct that soft power and hard power is important. I dont understand reduce soft power by 21 , but well work through this. As far as addressing situations as they emerge lets put the chart back up. Theres currently 65. 3, four countries, more than 20 Million People are currently at risk of famine. Why would we reduce areas in this area given the threats that we tase . Senator, i think we are addressing these areas is talk about why people are displaced and then why people are in need of relief from famine. The two are not unrelated because many of the areas of severe famine are related the conflict areas what we have done in this budget. Is put the emphasis on the funds we do have available on where the problems lie. And so in terms of our resources to attack the defeat isis campaign and how we put in place zones of stability and restore areas to some level of norrmall which would allow people who have been forced to leave these areas be by the advent of isis and by the conflict will find the conditions such they will want to return home. Trz so a lot of our de isis effort is directed at creating conditions for the return of refugees that have fled. In the areas of famine relief, we do appreciate significant plus up in money that the congress authorized in the food aid programs in 2017. We are delivering that money to where it is needed, the food and an effective and efficient way. Places like yemen, which has severe famine problems obviously because of the ongoing conflict, that presents significant challenges. So how do we attack the famine need in yemen is we have to find the solution to yes, maam p that allows us to deliver the aid to though. So i look at these as an integrated problem not simply as one item here, one item there. And i look at it as threatbased funding. I agree it shouldnt be a number picked out of the air. It should be based on threats we face. I just dont see how given the displacement of many people and no end in sight that 77 reduction in disaster stance is consist went the threats we face from the disasters going on all over the world. Well just agree to disagree. Georgia, what do we tell our friends about reducing our aide by 66 given the threats they face in the importance of georgias democracy to overall stability and our National Security interest . Well, ive had two meetings with the georgians already and the president had the opportunity to meet with them as well. When i talked to them about what they would like for us to do in the way of expanding our relationship, what theyd like to see is more economic trade activities between our coun countries. They are making significant investments in their country to make it more attracttive in terms of do they agree with these reductions. Their concern on these reductions did not come up in our con vversations. I think what i would convey to you, senator, is at some point, we have helped these countries get on their feet and become successful. We would expect for their requirements of oaid to be red e reduced. And i think georgia would be the first to tell you how proud they have developed their economy. Having said that, were not abandoning them. Were going to focus the aid to help them in this areas where it is most useful. Well, ive been contacted by the people in georgia, and theyre just absolutely floored. They say what more do you want us to do . Many of the threats coming from georgia to russia justify reductions of 66 , but i just dont agree with you. I just think its the worst sig nal to through to an alley. The hiv aids, why are we cutting it by a billion dollars . The Program Available are to sustain hiv treatments in 11 countries, to continue to take that conclusion. As patients rolloff of those rolls new treatments to be made available. I agree with you there may be five or six countries if youre going to be selfsufficient. Its just pennywise and pound foolish. So the bottom line here is a threat based budget on the soft power side would not resemble what is being presented in my view. I humbly disagree with you. Just look at what youve got to do here. The money were reducing to Disaster Relief is going to show up more terrorists. Pull back from georgia at time when theyre still under siege is going to create a perception i dont want to create. The billion dollars coming out of hiv means less treatment for people at a time when were turning the corner. From 2007 to 2017, if weve spent more, its because the threats to this country require us to spend more. 1. 4 of the budget is still real money, but bu at a end of the day, is a small amount of money given return. They service as well as anybody in uniform. Im a pretty hawkish military kind of the guy. The usaid people, god bless you all, i just really worry about cuts and Embassy Security. Im not going to beat you up. I know we can do better than this, and were constrained by artificial spending numbers that are going to change. So thank you for representing our country, taking a job, leading a comfortable life to do whats on this board. Senator lee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We only have a few minutes here, so i think you can assume therell be other questions as we send to you and written questions. Do we have your assurances theyll be answered . Yes, sir. Whether they come fromens or democrats. Im happy to answer any questions. Im happy to take a phone call from anyone at any time. Thank you. Youve sought to senator graham alluded to this. You sought to reassure our allies that the u. S. Would be global leader. With this budget cutting money for diplomacy and development by an average of 30 , china and russia are expanding in those areas. Does that allow us to have influence or does it allow them to go ahead of us in influence . Well, senator, i think we have to devise new ways to respond to a rising china and respond to a troubling russia. And that long list of challenges on that board over there have been around for a while. The level of responding weve been carrying out hasnt solved them. I go back to my view that i dont think the money we spend the necessarily an indicator of our commitment. I think how we go about it, and weve got to take some new approaches to begin the address some of these very daunting challenges. The aide and the support and what we can bring to the issue is important. Im not in any way diminishing that. But i dont i think if we equate the budget level to have some level of commitment or some level of expected success, i think were really undercutting and selling short peoples intellectual capacity to bring different approaches to these problems. So we could at least try. A number of things have been very successful. The war victims fund. Been very saysful. A number of these things have allowed us to be. But i look at some of these cuts. You got sure i got these right. 30 cut for diplomacy and development. Millions of dollars proep ratd d for other purposes ch you want to eliminate more than 600 positions for the state department through buyouts. Reduce more than twice that number through attrition. What are you going to do if some of you find that, whoops, we made a mistake here. Were going to need more. Not less. Well thats what the entire redesigned exercise is about is understanding better how the work gets done. What we have learned out of this listening exercise is the, our colleagues in the state department usaid can already identify a number of obstacles to them getting their work done efficiently and effectively. If we eliminate those, its like getting another half a person because they have their Time Available now to direct it at delivery on mission as opposed to managing some internal process thats not directly delivering on mission. I just use that as an example. I think when this is is all said and done, our objective is to enable the people, our civil servant, our people and missions, foreign nationals, to deliver on mission with greater efficiency and effectiveness. In effect, were going to get an uplift. Thats a good point to put on powerpoint ppresentation, but i youve got 600 people that are gone, theyre not going to be there to help. It sounds like to me almost you spend more time figuring out who you can fire than who youre going to have out there doing things. Were not going to have to fire anyone. Tis is all being done through the hiring freeze, normal afr s attrition with a limited if needed because we havent derped whether well need it, a very limited buy out program between the end of this year and next. So there is no firing program planned. Let me go into policy things. The president is going to have his way to praise the leaders of very impressive regimes. In saudi arabia, egypt, russia, turkey, philippines. But now it seems that the white house wants to change our relations which have finally began to improve with cuba. This despite the progress weve had with cuba as benefitting cuba entrepreneurs and our businesses. How does this help . You know, after a recent trip to saudi arabia where women are jailed and flogged for driving a car or leaving the house without permission or without a relative, they get a hundred billion dollar sale of u. S. Weapons, but somehow we have to step down on cuba. Does that make sense . Well, with respect to cuba, we are evaluating that policy and what our posture should be. I think our view is that the steps that were taking over the past few years to improve relations with cuba, to open it up to greater economic participation by u. S. Companies and american citizens did not deliver a resip row cal change in policy or change in behavior by the cuban government towards human rights. Theres still political opposition you dont think so . You dont think the that people who now have jobs in cuba and now have some economic stability, they dont think its better . I realize a number of those people now as the wall street journal put out last week, because of our restriction on trade, theyre going to russia to get parts on their cars and other things. Russia is getting involved to step in. We havent been. And were saying that and ive gone to cuba and criticized repression. I dont just sit here in an easy place here and say oh, this is whats happening. Ive actually gone there. But we have our president go to saudi arabia to do a sword dance, when we have americans do the salsa dance in cuba. I dont mean that to be quite as flippant as it might sound. The fact is you and i can go to every country, and theyll let us in. But theres only one question in the world we need permission from our government to go and thats cuba. Were quite sure. We can go to north korea or iraq or iran or anywhere else, if theyll let us in. But not cuba. Frankly, well talk more about this. My time is up, but good lord. Lets deal with reality, not rhetoric. Senator muran. I didnt think that was a question so go ahead. If the secretary wanted to respond to it out of fairness, feel free. Well, i think that somewhere in there there was a cuba question. And as i began to would you roll back what we were doing . I think what we are examining on the policy discussion on cuba is there is existing law thats still in place that says we are not to allow our facilitate people to allow Financial Support revenue to the regime. As the process to open up cuba has unfolded, it is our view that that is happening. If cuban people are able to conduct Business Activities with americans and others and theres no revenue directly in terms of ownership in these entities back to the regime, then, you know, we think thats great. But we have a law existing today that we feel has to be respected. Because that law was intended to put pressure on the regime. If the congress doesnt want that pressure to be then certainly the law can be revisited. Our view is that were look at what are the tools there to deal with all the four corners of cubas behavior and our relationship with them. There are some things that we and cuba could do together probably quite productively and were interested in enganging with them, but we cant take that just in ace laigs so, the policy review is looking at all aspects of this. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us, for the conversation we had this week. I want to focus at least initially on security of our diplomats and the facilities around the globe in which they work. The budget sees a decrease in worldwide Security Protection account of o about 562 million from last year. Is there first of all, i would say i heard you in response, i think so senator leahy, indicate we cant judge our priorities necessarily by the level of spending. I think thats an indicator, but i think the point you make is theres other components that determine whether or not be. Seth successful. I know its the shared goal that every person who works for the state department who represents the United States around the globe has a safe environment as safe as we can provide to them. So, my question is in this case, what has changed or what will we do different that means that our state Department Employees safety is not diminished . We have made the safety of americans broadly our highest priorities. Certainly as it relates to our embassy presence, our Consular Office presence and our missions around the world. If you examine the security element of the budget, our budget for Diplomatic Security is up 11 . Year on year. Where we have reductions has to do with some of the construction the buildings part of the buildings part of the budget, buildings and other facilities. Part of o that, well manage with some multiyear commitments. Across 17 to 17 and some has to do with our ability to move projects along promptly. We are clearly committed to the recommendations and are monitoring those carefully. We have some gaps we need to close. The oig has helped up some of those. If there were more funds there, we would try to step up u more activity on the building and maintenance issues, so most of the reduction is in building and maintenance efforts, which we believe are manageable through fiscal year 18. An american citizen who was not the safe, whos parents live in kansas, michael sharp, was killed along another american in the democratic republic of the congo. Last week, Ambassador Haley called on the u. N. To investigate the murders of those two individuals. Would you find it appropriate to join Ambassador Haley in insist ing that the perpetrators be determined facts be discovered and we do everything we can to see that justice is met . We have already done that through our Diplomatic Mission in congo and have called for a full investigation to the extent we are able to gain information into the gags, we certainly will make that available to you. Yes, we have called for that as well. Whats the response of the government . Have they cooperated . Are are there results my understanding is investigations are underway. What an investigation to congo may entail versus the way we carry out Law Enforcement is something were trying to at least monitor and make sure were asking all of the right questions. The vest ga torre role is being carried on by the democratic republic of congo. Not by anyone representing the United States . Weve not been able to put in place pind Investigative Authority there. Were working with them. One of the concerns i have with this budget is that we dont operate in a vacuum. As i talk to our military leaders, certainly terrorism is on their of worries. Senator graham gave you a long list, but our militaitary offic tell me russia is our most, our greatest challenge. Others certainly all are will include china on the list of concerns for our countrys role in the world. And investment in the state departments programs when theyre reduced, gives other countries the opportunity to advance their causes if we leave any gap unfilled. So, i would ask you with this budget, what would you expect to occur in regard to particularly china, but also russia . And their ability to increase their influence around the globe, which in my view, is to the debtriment of the United States and its well being. China just last month pledged 124 billion for a new Global Infrastructure program. We are reducing usaid missions and eliminating Economic Development stance to 36 countries around the globe. And its, the issue in addition to me is in addition to the humanitarian, the rightness of the cause, is that others will take advantage of our absence. Well, we are already seeing that happening particularly in Southeast Asia, but in parts of aftrica and elsewhere. Particularly as to the rise of china. I think our challenge is in chinas case, it is a centrally command controlled economy, so when they come with economic not just loans, stanassistance, buto companies to carry out infrastructure projects, they get the whole package, so cou y countries that enter into these arrangements and we are talking to these countries and cautioning them about what theyre getting themselves into in terms of getting themselves over burdened with loan commitments to china, that when china offers to build a a railroad, a road, a port, they dont do it with local employment, they bring chinese employment in and those employment never goes home. We see this happening, were working with partners in the region. This was a subject of discussion when secretary mattis and i attended os meant, our two plus two ministerial last week in australia as well as in in our conversations with new zealand, singapore and others. One of the approaches we are exploring is whether we can get the world bank to also bring its mission to Southeast Asia. Bring more product equity, private Sector Investment dollars to the region and bring more counsel and advice to countries and give them another alternative around how to finance these products, get more private sector involvement there. Whats required to get the private sector to engage is some of these countries have to continue to improve their Investment Climate like vietnam. The philippines and others. Were working with them on necessary and in our meetings with the asean countries, they see this threat. They see it. They feel it. So we have to be there with an alternative to your point. Youre right. We have to come with an alternative, but our alternative cant be solely achieved through the funding available through state or usaid. We have to mobilize a broader effort and thats how were responding. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Senator shane. Mr. Chairman ill defer to senator durbin because he was kind enough to open the door for me, which is why i got here before he did. He was really here at the same time. No, absolutely not. Senator disturb p. No good deed goes unpunished. Go secretary tillerson, thaupg for being here. Im sorry i missed you this morning at the Foreign Relations committee because i was at another subcommittee hearing, but i wanted to ask you about recent news reports that have described a proposed trip to st. Petersburg by undersecretary tom shannon thats going to happen on june 23rd. And as a news reports have suggested that the purpose of the trip is to try and discuss with the russians how we might be able to Work Together against isis and syria. Last week, a state Department Spokesperson admitted one of the things that will be part of the conversation are the two dacas seize ed last year in response russias interference in our relations. I have a pick chu of those there and we can see theyre quite substantial. Its my understanding one reports suggested these were used for collecting intelligence by the russians. I wonderf if you can share with us, continued russias behavior, why we would consider the part of those as part of any discussions were having with them. Let me describe to you the nature of our current dialogues with russia because theyre occurring at a couple of levels. On what i recall, the strategic big issues like can we Work Together in syria, how are we going to revolve the ukraine, how with regoing to deal with cyber interference, those are being today conducted at the, my level with my counterpart, the foreign minister and on occasion with access to the kremlin. What we have agreed to do, theres a long list of what the russians call them the irritants. We call them the smalls on our side. A list of things that have been a problem between us for some time and in some case, theyre getting worse. Youll recall when i made my trip to moscow to see my counterpart, foreign minister lavrov and had a twohour meeting with president putin, i said our relationship is at the lowest level its been since the cold war and it is spiralling down and i said the greatest Nuclear Powers in the world cannot have this kind of a relationship. We have to stabilize it and have to start finding a way back so we segmented the big issues from this list of what i call the irritants. The are on that list. We have things on the list. We have issues with harassment issues in moscow. We have a list of things. They have a list of things. I dont want to suggest this is a bartering deal. Its more lets start working on some of the smalls and see p if we can small them. As to the these two properties have been b in ownership dating back to the soviet union. Theyve used these for a long time. They were transferred for one dollar. We have continued to allow them to these properties and they have used theme continuously for all that time. President obama in response to the interference with the election expelled the 35 Russian Diplomats and seized these two properties. What were working through with them in this conversation is under what terms and conditions would we allow them to access the properties again for recreational purpose. Weve not taken the properties from them. They still belong to them. So were not going to seize properties that are theirs and remove their, but we are talking about under what conditions would we allow you to use them for recreational purpose, which is what they have asked. We have sithings on our side as well. So this is part of how do we take some of the irritants out of relationship and stabilize things. And i dont mean to interrupt, but my time is running and i woernd if you could tell me if the properties are returned, how we would ensure they would not be used for intelligence gathering purposes. Thats part of the terms were discussing with them. Weve been cheer to them. We know what you were doing there. Were not going to allow you to continue to do that. Thank you. As the chair graham pointed out, the 2018 Budget Proposal would reduce a billion dollar frs the p pet far program. And there are other policy decisions the state department is making that will have an impact on pet far in addition to the funding reduction. The state department in may relouised guidelines for the implication of the mexico city policy or the global gag. Rule, which for the First Time Ever will apply to all Global Health assistance programs including pet far. Now, study after study has shown that integrating health and hiv treatment and services into basic primary Care Services leads to Better Health outcomes and significant cost savings of foreign dollars, yet, state department in this budget proposes eliminating all funds for Family Planning. So, how will the state department continue to move towards inti inin ining hiv and and Family Planning in light of the drastic cuts to Reproductive Health fund iing and restrictio youre imposing by the global gag rule . Just to be clear, the reduction to pet far is 1 billion. I understood that. Its the money for the Family Planning also. The extension of the mexico city policy to all areas of Health Delivery was directed under president ial executive order. And so, the state department when we received executive order gabegan immediately to work wit all of the Delivery Services including all of those in pet far and a number of the other ngo organizations and parent partners in the Health Delivery networks across the world. Our assessment we believe is the impact on those Service Providers is going to be min tall. Thats what we believe. Were hearing from them, but to monitor that carefully. I have said we will have a report to me after six months of how is this working, what has been the impact. And weve been directly engaged with a number of of the major private donors. Like the fwagates foundation an others clearly working with with them to say let us know how this is president ial executive order. We think we found a way to do that. Achieve his directive, but in a way that has minimal impact on our ability to deliver and on our ability to deliver funding to pet far and other related programs and well, we will see how that works after about six months of operation. And if i could just follow up, mr. Chairman, how do define min impact because based on information ive seen from other sources losing access to Family Planning services will result in 2 million more unsafe abortions, 12,000 maternal deaths and 6 million more unintended pregnancies. So, we factored that in as youre looking at the impact of this policy on the pet far program. We will factor in those elements covered by the president s executive order to ensure we are implementing the order and understanding whether its impacting parts of our Health Programs that we did not intend by the executive order to impact. So, youre comfortable with it impacting Womens Health in the way ive just defined . Thats a question. We will carry it out consist went the president s executive order, so if certain activities and programs are excluded because of the order, we have to exclude those. Well, im not comfortable with that impact on Womens Health worldwide. Thank you. Dually noted. Senator boseman. Thank you for being here. We do appreciate your service. When i was first elected to congress, a fellow congressman, somebody who was a great coach, tom osmond from nebraska, when they said, john, if we run the same play 50 times in a row and dont get good results, we probably need to do something different. What he was referring to was cuba. We have been doing things differently lately and i think getting result. Im a little disappointed as we hear you all are about to reach a decision, programs were going to push back on some of the reforms weve made and some of the opportunitying i believe that could change the world through relationships. To do business with lot of people that are better as human rights funds as the cubaens and i could list a whole bunch of them but i dont think we need to do that. But i think you would agree with that. Can you talk to me about kind of where were at with that and how you feel about the path Going Forward . The cuban policy is under refu view. Its been underway today. My deputy secretary has been participating in that for me sork i dont want to get ahead of the process or tell you i know what the final policy outcomes are going to be. What i described earlier are some of the elements that under discussion within the agencys process. Again, our situation in cuba, yes, there are many other places around the world that have similar human rights issues that are a problem b to us and challenges to others. Cuba has a long history of stat torrey obligations around it. I think theres four laws that govern our our relationship with cuba. We believe it is important we are not advancing our advocating policies that would put individuals or companies in violation of those laws, if it is the view of the United States that we want to change and redefine that relationship, by removing some of these, a conversation that could happen. I agree that unwith of the best ways to improve relationships with cuba and with other countries is through economic activity. Its the strongest way to tie our people together. It delivers value to people in the country. They improve their quality of life. All of that is good. We agree wievery bit of it. What we are concerned about is not continuing to support in any way, financially, a regime which is as best we can tell, has made no change. To its posture or its behavior. I think a recent study said theres 6 billion worth of economic activity, 12,000 jobs, so it is important. I think theres tremendous potential there. But i, the only place i would disagree is you get there by engage. Theres no disagreement between us on that. Hopefully, we can look at it and continue engagement weve got. As someone who believes again as we talked about you changed the world through engagement, the full Bright Program has been something were proud of in the state of arkansas. Were talk iing about a 47 cut there. I was in israel visiting with the i think the finance minister from palestine. Went on and finished up the university of texas. We could laugh about that. He did all that stuff. We see the program as extremely valueable as well. Our reduction in the budget. The Program Receives private doe facts. To the extent that we can help in attracting more private donations to support the program and perhaps who have benefits from the full Bright Program as well. So its not an indication. I think mark green is an excellent choice and i congratulate you on your choice there. Can you talk for a second about the reorganization process youre going through . We just completed, having done this in the private sector once or twice and had a big nonprofit once, theres a process that i know has delivers for me in the past, so we just concluded this listening effort, which will inform us and shape how we feel we need to attack the resign on the way forward. Ive interviewed a couple of individuals to help me lead that effort. I think well finalize the listing in the next few weeks and make that available. Out of that report, there were about 13 themes that emerged and these with were extremely value bable to help us focus on where are the greatest opportunities to remove obstacles for people. Because thats really what this is about. Is how do we allow people to get their work done more effectively and efficiently. And we will be b going after the redesign, some of this is internal processes, some is structural. Some of it are constraints that quite frankly, congress put on us through some of the appropriations structures and i understand all well intended to ensure accountability and oversight. To begin the redesign process. September. Im hoping we can have that concluded by the end of the calendar year and then 18 will be b a year of how do we implement this, how do we taskt change and get that into place. Thaupg, mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me associate myself with the chairmans opening remarks. I think it was a brilliant presentation. It puts in perspective why were here today. Mr. Secretary, let me, ive said it on the record once and thats the only time im going to say it. Seriously, i do respect what you said earlier. I sit down as Ranking Member on the defense committee. That money isnt the solution to problems, just need creative people and innovative thinking. I never hear that when talking about the defense budget. They always need more money. More and more and more. Yet in a world thats plagued by famine, we really dont need money to solve problems. Turns out my experience in life is you dont solve a problem by throwing money at it unless the problem is lack of money. When it comes to the poorest people on earth, its lack of money. Lack of investments in these people and in their lives. Im embarrassed policy of this country now when it comes to accepting are refugees in the world. Since world 2, weve left the world. Senators are from cuban refugee families. You go through all of the people weve absorbed as refugees into this country and we know the policy of the Trump Administration opposes acceptance of refugees. Thank goodness there are heros in this world like the king of jordan. Currently, jordan has absorbed three or four million refugees in a nation of 7 Million People. It is an incredible act of kindness and charity and bravery when you consider the political risk. So what does this do for jordan . It cuts by 18 migration stance to countries like jordan. Were not accepting refugees and were saying to the countries that are, were going to cut your funding. Think of a more creative way to feed those refugees. 1. 4 million syrian refugees. It just doesnt work, mr. Secretary, for us to walk away from our b Global Responsibility and then to hurt those who are accepting much more than others. How would you respond to the king of jordan . I would take exception to the comment were walking away from our responsibilities in that region. With all of the men and women to get at the reason, the refugees are in jordan, and i will tell you in work wg the region, they all understand, turkey, jordan, others understand wed like to refugees to stay close to their homes so they can go back. Having them come to the United States may not achieve that. So our approach on migration locally is to solve the problem that allows people to go home. We have already seen some success in the liberation of mouz l and other cities. We hope to rememberly kate that kind of success in syria, where we have come behind the military quickly when liberate an area, create a secure zone, restore power and water, hospitals, school, we have close to 40,000 children back in school in east mosul already. People will come back if we create the conditions. So we want refugees to return. Its not the objective to have jordan have. Howard those refugees now and forever more. Of course its not, mr. Secretary, but thank goodness for the king of jordan and i hope you feel about that way about him, too. Were trying to solve the problem in syria. I know americans are risking their lives in that effort. This man trying to make sure the refugees have something to eat, to make sure, he told me their biggest problem is is water. They dont have enough water to accommodate these refugees and were going to cut the funding . Let me tell you another situation which im sure youre aware of. In mosul, the poorest places on earth which you find sadly is a gross mistreatment of little girls and women. It happens over and over xwagai. So a fellow named George Mcgovern who was a great leader in our nation before he passed, came up with an idea. He came up with an idea of a school lunch program. And you know who joined him . Bob dole. An old alliance and partnership was revived. Heres the idea they had. If we offer a free lunch to kids in the poorest places on earth, we think parents will send their little girls to school. Just basic. Thats what they did. The Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program. Then to add another element to it, they gave the kids a little bag of grain to take home from school. So the parents couldnt wait to get the little girl off to school. Whats the difference in the poorest places in the world between an educated and uneducated little girl . The uneducated little girl will be a save, probably married out of off at a an early age, bearing children long before she should and maybe theyll survive and maybe they wont then well have overpopulation problems, but if they finish school, the opposite is the case. So what did your budget decide to do to this Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program . You eliminated it. Now, is that going to make for a better world and safer world . Senator, what we are attempting to do is to marshall forces of others. We are talking to ore counother countries and asking them to do more to step in to fill in some of the needs that jordan has and refugee camps. Same in turkey. So, we are using our authority to bring to bear other resources as well. These are some of the very difficult choices we made in achieving a budget level that we have put forth in this budget. None of these choices are easy. None of them. Theres not a one of them that was not difficult to make. And so i do not take exception to anything you said. And at all. And would agree and so what were going to attempt to do is so if we can bring other resources to bear to either fill in, mitigate or perhaps grow out interest of others to address these same issues. So our message to the world is were stepping back. Americas first and stepping back now. Were stepping back by 30 in our expenditures, eliminating these programs and you are welcome to fill in to the rest of the world. That is our America First message . Our message is were leaning in asking all of you, all of you to step up and do more. I think were leaping on, not in. On the poorest people on earth. Senator van hollen. Thank you, mr. Chairman and welcome, mr. Secretary. Good to have you. Here, i, too, wabt to associate myself with the remarks rega regarding the state department budget. I do believe that cuts of this magnitude diminish our influence overseas, it will diminish our capacity to accomplish some of out r goals. Im all for creative reforms. Where the dwoel is is a better operating departmenter than trying to hit an arbitrary budget number bo pro vids to the state department by omb and others. Theres a big difference between those two things. I want to talk about russia and and legislation the senate will soon take up regarding rgsen sanctions. I know you previously stated what every Intelligence Agency has concluded that there was russian interference in our elections s. That the case . Im not here to debate whether it was a decisive intervention or not. But they interfereded. You would also agree they are attempting to interfere in the elections of many nato allies netherlands and france. It certainly appears that way. It appear that is way. It does. Would you also agree that russia would prefer a weaker nato to a stronger nato . In all likelihood, they would. I think so, too. So, i guess my question is do you agree with senator graham and senator mccain, i think probably a majority of us on this economy on a bipartisan basis, that its posht to take additional actions . And sanction russia to let them know that you cannot interfere in our elections and just get away with it. That the United States is not going to walk away from that kind of attack on our democracy. Isnt that important . It is. I think you know, one of the challenges is how to structure these sanctions to achieve the desired result. In the case of the current sanctions in place, were in response to russias invasion of ukraine, taking of crimea, so, russia understands what has to be done to achieve sanctions relief on the current sanction sanctions. The issue and the outrageous response they should receive for their cyber meddling around elections so we can put sanctions in place, what do we want from the russians in order for them to other than sanctions relief. Not suggesting we shouldnt do it, just pointing out from a diplomats perspective, some of the challenges. Read the amendment to the iran sanctions bill, which is where theyre being considered and i think there are a few problematic areas within those. That i would hope would allow the diplomat k b efforts to attempt to make some progress. If we cannot make progress and i have told others in the senate when weve had conversations with them, i may very well be calling you and saying you know, the time has come now. To do in order to motivate the moouflt on their part. I understand and supportive of having that kind of ability. I think the question is given where we are and we b dont know wlet yet whether these efforts are going to bear fruit. Its going to take time. But as i said earl wrer, i think it is important we address the situation and the relationship we have today which i do not believe is in the interest of the United States nor the interest of stability in the world. And we can either deteriorate it further or stabilize and improve it and right now, this is an effort that is in progress. I understand, mr. Secretary. I think all of us would like to see the russians take the actions. That indicate to us that they want to beive international player, but as you know, the first challenge wen when youre tackling a problem is to get the other side to admit when engage nd this type of activity. Have they indicated to you they interfered in our elections sm. I think theyre position and explanation of it is pretty public and ive heard nothing any different. Thats right. Now, were in a position where they havent even admitted it. Weve seen it not only in the United States, but with our nato allies, so to even talk about providing them access to the compound on the Eastern Shore of maryland, my state or others, instead of leaning forward and saying heres what were going to do unless number one, you admit what you did and number two, youre going to provide us assurances it wont happen again. Seems we got to lean in on that issue. Let me ask you a budget related question on april 18th, they to the iran was in compliance. Thats correct. And you would agree its in our National Security interest to make sure we have in place the able toy verify iran yawn compliance with the agreement. Yes, it is, tell you, its a pretty low bar. What we should agree on, the iae should have the resources. Certainly. Part of your budget calls for 27 reduction. Tothd contributions to to international contributions, many go to fund the iaea. Which is in indicates that they need those resources to verify iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement. Can you tell us today that they can verify compliance with that agreement . Cuts to the International Organizations budget, which as you mentioned, touches on a number of ogss, world het, how we would distribute those with the bureaus and those agencies. We neto make sure they have all needs to carry out those responsibilities. I appreciate that. I think thats important. Im struck at the list the chairman put up in thorough presentation about the unsettled and dangerous and difficult world in which we operate. I see here, russian aggression and conflict in ukraine im concerned about that gap in the context of an era when we know that russia from the highest levels interfered in our last president ial elections. And in my view, thats only going to stop when we stop it. And i understand we may have a difference of approach to how to engage vladimir put e put pooth in russia. I am haunted by a question asked of me by an Eastern European diplomat at the Halifax Security Forum where he said how can we count on you to defend our democracy when we dont see you defending your own. In your confirmation hearing, you acknowledging russias onefforts to divide europe from the United States and how you would lead the resources of the state department to counterrussian prop began da and how you would invest in strengthening allies in the region. Countries like georgia or ukraine that are not nato members. If i understand this right, your request for europe and eurasian is nearly cut in half from fy 16 by about 450 million. What is is strategy behind decreasing support for or partners and allies in the region in the face of a clear growing threat to democracies and ours . First, let me position the situation with russia for you. So that you understand why im hearing. From allies. Partners. Large and small. And this is without exception, i have yet to have a bilateral, oneonone, a side, with a single counterpart in any country in europe, the middle east, even Southeast Asia that has not said to me, please address your relationship with russia. It has to be improved. They believe worsening this relationship will ultimately worsen their situation. So, we have been, people have been imploring me to engage and try to improve the situation. So, now that was our approach any way, but i would just tell you the feedback im getting is please engage and see if you can improve the situation. With respect to the tools available to us, we do maintain particular emphasis on the countries we see in europe that are are most at risk of russian interference in Eastern Europe. We would like to do more in the baltics and in the balkans, if we had a little more wed do a little more there. Weve not walked away from those. We do want to continue to perfect more sophisticated approaches as to how to push messages into russian society, obviously, through social media, through broadcast and all the tools available to us and well continue to maintain that effort to insure were in the conversation among young people and others inside of russia. But this i understand other countries are concerned about russia. They should be. And i hear about it when i talk to them about how they feel the direct threat whether theyre in the baltics, the balkans, georgia or other parts of the world as well. So they express that to me, but then when we talk about what should be done, they want us to solve it through engagement. They do not want it to get worse. Because if it gets worse, they fear it will be worse for them. Mr. Secretary, i appreciate hearing that perspective. And we have many of the same conversations. Just with a different end point. The Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, in the north atlantic alliance, the signals were sending are signals of retreat and disengagement. Partly this is from countries as was mentioned by the chairman, the country like jordan. Other places its where china is being aggressive in the South China Sea or in Eastern Europe as you mentioned. In terms of an overall budget that is trying to defend american interests, and advance American Values, i dont see how it makes sense in an increasingly difficult and contested world to unilaterally withdraw support from vital allies who have chosen us and our values and our side in a contest of ideas with russia, china and others. Let me mention two other things before i run out of time. As has been mentioned by others, we have people to people projects that elevate the reputation we enjoy in the world. Africa is a very young continent, very large continent. I thought it was, again, not the choice i would have made to cut all the educational and Cultural Exchange programs in half. And this would be one of them. I hope youll reconsider that. I think these are powerful programs that connect us to parts of the world where we benefit from a positive relationship and from as you said, the next generation of leaders. Power africa is something we as a bipartisan basis authorized. Its a way for us to bring the deployment of private sector capital to subsaharan africa. Your Budget Proposal allocates an 84 cut for this. There are dozen other programs i could talk about i think reduce the visibility and the scope and reach of our investment through diplomacy and development. Those are two i want today elevate in our conversation today. Let me close just by quoting an editorial i thought made an important point. A senator said in this editorial to view Foreign Policy as simply transactional is more dangerous than its proponents realize. Deri deriving the oppressed of a hope could cost us the world. I ask for unanimous consent this be placed in the record. There is a clear contest between authoritarianism capitalism and real capitalism. I agree with increasing our defense investment but to do it without sustaining our investment in diplomacy and development is ill considered. And i really hope well Work Together to advance human rights and diplomacy and to advance development through this budget. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator, danes. Secretary tillerson, thank you for your service to our country. Thank you for coming before this committee today. Two months ago, i led a bicameral congressional delegation to china and japan. In fact, it was just after xi was in florida. I was heading over to china, i think that sunday. And we were underscoring our concerns about the threat posed by north korea noting that the u. S. , and i quote, era of strategic patience is over as was articulated by Vice President pence who came there the week after we were there. Despite International Efforts to pressure peyayongyang it contin to conduct missile test. Some of the tests have failed, im concerned that north korea is learning from the failures. Theres an old saying when you attend college you learn more from the tests you failed versus the test you aced. Meanwhile, south korea has delayed implementing part of thaad. How do they protect against north korean aggression . As you know, the new south korea government is being put into place. They have not named all of their cabinet positions yet. But we have been in conversations with some of their representatives who came to washington as well as maintaining a very close dialogue with our japanese counterpar counterparts. Our intention and i know the south koreans are committed to the strong Trilateral Partnership we have that confronts north korea first and foremost. And then ultimately, at some point at the appropriate point, engage with others. But the Pressure Campaign that weve had underway now for a few weeks, which involves obviously, a requirement that china in particular participate and participate in a meaningful way, we believe is beginning to have some effect. It is difficult. Obviously, to judge precisely because we do not have great transparency and visibility inside the regime in north korea. But we have this is a campaign that has a forward map as to how we continue to implement and increase that pressure on the north koreans. Until we receive a clear signal that they now are ready to engage with a different mindset about the way forward. You could interpret the level of missile testing, obviously, as quite disturbing to us. Whether thats a sign theyre trying to give to us that its not working, whether its a sign that it is working is difficult to tell. But we are monitoring all of those tests carefully, particularly in terms of what is the nature of the tests. And we have good alignment between ourselves and the government of china regarding first the objective, a denuclearization of the peninsula but we also have a good understanding between us of what actions, if north korea went too far, what actions would cause us to be completely aligned. So we have further high level dialogue with the chinese coming up this next week, secretary mattis and myself. We want to work it both at the diplomatic level and mill to mill level. Its important we manage the risk of this quite carefully with full and open channels of communications with the chinese. Secretary tillerson, i want to commend you and the administration in the leadership that ive been seeing in asia. I loved in china for six years working for proctor and gamble. I was there when the deal was signed in 94. Weve seen whats happened since then. I was struck by, as you just mentioned the change in the ingainment approach the chinese now have. We met with the premiere as they are, i think as you stated changing their engagement strategy with north korea. I want to thank you for your leadership in that regard on this important issue. I had feedback from japan, with Prime Minister abe, that the relationship with japan has never been better in some time. The media doesnt report this kind of news, but i saw it firsthand and i want to thank you for your steady hand of leadership in this important area of the world. Last week there was a press report that indicated that russian trade with north korea increased by more than 70 in the first two months of this year. Can you provide Additional Details on this development . And what impact does this have on our north korea strategy . Sorry, we do need russias cooperation and participation. We have spoken directly to them. I spoke directly to president putin on the need for them to join us in china in the Pressure Campaign in north korea. We do see and monitor russian movements of fuel, petroleum products. They are opening a new ferry transport system between vladivostok and north korea which is troubling. Were continuing the dialogue with them. I think were making some progress if you noticed in the u. N. Security Council Resolution that was passed it was passed with unanimous approval, the russians supported that resolution, which imposed more sanctions on individuals and entities. In years past we would have never hoped that they would vote for it. They might have ubstained. I think they are beginning to understand the threat that north korea poses to them. If theres a problem regionally theyll feel the effects of that. I think theyre beginning to recalculate their posture towards north korea. Speaking of russian threat, a few weeks ago i visited norway. We we i was with the chairman of the energy communicate as well as secretary zinke. While i was there i toured one of the worlds most efficient liquefied natural gas facilities. They have on side Carbon Capture capability. Many European Countries still depend on lmg from russia. I was strucked by t the fact th countries rely on russia for their imports. The facility we saw in norway, the only one in europe. Combined with u. S. Exports can be important to reduce russias ability to use its Energy Policy to intimidate europe. Whats the state department doing and what more can we do as part of a whole of government approach to help europe become less dependent on russia for their energy needs . Just to clarify, europe receives 70 of its natural gas supply by way of pipeline to europe. Because there are extensive historic pipelines that have been there for decades. Russia is pursuing the expansion of a second pipeline that would connect to germany. We have encouraged European Countries and the e. U. To at least subject that pipeline to the full rigors of their regulatory process and have suggested to them its not in their Long Term Energy security interest to become more dependent on russian natural gas and have pointed out the u. S. Has an abundance of natural gas to ship lmg to europe. Were promoting the notion that europe needs to think about its total Energy Balance and its Energy Security and recognize how dependent they remain on russia. So we are having those kinds of dialogue with them. All right. Thank you, secretary tillerson. Senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I know its been long day, thank you for sticking with us. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate Earlier today on a small portion of the proposed armed saled to saudi arabia. It was close vote because i think there is a were athat while theres clearly a military strategy to assist the saudis in their Bombing Campaign inside yemen, that there is not a political component to the strategy. I think you answered a question that senator jonge posed earlier today about putting pressure on the saudis to allow humanitarian resources to flow into the country, a country that is ravaged by famine and cholera. I wonder if you may speak more in depth about the lack of a process. Secretary kerry was personally engaged in trying to break the iranian backed houthis together with the saudi backed regime. He was unsuccessful but got close. The sense that this administration and your department of state is not engaged in that political process, is not actively trying to get the two sides to sit at the table. Part of our worry is that the strategy now is to escalate the military conflict as a meends of trying to bring the houthis to the table under circumstances in which theyre weaker which might exacerbate the military conflict. Explain to me or id love for you to talk to the communicate about your views on how the u. S. Reengages the political process inside yemen. Thank you, senator. You are right on the issue. Let me dispel the notion were not engaged. I lived in yemen for two and a half years so i know a number of the people really well. We are engage would the emiratis the saudis and ourselves. Weve had two or three meetings now to talk about the way forward. Including discussions with the u. N. Representative in this. We are pursuing the political solution but this involves more than just the saudi and the hout houthis, its a little more complicated than that. I think thats why past efforts had failed that there was not recognition of all the equities that were involved. I want to be careful about going too far because some of this is at a very sensitive stage and were not talking about it publicly yet but were working diligently with those parties to put together a way forward to begin to advance a political solution. The focus on the port is critical because its the port of entry where we could begin to deliver massive amounts of humanitarian assistance. Its controlled by the houthis, the aid thats been sent in, we know most has not made it to the people it was supposed to. Weve been work ing with the saudis and houthis to come to an agreement. We believe we can gain control of the port under some other third authoritys control and then the next step is weve got to put in place a safe passage for the aid to go to make it all the way to sanaa where the suffering is the greatest. Its the safe passage piece were working on right now. If we can stabilize the humanitarian situation and if we can disrupt the elements of the conflict itself, then we think with some other steps that are yet to that are underway but not yet taken, we think we can create conditions for a political process to begin. Just to clarify, youre talking about when you say retake that port, youre talking a military campaign to retake the port . No, that the houthis would voluntarily turn that port over to a third authority. Not the saudis, not the emiratis and we would gain access and the next step is how to create the safe passage to connect the aid to the people that need it. You can see all of this hearing online at cspan. Org, just type tillerson in the search box and it will take you there. Well leave the remainder of this hearing and take you