Recess will end and we will stand in her new again. I moved to senator corcoran. Care. You for the thank you. Secretary sullivan, you know how i feel about you. I appreciate the proactive approach you took. I appreciate your coming for the service as well, the funeral. I was not here earlier. I know the hiring present the reorganization was a topic of discussion and i want to talk to about that a little bit. It is something i feel strongly about. We as a senate and a house and the defense reauthorization act, we ask the local Defense Center to take on more responsibility, specifically with regard to disinformation coming from countries meant to undermine some of our basic values and institutions. Russia and china come to mind. There is an Important Role in pushing back against extremism, is question for you is there an ability to keep some of these important entities like the Global Engagement centers specifically from being weakened by a hiring freeze or by other reorganizations that could lead to it having a more difficult time carrying out its important responsibilities . Certainly. Thank you, senator. In thank you for your help also with the case. We appreciate the assistance you provided. With respect to the Global Engagement center, it is a priority for secretary tillerson. Something that is an important part of our mission for the reasons you state. We are flexible. There is a hiring freeze but we are flexible with respect to that. We have rented a number of exceptions. We have granted a present hundred exceptions to the hiring freeze to support safety, security, health. So, we are reviewing them regularly. And, im not aware that there has been as of yet a request with respect to the gec but we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. I think the threats we talked about to present a National Security threat to the United States of america and certainly that would qualify it seems to me. Were just getting this up and going. It is more important than ever given what we know about not only the meddling in our own democracy but some fledgling democracies affected by disinformation and propaganda so i would hope it would be asked for and excepted to the extent you are continuing to develop that important entity. So, thank you for that. If you dont mind what i would like you to do is get back to me on it. See why they have not made a request if they have not. On the ribbon is asian in general, again i know you have had an opportunity to speak about this. Entities you now have oversight over in your role of deputy, in i understand you will head up some of the reorganization ideas and seek Foreign Military financing. Fmf is a critical in relation to american diplomacy and key parts of the world then the budget request, the account was to 2017. By 19 compared to with 95 of the request allocated to just four countries. Israel, age of, jordan, pakistan, think the remaining 200 might to be placed in a global account will stop i guess i just wonder, does this Budget Proposal reflect broader changes and the reorganization . Is the state department considering it part of its ruinous asian . What do you perceive of the defense of such a structure compared to the current fmf structure . The redesign we are undertaking is independent of the budgeting process. Secretary tillerson has made clear that even if our budget were being increased, even if we were the Defense Department and getting more money from the budget that he would undertake a redesigned to look at the mission of the department and how we are organized. One of the work stream workgroups that is constituted for the redesign focuses on foreign assistance for grams and included 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 commendations on improving our foreign assistance programs including fmf. I fmf, are you looking at loans and said grants . Were looking at both. My time is expired. I want to think for help most recently on the case and generally, i wish you good luck on the reorganization. I think theres room for reform. I think there are ways to more effectively be able to represent our interests around the world and i am glad you are or you are. Thank you tournament. Thank you. I hope this is the first of many conversations we will have about the state Department Authorization bill. I have serious reservations about the bill as written for a number of reasons and i want to outline a few of those. It is my personal believe that congress as a whole is a coequal branch of government with the executive and must therefore dutifully exercising its role not only is overseer, but as authorizing. What do you authorize . While i appreciate the efforts of the church include many of the provision senator rubio and i Work Together for the bureau that fall within our subcommittee jurisdiction, 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 actively support human rights route the world is very different from mandating that bureaus existence. Worry, particularly given this administrations intentions, to completely cut funding for democracy, would simply not support such a view. Is in my view, oversight essence to create structure, to authorize it. That is the congress view. This bill does not address a critical component of our Foreign Policy. For nessus is. Id, things they provide are essential elements of a comprehensive Foreign Policy that promotes our interests and builds more stable and resilient allies and partners. To suggest the possibility of closing usaid is alarming. I would like to understand the policy perspective behind that. I am especially concerned we are undertaking this exercise and the administration continues to pursue john carney and cuts. You know we supposedly rejected here, it says the administration and 10 street conan cuts primarily responsible for promoting American Values and securing our interest overseas in order to find reorganization processes that best far seems to be no more than an exercise undermining and pushing out career diplomats and foreign and Civil Service to have dedicated their lives to serving this country which seemingly no. Seemingly no strategic indicate a high level of confusion and demoralization with Civil Servants who express concerns about their futures as well as the trajectory of Foreign Policy. You have explained these measures as saving money and i. S. , at what cost question mark a piece was recently published that said the state department score is being gutted. Lerson is running the way as firing half of its workforce, repurpose thing its original mission, offices are being shuttered while ambassadorial assistance and undersecretary positions remain unfilled. Since this is the beginning of this debate i assume, i just wanted to take most of my time to say that. Let me ask you one or two more questions. Can you share with me whether during your nomination hearing before this committee in may, which i supported you, you know policytural and difference between usaid and state including the longterm Nature Development and focus of diplomacy. Can you give me a sense of whether it is true that proposals to merge usaid into the state department is in fact taking place . Agenciesit reduce the of ptolemy and of so, how do you incorporate the perspective view. You said under oath, in terms of going through the conversation not Real Organization . The first thing i would say, thank you, is we are including both on our steering committee, which is the broad organizing committee the i chair and on all of five working groups including the foreign assistance working groups, senior and less senior officials, career people who first dominate every one of these working groups and to many. Ing and there is proportional representation so a usaid is well represented. The position you just articulated, i agree during my and stillon hearing agree. How many people in a working group . Approximately 50. How many from usaid . It is a breakdown based on the size of the state department versus a idea. I will get you those precise numbers. Is itslieve, view is articulated by senior people who are represented fairly on all of these committees. My time is expired. You told me that they are represented. That is not my question. My question is, is it heart of the policy of Real Organization or intention to fold a id into state and if so, how are you dealing with the differences in culture . My apologies. The answer is no, there is no intention to fold a id 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 involved. But, i can admit to that there has not been an intention of this department to absorb usaid. If i could, as i understand it just in talking with you but also secretary tillerson, there is no beginning point for making any assumption whatsoever either way as i understand it. And you all are taking input, but youre not beginning this process with the intention of trying to make that happen. You are beginning the process by meeting with others and trying to understand the best way to go forward is that correct . Correct. Into Going Forward it would be done as recommended. And we agree in close consultation with this committee. Mr. Chairman, i remember the refrain that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And so i get what the secretary is saying, but i have serious concerns when people are told to fill out forms and do memos that basically talk about how your service would be moved into another direction. Maybe thats not the intention. Maybe it is informative at the end of the day but im not quite sure first. I have many more requests and i will submit them for the record. I do not want his response misunderstood. I do not think there is an intent to move in another particular direction. I think it is also fair that you want input and others want to put before a decision like that is made. 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 and said, it is critical that Congress Play and oversight role in this reorganization effort and our engagement as a committee, when we are in the process of a state reauthorization process i is particularly important. Yet, i have some reservations that i shared with the Committee Chairman about moving forward with this kind of realization that the department. While we are also doing a reauthorization and we have no idea what is going to come out of our reorganization with the department and what your recommendations will be. So i have some specific questions but before i get to those that want to raise a topic i know this committee has been concerned about. I know it was raised last week. I think with you, actually. That is the report of undersecretary shannons meeting with the Russian Deputy minister today. Raised had experts, i this last week before the Armed Services committee when we are talking about russias influence election andegro their coup attempt, actually. What kind of message it would send if we returned those facilities we seized in response to the attack on our elections. The armedses before Services Committee were unanimous in saying that it is absolutely the wrong message for us to be sending. I want to races again because i think it is a very big issue and i hope you will keep the Committee Informed about any updates on these talks on what happens with this issue. Certainly. I had this conversation with senator cardin last week. Those properties to which you refer have are part of a a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation involving issues, for png issue. E the Russian Diplomats who were expelled. There are a whole host of issues that we are 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 on this issue before any final of an agreement that we do not have yet with the Russian Federation. That. L, i appreciate again, i do not think we should be rewarding russia until we see their behavior change. So, i am going to go on to a couple of issues relative to the we. You mentioned the confirmation conversation we had at your confirmation hearing about the office of global womens issues. Which i understand is that our draft authorization text still removes the ambassador at large position. It is hard to think about setting up an office of global womens issues without having someone in charge of that who significant authority. So, can you talk about what you are doing with respect to that issue as you are looking at the reorganization . Certainly. It is a high priority for the secretary, ses testified. And, as i have testified. It is a high priority for the white house and to the Senior Advisor to the president. Theoffice itself, as is case with all of the special envoys that we have been cussing, is included because it is a look at the entire department it is included in what we are assessing. I can commit several things. That issue will the significance of that issue of empowering women will not be downgraded to matter what happens to the office. We will consult with you before any action is taking. We are committed at the department to empowering women at the department and those three things i am confident out and commit to. Well, it thank you. I very much appreciate that. One of the other reports and has come out in the last weeks that the white house is pushing for euros andrtment Consular Affairs and the bureau of population refuges and migration to be transferred to the department of homeland security. Can you speak to whether that is under consideration . It is similar to my response to the senator menendez. That is not the intent of the department. Secretary tillerson does not intention. Sent that it is something that if it were raised in our review, we would consider it that it would be considered with the understanding that the affairs function and the function of prm are vital to our mission at the department of state. As i discussed last week at the hearing on thursday. Well, thank you. I again appreciate that. The council of affairs has then charged with setting visa policy since 1952 when we passed an act that, thek to shift department of homeland at a time when the issue of refugees and immigration is so controversial would be the absolutely wrong approach and i will just tell you right now that if that is the case, i will be one of those opponents leading the charge. Thank you. I just come again, i want to revisit the subject senator hernandez brought up and then i went to revisit something senator shaheen set up. Idea at all they did is the intention of the secretary of state to push for a merge of usaid and state. I get none of that. I dont think that is an outcome they are driving. On the other hand, they are talking with people and getting input as to how the organization not to be setup. Yet, i do not think there is any desire whatsoever for that outcome to occur. Ok . I do not. Know you have some concerns about the piece of legislation and we all know that anyone senator at this juncture can keep it from happening. What i do not understand it is, no we have talked about at some of the four, i do not understand why waiting to do with an authorization, the lack of the state department being active, i do not see how that benefits anybody. I just do not understand that. I mean, we are continuing to build out a state Department Authorization each are. And larger inger larger. At some point we will have the holding done. I do know that understand how because they are going through a not taking action benefits us. I know we talked about that. Again, any one person can keep it from happening. I just dont understand how that pertains to the senate. So we are having an open discussion. Maybe this is improper but i just wanted to raise it. Sure. Understand the reauthorization were looking at, we do not deal with usaid. Is that correct . Up theh is how we set process on the frontend in order to accomplish as much as we thought we could underrate unanimous consent type senate. Go ahead. Well, i guess, it feels to me like if there were a reorganization that makes a recommendation for usaid or the bureau of Consular Affairs or level womens issues, whatever it is, that what now goes into effect if we have already done our reauthorization, we dont really have a vehicle we can help to raise to move congress concerns about those reorganization policies that we might disagree with and that is the concern i have. Except that we have the authorization again next year. We do but not withholding we have no way of keeping the vehicle. Do you understand . I do, but i also understand when something goes into effect is harder to i do it then to prevent it from happening. But we do not have a vehicle. I mean, again, i am just missing the psychology here and i want to understand. As i would like for us to continue as a committee to build out to a place where we actually authorizationpe process because each year dishes getting broader and broader and broader. I do not understand how it can have any effect on the reorganization when they are going to come back and consult with us anyway. It is a with us anyway. Conversation we need to continue to have. Roughly. I wantzaon build on this year so i with you on that. I think it is a reality we have to look