Thank you for being here, sir. You know how i feel about you. I appreciate the proactive approach you took a. Its something we feel strongly about in 2017 the senate and the house and the National Defense authorization act with a take on additional responsibilities with regards to d get this informatin coming from countries intended to destabilize democracies, undermined some of our basic values and institutions. Russia and china come to mind. My question for you, is there an ability to keep some of these important entities in the Global Engagement centers, specifically from being weekend by the other organizations that could lead to a more difficult time and the responsibilities. Certainly. Thank you, senator. With respect to the Engagement Center it is a priority for something. We are flexible and there is a hiring freeze, but we are flexible and weve granted a number of exceptions, over 700 exceptions to the hiring freeze to support safety, security and health. So, we are reviewing them regularly and im not aware that there has been as of yet a request with respect to. Its more important given what we know but also some flex in the democracy affected by this information of the propaganda, so i would hope that they would ask for it and be exempted from this to the extent you are continuing to develop that entity. If you dont mind, what i would like you to do is get back to me on it. We will see why they havent been able to request. On the reorganization in general, i know that youve talked about this, the many entities that you have oversight on it you will be heading up the ideas in the military financing and i think it is a critical component. Its compared to 2017 and with 95 of the allocation, israel, egypt, pakistan i think it was based on a global account and does this Budget Proposal reflects broad structural changes in the reauthorization in other words is this something the state department is considering and what do you perceive as the benefits in the current structure . The defining that we are undertaking is in the budgeting process that has been made clear even if the budgets were being increased and we were at the Defense Department and getting more money from the budget that he would undertake to look a commissiowhat themission of thed how we are organized. We are considering reviewing that as a part of our redesign effort with input from the Foreign ServiceCivil Service seniorlevel career people to make recommendations on improving the influences of the Program Including fmf. Are you looking at loans or grants . We are looking at both. I want to thank you for your help on this case and then generally i wish you good luck and i think there are more ways to effectively be able to represent the soft power interest around the world. This is the first of many conversations people have about the state Department Authorization bill. About the bill as written i want to emphasize a few of those. Its my personal belief that congress as a whole is a coequal branch of government in the executives and therefore dutifully exercise its role not only as overseers but as an authorizer what do you authorize . I appreciate the efforts of the chair to include the provisions we worked on together for the bureaus that fall within our subcommittees jurisdiction. The bill merely offers permissive suggestions for the secretary saying that there should be a bureau within the department that is authorized to promote moxy inductively support human rights throughout the world is very different from mandating a it would give cover for simply not supporting such. So, in my view, the two oversight is in essence to create the structure at the state department. In the foreign assistance and usaid. They are essential elements of a comprehensive American Foreign policy that promotes the interest and builds more stable and resilient allies and partners. To suggest the possibility of usaid is alarming and i would like to understand the policy perspective behind that. And im especially concerned that we are undertaking this exercise as the administration pursues with continuous duty at least to me draconian cuts and although he rejected here it says it is the administrations intent, draconian cuts primarily responsible for promoting American Values into securing our interests overseas and in the process of us far seems to be no more than an exercise undermining of pushing out the career diplomats and foreign and Civil Service have dedicated their lives to serving this country. With seemingly no strategic consideration that i can discern. It indicates a high level of confusion and demoralization of the diplomats and Civil Servants whove expressed concerns about their futures as well as the trajectory of American Foreign policy. Youve explained these measures as saving money and i ask at what cost. The conservative National Review recently published a piece that concluded, the state departments core is being gutted and running in the way of the corporate takeover company scaling back its operations across the globe. Offices are being shattered. So, since this is the beginning of the debate. The cultural and longterm nature of development showed a focus of diplomacy. Ten you give me the sense of whether that is true the proposed to merge into the state department is in fact taking place and how in order to reduce the agencys economy, and if so how do you intend to incorporate this perspective to sit under oath in terms of going through the conversations on the reorganization. The first thing i would say is we are including the committee that i chair and all of these five working groups including the foreign assistance working groups, senior officials who first dominate the working groups and the Steer Committee in there is representation so it is well represented in the perspective that you just articulated and i agree in the confirmation hearing and still at very. Theres approximately 50. And how many people from aid . It is based on the size of the state department. My time is expired. You told me that they are represented. That wasnt my question. My question is was it part of the intention to hold them in the space and if so how were you dealing with the differences in culture . My answer to the question is no, there was no intention to fold into the state and that has been proposed by people outside of the department and is something that could be considered by this working gro group. It would be with the full intent of all of these leaders involv involved. But there hasnt been an intention to. If i could, just an understanding with secretary tellers there is no beginning played any making any assumption whatsoever and you are taking the input not beginning the process. What is the intention of trying to make that happen . You are trying to understand the best way forward. We are in close consultation with the vicinity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so, you know, i get what the secretary is saying but i have a serious concern when people fill out the forms and do the nose that basically talk about how your service would be moved into another direction. Maybe that isnt the same intention, but i have other questions i will submit for the record. Before the decision like that is made. Thank you mr. Chairman and senator cardin for holding this hearing which i think is very important. Because as so many of my colleagues have said, it is critical that the Congress Plays a role, and oversight role in this reorganization effort and our engagement as a committee when we are in the process of the state the authorization process i think is particularly important and i have some reservations that i have shared with the Committee Chairman about moving forward with this kind of reorganization at the department while we are also doing an authorization that we have no idea what is going to come out of the organization that youre doing in the department and what your recommendations will be. So, i have some specific questions but before i get to those i want to raise the topics that i know. The committee has been concerned about and i know that it was raised last week. And that is the reports of the under secretarys meeting with the Russian Deputy minister. Weve had experts. I erased this last week before the Armed Services committee when we were talking about the influence in the montenegro election and the attempt about what kind of a message would send iit wouldsend if we returne facilities that were seized in response to the attack. They were unanimous in saying that is absolutely the wrong message for us to be sending. So, i just want to raise this again because i think that it is a very big issue and i hope he will keep the Committee Informed about any updates on these talks and what happens with this iss issue. We have had this conversation with senator cardin last week. Those properties to which you refer are part of a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation involving issues, for example the Russian Diplomats who were exposed as a whole host of issues discussed with the Russian Federation. I understand there is a meeting going on as we speak. But my undertaking commitments to the senator and to you is that we will consult with you on this issue before the final implementation and agreement that we dont have yet with the Russian Federation. Again i dont think we should be rewarding russia until we see the behavior change. I want to go onto a couple of issues relative to the reorganization. You mentioned the conversation that we have at your confirmation hearing about the office of global womens issues which i understand is our draft state authorization text still removes the ambassador at large for that position. Its hard to think about setting up an office for global womens issues without having somebody in charge of that who has significant authorities. Can you talk about what you are doing in the reorganization he has testified in testified and its a high priority for the white house both for the president and senior advisers tr advisers to the president. So, the office itself as is the case with the special envoys that weve been discussing is included as a look at the entire department is included and what we are assessing. What i can connect to you is several things. That issue will not be downgraded no matter what happens to the office. Second, we will consult with you before any actions were taken and third, we are committed at the department to empowering women at the department and those three things im confident of and committed to you. One of the other reports that has come out in the last week that the department is pushing for the state Department Bureaus and Consular Affairs and bureau population refugees and migration to be transferred to the department of Homeland Security can you speak to whether that is under consideration . Similar to my response with senator menendez, that is not the intent of the department at present there is not that entrencheintension. If it were raised in the review, we would consider it, but it wouldnt be considered with the understanding that both the functions are vitally important for the missioto the mission att of state as i discussed last week at the hearing on thursday. Thank you. Again i appreciate that. As you know hes been charged with setting these policies since we passed the nationality act and i think to shift that to the department of Homeland Security especially at the time when the issue of refugees and immigration is so controversial would be absolutely wrong approach and i will just tell you right now if that is the case, i will be one of the opponents leading the charge. The subject of senator menendez brought and then i wouldve said something senator shaheen brought up. I get no sense whatsoever that its the intention of the secretary of state to push for the emerging state. I dont think that is an outcome they are driving him. I do think on the other hand they are sitting down and talking with people as you might expect indicating input into how the organization ought to be set up. But i dont think theres any desire whatsoever for that outcome to occur. I know you have some concerns about the piece of legislation we all know anyone senator at this juncture can keep it from happening. What i dont understand is i know we talked about it some on the floor. I dont understand why waiting to do an authorization until after the state department has acted i dont see why that would benefit anybody. I dont understand that. We are continuing to build up a state Department Authorization each year we make it larger and larger and at some point we will have the whole thing done. I dont understand how because they are going through not taking action benefits us. I know we talked about that, and income any one person can keep it from happening and we got it. I dont understand how that retains authority i just want to raise that point. As i understand the authorization that we are looking at, we dont deal with usaid is that correct . Which is how we setup the process on the front end again to accomplish as much as we thought we could under unanimous consent. I guess it feels to me like if there were a reorganization that makes a recommendation for the bureau of Consular Affairs that when that goes into effect we dont have a vehicle that we can help to move to raise the congress is concerned about those organization policies. Its tif the buildup to a placet we actually have this type of authorization process each year. It doesnt have any effect whatsoever when they are telling us theyre going to come back. Im with you on that. I think it is the reality. Tonight there was a press report that the secretary of state is considering the elimination of the special coordinator for global criminal justice issues which basically deal with atrocities and war crimes. Theres great interesthere is gs committee on both sides of the aisle for syrian war crimes, accountability, preventing atrocities etc. And although i understand the secretary wants to reorganize, its being broadcast as downplaying the importance of holding criminals accountable. In that environment, its going to be difficult for us not to respond. So i think dealing with usaid, yes, we have agreed framework would not include the usaid but the administration is taking fundamental changes and i understand the secretary bbs that is not the case but if they were taking fundamental changes on the organization of usaid, and we remained silent on that it is a challenge and if they are going to do major changes in criminal war crimes accountability and we are silent, that is a nonstarter for both democrats and republicans on this committee. So, i think it is a reality we will have to respond to some of the things getting done but i want to get to the finish line. And each year there is an authorization that comes up, and each year, you know, you can write things in and make them law and i dont see how the remaining silent by not acting in any way causes it to remain silent so again i dont get the psychology, but i obviously need to understand it for us to be able to move. Senator menendez and then senator markey. I understand your question. Let me just give you a few cuts at this. As you may remember, i didnt want to move forward on the state. Out of deference to the chair i yielded and stopped my objection on the floor. We put together many things so this is not an ideological issue but it is one of the most critical things the committee can do and how it does it is incredibly important. The. If we are having legislation that was creating certain parts of the state department and in need of reform versus a permissive form i would say that it is not in our benefit to wait but when we create the permissive cross the board of the second complicated vector in addition to i it i dont believe it should be permissive acrosstheboard. Its taking place and might be getting an ok thats what you end up doing is actually okay. And for some of us i accept your word since you are engaged far more with the secretary of the state department that the intentions are good. But, for example, i know that the omb director he had a different view than the secretary. So, he may be pushing that view from the administration and it may not even be the secretary at the end of the day. But the point being i dont want to be responsible for things that i fundamentally dont have a problem and the last point is, you know, the question of it will be far more difficult having sat where you sat in having the administration in my Party Standing up to this when i personally believe they were wrong in the policy basis to challenge in next years authorization assuming you do this years authorization something the administration will not survey structure that aso they structured itas they wr organization without any meaningful effort legislatively to construct what that should look like. If we act in the next 60 days or we dont act in the next 60 days we are in that same situation but we havent built it out for that. I understand what youre saying about permissive versus mandatory. Thats a point well taken, but by not acting, or acting, we find ourselves in the same place when the timing of what they do is going to occur later on. But go ahead. I just wanted to make one point to clarify that i support the reauthorization. In fact, i think this committee should have the same kind of the process that the Armed Services committee has where we do an authorization every year. Its debated. He goes to the floor and theres an understanding that its going to be part of what we do annually. Because i think what we need to do is to elevate the role of diplomacy and the state department, and having that kind of the process does that. So im told an agreement with you on that and we are just disagree about time. Thats fine. I moved to senator markey by saying each year there seems to always c