15 minutes. We will reconvene at 5 49. You are welcome to our great coffee back there or sitting and talking to others, but thank you. Recess will end and well stand in hearing again. Ill move to senator portman. Thank you for being here, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary sullivan, you know how i feel about you. I appreciate the proactive approach you took on getting ot ot Otto Warmbier home. I appreciate you coming to his funeral. I know the reorganization was a topic of discussion and i want to talk to you about that as it relates to the Global Engagement center. As you know it is something i feel strongly about. In 2017 as a senate and house in the National Defense authorization act asked the Global Engagement center to take on additional responsibilities, specifically with regard toinformation coming from countries intended to destabilize democracies, undermine some of our basic values and institutions. Russia and china come to mind. Gc also has an important role, as you know, in providing the counternarrative and pushing back against islamic extremism. So my question for you, is there an ability to keep some of these important entities like the Global Engagement center specifically from being weakened by a hiring freeze or other reorganizations that could lead to it having more difficult time carrying out its important responsibilities . Certainly. Thank you, senator. Thank you for your help also with the warmbier case. We appreciate the assistance you provided. With respect to the Global Engagement center, it is a priority for secretary tillerson. It is something thats an important part of our mission for all of the reasons you state. We are flexible and there is a hiring freeze, but we are flexible with respect to that. We have granted a number of exemptions, over 700 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. Well, thank you. You know, i think that the threats we talked about do present a National Security threat to the United States of america, and certainly that would qualify it seems to me. Again, we are just getting this up and going. It is more important than ever given what we know about now some of the meddling here in our own election, but also some democracies around the world being affect by some of this foreign disinformation. So i would hope you would continue to develop that important entity. I thank you for that. If you dont mind, what i would like you to do is get back to me on it. Of course. And we will be interested to see why they have not made a request, if they have not. On the reorganization in general, again, i know you had an opportunity to speak about this, the many entities that, you know, you now have oversight over in your role as deputy, and i understand you will be heading up some of the reorganization ideas, is the Foreign Military financing. And i think fmf is a critical component much American Relations in building key parts of the world and the state Department Budget request. That account was to be reduced by 19 compared to 2017 with 95 of the request allocated to just four countries, israel, egypt, jordan, pakistan. I think the remaining 200 million was to be placed in a global account. I guess i just wondered, does this Budget Proposal reflect broader structural changes in the reorganization . In other words is this something that the state department is considering as part of its reorganization . And what do you perceive as the benefits of such changes compared to the current fmf structure . Well, the redesign that were undertaking is really 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 we were getting more money from the budget, that he would undertake a redesign to look at the mission of the department and how were organized. One of the work streams, one of the work groups thats been constituted for the redesign focuses on foreign assistance programs, 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 recommendations on improving our foreign assistance programs including fmf. On fmf are you looking at loans instead of grants . Im sorry . Are you looking at loans instead of grants . Were looking at both. Again, my time has expired. I want to thank you for your help most recently on the warm bier case. Generally i wish you good luck on the reorganization. I do think theres room for reform and i do think there are ways to more effectively be able to represent our interests, soft power interests around the world, and im glad you are where you are. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Senator menendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 just want to outline a few of those. It is my personal belief that congress as a whole is a coequal branch of government with the executive and must therefore dutifully exercise its role not only as overseer but as authorizer. What do you authorize. While i appreciate the efforts of the chair to include many of the provisions senator rubio and i worked on together for the bureaus that fall within our subcommittees 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 throughout the world is very different from mandating that bureaus existence. I worry, particularly given this administrations intentions, for example, to completely cut funding for democracy assistance, such permissive language would give the secretary congressional coverage for simply not supporting such a view. So in my view, true oversight is in essence to create the structure at the state department to authorize it. Thats the congresss view. Additionally, this bill does not address a critical component much our foreign policy, foreign assistance, and usaid and foreign assistance programs that promote economic development, support Good Governance reform, provide technical and educational training are essential elements of a comprehensive American Foreign policy that promotes our interest and builds more stable and resilient allies and partners. To suggest as ive heard the possibility of folding usaid into state to me is alarming. I would like to understand the policy perspective behind that. Im especially concerned that were undertaking this exercise as the administration pursues what continues to be at least to me draconian cuts. And even though we supposedly reject it here, it says where the administration is intended, draconian cuts to the agency primarily responsible for promoting American Values and securing our interests overseas, and an illdefined organization process that thus far seems to be no more than an exercise undermining and pushing out career diplomats in the foreign and Civil Service who have dedicated their lives to serving this country with seemingly no strategic consideration that i can discern. Mr. Sullivan, public reports of the listening survey you reference in your testimony indicate a high level of confusion and demoralization among the ranks of career diplomats and Civil Servants who expressed concerns about their futures as well as the trajectory of American Foreign policy. You have explained these measures as saving money, and i ask at what cost. A conservative National Review recently published a piece that included, the state departments core is being gutted. Tillerson is runny foggy bottom the way a corporate raider might take over a company, firing half the workforce, repurposing its original mission, scaling back operations across the globe. Offices are being shuttered while ambassador, secretary and under secretary posts remain unfilled. Since it is the beginning of the debate i assume, i wanted to take most of my time to say that. Let me ask you in what time i have left one or two strategic questions. Can you share with me whether, you know, during your nomination hearing before this committee in may, which i supported you, you noted the culture and policy differences between usaid and state including the longterminature of development and offered a 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, or to reduce the agencys autonomy, and if so how do you intend to incorporate this perspective view . You said under oath here in terms of going through the conversations on reorganization. Well, the first thing i would say, senator, thank you, is that we are including both at the steering on our steering committee, which is the broad organizing committee that i chair and on all of the five working groups, including the foreign assistance working groups, senior and less senior career a. I. D. Officials who career people first predominate on every one of these working groups and the steering committee, and there is proportional representation. So a. I. D. Is wellrepresented, the a. I. D. Perspective, which you just articulated with which i agreed during my confirmation hearing and still agree. How many people in the working group . There are approximately 50. And how many people from a. I. D. . I dont have it. I will get you that number, but it is a breakdown based on the the size of the state department versus a. I. D. , but i will get you those precise numbers. But a. I. D. We believe is completely its view is articulated by senior people who are represented fairly on all of these committees. Well, my time has expired. You told me that theyre represented. That wasnt my question. My question was, is it part of the policy reorganization intention to fold a. I. D. Into state . And if so, how are you dealing with the differences in culture . My apologies, senator. The answer to that question is no, there is no intention to fold a. I. D. Into state. That has been 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 a. I. D. Leaders involved. But i can commit to you that there has not been an intention there is not an intention of this department to absorb usaid. If i could, as i understand just in talking with you but also secretary tillerson, theres no beginning point of making any assumption whatsoever either way, as i understand it, and yall are taking input but youre not beginning this process with the intention of trying to make that happen . Youre beginning the process by meeting with others and trying to understand the best way to go forward, is that correct . Correct. And in Going Forward it will be done in, as senator menendez said, 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, you know, i get what the secretary is saying, but i have serious concern when people are told, you know, 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. I have many other questions. I will submit them for the record. I hope this is the beginning of a conversation. Very good. Im not trying to lead. I just dont want his response to be misunderstood based on what i know to be some other context, and also i dont think that theres an intent to move it in any particular direction. I think thats fair at this point, and i think it is also fair that you want input and others want input before a decision like that is made. Senator shaheen. Well, thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you to you and senator cardin for holding this hearing, which i think is very important. Because as so many of my colleagues have said, it is critical that Congress Play a role, an oversight role in this reorganization effort, and our engagement as a committee when we are in the process of a state reauthorization process i think is particularly important. I have some reservations that i have shared with the Committee Chairman about moving forward with this kind of a reorganization at the department while were also doing a reauthorization that and we have no idea what is going to come out of the reorganization that youre doing at the department and what your recommendations will be. So i have some specific questions, but before i get to those i just want to raise a topic that i know this committee has been concerned about. I know it was raised last week. I think with you actually. That is the reports of undersecretary shannons meeting with the Russian Deputy minister today. Weve had experts. I raised this last week before the Armed Services committee when we were talking about russias influence in the montenegro and their coup attempt basically and what kind of message it would send if we returned those facilities that were seedsed in the attack on our election. The witnesses before the Armed Services committee were unanimously in saying that is absolutely the wrong message for us to be sending. So i just want to raise this 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 and what happens with this issue. Certainly, senator shaheen. I have had this conversation with senator cardin last week. Thats my understanding. Those properties to which you refer have are part of a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation involving issues for example, the russian the png issue, the Russian Diplomats who were expel, there are a whole host of issues that were discussing with the Russian Federation. I understand there is a meeting going on as we speak, but my undertaking commitment to senator cardin and i make to you is that we will consult with you on this issue before any final implementation of an agreement that we dont have yet with the Russian Federation. Well, i appreciate that. Again, i dont think we should be rewarding russia until we see their behavior change. So i want to go on to a couple of issues relative to the reorganization. You mentioned the conversation we had at your confirmation hearing about the office of global womens issues, which i understand is that our draft state authorization text still removes the ambassador at large for that position. I think it is hard to think about setting up an office for global womens issues without having somebody in charge of that who has significant authority. So can you talk about what youre doing with respect to that issue as youre looking at the reorganization . Certainly. It is a high priority for the secretary as he has testified and as i have testified, and it is a high priority for the white house. Both the president and senior advisers to the president. So the office itself, as is the case with all of the special envoys that we have been discussing, is included in because it is a look at the entire department. It is included in what we are assessing. What i can commit to you is well, i can commit several things. First, that issue will not the significance of that issue of empowering women will not be downgraded no matter what happens to the office. Second, we will consult with you before any action is taken. Third, that we are committed at the department to empowering women at the department. Those three things i am confident of and commit to you. Well, thank you. I very much appreciate that. One of the other reports thats come out in the last week has been that the white house is pushing for state Department Bureaus of Consular Affairs and the bureau of population refugees and migration to be transferred to the department of homeland security. Can you speak to whether that is under consideration . It is similarly to it is similar to my response to senator menendez. That is not the intent of the department. Secretary tillerson does not have at present that intention. It is something that if it were raised in our review we would consider, but it would be considered with the understanding that both the Consular Affairs function and the function of prm are vitally important 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. Consular affairs, as you know, has been charged with setting visa policies since 1952 when we passed the immigration and nationality act, and i think to shift that to the department of homeland security, especially at a time when the issue of refugees and immigration is so controversial, would be the absolutely wrong approach. I will just tell you right now that if thats the case, i will be one of those opponents leading the charge. Thank you. Thank you. Just again i want to revisit the subject that senator menendez brought up, and then i would like to visit something senator shaheen has just brought up. I get no sense whatsoever that it is the intention of the secretary of state to push for usaid to be merged into state. I get none of that. I dont think thats an outcome theyre driving at. I do think, on the other hand, they are sitting down and talking with people, as you might expect, and getting input as to how the organization ought to be set up, but i dont i dont think theres any desire whatsoever for that predetermined outcome to occur. Okay. I dont. I know