Do the job. I would ask you a question, but i know youre going to have the right answers. Im going to excuse myself. Thank you, senator. Thank you, thank you so much. Thanks for your major contributions. Were glad we violated the rules to allow you both to be on the committee, two senators from georgia. Want to ask about latin america, particular interest of mine. Senator mendez is focused on this. The president announced a new investment in the budget he proposed to take to a second chapter, peace colombia. Talk a little bit about, from the state departments view, from a resource view, the kind of return on investment that we had on the first 15 years of this investment over three administrations and how we would propose to assist colombia in this new chapter god willing, post ceasefire. I had the chance to travel and meet with gulf of mexico officials to talk about the future, and understand how our resources can best be directed, assuming theres a peace deal, and we hope soon, one that we can continue to support, to help that country go into areas the farcdeal wh the narco trafficking, with the coca production and some severe of the issues there. What i heard again, the capacities that the United States brings to the table, that they need to do that. There were plans, but implementing them and understanding what capacities we bring, whether its on the military training side, support for Civil Society side, and the alternative development. And of course some of the narco trafficking. My take away from some of that experience and its reflected in the administrations policy, a continuation of our engagement where we provide truly leveraging capabilities and working with a common vision of what success looks like. So im hopeful and came away from that trip convinced that theres a lot of work to do, but that were on the right path and we have good partners in colombia. And the story of cbia isnot just the u. S. As helped them transfm, but colombia has become curity partner with assistance in the northern triangle. They have peacekeepers in the. Theyre really mi alobal force for positive security in a way that is a Great Alliance for us, but a real tribute also to their commitment to peace and prosperity outside their own borders. I agree. When i was in Central America at the end of last year, in honduras and el salvador, every combian Police Officer re was a paipatinin the train and it was incredibal to those countries. When you look at the progress that colombia has made over the past many years and you look at the path thnorthern triangle countries have to trav theres a lot of good examples we can draw on fr there in the twoyear budget deal and the appropriations deal we struck at year end and because of the senate, tathad this, andh no the compromise lthe senate version, 75ion investment in the northern triangle with plan colombia as intionhat we can have ope this will work, if were nsient with it, the president haspropod an additional billion dollars the northern tribal countries. We had testimony previously about the kind o pills into which the investmentwi fl, but what will our metrics be for gresis what we would hope . The thank you, senator. The first metric we have and need to keep focused on are the commitments that the president s of those three countries have made and ensuring they live up to those commitments. One of the critical elements of our strategy for Central America is ensuring that we learn from the things weve done before, but were also doing things differently and it requires transparency and good governance. So that these governmee nts ar putting their own resources against our commonly shared vision of what needs to happen. We are working very carefully across our government within different agencies to ensure we have developed tools to measure success, to know whats working and whats not. One of the areas that i spent a lot of time visiting when i was in the region was on the partnership between the state departments inl, bureau and usaid, bringing Law Enforcement and community together. And were scaling that up across the region, but in large part based on in evaluation that showed this strategy would be successful. So were going to do different monitoring and evaluation projects, were going to hold ourselves accountable and put the resources against what we know works. And staying in the region, obviously theres huge concern about zika. This is not a health hearing, but im curious, particularly with respect to state Department Personnel in the americas, what steps are you taking from a management personnel to protect our people . Thank you, senator. First of all, obviously the greatest risk population is women who are pregnant or want to become pregnant. Just as the pentagon has gone, under personnel have the opportunity to curtail their United States, be medevacked and weve had some employees avail themselves of that. Well continue to message that so they understand what opportunities they have. Weve also been very clear about individuals in affected areas can protect themselves. This is, as im sure you know, a different vector to control, but there are measures that individuals can take to protect themselves. And were ensuring they have sufficient insect repellant and information, so well continue to do that. One last issue. Senator cornyn and i took a trip about a year ago to mexico, honduras and colombia. Didnt have anything to do with cuba. But every head of state we met with said, you have no idea how your path to normalization with cuba is going to open up other opportunities for you. They described it as a fight between uncle sam and cuba. And we had to be on cubas side. So the u. S. Ankle weight was slowing them down. I just really think the path with cuba and well continue to challenge cuba on human rights issues, just like other countries that we have diplomatic human rights issues with, well continue to focus on that. But the americas for our purpose, were all americans, north, south, and central, if there is that ceasefire in colombia, it will be the end of war in these two hem spes, which is probably the first time in recorded history you could say that. And theres just enormous cultural similarities that we share. Recent electoral activities, especially in south america, ive had promising signs about pro democracy, pro human rights. A lot of upside opportunities. I would hope we dont spend all our time worrying about our headaches and short shrift the upside opportunities that we have in our own region and i would really encourage the state department and my colleagues on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, senator. Appreciate your comments about zika and i asse the state department will send out notifications to travelers. The olympics are taking place in august, notifying them of concerns is that correct . The centers for Disease Control issued guidance of this kind and we disseminate it broadly across our platforms. So if anyone is interested to come to our website to gather information about brazil, theyll find that information, providing the cdcs guidance. We want to be a little more proactive on that, but well talk about that. Senator perdue. I think thats at the center of one of our problems, we have to coordinate how fd ese departments and the people who really understand these departments and have the right or responsibility of oversight need to be involved in that process. I could not agree more and were working to see how we can change that. Madam secretary, thank you for being here. Thank you for your courtesies last week. I just have three quick questions. Istorical perspective on this, and the way i look at it, with the last seven years, and this is not a partisan comment, its just a reality. We borrow over a third of what we spend as a federal government. 2 3 of our spending is mandatory. If those dollars that we get in, go to mandatory first, that means every dollar on defense and state and aid is fundamentally borrowed. So theres a crisis here, that we need to look at what were doing with what were spending. And the perspective is, between 92 and 2000, state and all of its endeavors, averaged about 20 billion a year over that eightyear period. Then it went from 20 to 40. And a lot of that was iraq, afghanistan, and other things. Since then, weve fallen into this level of about 50. And i had to call out that youre asking for less money this year than you asked for last year. So i have to call out and thank you for that. So i have that observation and the second observation is while that level stayed at about 50, the enduring dropped from 50 to 40 over that period of time and was filled with oco. The second piece of that is help me understand the responsibilities and what were doing around the world. I recognize were the most philanthropic country in the world, and we need to maintain that position as long as we can afford it. But im just not sure right now that we shouldnt ask the question, can we afford all this . And so its incumbent on you as the budget process comes about, to justify how weve gone from 20 to 40 or 30 and now to 50. Explain that to me just a little bit in terms of your i know you didnt take it from 20 to 50. Youve been given a challenge to use 50 and youve kept it flat, pretty much. But help me with that Historical Perspective on how were spending that much. So, senator, i think youve touched on a few elements of it, which are iraq and afghanistan, that have that required increases in our budget and require increases to sustain our engagement there. I would point to a couple of other factors as being those that we need to fund, and that is, that we are dealing with an increasingly complex world. Just take the humanitarian side for a moment. We have four level three humanitarian disasters. I cant say its unprecedented, but its highly unusual. And were a generous contributor to those crisis. We also have the rise of violent extremism during that time. We did as a regular course, rely on and utilize supplementals to address the emerging crises. Wed be pleased to go through in more detail yeah, i think it would be instructive. Because its something that every department will have to go through, in terms of what we really can afford to do. Its a question we dont ask much up here. I have a second question on the i. G. Last year, we talked privately and you testified about this, and i know youve been very vocal about this. But as i look at it, i dont see a lot of progress, honestly. So can you address the progress that youre making with that. With regard to specifically the request of the i. G. And i think there was no disagreement last year, about having the i. G. Be aware of all investigations. There are evidently three path ways investigations go inside state. Can you speak to that just a minute. Sure, id be pleased to. Weve been working with the i. G. , to identify which cases theyre most interested to have the information about. And having the ability to investigate should they choose. They can investigate anything, but where we narrow their focus, so that the processes of an administrative nature, if someone wants to bring a civil rights case to our office of civil rights, its clear the i. G. Isnt necessarily interested in that. Is the i. G. Aware now of all the potential investigations . The conversation were having with them right now is to look across all of the different avenues people have to bring, even approaching the ombudsman and saying, what cases are you interested in, defining that, and working through a process. And i wont speak for him, because that wouldnt be appropriate. But i do meet regularly with and i think hes pleased with the progress. I think soon well have a process that we can explain and make available to our employees. I think thats important. I know as we travel the world as of the great benefits of this responsibility, you do see great americans out there in the field and i have to echo what everybody said, i just marvel at the quality of people and their dedication around the world. I know we have to make them secure. And i know post benghazi theres been an uptick in that. There are some four major embassies construction. Can you talk about that and the overruns on those, for islamabad, london, singapore, i know these are billiondollar plus installations now. We have to have stronger buffer zones or offsets. Can you speak to that just a minute, please. Sure. Senator, you touched on one of the issues thats most important when we think about embassy construction. Thats building facilities that are safe and secure for our personnel. And post the bombings in the 90s, we continually review and look at what our requirements are. In places where its more dangerous to operate, those costs can be more expensive. Islamabad would be an example. And where we have posts that house a lot of different agencies, we have different requirements to meet that. Thats another question id like to dial into at some point. I think in singapore, there are 19 different Government Agencies with offices and personnel over there. Id love to know the purpose of those. That may not be your purview, but at some point over the next few months, id love to see what those areas of responsibilities are. Wed be pleased to do that for you, senator, at any of our posts. When you travel to our posts and sit with the country team, you get a flavor for which of the different opportunities having our agencies there makes sense, but it is expensive are you experiencing serious overruns . Thats what i was going for. I think it depends on a case by case basis. I wouldnt say in general. Sometimes we go out, bid, come under budget. In other cases, the costs are in excess of what we projected. So it depends. But we could provide you with our most recent set of construction plans and budgets and provide some additional i dont need to see the plans. I trust you on that, but the numbers i meant budget plans. Thank you. Senator murphy . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, once again. I appreciate senator perdues conversation about what we can afford to do within the limited resources we have to spend. Listen, i would pose the opposite question. I think we have to ask our question, how we can afford not to make these investments, especially when you put u. S. Foreign aid, International Development funding in the context of what our competitor nations are spending themselves. Over the last ten years alone, the chinese have increased their foreign aid by a factor of seven at a time when our foreign aid has been largely flat. We are looking at a budget that is frankly 2 billion less than fy10 enacted numbers. The chinese have increased their spending by a factor of seven. In egypt, a lot of commotion about turning on 2. 3 billion in u. S. Military aid. The saudis announced 8 billion play with money both from their public funds and their sovereign funds, a 20 billion Oil Investment in egypt, and we sit here and wonder why we dont have as much influence there as other countries. Its in part because other nations in and around that region are spending numbers that dwarf ours. I think were at a moment in time with apple in a world full of oranges. The rest of the world that the blunt inflexible power of group military strength isnt as effective as the flexible and nimble nature of economic aid, energy aid, political aid. And we are chasing our tail around the world in part because china, the russians, the saudis, are lapping us when it comes to that kind of smart money. We should remember, that as much money as we spend, were still in the bottom of oecd nations, when it comes to the amount of money we spend on International Aid as a percentage of our gdp. Its a big number, but were a big country. And when you compare it to other nations, were still, at least within our sub set of firstworld nations, in the bottom fourth. So with that being said, let me ask about one particular line item thats significantly lower in this proposed budget, and you can probably explain to me why. In fy16 omnibus appropriations bill, we had a significant increase for humanitarian assistance, and this is International Disaster assistance, migration and refugee assistance and food aid. This budget propose says about a 17 cut. I know humanitarian aid doesnt matter any less to the administration than it did in the last year. So explain to me, why that cut and where that money is going to be made up. Thank you, senator. We were pleased in the fy 16 bill, we did receive a generous increase in humanitarian assistance. As we looked to build this fy17 budget, cognizant of the bipartisan budget act that set parameters for discretionary spending, we looked across our needs over a period of two years and determined that with the Additional Resources that were provided and with the request we made for 17, well be able to meet our expected and anticipated expenditures. I would note, though, that we did we are operating under the discretionary restraint and over two years, to your earlier point, there are tradeoffs weve made that arent exactly what wed want to do absent those constraints. So we do feel confident about the funding level for humanitarian assistance across 16 and 17, but certainly had to make tradeoffs for. As an example, one of those tradeoffs is that the World Food Program in and around syria is cutting off aid to Refugee Families that dont live in the actual refugee camp. So if youre living out in the streets of jordan or lebanon, you are at risk of having your emergency Food Assistance cut off. Its one of the choices that weve all made, we dont have enough money to fully fund that program. That has dire consequences for those families. Pushes many of them into the arms of the very groups that were trying to fight. So i understand the difficult tradeoffs you have to make, but we should all be cognizant of the consequences to u. S. National security. I want to drill down on one very specific issue and that is the issue of procurement between the state department. You are subject to the buy america law as well as other agencies, but just in preparation for this hearing, i was just going through the list of waivers that have been requested, and its a pretty substantial list. And i understand, this has sort of been a crusade of mine for years, to put the teeth back into your buy america requirements. I understand that youve got sort of two strings pulling on you here. One, you want to be a good guest in country, and do business in country. But you also do have a law that requires you to buy equipment, if you can, from u. S. Companies. But youve submitted waiver requests for some pretty easy equipment to get from u.