[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-74
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-010 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
______
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable John J. Sullivan, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of State....................................................... 5
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable John J. Sullivan: Prepared statement............... 7
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Material submitted for the record....... 63
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 71
Written responses from the Honorable John J. Sullivan to
questions submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on
Foreign Affairs.............................................. 73
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel................................... 75
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio............................................ 95
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California...................................... 96
The Honorable Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............... 98
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York................................... 99
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Rhode Island............................... 102
The Honorable Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California.......................................... 103
The Honorable Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois........................................ 106
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDESIGN
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. The hearing will come to order. I will ask
the members all to take their seats, if you will.
Today we hear from Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan
on the proposed reforms that he and Secretary Tillerson are
working on for the State Department and for the Agency for
International Development.
I don't think there are many that question the need to
improve the operation of both agencies. A more efficient and
effective State Department and USAID would better promote our
national security and our many other interests around the
world. So I have welcomed the administration's undertaking.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has started a process
here, as those at State will tell you, where he is focusing on
listening to the diplomats and listening to the employees, our
foreign service officers. I think this very commendable. He has
sought feedback here from the bottom up. Many employees, he
reports, have asked, and I think this speaks volumes, for more
responsibility and, in turn, more accountability for their
performance. They also want better training throughout their
careers and a modern IT infrastructure. And I think they
deserve these tools, and we would be all better off if they had
them.
So I welcome Secretary Tillerson's efforts to address the
Department's aging technology infrastructure, and to strengthen
the diversity of the Department's workforce, including
increased recruitment.
He has focused specifically on veterans and minority
candidates, and this is a goal the committee here has long
supported. But as a country with global challenges and
opportunities, I do have continued concerns about whether our
diplomats and development specialists will have the resources
they need. Yes, there is room for savings. We need savings. But
we should not and cannot lose sight of the fact that our
diplomacy and assistance improves our national security,
improves our economic well-being for a relatively small amount
of money.
Consider this committee's work to sanction rogue regimes
like Iran over their missile program, or like North Korea. It
takes skilled, properly resourced diplomacy to build
international support for sanctions enforcement. And the same
is true when it comes to convincing nations to turn away cheap
labor from North Korea, for example. It takes our diplomats
going out and explaining, when you are doing an arrangement
where you are not paying those workers from North Korea, you
are only feeding them, and you are sending the check, the
foreign currency, to the regime. That money is going into the
nuclear weapons program and that has to end because of our
sanctions. That has to be explained by our foreign service
officers; or working with us to counter Hezbollah; or granting
our health specialists access to halt an emerging pandemic in
its tracks, as was done in West Africa with the Ebola virus.
Robust diplomacy is also needed in conflict zones to defeat
ISIS and defeat other threats. And that is what we hear from
our generals who understand the critical need for our country
to have successful political, and not just military,
strategies.
But this leadership requires us being present. And I am
concerned about reports of closing Embassies and consulates.
Where we depart, we create a void for unfriendly actors to step
in and promote interest hostile to our interests. Where there
is a diplomatic void, we have no eyes, we have no ears, to
detect the next threat or the next opportunity.
And so I want to thank the Department. I want to thank the
Department specifically for starting a dialogue with Congress
on these reforms, and on its policies, and on its management,
more broadly. And some of the proposed reforms that we see here
will require legislation, while others can be undertaken
administratively. But in both cases, the committee has a
significant oversight role to play, as we are doing today.
And after our successful work last Congress to get the
first State Authorities bill signed into law, in well over a
decade, the committee continues to have some reform ideas of
its own, which we look forward to sharing.
And I will now turn to our ranking member for Mr. Engel's
opening remarks.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling
this hearing, and Mr. Deputy Secretary, welcome to the Foreign
Affairs Committee. Thank you for your service and for your time
this morning. I was grateful that you hosted the chairman and
myself at the State Department yesterday to discuss your
reorganization effort. I am going to raise some of the concerns
this morning that I mentioned to you yesterday.
There is no doubt that the State Department and all our
Federal agencies should be as effective as possible to address
the challenges and to seize the opportunities we are facing.
This committee has taken some steps to modernize our
foreign affairs agencies, including last year's State
Department Authorities bill. There are plenty of good ideas
that could bring the State Department, USAID, and our foreign
policy into the 21st century. With the Department and Congress
working in a bipartisan way, I believe we could get there. But
I was troubled that the apparent first step in a reorganization
process was the announcement of a 32 percent cut to our
international affairs budget. I know we discussed it yesterday
and I will try to ask you to repeat some of the things you
said.
In my view, I worry about starting with the budget and then
finding the reforms is doing things in reverse. To me, it makes
more sense to lay out a vision for what modernization looks
like, to set clear priorities, to bring in our diplomats,
development professionals, and other experts, and then to
determine the right budget to get the job done. So I hope in
your testimony, and afterwards, you will mention some of the
things that you mentioned to us yesterday, you will clarify why
the decision was made to start with the dollar figure and work
backwards from there.
I worry about the reorganization process. I want it to be
more transparent and collaborative. I don't think that goes
against anything you told us yesterday. The Department has
called this an employee-driven process, and I have no doubt
that the career employees involved in the exercise have totally
honorable intentions.
But I understand that those involved are not allowed to
discuss the plans with their colleagues, and that the private
sector consultants brought on have kept tight control over
documents related to the plan. The administration committed to
this committee that there would be consultation with Congress
every step of the way, and obviously we still have more
questions. So I hope we can talk about some of that today.
And, overall, I must ask, what is the goal of the process?
What is the administration's vision for American foreign
policy? For America's role in the world? For how the State
Department fits into that vision? And for how this process will
make the State Department more effective?
The only consistent answer that we have gotten is the
Department is finding efficiencies; and I worry when the
administration talks about efficiency that it is just not a
codeword for budget cuts. Cost savings that undermine
effectiveness certainly aren't efficient, in the long run they
make America less safe.
And as the Department focuses on redesign, I worry the
critical day-to-day work of diplomacy is suffering. Far to many
senior positions, and we talked about this again yesterday,
remain vacant, depriving the Department of leadership. And
making it harder for allies and adversaries alike to know who
to call, and who is calling the shots in Washington. So I wish
you could explain some of that today.
Overseas, our diplomats' jobs are getting harder because
they can't know if established American foreign policy will be
reversed. Morale at the Department continues to suffer, as
senior career officials flock to the exits. Reports continue to
surface of an insular group surrounding the Secretary,
uninterested in the expertise of our most seasoned
professionals. Taken together, America's credibility around the
world is wobbling. Our leadership on the global stage seems to
be waning.
And, most importantly, without a strong, functional State
Department with a clear foreign policy vision, our interest,
values, and security are increasingly at risk. And let me be
clear, I do support modernizing the State Department. I want to
see it leading and directing American foreign policy. Civilian
leadership at the center of national security policy is
integral to our democracy at home, and to our leadership
abroad.
For years, Congress has sat on the sidelines when it comes
to the State Department, and what do we have to show for it?
Antiquated IT systems, personnel shortages that make it harder
to address crises or allow for professional development.
Traditional responsibilities of the Department moving to other
agencies, like the Pentagon, distracting from its core
diplomatic mission. I am glad that the President sees the
necessity for more funds for DoD, but we don't want it at the
expense of the State Department, the expense of diplomacy, the
expense of making sure our Embassies are safe.
In 2020, the Foreign Service Act will be 40 years old. It
was written during the Cold War and the world has changed. We
do need to modernize the Department. That is why I have
instructed my staff to consult with former diplomats, civil
servants, and other experts to begin thinking about what State
should look like for the next 40 years. I would value the input
of any member of this committee as we move forward. And, again,
Mr. Deputy Secretary, I look forward to your testimony, and I
hope you shed some additional light on this process.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent
to place in the record the following documents dealing with the
reorganization of the State Department and USAID. The first is
a report by Modernizing Foreign Assistance and New Foreign Aid
Architecture Fit for Purpose. Second is a report from the U.S.
Global Leadership Coalition, entitled Opportunities for
Reforming and Strengthening Diplomacy and Development. The
third is a report from The Center for Global Development, A
Practical Vision for U.S. Development Reform.
Next is a report from Refugees International called
Honoring a Distinguished Tradition, Crisis Response in U.S.
Government Reorganization. And, finally, a submission from
Amnesty International USA, calling on the State Department to
preserve the structure, staffing, and resources for the Refugee
Bureau War Crimes Office and Global Women's Issue Office. So I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Subject to the length limitations in our
rules, without objection, we will put those reports and include
them.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We now go to our introduction
here of Deputy Secretary John Sullivan.
Prior to this position, Mr. Sullivan was a partner at the
Mayer Brown law firm. He co-chaired its national security
practice, and previous to that, Mr. Sullivan served in senior
positions at the Justice Department, then at the Defense
Department, and the Commerce Department.
Without objection, the witness's full prepared statements
will be made part of the record. Members are going to have 5
calendar days to submit any statements or any questions or any
other extraneous materials that they want to submit for the
record here.
And we would ask, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, if you would
please summarize your remarks, and then we will go to
questions. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN J. SULLIVAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member
Engel, members of the committee. Thank you all for inviting me
here to discuss the----
Chairman Royce. Secretary Sullivan, let's make sure you
pushed that and then get it very close. Right there. And
everyone will be able to hear you. Perfect.
Mr. Sullivan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Engel, members of the committee. I am honored to be here today
to discuss the redesign of the State Department and USAID.
We appreciate the interest the committee has shown in the
Department's efforts to become better equipped and more
effective in serving the American people. On Secretary
Tillerson's first day, he promised to deploy the talent and
resources of the State Department in the most efficient ways
possible. He also committed to harnessing all the institutional
knowledge of our workforce to do that. So he went straight to
those who know best, our State Department and USAID colleagues,
to determine where reform was most needed. From the very
beginning, our reform effort has been employee-led.
We commissioned a listening survey that produced feedback
for more than 35,000 employees, nearly half of our entire
global workforce. Hundreds more took part in in-person
interviews. We also set up State and USAID web portals for
staff to provide regular input and to continue to guide our
planning. We have received more than 1,400 submissions to those
portals.
After hearing from so many of our own colleagues, we
convened a cross-section of almost 300 rising leaders and
seasoned professionals to create a reform plan. I want to
stress that the employee-led nature of the redesign is not an
empty slogan. The Secretary wanted employees to drive this
process from the beginning so that the Department and USAID can
better serve them, even as they serve our country.
The Redesign Executive Steering Committee, which I chair,
is composed of a balance of USAID and State Department leaders.
Similarly, the five work streams, the groups that drafted the
proposals that fed into the reform plan, were comprised almost
entirely of career staff, posted both in the U.S. and abroad.
Seventy-two percent of work stream members were working-level
employees, those who deal with the day-to-day business of
diplomacy and development. Their presence and contributions
proved to be invaluable.
The resulting Agency Reform Plan incorporates the
suggestions and feedback from thousands of our public servants
serving all over the world. We submitted this plan to OMB
earlier this month, consistent with the President's Executive
Order 13781, which calls for improvements in efficiencies,
effectiveness, and accountability for each Federal agency.
Let me share with you a few key features of our proposed
plan. First, we need to streamline the policy creation process
and optimize and realign our global footprint. The world is
changing quickly and State and USAID need to be nimble, that
means taking inputs from the field, turning them into evidence-
based recommendations, and executing them as quickly as
possible. We will use the same approach to assess our physical
footprint around the world to ensure that our missions abroad
align with our foreign policy priorities.
Second, we must maximize the impact and accountability of
U.S. foreign assistance. We need to strengthen planning among
the 20-plus agencies that provide some type of foreign
assistance, to make sure our foreign policy goals are focused,
integrated, and supported.
Third, we need to implement a more effective global service
delivery framework to reduce operational costs and
redundancies, increase efficiency, and improve service quality
for our personnel around the globe. We want to reduce red tape
and bureaucratic hurdles by making management and
administrative functions do what they were intended to do,
support our professionals as they change posts, develop their
skills, and serve our country all over the world.
Fourth, we need to empower and retain a 21st century
workforce by optimizing our HR support. Too often employees are
bogged down trying to navigate broken processes or redundant
systems. We envision HR shifting to a more strategic role to
help State and USAID attract a more diverse workforce and to
invest more in our most valuable assets, our people.
Finally, we need to improve our IT platforms, modernize
legacy systems, and upgrade our technology infrastructure so
that our employees can work anywhere, anytime, and as
effectively as possible. We urgently need to integrate our IT
systems and cybersecurity platforms. By upgrading our systems
and modernizing our technology, we can save money in the long-
run, reduce overall risks, and facilitate better decisionmaking
in the future.
The redesign provides a new foundation for our diplomacy
and development professionals. It will also generate
significant savings as we streamline processes and increase
efficiencies across the Department. The proposals we are
pursuing will save the American taxpayer a minimum of $5
billion over the next 5 years, with an aspirational whole of
government target of up to $10 billion.
Some of these changes will require further guidance and
approval from OMB, others will require close coordination with
other agencies. Still, others will require a change in law by
Congress. And, be assured, that for all aspects of the
redesign, whether or not a change in law is required, we will
consult with this committee and Congress before any actions are
taken.
We are working to move quickly on the redesign. The reforms
that the Department can implement internally will be rolled out
as soon as possible, after consultation with Congress. For
example, in the coming months, we hope to move the State
Department toward a cloud computing platform, and increase the
number of foreign service family members we employ abroad.
Let me emphasize that, throughout this process, I commit to
consulting closely with this committee. Your input, as always,
is most important as we move forward. Therefore, I am grateful
for the opportunity to speak to you this morning about our
reform plan and hear your feedback. And I would be happy to
take your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.
Let me start, as you know, the State Department Authorities Act
requires the Department to notify this committee no less than
45 days before closing a diplomatic post. Will the Department
commit to a robust engagement with the committee before you
seek to close a diplomatic post, because our members have
decades of experience and strong views on this?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. I appreciate that. And let me emphasize
here why I think this is key. Just to follow through on the
legislation that we pass in this committee, for example, the
legislation we passed on sanctions on North Korea, I explained
a little bit of this, but our response to that threat is to
have our diplomats make it clear to every country on Earth that
they have got to cut ties with that rogue regime or suffer the
consequences of it.
It is our diplomats who have the relationships in these
countries throughout the world, who follow up and explain
directly how seriously the United States takes this. And, as I
mentioned also in my opening remarks, they are our eyes and
ears. In northern Nigeria, for example, Boko Haram emerged
seemingly out of nowhere. We have no diplomatic presence in all
of northern Nigeria. The Muslim population in Africa is the
most populated country, over 140 million people. And because we
closed our consulate in Kaduna in the 1990s, the previous
administration looked at reopening a consulate in the region,
but once closed, posts are very difficult, very expensive to
reopen.
China certainly isn't trimming back its diplomatic presence
there, as you know. Nor, in the case of the conversations I had
with the governor of that state, where now Boko Haram holds
sway, told me, money was flooding into the area from the Gulf
states, setting up at that time madrasas to recruit. He told me
about one across the street from the madrasa where he got his
education. But the new one, young boys were wearing Bin Laden
tee shirts. And he explained what the consequences were going
to be, and he was right. But we have to have that presence on
the ground to see these kinds of things coming, and it has to
be our foreign service that is engaged there.
Let me ask you another question, and this goes to this
issue of hiring veterans and increasing diversity. The foreign
service will be the most effective that it can be when it draws
on the strengths of the American people. However, it is my
understanding that the interview is only offered in Washington,
DC, and in San Francisco. Will the Department consider offering
the interviews in more places such as on military bases? If I
could ask you that question.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I met, in fact, last week
with all of our employee affinity groups, including our
veterans group at the State Department, to discuss better ways
to recruit for the Department to increase our diversity, which
is a key goal of the Secretary, as you know.
Chairman Royce. Yes. And I just, in my opinion, think, that
if you were to deploy a strategy, and if it was well understood
that we were going to do this at military bases, and that those
interested in serving the foreign service would have that
option, I think in terms of the Secretary's commitment to
increase efforts to hire veterans, and this focus on diversity,
this would be a very helpful way to make that happen. And I
appreciate your willingness.
With that said, let me go to Mr. Engel for his questions.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to, again, thank you for taking the
time to meet the chairman and myself for lunch yesterday. It is
very important for this committee and the State Department to
have a good working relationship. And I believe the commitments
you made yesterday go a long way in advancing a constructive
working relationship. We won't always agree, but I think the
constructive working relationship is very important.
So one thing we discussed, and I would be grateful if you
would reaffirm it here today, is your commitment that the State
Department will respond in a timely fashion to the requests for
documents and information that come from myself or the chairman
or our staff?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely, Congressman Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I wonder if you would also clarify,
as you did yesterday, the Department's policy regarding the
necessity of a chairman's letter for certain types of
information, so we are clear about that?
Mr. Sullivan. Certainly. Subject to legal restrictions
imposed because of executive privilege, my policy and the
Department's policy will be to be as responsive as we can be,
both in responding to phone calls, to request for documents,
and a call from any member of this committee, or a request from
any member of this committee is a high priority for the State
Department. You have my commitment on that. And if we fall down
on the job, please let me know and I will remedy that
situation.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Secretary
Tillerson made the same commitment, and when it wasn't being
fulfilled, I went to him again and he reaffirmed the
commitment. So I am pleased that you are reaffirming that as
well.
I would like to read something to you: ``We will eliminate
overlap, set priorities, and fund only the work that supports
those priorities. We will empower our people to make decisions,
and hold them accountable for the results. This begins with the
Chiefs of Mission in our Embassies around the world. We will
give our Chiefs of Mission the tools they need to oversee the
work of all U.S. Government agencies, empower them, and engage
them more fully in policy-making in Washington. It sounds
basic, but it is the kind of change that will help us tap the
full potential of our civilian power.'' That is the end of the
quote.
Does this sound like it aligns with Secretary Tillerson's
vision for improving the Department? There is a 2010 QDDR
report, and I am quoting from the 2010 QDDR: ``Secretary
Tillerson recognizes the need for modernization of the State
Department, and both of his immediate predecessors saw it as
well. But one of the criticisms the QDDR report, including from
our committee, is that it failed to realize many of its
goals.''
So, in my opinion, I would like to hear your opinion, one
of the reasons we failed was the lack of funding. This document
is full of important and insightful ideas, but because these
ideas were not linked with resources, they didn't lead to the
transformation of the Department in the ways we had hoped they
would.
Would the Secretary's reorganization make the State
Department more effective? You will find enthusiastic support
from this committee on both sides of the aisle. But how can the
administration carry out real or lasting reforms, including an
IT modernization, that is currently dramatically underresourced
when you have tied your hands with respect to the budget?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as we discussed yesterday, Congressman
Engel, one of the key goals of the redesign is to empower our
men and women, our Ambassadors, in particular, the Chiefs of
Mission, who are in the field implementing U.S. foreign
policies. That is one of our overriding goals that has been
clear from the Secretary's first day on the job.
As we also discussed yesterday, the budget process to which
you refer started before Secretary Tillerson was confirmed and
took office. So he came onboard, I followed several months
later. We had a budget process that was already underway. The
redesign effort, as I have said in other context, the Secretary
would have been taking this redesign effort even if we had had
a budget increase.
It is important for us to find efficiencies in the
Department, to be good stewards of the taxpayer money. But
there will also be areas, as you have noted, where as we go
forward, particularly with respect to IT infrastructure, where
we will in the future need investments. And the Secretary has
made a commitment to the Department, and I will repeat it here
to this committee, where we need more resources to do our jobs
more effectively, we will seek them. IT is one area where I
predict we will need assistance in the future in reforming our
IT infrastructure.
Mr. Engel. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of
California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
How many people do you have working at the State Department?
What is your payroll like?
Mr. Sullivan. At the State Department, Congressman
Rohrabacher, we have approximately 75,000 employees worldwide.
Mr. Rohrabacher. How many again?
Mr. Sullivan. 75,000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. 75,000?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Worldwide.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Worldwide. What is the number of people
that a new President, political appointees, but brought in by
the new President, how many spaces are there for those? There
are 75,000 regular employees, how many political appointees are
there?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, there are a couple of different
categories. There are all the Ambassadors, so there are
approximately 190. Of those, roughly 30 percent are political
appointees, in other words, they are not career foreign service
officers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Sullivan. So that is one category. Then there are
positions at the State Department itself, Under Secretaries,
myself, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretaries.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Sullivan. There would be fewer than 100 of those.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is only 100?
Mr. Sullivan. Approximately.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And of those 100, how many of those
are now filled? How many of those political appointees are
sitting now and have their authority?
Mr. Sullivan. Those who are now in office, actually at the
State Department or in their ambassadorial post, it would be
fewer than 20. That is a rough guess on my part. We have 30
nominees that are pending before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thirty nominees?
Mr. Sullivan. Thirty nominees pending.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is for----
Mr. Sullivan. For both appointments at the State
Department, for example, Under Secretary for Management.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Sullivan. Legal adviser.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Sullivan. Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. And
then we have another category of individuals who have been
selected by the administration, but who are undergoing their
background investigation and filling out their financial
disclosure forms and being reviewed by the Foreign Relations
Committee. That would probably be another 20 or 30, I would
say, of those.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So you are saying that about 50
people that could have been appointed by the President are not
now----
Mr. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. In their positions. So when
we say that elections count in this democracy, that we have 50
people now whose slots are either being taken by career people
until they get there, or actually--are there any appointees
from the last administration still in those positions?
Mr. Sullivan. To my knowledge there are no political
appointees who are filling those positions. There are, however,
career foreign service officers who are filling those
positions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that
across the board we have seen--we are already into October, you
know, and the President of the United States, if our elections,
the democratic process means anything, the President has to
have his people in there to help direct policy because that is
who the people voted for. And I think that we are seeing
something that I haven't seen for a long time, I have never
seen, is that throughout our Government, not just State
Department but elsewhere, we have these seats that are vacant
that should be Presidential appointees.
Let me ask you about NGOs and their relationship to the
State Department. Do we actually provide services for
nongovernmental organizations that are active in different
countries?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe, among other things, we provide
financial assistance to NGOs that, in turn, provide assistance,
whether it be life-sustaining food, water, medical assistance.
So we will contract with, among others, NGOs for those types of
services.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And are NGOs--obviously we have our
beliefs and we want--we have certain standards, but when NGOs
go into another country, are they required to respect the
culture of that country?
Mr. Sullivan. That would certainly be expected Congressman,
yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So NGOs--we get complaints--I have
gotten complaints, as I have traveled around, from people that
the NGOs are actually out trying to change the country. And, of
course, we want a certain amount of change, but at some point
it becomes a disrespect for the culture of those countries.
Good luck in trying to find that line. And good luck in your
new position. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Brad Sherman, ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Deputy Secretary, I want to thank you for
your comments about wanting to get information to Congress and
answer our questions. Rex Tillerson, the Secretary, was here on
June 14--and, of course, we only get 5 minutes, and a lot of us
have a lot more questions, and that is why we have questions
for the record. But the questions for the record for the June
14 hearing haven't been answered yet. I wonder if you could
commit to having the June 14 questions answered--the vast
majority of them by October 15 and all of them by October 31?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I think I can do better than that,
Congressman Sherman. I believe I heard this morning on my way
up, and it is strictly a coincidence, I assure you, that those
questions--those responses were provided this morning. So if
there are any that are outstanding, I will make sure that they
are----
Mr. Sherman. I am eagerly awaiting one of those, and that
is, I asked--you are submitting a budget that involves drastic
cuts. And the Secretary agreed to say how he would propose
spending 10 or 20 or 30 percent more money than the
administration was asking for. Because that would give Congress
the expert view or the, at least, executive branch view of not
only how to spend the amount of money you are talking about,
but if we decide--how we would allocate more. And I hope that
you can commit to answering the QFRs for this hearing within 30
days. Can you do that?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely.
Mr. Sherman. This reorganization plan, I hope, is not a
cover for cuts or a reason to delay filling posts. Others have
asked you about that delay. The administration has a muscular
tone in its foreign policy. Sanctions are an important part of
that, sanctions are very labor intensive. It is not a matter of
just giving a speech at a rally. It is a matter of convincing a
Danish or a Dutch bank or government on this deal or that deal.
And I would hope that you and the Secretary would convince the
President that a muscular foreign policy requires a fully
staffed State Department.
Tom Lantos was our chairman here. He pushed forward
legislation that created the special envoy on Global Anti-
Semitism. I know your department has committed to filling that
post. Can we count on that being filled fairly soon?
Mr. Sullivan. You have my word on that, Congressman. If I
don't, it is my fault, and I assure you it will be filled
promptly.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. Now, there has been a report of a plan
to transfer the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migrations
and Consular Affairs to the Department of Homeland Security.
Can you put those rumors to rest?
Mr. Sullivan. I can.
Mr. Sherman. That is not under consideration?
Mr. Sullivan. That is not under consideration.
Mr. Sherman. That is a great answer. We have, all around
the world, consulates. The consulates report to the Embassy,
and the Embassy reports to Washington. The one exception to
that is our consulate in East Jerusalem. And I wonder whether
part of your reorganization could be to have the same policy
there as everywhere else, and have the consulate in East
Jerusalem report to the Embassy?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, the issue of our Embassy in Israel, as
you know, is----
Mr. Sherman. I am not asking the bigger question about
moving to Embassy to Jerusalem. Assuming we keep the facilities
that we have now, would the consulate in East Jerusalem report
to the Embassy, which is currently located the Tel Aviv?
Mr. Sullivan. I would certainly take that under advisement,
Congressman.
Mr. Sherman. Not everything that relates to foreign policy
can be in the State Department. I would hope that you would
provide guidance, as you have a process of doing, to the BBG,
the Broadcasting Board of Governors, about the importance of
broadcasting in the regional language of Pakistan. I don't have
to tell you that this is one of--while North Korea has one
language, Pakistan has several. And if you are trying to reach
the population of this important country with over 100 nuclear
weapons, you can't just broadcast in Urdu and Pashto.
And, finally, I am going to ask you to convey to the
Secretary of the Treasury, or the Assistant Secretary for Tax
Policy, the importance in--they have to allocate their time and
where to negotiate a tax treaty, and they have been doing it on
kind of a paint-by-numbers basis. How big is the GDP of this
country, or whatever, ignoring the geopolitics. And there are
places in the world where having a tax treaty furthers the
objectives of the State Department, and your Assistant
Secretary of Europe testified in a smaller hearing that having
a tax treaty with Armenia is important geopolitically. And I
hope we can get that influence over to the Treasury Department.
Mr. Sullivan. I will do so.
Chairman Royce. Okay. We will go to Joe Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr.
Secretary, for being here today. I was very fortunate in
August, I was with Congressman Paul Cook on a delegation. We
visited Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of
Georgia, and Poland. And I can report firsthand that all of the
State Department personnel who were with us were first class.
They were very competent, capable. They connected with the very
important new allies of the United States. And so it was just a
very uplifting experience in each of those countries. And I was
so proud of the dedication of your personnel on behalf of the
American people.
But I do know that the Foreign Service attracts thousands
of applicants each year, however the Department struggles to
effectively recruit Foreign Service Officers with a greater
diversity of experience, including veterans, and those from
under-represented portions of the country. Successive
administrations have pledged to increase veteran recruitment
with limited success.
Does the Department intend to target veterans for
recruitment? If so, what reforms to the recruitment process are
being considered to reach this goal?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Wilson. Yes,
recruitment of veterans is a priority for the Department. As I
discussed earlier with the chairman, one issue that we have
discussed is recruitment at military posts. I have met with
Retired General David Petraeus who came to speak to our
veterans affinity group about this issue. And I have met with
our group leader as well.
Mr. Wilson. And many veterans have language skills that
could be so helpful, too. Currently, the Department only
interviews candidates for the Foreign Service in Washington and
San Francisco, not exactly the most representative of U.S.
cities. Is the Department considering conducting the oral
assessment exam at military bases across the county to
encourage veteran hiring?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, we are.
Mr. Wilson. Super. Please. That is good. And what other
reforms is the Department considering to recruit Foreign
Service Officers with more diverse backgrounds and skill-sets
like veterans?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, a commitment to diversity is a priority
for Secretary Tillerson, and not just with respect to veterans,
but with respect to all aspects of American society. The State
Department should reflect America, and we are committed to
that. Veteran hiring is a priority for us, as I have said, and
I have discussed this with Chairman Royce. And we are doing all
we can for outreach to veterans, but also to other groups as
well who are under-represented in the State Department.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much. And I look forward
to working with you on that, too. Given the prominent role
assigned to the Department by the President's executive order
on cybersecurity, I am concerned about plans to downgrade the
Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues and merge it with an
existing office within the Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs. At a time when the U.S. is increasingly under attack
online, shouldn't the State Department continue to have high
level leadership focused on the whole range of cyber issues not
relegated to economics?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congressman Wilson, it is a priority for
the Secretary. The move that you discussed for that special
envoy is only the first step in our approach to cybersecurity.
I have discussed this with the Secretary. We are committed to
raising this to a high level within the Department, and working
with the White House on that issue.
Mr. Wilson. And in fact, the House passed legislation, H.R.
600, the Digital Gap Act, expressing the sense to Congress that
there should be an Assistant Secretary for Cyberspace to lead
the Department's Diplomatic Cyberspace Policy, the Department
take into consideration that provision, which effectively calls
on the Secretary to elevate the rule of cyber diplomacy before
there was the provision of downgrading?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, I can commit to you that cybersecurity,
our whole cyber effort, will be elevated at the Department
beyond the level it is now.
Mr. Wilson. And with that understanding--and we are pleased
to learn that the Department cyberspace functions will continue
to focus on a full range of activities beyond just economic
issues, doesn't that call into question your plans to house the
office within the Economic and Business Affairs Bureau?
Mr. Sullivan. The final decision about where and at what
level we will place the cybersecurity responsibility hasn't
been decided. The initial decision that was made was that for
this special envoy office, which exists, we have moved that
into that bureau, but that is only the first step in addressing
the larger cyber issue that the Department needs to--and we
will consult with this committee on where the appropriate level
is and what bureau it is in before that decision is----
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And I hope you all will be pushing
hard on the 30 pending ambassadorships, that they be secured as
soon as possible. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Chairman Royce. And we go now to Greg Meeks, ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Europe.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, first
let me just congratulate and thank you. It seems as though any
time that you have been called to come and serve our great
country in various administrations, you have done that, and I
think that is something to be thankful for.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks. And, likewise, when I look at our individuals in
the State Department, and I think that we have said it just
about unanimously, that no matter where we travel, when we look
at the men and women that are in our State Department and how
they serve our country, it is just miraculous. And so, you
know, a number of us are very concerned when we hear the
drastic cuts--and I don't know, sometimes I get nervous when I
hear the word modernization because I don't know what that
means. Does that mean that we are going to get the equipment
and make sure we have the new technology that is necessary so
that our State Department has all of the tools that it needs to
continue to do the great job--the job that it often does with
its hands tied. Or does it mean that we are going to have to
cut personnel and make their jobs even more difficult than it
already is, because they have tough jobs.
And I think as General Mattis has said, the more that we
take away from the State Department, the more we have to put
into DoD. So we are nervous. And as I travel, I think that a
number of the employees in the State Department are nervous. I
listened to your opening statement where you said that--and I
see that 66 percent of the individuals responded, but they
still don't know what the final plan is, and the information
flow has not gotten down.
So there seems to be a lot of morale problems now because
they don't know the uncertainty of whether or not what they
have recommended would be heard. And then when we have what
took place, for example, what concerned me at the U.N., this
past week in New York, where I believe there was some 140
officials that were there, and it was down from twice that
number the year prior. And what I looked at before was
consistent because here was an opportunity to have our
diplomats in the State Department working with all of these
heads of State at various levels. That is how this works. So
when I see that kind of reduction, that to me means that there
is difficulty in getting our diplomacy out and talking and
working with these other governments.
So can you tell me, is that going to be the trend? Are we
going to see less numbers of diplomats and people from the
State Department that are going out to promote our diplomacy,
as we just saw exhibited at the U.N. last week?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely not, Congressman. I approached
this job--when I interviewed with Secretary Tillerson, I spoke
to him of my enormous respect and regard for the Foreign
Service, and it comes from my family. My family--my uncle
served in the Foreign Service, my father's brother, 32 years in
the Foreign Service. He was actually our last U.S. Ambassador
to Iran. It was his staff that was taken hostage on November 4.
So I understand the burdens that Foreign Service and our
Civil Service face when they are posted abroad. I committed to
Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Tillerson is committed to the
Department, that our goal is to empower those women and men in
the Foreign Service and the Civil Service who serve the United
States abroad in dangerous places on our behalf with little
thanks. And our men and women in uniform are absolutely
deserving of our respect and admiration, and thanked for their
service. But our Foreign Service and Civil Service offices are
equally deserving of that respect and thanks because they
serve, just as our military does, in dangerous places.
Mr. Meeks. Absolutely. And, again, thank you. Then the
other decision that kind of puzzled me a little bit, that it
has been reported that after initially turning down funding for
the Global Engagement Center that focuses on anti-propaganda
efforts, Secretary Tillerson approved the request for the
transfer of $40 million from DoD. The State Department deserves
to have its own funding. Can you tell me why the State
Department is relying on DoD funding for its own civilian
efforts to combat terrorism and propaganda from our Government?
Mr. Sullivan. Certainly, Congressman Meeks. Let me clarify
that. There is an appropriation for our Global Engagement
Center that is State Department money, and we are spending that
money. A separate statute authorized the Department to seek
from the Department of Defense an additional amount of money,
which Defense could transfer to us. That is the $40 million
that we sought. So we have our own money, we sought an
additional $40 million from the Defense Department, and that is
because the way Congress wrote the law, we had to ask the
Defense Department for the money, we did, and it has been
transferred to us.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Mark Meadows of North
Carolina--I don't think he is with us at the moment. Adam
Kinzinger from Illinois.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, sir,
for being here. Thank you for your service to your country, and
it is very much appreciated. I think State and USAID are
sometimes the unsung heroes of conflict mitigation, and in many
ways we never see some of the success they provide because it
is in a lack of a war, for instance, you know, which is hard to
quantify.
My colleague mentioned the Global Engagement Center. I just
want to drill a little deeper on that, if you don't mind, sir.
You mentioned the $40 million coming from DoD. So I just want
to clarify. You are accepting the $80 million then that was
written in the statue now, and so that would be a total of $120
million in essence, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Sullivan. We have requested and received from the
Defense Department $40 million. We have our own appropriated
funds, which we are also applying to the Global Engagement
Center's mission.
Mr. Kinzinger. Okay. So that is happening then?
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Kinzinger. So if you look at kind of your overall idea
of redesign or fixing the State Department, how does the Global
Engagement Center figure into your redesign plans? Where do you
guys see this going? What are some of the benefits you see in
terms of pushing back against the propaganda from our eastern
friends, I guess, or nonfriends, competitors?
Mr. Sullivan. The Global Engagement Center figures
prominently in our public diplomacy in countering the malign
activities of terrorist organizations, whether it is ISIS, al-
Qaeda or their affiliates. That has been the mission
traditionally of the Global Engagement Center since it was
created by Congress.
The new aspect of our mission and the $40 million which we
have gotten from the Defense Department is to counter State
efforts at propaganda, so Russia, China, Iran, North Korea,
which is a different form of mission, the GEC was initially
focused on terrorist organizations, it is now also focused on
State efforts at propaganda. Both are important, both are being
funded properly, and both will figure prominently in our public
diplomacy going forward.
Mr. Kinzinger. Good. And maybe you can respond to this or
maybe I will just state it for the record. I think the
intention of Congress and the $80 million was to really focus
on the counter-propaganda efforts of Russia, because as we have
seen and our various friends in Eastern Europe, they are the
victims of a lot of this, and we have seen the victim of that,
in fact, here on our own shores. So I think that is essential.
And I also firmly believe that the State Department, as I
mentioned, and USAID, are unsung heroes in conflict mitigation.
And I think rather than hindering our diplomats and USAID
professionals, we need to provide them with greater flexibility
and capacity to operate in conflict zones so we can work to
provide hope and opportunity to the 7- and 8-year-olds that we
see right now in refugee camps, which I would call it the next
generational war on terror. And it could either lead to guns
and bombs or it can lead to, frankly, a generation that rises
up to reject terror within their own communities.
And I think that's frankly how you are going to actually
win this. I think bombs and guns are important in the current
fight, but I think we have to look at that next generation,
because this could be a war that we are engaged in for the rest
of my life, and something I think that is essential.
So how does the redesign in your mind offer solutions for
increasing State and USAID's flexibility and capacity to
operate in conflict zones like Syria or elsewhere?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I think you are absolutely right,
Congressman, about the challenge we face with refugees, whether
it is refugee camps in Jordan, from the conflict in Syria, the
refugee crisis we see now on the border of Burma and
Bangladesh. Those enormous refugee populations are a global
problem and will continue to be unless it is properly
addressed. We have at the State Department modest means, not
the complete means, to address them. It is a global problem.
So, for example, in Burma, we have spent $32 million now to
start to address the refugee crisis there. Our Ambassador in
Burma is looking to go up to the Iraqi state to get to the
border within the next 2 days. We are doing all we can to
address that problem there.
We have spent large sums of money to address the refugee
crisis that has been generated by the rise of ISIS in Iraq and
Syria, and with partners and allies, with the help of the
Jordanian Government, which has done a heroic amount of work.
We are trying to do all we can to address that problem,
because, as you know, this is a generational problem, and this
is going to be a problem that will face us for years to come.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. And since my time is running out,
I won't ask the question, but I will make this statement. As
you guys are looking at diplomatic outposts maybe to
consolidate or shut down, I think it is important to remember,
we didn't have a diplomatic post in Afghanistan pre-9/11. And
so a lot of the areas, when we look at around the world where
to do this, we need to be thinking--and I know you are thinking
of this, Mr. Secretary, not in terms of the conflict today but
what could potentially be a conflict tomorrow, and the benefit
of having a presence there, again, for conflict mitigation,
which we can't quantify how many conflicts we have stopped with
State or USAID.
But, again, I want to thank you and the people that work
for you for your hard work to the American people. And, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Albio Sires of New Jersey is the ranking
member on the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today.
And thank you for being here and the work that you do to
serve this country and all the people that work for you. I get
a chance to travel quite a bit, and they are professional, they
are working hard every day. And, quite frankly, some of them
are in real dangerous situations, and I am concerned. And I
also want to thank you for the coincidence of answering our
questions that happened this morning. We submitted about 3
months ago the questions. And I get concerned--go ahead, sir.
Mr. Sullivan. There is nothing like a congressional hearing
to focus the concentration.
Mr. Sires. What a coincidence, right?
Mr. Sullivan. That is just an observation.
Mr. Sires. I get concerned when we throw out numbers like
30 percent, that we are going to have this kind of cut in the
State Department. You can imagine what it does to the people
that work for you, and you can imagine what it does for the
countries that we deal with.
And one of the things that really concerns me is this
hiring freeze and how it impacts the family members that work
for these people. Some of these people are not going to be able
to work. And it is hard enough already for some of the
employees, you know, with the salary that they get, to make
ends meet in some of these places, but now you have a situation
where even the family members cannot be employed if we
implement this 30 percent. So can you talk a little bit about
that? Even schooling of the children.
Mr. Sullivan. Sure.
Mr. Sires. I mean, that is all part of it.
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. The employment of family members
at U.S. Embassies abroad is vitally important, not just for the
support, the monetary support, it provides for those families,
but for the services that those family members provide to our
Embassy.
So we have had a hiring freeze in place. There was an
administration-wide hiring freeze. The Department has continued
that hiring freeze until we get a better handle on our
redesign. There are a lot of exceptions, though, to that hiring
freeze. Among them has been an exception for the employment of
family members. I believe the numbers are we have employed--
since the hiring freeze went into effect, we have brought on
somewhere between 800 and 900 authorized family members to work
at our Embassies.
It is a consistent concern. I hear from our Ambassadors
when they come back from post to Washington and I meet with
them. Employment of family members at Embassies is always a
topic they raise.
Mr. Sires. And schooling too.
Mr. Sullivan. Schooling as well.
Mr. Sires. You know, that is what we hear also when we
travel.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Sires. Okay. I hate to bring this into this Cuban
foreign affairs situation, but I know that Tillerson is meeting
with some of the Cuban diplomats in Havana? Is that correct?
When is that happening?
Mr. Sullivan. We have had regular contact with the
Government of Cuba. If you are referring to the acoustic
incidents----
Mr. Sires. Yes.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. That have been happening----
Mr. Sires. I was coming to that.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. In Havana, we have had regular
contact to register our deep concern with what has happened in
Havana and to remind the Cuban Government of its obligation
under the Geneva Convention to protect our Embassy employees
and their families down there.
Mr. Sires. Yeah. We have been trying to get a briefing
schedule, and we can't seem to get it, on where we are with
this acoustic situation from the State Department.
Mr. Sullivan. If you need a briefing, Congressman, I will
guarantee you, this committee, whoever wants a briefing will
get one. And our staff can perhaps speak with the chairman
after this hearing, and we will arrange to get the information
you need to understand what is happening in Havana at our
Embassy.
Mr. Sires. I am also concerned about the crisis in
Venezuela and our role with the OAS. How involved are we with
the OAS?
Mr. Sullivan. I actually had the honor to represent the
United States at the OAS General Assembly in Cancun in late
June. There was a diplomatic accomplishment by the United
States and our allies at that meeting, where we got over 20
countries in the region to back a resolution on Venezuela.
Unfortunately, we didn't reach the two-thirds threshold to get
that resolution passed----
Mr. Sires. Sorry. My time is running out. I am just
wondering if some of these cuts are going to impact our ability
to do something like this in the future.
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely not. We will not----
Mr. Sires. Because this country is all--I don't want to
interrupt. I mean, they are all frightened that all these cuts
are going to take place and we are not going to be as active as
we have been in the Western Hemisphere, which I work with.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. No, Venezuela, in particular, is a
priority for this administration, and we will continue to work
hard on that topic and bring pressure to bear on the Maduro
government, which, as you know as well as anyone, has really
driven the Venezuelan country, its economy into dire straits.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman yield?
Might I suggest--you are the ranking member on Western
Hem--that we formalize the request right now to the State
Department concerning a private briefing for the members here
with respect to the concerns our Foreign Service Officers have
who were stationed in Havana with respect to some of the health
issues that they have raised so that we can learn about the
ongoing discussions here.
Mr. Sullivan. We will undertake to have that briefing for
you.
Chairman Royce. We appreciate that.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making that
suggestion.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your testimony
and being with us today. And thank you, Mr. Sires.
We now go to Dan Donovan of New York.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me
add my sincere gratitude to your service to our Nation as well.
Recognizing we are not appropriators, in your efforts to
redesign the State Department to better serve our Nation's
interests throughout the globe, is there anything that this
committee can do, legislatively or anything, to help in those
efforts?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we will have a number of requests that
we will come to this committee on with respect to our redesign
effort. Just to give you an example, we have shared with the
committee a letter from the Secretary that sets forth proposals
for all of the special envoys that we have. It is almost 70.
Some of those offices were created by statute, and what we
propose to do with them, in consultation with the committee,
may require legislation to effect change.
So we will be coming to this committee with changes that we
seek to help us with our redesign, and we very much want to, A,
cooperate with you and consult with you on these proposed
changes, but we will need legislation for some of them as well.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you. Recognizing that a stable globe is
very much in the interest of the United States' national
security, our homeland security--and that is the other
committee that I serve on besides Foreign Affairs--is there any
redesign efforts that you are contemplating now involving
USAID?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, there are substantial redesign proposals
that are under consideration. However, I should state up front,
one of them is not merging USAID into the State Department. So
we have a number of proposals that we are considering with
input from senior USAID officials to make USAID more efficient,
to align our development policy with our foreign policy as we
go forward, but we are not considering, at this point, merging
USAID into the State Department.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Secretary Sullivan, thanks for being here, and thank
you for your service.
Secretary Tillerson told our committee in June that
throughout this redesign process, he said, ``we will work as a
team and with Congress.'' And with all due respect, this has
not felt like a team effort.
Modernizing the State Department so that it can be as
effective as possible in advancing national security and
promoting U.S. interests abroad is a shared goal, but many of
us, as you have heard today, are worried that this whole
process is simply a downgrading of our diplomacy by another
name. President Trump's proposed 30-percent cut of the State
Department is particularly dangerous at a time when we need
deft diplomacy and skilled statesmen to address the threats
from Iran and North Korea, to promote peace in the Middle East,
and to push back against Russian aggression both in the Ukraine
and, frankly, here at home.
In a time when foreign diplomats speak openly about how
they look to the White House because the State Department is so
understaffed, I would like to ask you, the State Department,
about a few specific foreign policy topics to get an
understanding of the administration's position.
First, in the Middle East, we saw a brutal reminder of the
challenges that Israel faces in its search for peace today when
a terrorist killed three Israelis and seriously wounded others
near Jerusalem. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas continues to hold the
bodies of slain IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians as
bargaining chips. Earlier this month, I met with the parents of
Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, who was killed by Hamas terrorists
using an underground terror tunnel during a ceasefire in 2014.
I have also met with the family of Sergeant Oron Shaul, who was
also killed by Hamas in 2014. Hamas's refusal to return the
bodies of these soldiers to their families for burial is an
obvious violation of international law and basic human values.
So, to where we are today. Jason Greenblatt is currently in
Israel continuing the administration's push toward peace, but,
for many of us, we are still in the dark about what that looks
like. Mr. Greenblatt said last week that ``it is no secret our
approach to these discussions departs from some of the usual
orthodoxy, for, after years of well-meaning attempts to
negotiate an end to the conflict, we have all learned some
valuable lessons.'' So what I would ask you, Deputy Secretary
Sullivan, is, what are those lessons that have been learned?
What are the unorthodox approaches that you are pursuing? And
is it this administration's intention to present its own peace
plan?
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, as you note, the
White House, Jason Greenblatt, the President's Special
Representative, and the senior adviser to the President, Jared
Kushner, have been very deeply involved in negotiations between
this administration and the Israeli Government and the
Palestinian Authority. The President met with Prime Minister
Netanyahu, with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority
that last week. The President, himself, is personally committed
to this process, as other Presidents have been.
I think the commitment of this administration is clear to
the peace process. I would have to defer to Mr. Greenblatt on
what he specifically meant with those comments. I would say
that Secretary Tillerson, though, has been involved as well. He
was with President Trump when the President visited Israel in
June.
Mr. Deutch. Right, all of which we are aware of. Can you
tell us whether it is the President's intention, the
administration's intention to present its own peace plan?
Mr. Sullivan. I would have to defer to White House on that,
sir.
Mr. Deutch. Okay. Next, moving on to Iran, the vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs said in July that it appears Iran
is in compliance with the rules that were laid out in the
JCPOA. Now, there are very real flaws in the JCPOA, including
the problematic sunset provisions. However, in order to lead an
international effort against Iran's ongoing support for
terrorism, their support of the Hezbollah militias in Syria,
the development of their missile program, all of which are
outside the terms of the JCPOA, we are going to need the
support of the international committee and our allies and
partners in Europe. Wouldn't a decision not to certify
compliance because of factors that are outside the JCPOA risk
isolating us from our allies and making the job of combating
Iran's malign activities in the region even more difficult?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, the Secretary has said as late as last
week that Iran is in technical compliance with the JCPOA. He
said, as well, however, that Iran is in violation of the spirit
of the JCPOA for all the malign activities that you have just
described.
We have been in close consultation with our allies to
address both those malign activities and the flaws in the
JCPOA, including the sunset provision. So the President will
have a decision in October on whether to certify or not, but
our work on Iran's malign activities and trying to improve the
terms of the JCPOA will continue.
Mr. Deutch. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, just if I may, my
last question. As you know, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, Bob
Levinson has now been held by Iran for more than the 10 years.
The Levinsons were told that the U.N. General Assembly would be
used as an opportunity to push forward Bob's case. Are you
seeing any progress? And can you commit to us here that
bringing Bob and the other Americans being unjustly and cruelly
held by Iran will remain a priority for this administration?
Mr. Sullivan. The Levinson case is a priority for this
administration, as are all the other American hostages held
worldwide. Just as a note, I have met and spoken with the
Levinson family on multiple occasions. I have a picture on my
desk of Bob Levinson, who reminds me every day that he is our
longest-held hostage in Iran. And I have personal family
experience with Americans being held hostage in Iran. This
administration has no higher priority than bringing home all of
those Americans, including Mr. Levinson. You have my word on
that.
Mr. Deutch. And I am profoundly grateful for that. Thank
you.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We go to Lee Zeldin of New York.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today and for your service to our
country.
The rising tide of anti-Semitism, both here in the United
States and abroad, is of great concern for myself, for many of
my constituents, for many Americans. The U.S. State
Department's office responsible for monitoring and combating
anti-Semitism has how many active members currently?
Mr. Sullivan. I would have to get you that answer after
this hearing. I can't tell you off the top of my head,
Congressman. I apologize.
Mr. Zeldin. And, previously, in responding to a question
from one of my colleagues, you mentioned filling the Special
Envoy position as a top priority for the State Department. Are
there potential candidates being vetted? Where are we in that
process? How imminent is this?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, there are candidates being vetted.
Unfortunately, because a final decision hasn't been made, I
can't disclose those names or where things stand. But you have
my commitment that that position will be filled promptly.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. How many Under
Secretary and Assistant Secretary positions are there at the
State Department? Is it about 30?
Mr. Sullivan. There are six Under Secretaries. Assistant
Secretaries, there are more than 30, I believe.
Mr. Zeldin. Yeah. Do you know how many of those positions
are filled as of right now?
Mr. Sullivan. Filled with confirmed officeholders? I can't
give you a precise number. It is well below 50 percent and far
fewer than it should be, and that is not a good--we are not
pleased with that situation.
Mr. Zeldin. And I want to see you be successful, I want to
see Secretary Tillerson be successful. And I believe very
strongly that it is very important for those positions to all
get filled. We are here now at the end of September, and this
first year for Secretary Tillerson is pretty close to an end.
As you know better than I do, a lot of these positions get
filled up with acting heads of these different offices, and I
think that you all would be much more successful to fill those
as quickly as possible. What is the timeline and goal for
getting the remainder of these positions filled?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing,
we have 30 nominees that are pending now before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. We have in the pipeline, so to
speak, individuals who are undergoing vetting for many more
positions. My hope is, subject to the Senate calendar, that we
will get the vast majority of these positions filled by the end
of November or beginning of December. But we are behind the
curve. We should be ahead of the curve. And we are doing all we
can to catch up.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you for that. I very much appreciate the
administration's efforts, the State Department's efforts,
Ambassador Haley's efforts at the United Nations as it relates
to North Korea. I know that it is a very challenging situation.
The timeline keeps shrinking of how quickly North Korea can get
to that point where they have the capability to deliver a
nuclear warhead to the United States, and that the State
Department is working hard on getting multilateral diplomacy,
ramping up economic pressure, the information effort within
North Korea so that they understand that it is their own regime
responsible for many of their struggles.
And it is no small feat, what the administration has pulled
off at the United Nations in getting a unanimous vote,
including Russia and China, on a massive sanctions package,
bringing China to the table more than ever before. And because
the military option is absolutely the last possible option that
anyone should want to consider, because there really is no good
military option, I greatly appreciate everything that you are
working on to increase that pressure and try to deal with North
Korea situation.
And while it may not get covered as much in the news, all
those victories with regards to bringing China and Russia on
board, I just want to let you know, on behalf of myself and my
constituents, I am very grateful for your achievement so far,
and I wish you much success, because it is certainly far from
over. I yield back.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of
Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Sullivan.
You said that this is an employee-led effort, a visionary
document with no predetermined outcomes. How can you say that
when the President's budget already recommended a 32-percent
cut to our State Department budget and USAID budget, estimated
to slash $5 billion to $10 billion over the next 5 years?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I distinguish----
Mr. Connolly. I mean, was that a bottom-up recommendation?
Mr. Sullivan. No, that is the President's budget----
Mr. Connolly. You need to speak into the mike.
Mr. Sullivan. That is the President's budget----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Which we have to live with. And
it is also a budget that is passed by Congress, ultimately. So
we deal with the budget that we have, with the amounts that
have been appropriated for this year and going forward. Apart
from that, as I said earlier, whether or not we were going to
have a budget decrease or increase----
Mr. Connolly. I must--I am sorry. I only have 5 minutes. I
take your point. But, candidly, if you are going to have a
bottom-up, you know, re-org for the State Department and USAID
and they already know there is going to be a third cut, you
know, leading to the attrition or the layoff of somewhere
probably north of 2,000 employees, I would say that puts a
little damper on my enthusiasm on the bottom-up effort to
reorganize State Department because I am worried about my own
job security. And I wonder how sincere the effort is if, in
advance, I have already been told what the parameters are.
Mr. Sullivan. The budget parameters are only one aspect of
the redesign----
Mr. Connolly. A pretty big, important one, though, isn't
it?
Mr. Sullivan. It is an important one----
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. As is our----
Mr. Connolly. And it sends a message, doesn't it? I mean,
what kind of----
Mr. Sullivan. The budget----
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Message does that send to
these----
Mr. Sullivan. The budget is----
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. The bottom-up process, to those
employees in terms of the value of their work?
Mr. Sullivan. The message----
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. That the Secretary has sent to
those employees, the 75,000 men and women of the Department of
State, is they are enormously valued by him, by us, and their
service is recognized every day.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I am sure he means it, but to some
employees, especially many I represent in my district, that
sounds like empty rhetoric, frankly, Mr. Sullivan. Because the
fact is we have a President and a budget that would cut a third
of their budget, and that doesn't seem like a real high value
being put on their work. Would you argue that, in the course of
this process, morale is high at the State Department and the
USAID?
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Mr. Connolly. Why not?
Mr. Sullivan. I think there is uncertainty. We are doing
our best to reduce that uncertainty. This testimony by me today
is part of that process. I have had a townhall meeting with
employees. I have had small-group meetings with employees. The
Secretary has initiated a regular outreach, both by email and
in person, with employees. We are doing all we can now to
reassure them that this process is employee-led, they are
valued, and diplomacy is valued by this Government and by this
Secretary.
Mr. Connolly. So let me--okay. Good to hear. I hope they
believe it. And I hope the actions corroborate what you have
just said. Do you believe that USAID should be folded into the
Department of State, or is that still an open question?
Mr. Sullivan. No. No.
Mr. Connolly. No, it is an open question?
Mr. Sullivan. It is not--no, it is not an open question. As
I testified earlier today, there is no intention to merge USAID
into the State Department.
Mr. Connolly. Do you believe that USAID should be, in fact,
enhanced, the role of the USAID Administrator enhanced, as the
lead development office of the United States Government?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe that the role of USAID should be
enhanced, made more effective and more efficient.
Mr. Connolly. Well, good. I am glad to hear that, actually.
I have a bill maybe you want to take a look at that would do
just that.
Mr. Sullivan. I would be happy to.
Mr. Connolly. Because part of the problem I am concerned
about is that, over the years, we have seen sort of a diffusion
of things--all with good purpose--whether it be, you know, HIV/
AIDS, whether it be Africa, whether it be other special
programs to help certain mid- to advanced countries, and what
it has done is disperse the focus of U.S. development
assistance. And it seems to me that that is not a very good
management model. So I would be glad to work with you and hope
you will work with us in trying to take a fresh look at that.
Do you believe that--well, let me ask this question. We
have a famine going on in Africa right now. Do you believe that
USAID and the State Department are currently well-equipped to
respond to that famine? And then my time is up.
Mr. Sullivan. We are not doing as much as we should be to
respond to that famine. We should do and will do more.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And thanks for your refreshing
testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Ann Wagner of Missouri.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And I thank you, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, for making
the time to be with us today.
I appreciate your leadership and am keen to watch the State
Department redesign process unfold. As a former United States
Ambassador who spent 4 years at State, I am well aware that the
State Department is a bloated bureaucracy, and reassessing
everything, from hiring, to diplomatic programming, to cutting
unnecessary departments, is critical to advancing U.S.
diplomacy into the 21st century. I believe that we can balance
the State Department's checkbook while promoting American
leadership and strength, and I trust you and Secretary
Tillerson to make those difficult calls.
One of my longtime concerns is that State Department
deployments are not well-balanced to reflect the importance of
American leadership in the Asia-Pacific, in particular. Despite
the U.S. rebalance to Asia, it appears that we still have very
large Embassies in Western nations, where I served, and,
relative to the conflict that we are facing, insufficient staff
at our Asia postings. Are you considering rebalancing the
number of Foreign Service Officers who are posted in China,
South Korea, India, and the ASEAN nations to account for our
interests in the Asia-Pacific?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely, Congresswoman Wagner. That
is one of the priorities of the redesign, is to rebalance our
footprint. The chairman raised the issue of closing posts. It
is not so much closing posts as rebalancing----
Mrs. Wagner. Rebalancing. Correct.
Mr. Sullivan. Exactly.
Mrs. Wagner. What is our timeframe, sir?
Mr. Sullivan. The redesign we are looking at implementing--
subject to consultations with this committee and others in
Congress over the next several months, the rebalancing will be
a process that is ongoing and should start immediately and
continue through our tenure in office. I think it will be an
ongoing process as challenges rise and we find the need to have
more Foreign Service Officers, Civil Service Officers at
particular posts.
Mrs. Wagner. Let me shift gears here a little bit, Mr.
Secretary. The last administration fought to lift sanctions
against Burma and give the country GSP status, but violence has
raged on. And we are going to be having, thanks to the
leadership of Chairman Yoho, a hearing on that this week. How
is the State Department actively responding to the ethnic
cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, and how will the U.S.
protect this persecuted community?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, our outreach has started at the top
with Secretary Tillerson. And our Ambassador is working very
hard and looking to go up to the region this week. We have
committed already $32 million to address the crisis. More to
follow, and a lot more intensive effort for our department,
because this is, as I testified earlier, it is not a Burma
problem, it is not a problem for Bangladesh or the United
States, it is a global problem. The scale is tragic.
Mrs. Wagner. I agree, and timely also, as we have seen
400,000 refugees in the last week move on to Bangladesh.
Syria Civil Defence rescue workers have reported that they
have been directly targeted by Russian forces, even though they
are in a ceasefire zone and should be protected by medical
neutrality. What is State Department doing to address violence
committed by Russia in Syria?
Mr. Sullivan. We have established a military-to-military
chain of communication. The U.S. Department of Defense, from
the chairman on down, has been in contact with their
equivalents in the Russian Defense Ministry. That coordination
and deconfliction has, for the most part, over the course of
this summer, worked well. But there have been breakdowns,
including recent breakdowns, that we are addressing
immediately, in person, with our military's Russian
counterparts.
Mrs. Wagner. Good. Well, I thank you on that. And I will
yield back my time----
Chairman Royce. Will the gentlelady yield for just a
minute?
Mrs. Wagner. Yes, I will. I just wanted to say that if you
are interested in input from a Member of Congress who served at
the State Department in your rebalancing efforts, I have a lot
of ideas. So I yield back my time.
Mr. Sullivan. Look forward to hearing them.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. I appreciate the Ambassador, Mrs. Wagner,
yielding.
The question she brought up about the Rohingya issue is one
that I raised with you yesterday and raised with the Secretary
of State. And that is, we have to figure out a way to get
across to the military government in Burma that they have to
pull the militia and the military out that are engaged right
now in burning those villages.
There are 400,000 Rohingya people who have fled over the
border, as you know, into Bangladesh. They need to be welcomed
back in. It is not enough to have statements from the
Counselor. She is not Commander-in-Chief. Their system reserves
that for their military in Burma. And this requires not just
international pressure but a very focused amount of pressure on
the Burmese Government to get USAID, get the U.N. in, in terms
of being able to assist those in Rakhine State who have faced
this ethnic cleansing, and also requires the press being on the
ground. So, again, I just reiterate the important role that we
must play in achieving this. We have a hearing coming up, I
think later this week, on this subject.
I also just wanted to raise an issue. Yesterday, Karen Bass
and I were with the Liberian President. Now, that election is a
month away, and so let me just put this question to you. I
understand one of the things you are trying to do is get the
versatility to be able to transfer or get the reforms in place
where you can quickly do a deployment. So if we have more
people in the Embassy in Switzerland than we do in Liberia, and
Liberia has an election next month, can you deploy right now
from Europe--because we have been a decade late in making these
realignments--can you deploy to the ground to make sure that
fair and free elections, which is what is trying to be
engineered here by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the President of
Liberia, takes place?
Mr. Sullivan. We can, but it is a huge challenge for us. I
will give you an example: The recent elections in Kenya--a huge
logistical undertaking by the Department of State. We are going
to have to go through this again when the new elections occur.
We are going to have to do this in Liberia. It is logistical
challenge for us. We need more flexibility and authorities to
do that. And it is part of--when we talk about----
Chairman Royce. Let us know precisely now. We understand
how long the wait is going to be here, and then the OMB is
going to review. Let us know this aspect of it now so that I
and the ranking member and Congresswoman Bass and Mr. Smith can
work on legislation to specifically rectify this situation
immediately. And I appreciate that.
We go to Congresswoman Karen Bass of California.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair, especially for your
leadership on these issues. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask
you three quick questions.
One, I wanted to ask you about the diversity fellowships.
And let me begin by saying that I really appreciated Secretary
Tillerson's statement--and I appreciate the timing that he made
the statement as well--the State Department's commitment to
diversity. So, specifically, I wanted to ask you about the
Rangel Fellows and the Payne Fellows. And I wanted to ask, and
I don't want to assume, but that those fellowships will be
continued?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congresswoman Bass, those fellowships
will be continued and are very important to our efforts in
bringing in new talent to the Department.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. In August, Secretary
Tillerson sent a letter to several Members of Congress
effectively stating that the Acting Assistant Secretary for the
Africa Bureau already fulfills the responsibilities that have
previously been performed by the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan
and South Sudan. And I know one of my colleagues asked you a
question about special envoys earlier, but I wanted to
specifically ask if that is going to be the case, if the
Special Envoy will be eliminated for Sudan and, in particular,
South Sudan, considering the instability in that nation?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Bass. I
believe that is one of the special envoy positions for which we
would need a statutory change.
Ms. Bass. Oh.
Mr. Sullivan. So we will need to come to this--I could be
wrong about that, and I will have to get back to you to
confirm, because I am just relying----
Ms. Bass. So that means, as of now, you can't change it?
Mr. Sullivan. We have to seek--if we were to make changes
to that office----
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. I believe we would require a
change to the statute.
Ms. Bass. Good. We will follow up on that as well. And then
a few moments ago, when my colleague was asking you about the
famine, you said that we could be doing more.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Bass. And I was wondering what your opinions were. We
did authorize in the CR a couple of months ago close to $1
billion. And I went to the region with Mr. Smith, and I was
wondering, one, has all of that money been allocated, and is it
on the ground? We were concerned that some of it would be used
as carryover, and we didn't want to see that happen.
Mr. Sullivan. I will get you the precise figures,
Congresswoman Bass. I would be disappointed in the extreme if
it is not.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Mr. Sullivan. But I will confirm that for you.
Ms. Bass. I would appreciate that. I would like the
figures, and I would like to know where----
Mr. Sullivan. Of course.
Ms. Bass [continuing]. Considering it was spread over four
countries. And then also, a minute ago, you were referencing
the special--or the election, rather, in Kenya.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Bass. I was there as an observer. And you mentioned
that we had to deploy a lot. What did we do? Because I didn't
see that.
Mr. Sullivan. Diplomatic security, among other things, for
election monitors. So there were a number of groups that came
to monitor the elections, and we----
Ms. Bass. Right. I was part of that.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Bass. We provided diplomatic security?
Mr. Sullivan. Yeah, diplomatic----
Ms. Bass. I know you did for me.
Mr. Sullivan. The diplomatic security--in fact, I met with
Diplomatic Security about their needs. The requirements for
diplomatic security made by the Embassy in advance of the
election went well beyond what we would have otherwise
anticipated for that Embassy. So there was a substantial
commitment of security resources to make sure that Americans
would be protected in the event that there had been violence,
as there had been in the two elections prior.
Ms. Bass. I see. So then the diplomatic security you were
referring to was housed at the Embassy?
Mr. Sullivan. And there were also posts around the country
where we had other Americans that we needed to protect.
Ms. Bass. And, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, when you were
referring to support needed in Liberia, were you referring to
diplomatic security, or were you referring--what were you
referring to?
Chairman Royce. Well, because the election on the ground is
going to require all kinds of monitoring, it is a good
opportunity to have the full comportment of security in place
but also engagement on the part of the United States. I imagine
we are going to try to have NDI and IRI----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. On the ground. All of that
requires a tremendous amount of--you and I have both been
involved, I think, in the past. I have been involved in these
elections, where you come in, you spend, you know, a week, and
you try to engage in making certain that everything is in place
for what is going to be a tremendously complicated undertaking.
And to the extent that you have the staff there from the U.S.
Embassy to assist, it is very important.
So what is at risk here is being able to get the ability,
the discretion, on the part of the Secretary of State to move
personnel. And, unfortunately, we are sort of locked in. And
that is something that I think we could all agree would be a
necessary change. You might not like the transfer momentarily,
temporarily from Switzerland to a situation where you had the
war-torn results, where we are trying post-conflict to have
another successful election there, but that should be the
decision of those of us in Congress with oversight
responsibility and our Secretary of State. And that is where I
am trying to drive the policy.
Ms. Bass. All right. Well, thank you very much, and I will
await your responses about the famine.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Francis Rooney of Florida.
Ambassador Rooney is here.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
I am glad to read that you are going to upgrade IT. I think
when I was serving in Rome we had, like, Windows minus 1. Well,
just one quick question. There has been some discussion about
the consular activities maybe going to Homeland Security. And
we have 40 percent of the people in this country illegally
overstayed visas. And 700,000 people overstayed their visas
last year. So the question I have is, can the State Department
adequately deal with the overstay problem in the United States,
or should that part go to Homeland Security?
Mr. Sullivan. I think the overstay problem here in the
United States is something that should be and is being
addressed by the Department of Homeland Security. I think
consular affairs and the role of the consular officer at the
Embassy in screening visa applicants and so forth is an
important function of the Department of State. So there is no
plan to transfer consular affairs to DHS. But there is
definitely an overstay problem.
Mr. Rooney. Okay. Thank you. That is all I was going to ask
about.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Bill Keating of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the
Deputy Secretary. I enjoyed our conversation before.
The second of the proposals that you had was maximizing the
impact of foreign assistance or aligning foreign assistance
with foreign policy goals. And here is a question I have: We
had a question earlier on by one of our members about
respecting culture. And we have also had President Trump signal
maybe some changes in terms of how we approach autocratic
regimes, sort of giving them--just leaving them alone or not
being as involved as we were. Could you comment? Is this a
change in our foreign policy? Because my understanding has
always been that our foreign policy goals reinforce our basic
American values, values like rule of law, freedom of the press,
freedom of religion, human rights, civil rights, gender
equality, respect for minorities in those cultures. Now, is
that a change, frankly, the President's remarks?
As well as maybe the thoughts behind the question of
respecting culture. When we are dealing with these autocratic
regimes that act at odds with basic American values, are we
going to still reinforce those values? And, indeed, is that
going to be something that is factored in when we are aligning
foreign assistance to these countries?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congressman Keating, our American values
are, for us at the State Department and for me as an American,
they are immutable, and we are committed to them. And it is a
difficult line we walk in dealing with foreign governments that
have different institutions and cultures, and we walk a fine
line. But let me give you an example to support my contention
that we don't have a change in policy. With, for example, our
foreign military--FMF program with Egypt, the Secretary has
withheld $195 million. It has been notified, it has been
obligated to be spent, but it is being withheld until the
Egyptians show some progress on issues related to human rights
with, for example, the treatment of NGOs.
It is an issue we confront every day, and we have to walk a
fine line, but we never deviate from our values. We protect
Americans' national security, promote our prosperity, but never
undermine our values.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you for reaffirming that. And in
terms of NGOs and working with them, the State Department when
they are reducing some of the budget items they have, is that
going to affect the collaboration with NGOs, the
nongovernmental organizations, on the ground because of the
hiring freeze or reorganization? Will we still be able to
support a very robust engagement with these NGOs when they
reflect these American values? Do you see these changes in
budget cuts or reorganization affecting that arrangement?
Mr. Sullivan. There wouldn't be any policy to change our
relationship with NGOs. There may be, incident to changes in
our budget, where our relationship with a particular NGO might
change. But we will continue to implement U.N.'s foreign
policy, particularly development assistance, as necessary
through NGOs.
Mr. Keating. And the Women, Peace, and Security Act passed
the Senate and just passed the House, and it is on its way to
the President's desk right now. And that makes sure that women
are meaningful participants at all levels of foreign
policymaking and implementation, and it requires commitment and
resources to do that. With that reaching the President's desk,
is that something, again, that we are going to reaffirm?
Because that policy change is something that was in place in
the last administration. Is that going to carry forward?
Mr. Sullivan. I think the senior adviser to the President,
Ivanka Trump, would strongly reaffirm that that is the policy
of this administration, as the President would. We are
committed to that at the Department of State.
One thing I would note for you, Congressman, is that one
thing that has astounded me is, in talking about diversity at
the State Department, the number of women we have in the
Foreign Service and the Civil Service has actually decreased,
particularly at the senior levels, over the last 8 years or so.
We have to do a better job on promoting women in the State
Department, in our Foreign Service, and we are committed to it.
Mr. Keating. Great. Thank you for making sure that is clear
and for reaffirming that. And thank you for your presence, and
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Representative Ted Yoho of Florida,
chairman of the Asian-Pacific subcommittee.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being
here, Deputy Secretary Sullivan.
I was at a meeting, probably a year ago, and there was a
lot of the current and retired generals in there talking about
a major world tectonic shift in world powers that we haven't
seen since 1942. And the State Department being around since
1789 as the first Cabinet agency, with you in the position you
are in now, you are able to step back, look at the State
Department as a whole, probably that it has never looked at
before, in reform. And I would have to ask, when was the last
time there has been a major transformation or reform of the
State Department?
Mr. Sullivan. There have been efforts at reform that have
not been as successful as they should have been----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Including in the mid-1990s. I
would contrast that with efforts at reform at the Department of
Defense, where I have also served, that have been more
successful in about the same time period. So I think the
Defense Department has done a better job of reorganizing----
Mr. Yoho. So this is an unprecedented moment in time. And I
look forward to working through this to reform it and find out
what works well and what doesn't work well and get rid of those
things that don't, and let's make those things that are working
well more efficient so that we can get more bang for the buck,
especially in these times of economic constraint.
With that being said, what places do you think we need to
redirect--and keep in mind--and this builds on what Gregory
Meeks brought up about the geopolitical knowledge. We have seen
how it failed in Robert Gates' book ``Duty,'' how we didn't
take the geopolitical, the customs of the area, the tribal
culture in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we didn't get the results
we wanted, obviously, and how we can take that knowledge as we
move into different areas as there are these different
conflicts starting to develop and use that more to our
advantage to create policies so that we get more favorable
results in a timely manner. Where do you see we need to focus
more on that we haven't?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I think as a starting point, I would
want to see a more diverse State Department, that we have more
diverse viewpoints contributing to the formulation of policy,
whether it is veterans, women, minorities, language, culture,
expertise. Bringing all of that to bear, all of the strengths
that our country has, bringing those strengths to bear on these
diplomatic challenges, combined with working with our
intelligence agencies and our experts at the State Department
to address all of those issues that you have raised, whether we
are dealing with a conflict in Syria, in South Asia, in
Mindanao in the Philippines.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Sullivan. Very different areas.
Mr. Yoho. It really is. And we are seeing the escalation in
radical groups showing up. You had brought up--and I want to,
just for the record, reiterate this. The amount of people--you
said you are 50-percent staffed, or understaffed, I guess. But
yet the amount of people that have nominated that haven't been
confirmed by the Senate--that is where the holdup is, the way I
understand it, correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I want to be fair to the Senate. A
number of those--we have 30 nominees pending.
Mr. Yoho. That is all right. This is the House.
Mr. Sullivan. They haven't been pending for 6 months. Some
of them have been pending for only a relatively short period of
time. But they have all come out of the pipeline, and they are
now sitting before the Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. And then Burma had come up, and you talked
about the $32 million to start to address the Rohingya
situation in Burma. I would hope, as we move forward, as you
are redirecting this, that--we have known about this escalating
over probably the last 5 years, and we have seen it build up.
So, instead of investing the $32 million now--which we have to,
but I would hope that we would have the foresight, as we see
this arising and starting to become inflamed, that we do a
better job on the front end so that maybe we can deescalate
this. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Sullivan. Yeah, you are absolutely right. This is not a
problem that just arose over the summer----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Or this month.
Mr. Yoho. And that is so true on so many of the conflicts
we have around the world. That is where I hope that, with your
leadership and Secretary Tillerson's, we can look at that and
say, ``These are hotspots. We need to get in here now,'' so we
don't have 400,000 refugees in the last couple months and over
1 million displaced that will be the next hotspot, that we need
to do now. What are your thoughts, where we need to really
focus?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, right now, even though we should have
anticipated this, we are now stuck with the problem we have,
with the hundreds of thousands of refugees. So we have got to
work with allies, partners, others, the U.N. We can't--it is
not a United States problem. Thirty-two million from us is a
drop in the bucket. We have to get other countries and the U.N.
involved as well.
Mr. Yoho. And I would hope--I am going to offer this
through our committee, and the chairman, I think, would
probably be okay with this. Use this committee as a tool to get
the legislation or direction that you need to direct the
policies that we need, okay? And I thank you for your time. And
I yield back.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. And I concur with the gentleman. We go to
Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
I think as you outlined the purposes of the redesign plan
in terms of streamlining and maximizing efficiencies and
avoiding duplication, I think we all agree with that. In fact,
every agency of the Federal Government should be engaged in
that work on an ongoing basis.
But I think one of the things that sort of troubles me a
little bit about this process is that the Secretary of State
sent out a memorandum and an email indicating that this
redesign would generate, and I quote, ``a minimum deliverable
of 10 percent ($5B) in efficiencies relative to current
spending over the next 5 years, with an aspirational general
interest target of up to 20 percent ($10B).'' So my first
question is, where do those figures come from----
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. The $10 billion? What data did
you rely on to come up with them?
And isn't it sort of a perversion of the process that you
have--unless it is just about cost-cutting--that you have as
really the only stated goal cost-cutting in these amounts
before the process has even begun?
Mr. Sullivan. Sure. Well, very good questions, Congressman.
First, on the budget numbers, to give you an example, the
amount of money we spend now for legacy IT systems, just to
keep them running, is staggering. So we spend for outdated
systems, to keep them patched and running, huge amounts of
money. So----
Mr. Cicilline. No, no--I don't want to interrupt, but I do
have a limited time. But I guess my question is, where did
those amounts come from at the beginning of the process? You
are talking about IT as one of the strategies, but----
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Who came up with the $10
billion and $5 billion cuts? They were just pulled out of the
air?
Mr. Sullivan. Those aren't cuts. Those are efficiencies
that we expect from the process that will result--we are not
saying up front we are going to cut $5 billion. What the
Secretary said is, when we implement these new processes,
procedures, and efficiencies, we expect $5 billion in savings.
If we don't get that, we don't get that. We will be
disappointed; we will have not accomplished what we hoped to
achieve. But we are not setting out with a $5 billion cut.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, members of this administration have given
mixed messages when it comes to the role of democracy and human
rights in our foreign policy.
My colleague Brendan Boyle and I sent a letter to Secretary
Tillerson on August 11 raising our concerns about reports that
democracy promotion was possibly going to be taken out of the
State Department's mission statement. We received a reply from
the State Department saying that the Department agrees that
democracy promotion has been and should be a cornerstone of
U.S. foreign policy. However, this response doesn't actually
answer the question of whether democracy promotion will remain
in the State Department's mission statement. So my first
question is, will it remain in the mission statement?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. My second question is, the expression of
support for democracy and human rights matters, but you also
have to view it in the context in which we are currently
operating: The President of the United States who continues to
express admiration for the thug Vladimir Putin; a President who
called to congratulate President Erdogan when a referendum
passed that undermined a basic rule of law; a President who
invited President Duterte from the Philippines to come to the
White House; and Secretary Tillerson, who says Americans should
not impose their values on others.
So, in that context, is somebody in the State Department
speaking to the President about the consequences of that kind
of mixed message, that you have a State Department where it is
recognizing democracy and human rights as an important value
that we are going to promote around the world, and the
President of the country is doing things to undermine that
important message?
I mean, it is important to recognize it is not just
promotion of democracy and human rights for the sake of it. It
is because it is also important to the stability of the world,
to the ability of our American businesses to invest, and all
the, kind of, other consequences that democracy brings.
Mr. Sullivan. For all the reasons you state, Congressman,
it is exceptionally important to us that we be committed to
promoting democracy. It is necessary for our own national
security that other countries are secure and stable and, as you
point out, for example, that our businesses have stable, open
markets with democratic governments in which to do business.
Mr. Cicilline. But how do we manage that objective with the
declarations of the President of the United States which
directly undermine that message?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, the President has to deal with--as I
discussed earlier, we have to deal with governments that are
undemocratic, whether they are----
Mr. Cicilline. Well, dealing with them and praising them
are two different things.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I will defer to the President on how he
deals with particular world leaders, but our commitment to
democracy at the State Department on behalf of the Secretary is
unwavering.
Mr. Cicilline. If I can just get in one last question. As
you know, U.S. foreign assistance programs are really critical
to advancing the stability and growing economies of developing
countries, which are vital to U.S. national security interests,
and it can help us avoid costlier conflicts. As former Defense
Secretary Robert Gates noted, ``Development contributes to
stability. It contributes to better governance. And if you're
able to do those things and you're able to do them in a focused
and sustainable way, then it may be unnecessary for us to send
soldiers.''
Do you share the view of Secretary Gates and many of our
military leaders that robust investments and civilian foreign
assistance and diplomacy budgets are necessary for effective
U.S. leadership in the world? And if you do, how do you square
that with the proposal to cut 32 percent of the State
Department budget by President Trump?
Mr. Sullivan. The answer to your first question is
emphatically ``yes.''
The answer to your second question is it is on us to manage
the State Department in a more efficient and effective way and
spend the money that the President has asked for, but Congress
appropriates and spends the budget we have in an effective and
in an efficient way and promote and implement that diplomacy to
promote our national security and our economy.
Mr. Cicilline. But you don't think you can----
Chairman Royce. Ron--Ron----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Do that with a 32-percent cut
in your budget, do you, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Sullivan. I am sorry?
Mr. Cicilline. You don't think you can do that successfully
with a 32-percent cut in your budget, do you?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe we can. I believe we can.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy. I
yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mr. Ron DeSantis of
Florida.
Mr. DeSantis. Good morning--or afternoon.
In May, when the President signed the waiver under the
Jerusalem Embassy Act forestalling moving our Embassy in Israel
to Jerusalem, he said we will in fact move it, it is just a
matter of time. So will we move it? And when are we going to
move it?
Mr. Sullivan. Two questions. The first, yes, the President
is committed to moving it. The decision on when to move it is a
strategic and tactical decision that the President himself, in
consultation with the Secretary, will have to make. But the
President has been quite clear in his commitment on that.
Mr. DeSantis. So the State Department's view is that is the
President's policy. Obviously, he has to pull the trigger, but
your agency is going to facilitate that move when it happens,
correct?
Mr. Sullivan. We work for the President.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Number two, we are talking about the
Palestinian Authority. They will take money--some of it comes
from the United States--and they will fund families of
terrorists who murdered Jews. They will name stadiums after
terrorists. And we have a bill in the Congress, the Taylor
Force Act, that is trying to address at least some of that.
Does the administration support the Taylor Force Act?
Mr. Sullivan. I am aware of the bill. I don't know whether
we have issued an administration policy on that bill. But I
will say that we at the State Department are certainly opposed
to all of those things that you have just said that the
Palestinian Authority does.
Mr. DeSantis. Great. For the Iran deal, this idea of
technical compliance. I mean, is it true that Iran has exceeded
on numerous occasions the amount of heavy water stocks that
they are permitted under the JCPOA?
Mr. Sullivan. I am venturing into an area that I don't have
sufficient expertise in, but I will offer the following. My
understanding is that there have been instances, such as you
cite, where the Iranians may have gone over the line, but they
came back down.
Mr. DeSantis. Well--and they have buried that. What about
operating more advanced nuclear centrifuges than were allowed
under the JCPOA? That has happened as well.
Mr. Sullivan. Yeah. I am going to have to defer to the
experts on that, but----
Mr. DeSantis. So here is the issue, I think, in terms of
the advice that the State Department has given to the
President. The President does not like this deal. He campaigned
saying it was bad. His U.N. speech was very clear that this was
not a good deal. We see what is happening in North Korea right
now--very difficult decision. Five, 10 years into the future,
if this deal continues as is, it is going to be the same thing,
maybe even more intractable at that point. And so to simply
recertify it as being within our national security interest,
you know, I think would be a mistake.
The Muslim Brotherhood, there is a lot of nefarious
influence that they have. The President has said that, other
members of the administration. But yet, they have not been
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State
Department. Why not? And is there a possibility that State will
designate them as such?
Mr. Sullivan. I understand that that issue has been under
review, not just now but in the past. I don't have a----
Mr. DeSantis. Is it currently still under review?
Mr. Sullivan. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman, but----
Mr. DeSantis. I know it was earlier. We haven't heard as
much about it. And so, if a decision has been made that you
guys don't want to identify them, then we would like to know
that. So if you can get back to me, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Sullivan. I will get back to you on that.
Mr. DeSantis. Cuba. You know, we see these attacks on your
personnel. You acknowledge, I mean, Cuba is a totalitarian
country. There is not much that goes on on that island that the
government doesn't know about.
So isn't it reasonable to say either Cuba was directly
responsible for this or they at least knew and know who is
responsible for it?
Mr. Sullivan. That is certainly a reasonable suspicion. I
don't know that, but it is reasonable suspicion.
I say that on the basis of the fact that my family--my wife
is a Cuban American. Her uncle was a political prisoner for 27
years in----
Mr. DeSantis. Then I can only imagine what she would infer
about the regime.
Mr. Sullivan. She told me last night, ``They know.''
Mr. DeSantis. Okay.
Mr. Sullivan. As a United States Government official, I
don't know that.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, the question is, though, what are we
going to do? Obviously, we just can't let this happen and not
do anything.
Mr. Sullivan. We have two issues. We have, first and
foremost, the health and safety of our employees and their
families who are down there, to make sure that they are
protected and cared for. And then, second, we have our policy
with respect to the Government of Cuba. Our expectation is for
them to comply with the Geneva Convention and, if they are not,
to do something about it.
Mr. DeSantis. I hope you guys do. I mean, I think we need a
response to this. Obviously get the facts and don't do anything
rash, but this is unacceptable.
My final question is, as we look at the North Korea
situation, how does the State Department view Kim Jong-un in
terms of his rationality? Does he appreciate a response if he
were to do some of the things they are talking about? I mean,
he is a young, plump, immature kid. And we don't have as much
information, it seems, on him, because of the nature of regime.
How does the State Department view Kim Jong-un?
Mr. Sullivan. I would defer to the intelligence agencies on
their assessment of the leader of North Korea. We are
approaching this as we are dealing with a government, and
assuming that they are rational, and that the pressure campaign
that the Secretary of State has led, the significant pressure
campaign, will influence them through the pressure that is
being brought to bear by--not just by the United States, but by
China, Russia, and other members of the U.N. who are applying
the U.N. Security Council resolutions. We are going to do all
we can to give diplomacy a chance to resolve this problem.
Chairman Royce. Okay. We have got a meeting with the South
Korean Foreign Minister at 12:30. So we are going to get to
everyone here, but we will keep it to 5 minutes. We go to Dr.
Ami Bera.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Secretary Sullivan. I
appreciate your candor, actually. And, thinking about where we
are right now and thinking about some of the comments of some
of my colleagues, one of the responses in response to Mr.
Connolly from Virginia, again, I think I heard you correctly
that in your own understanding, morale right now within the
Department is not high, is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Bera. So that is obviously a challenge. In the results
of your own survey, which you have referenced a number of
times, those findings also suggested that many of the employees
don't feel the support of the President and the Secretary. Am I
interpreting those findings correctly?
Mr. Sullivan. I am sorry. Could you say that again?
Mr. Bera. So in response to your own survey and published
reports, many of the employees of the State Department
themselves don't feel the support of the President or the
Secretary?
Mr. Sullivan. I don't know that that was specifically
addressed in the survey. I would say that--when I say that
morale is not high, I think there is uncertainly and that
causes--uncertainty leaves people unsettled and we need to
address that.
Mr. Bera. But we could surmise, if you work for a
department, and you are told that we are going to cut your
budget 30 percent, that you don't feel support. That you feel--
and I'm not discounting--there were also--you have referenced
outdated IT, redundancies, duplicative processes. So we are all
for trying to improve efficiency. But, again, widely reported
surveys, the Wall Street Journal, others, suggest that many of
the employees of the Department don't feel that support from
the White House.
Mr. Kinzinger asked a question and, again, I want to make
sure I heard this correctly. Less than 50 percent of the
Assistant Under Secretary positions are currently filled?
Mr. Sullivan. By confirmed, Presidential appointees, yes.
Mr. Bera. Okay. Mr. Rohrabacher asked a question and
suggested that nearly 50 countries currently don't have an
appointed or confirmed Ambassador?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not certain about that statistic, I
would have to get back to you on that. But if they don't have a
confirmed Ambassador, they have a charge who is performing the
duties and functions.
Mr. Bera. But, again, there is an urgency to get those
Ambassadors to----
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. I would be the first to
acknowledge that we need to fill these positions as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Bera. Do we currently have a South Korean Ambassador?
Mr. Sullivan. We do not.
Mr. Bera. Do we have one that we are going to put forth for
nomination?
Mr. Sullivan. We have an individual who is in the vetting
process, but the nomination hasn't been announced yet.
Mr. Bera. Do we have an Ambassador to Jordan?
Mr. Sullivan. I don't know where that person stands in the
process.
Mr. Bera. My understanding is currently we don't have an--
--
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we don't have an Ambassador now, but I
thought the question as----
Mr. Bera. Now, this is one of our country's closest allies
to a country that is stressed by 1\1/2\ to 2 million refugees,
and they are struggling. And we have to do everything we can to
support Jordan. Do would have an Ambassador to Qatar?
Mr. Sullivan. No, we have a charge.
Mr. Bera. Do we have an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Sullivan. For all these reasons you suggest,
Congressman, we need to have those positions filled.
Mr. Bera. Absolutely. Right. There is a lot going on in the
Middle East right now.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Bera. We need those folks on the ground representing
us.
Mr. Sullivan. I do want to say, if I may, though, that the
career people who are in some of these positions will be filled
by career people. But the State Department, through its Foreign
Service Officers, who are standing up and doing their jobs are
filling in either as acting or as charges, so our work is
getting it done. It would it better done if we had those
positions filled.
Mr. Bera. Absolutely. And I don't want to disparage our
State Department employees all around the world, I think they
are doing a phenomenal job under trying circumstances. They are
stepping up. They are representing the values of the United
States, and they are true patriots, but we have got to get
these positions filled. Would you say the hold-up currently is
within the State Department or at the White House?
Mr. Sullivan. Both. And the Senate.
Mr. Bera. What can we do as the members of the Foreign
Affairs Committee to speed up this process? Because I think
many of us travel and visit with folks, you know, we are also
sensing that we need these positions filled. What can we do to
push the urgency of now?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, for this committee, I am not sure what
I would recommend other than your support for our nominees that
we have going forward. We can get the nominees through the
pipeline up to the Foreign Relations Committee, but to the
extent that there could be support for those nominees and to
get them confirmed as quickly as possible, that would be much--
--
Mr. Bera. Let's get these positions filled.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Chairman Royce. The chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee, Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Sullivan,
Secretary, congratulations on your confirmation.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. McCaul. And welcome to your first hearing. I wanted to
touch on cybersecurity. I deal a lot with that on Homeland
Security issues. And I think the State Department is going to
be more and more involved in this area. As I see the espionage
coming out of foreign adversary, nation states, cyber warfare,
and I think right now there are no rules of the road. There are
really no treaties or other things agreed to by nation states,
would NATO apply in the event of a cyber attack. And so there
are a lot of issues that--or questions raised about cyber that
I think the State Department--as cyber becomes a bigger and
bigger issue, the State Department is going to have quite a
role in this arena.
So I want to ask you about what you envision the future at
State to be on that issue. I know there is an Office of
Coordination for Cyber Issues that is being sort of down-played
with another office. I want to thank Chairman Royce and Engel,
ranking member, for introducing the Cyber Diplomacy Act of
2017, which would essentially codify into law an Office of
Cyber Issues headed by an Ambassador reporting directly to the
Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
I'm not sure I want to put you quite on the spot with the
bill itself, but can you give me your thoughts on the direction
moving forward?
Mr. Sullivan. And I have spoken to the Secretary about
this, and we have had a number of conversations about the need
to elevate this issue within the State Department. Cyber,
broadly defined, not only our cyber defense, but our cyber
diplomacy in our interaction with the Department of Defense on
cyber issues. And my expectation is that part of our redesign,
we will elevate to a Senate confirmed level, the role, and we
will have to figure out what the title is and where it figures
in the bureaucracy. But our commitment is to elevate and
provide the appropriate resources for leadership on this
essential issue.
Mr. McCaul. I think this is excellent because this is no
longer just an FBI, Homeland, NSA issue, it is really a State
Department issue. So I am very pleased to hear that.
Secondly, as I look at hot spots, particularly in Africa,
with these fragile states out of destabilization, rises
insurgencies and terrorist safe havens and vacuums, can you
tell me what the State Department will be doing with USAID to
help with foreign assistance programs to help stabilize this
destabilization? It seems to me it would be a very good use of
our money rather than to have to deal with the terrorism
insurgencies after the fact.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I will give you a current example about
our planning for a post-ISIS Syria. As we defeat ISIS in Raqqa,
as we move further east in Syria. The State Department, USAID,
the U.S. Government, our allies and partners need to fill in,
provide the basic services, water, food, hygiene, to get
refugees back into their homes to try to rehabilitate these
communities. This isn't nation building, this is just basic
human necessities to try to address the calamity that has been
visited on these cities and these regions by occupation by
ISIS. And that is a role--that is where the State Department,
USAID and our allies and partners need to step up. The Defense
Department and our allies and partners are defeating ISIS. We
have got to be prepared to step in after that battle is won and
take the ball from there.
Mr. McCaul. That is very good to hear that. I think that is
an excellent approach. I will just make a quick statement
because my time is running out.
The Global Development Lab, I have been a strong supporter
of that in the past, and I ask that you take a look at that in
terms of State Department support.
Mr. Sullivan. I would be happy to. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Royce. Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And, Deputy Secretary, thank you
for your long service to our Nation and in indulging us here
today in this hearing, and for your candor in your answers.
We are here talking about this restructuring. And
restructuring, I think everyone agrees, any time we can find
efficiencies, we should pursue those and pursue those
aggressively. But a restructuring, whether it is in business
or, in this case, in the State Department, should follow a
strategic structure, and that strategy should follow from our
mission and vision. Broadly stated, what would you define is
the mission of the State Department right now?
Mr. Sullivan. The mission of the State Department is to--in
promotion of American democratic values, to implement U.S.
foreign policy through active diplomacy.
Mr. Schneider. And within the Secretary's vision or your
vision of how we go about doing that, in the context of the
world we face in 2017 and looking forward?
Mr. Sullivan. Wow, that is a big question. We have got
several layers of challenges. We have countries, regions, where
there are imminent national security threats to the United
States, whether it is ISIS in Syria, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the
Haqqani network in South Asia, which are obvious priorities to
protect the United States, to protect our national security.
But beyond that, throughout the globe, there are areas
where, as has been raised elsewhere in the hearing, where we
want to be active to make sure that we are on the look-out for
that next Iraq and Syria, or that next Mindanao in the
Philippines, so that we are being proactive. We have people on
the ground who are able to spot issues, spot problems before
they become national security threats to the United States.
That is one of our key jobs at the State Department.
Mr. Schneider. That is a goal promoting U.S. interests--
around the world has to be a goal. I think it was my colleague
from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, pointed out that we didn't have
those feet on the ground, those eyes in the community in
Afghanistan, and paid some dire consequences because of that.
And yet, as we talk about this reorganization, it seems that
the emphasis is on cost-cutting, the emphasis is on the
efficiencies. How does the reorganization specifically fit
within the goals underlying the strategy that you just laid
out?
Mr. Sullivan. So a lot of--when we talk about efficiencies
and effectiveness, part of it is the budget and the cost
savings, but part of it is also empowering our men and women in
the Foreign Service and the Civil Service for redundant
bureaucratic processes or bureaucratic processes that don't
serve our people well.
I have heard complaints since the day I arrived on the
bureaucracy that manages how our women and men and their
families transfer from post to post, how their bills are
processed, how they do it. Making their lives easier, as they
should be, in how they--in their service to our country, is one
of the things we talk--when we talk about effectiveness and
cost savings and eliminating redundancies.
Mr. Schneider. Absolutely. And what you describe is having
a diplomatic corps, development officers around the world who
feel empowered. There was a business book, and clearly from
this organization plan, there are many lessons taken from
business here, but one of my best--one of my favorite examples
of how to have a good workforce is you empower them, you give
them autonomy, you allow them to master their skills, and you
let them operate with a clear purpose. I'm not sure I see this
from here. So that is one of my concerns. And we the touched on
the morale issue.
I think if we can present a narrative to the people at the
State Department and the American people, of what we are trying
to achieve and how this better achieves it, that would be
great. What I am seeing is, this is much more of an emphasis on
cost reduction and slashing than it is on pursuing and
protecting and promoting our interests around the world.
Let me take, in the limited time I have, take you to some
other questions. One of the concerns many of us have are the
President's tweets, specifically as it relates to foreign
affairs, I think specifically as it relates to a recent moment
regarding North Korea. How is the State Department managing
that? What can we do to make sure we don't get ourselves into
an unintended situation with North Korea?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, both Secretary Tillerson and Secretary
Mattis have made it clear that diplomacy is our prime objective
in addressing the North Korean problem and denuclearizing the
North Korean peninsula. The Secretary has made it clear that we
are not looking for regime change in North Korea. We are not
looking to cross the 38th parallel. Diplomacy is our principal
means of addressing this problem.
General McMaster and Secretary Mattis, for that matter,
have also said that this is a regime that has weapons that can
threaten the United States, so we need to be prepared with a
military response, but that is not our first resort. Our first
and principal objective is to use American diplomacy, American
pressure through our allies, our partners, and in countries
like China and Russia, to bring this situation to a rational
conclusion and denuclearize the Korean peninsula, which is
everyone's goal, and the purpose of those U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
Ms. Schneider. Thank you, and I agree with you, diplomacy
has to be the front of that to make sure we have a good
solution to this crisis. And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We thank Mr. Schneider for going on our
delegation to South Korea last month. We go to Mr. Tom Garrett
of Virginia.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask if
diplomacy is as effective a mechanism to effect change where
other options are publicly and clearly not on the table? And by
other options I mean kinetic options?
Mr. Sullivan. With respect to North Korea?
Mr. Garrett. Sure. I guess the suggestion that I would
submit for your comment quickly is that diplomatic efforts have
a greater likelihood of success if there are some teeth to the
possibility that there might be efforts that are more kinetic
in nature?
Mr. Sullivan. Correct. And General McMaster and Secretary
Mattis have made that clear.
Mr. Garrett. Right. And I want to make sure that that is
clear to anyone who is watching at home or maybe perhaps in
Pyongyang or anywhere else in the world, that we want a
peaceful and diplomatic solution, but while the lives of
Americans and our allies are threatened, all options are on the
table, and that needs to be clear. Sorry for the soliloquy.
I have done a little bit of research on you, and I find
that you, like myself, made the mistake of pursuing a legal
education. The only thing that you might do that would be
looked upon in less esteem is being a member of this body--I am
kidding, maybe. But I wonder if you are familiar with the U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1929 from 2010 with regards to
Iranian ballistic missiles and nuclear activity?
Mr. Sullivan. I am.
Mr. Garrett. And so then you are undoubtedly aware that the
wording of that resolution was that Iran shall not undertake--
and I stress shall not because that has meaning to lawyers and
diplomats, et cetera, the testing of ballistics missiles that
might be married to a nuclear problem. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. It is phrased in the imperative, they shall
not.
Mr. Garrett. And so, too, in 2015, the Security Council
Resolution 2231 with the regards to Iran, formed after the
JCPOA, which I have repeatedly referred to, not to be cute, but
based on whole-hearted opinion, the JCPOS, which says, Iran is
called upon not to undertake these activities. Are you familiar
with that wording?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. So, in 2010, the wording was, Iran shall
not. In 2015, the wording was, Iran is called upon not to. And
you said earlier that the U.N. had said that Iran was in
technical compliance with the JCPOA, but it violated the spirit
of the JCPOA. When the wording hammered out is, Iran is called
upon not to, as opposed to, shall not, does that make your job
more difficult as it relates to creating a circumstance where
Iran doesn't enhance its nuclear capability and the ability to
deliver such weapons?
Mr. Sullivan. It certainly undercuts the arguments that
Iran is prescribed from the ballistic missile activity that it
is engaged in.
Mr. Garrett. So I wonder--and this is rhetorical--what sort
of attorneys and diplomats hammered out language that was far
more permissive than the precedent language, and what the
intent was, or if it was complete incompetence? That was
rhetorical.
I want to take a moment to draw attention, Mr. Chairman, if
you will grant me the leave to the gentlemen and ladies in this
room in yellow coats and those not wearing yellow coats, which
are emblazoned with Free Iran, and the perpetual presence of
these individuals in this committee to stand for a free Iranian
nation, where individuals are empowered to make decisions for
themselves without fear of the retribution of a regime through
the IRGC and the Quds Force thereof, that is willing to take
the lives of their very brothers and sisters. And I want to
applaud them and ask them to continue in these efforts that one
day, perhaps, we will see the fruit of your diligence and your
persistence.
So I apologize for the aside, but I think it is important
to recognize that you all are always here, that it matters, and
that it matters to Chairman Royce, to Ranking Member Engel, and
the members of this committee. And I get frustrated, as a
member of this body, that sometimes I feel like things don't
move quickly enough, but we will achieve an outcome that is
just and fair for good people across the planet, and that flies
in the face of the totalitarian and radical objectives of those
who seek to oppress human beings. And so thank you.
Finally, I would submit that I believe that the application
of appropriately spent funds on foreign aid might, if properly
done, save money on things like bullets and bombs and rockets.
I would ask if you would concur that foreign aid has a role in
peace and stability throughout the world?
Mr. Sullivan. I would join Secretary Mattis in agreeing
with that whole-heartedly.
Mr. Garrett. And so I appreciate that because I think some
of the rhetoric and questioning heretofore has indicated that
money is the sole arbiter of our commitment to diplomacy and
peaceful outcomes. And I would ask you, is the intent of the
reorganization simply to perform our job more efficiently and
as better stewards of tax dollars, and not to gut our foreign
aid efforts, which would I think meet with bipartisan
resistance from this committee and others?
Mr. Sullivan. That is exactly the purpose, Congressman, it
is not to gut our foreign aid.
Mr. Garrett. I thank you for your efforts and applaud you
and look forward to working with you.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Lois Frankel of Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Good morning and thank you for being here. I
thank you for your service. And I have great admiration for
those who serve in the State Department, and I think it is a
very important function of our Government.
My colleagues have done a good job in covering a lot of
issues, and I will start by saying, I think reorganization is
part of the bureaucracy. Every bureaucracy reorganizes, that is
part of bureaucracy. It doesn't make sense to me that before
you reorganize or go through this process that there would be a
suggestion of a one-third cut in the budget. But I will put
that aside for now because I want to talk about the women of
the world. And here is what I am very concerned about. I am not
going to--I won't be accusatory, I am going to try to be
diplomatic--that is rare. I am going to try to be diplomatic.
But, listen, I believe that the actions that this
administration has taken is systematically going to add great
suffering to women and families around the globe.
And I want to mention a couple of them. I think, right off
the bat, of course, is the elimination for funding for global
family planning and reproductive health, eliminating funding
for international organizations and programs which support
voluntary contributions to several programs in the U.N. system.
Prohibiting contributions to the UNFPA, which works not only
with women's health, but obviously child marriage. And
expanding the global gag rule, the old one wasn't good enough.
You know, I could go on and on. The proposed $1 billion
decrease in the global health programs, which will
disproportionately harm women and girls. Now, I do have a
question out of this. I know you are waiting for that. There is
an Office of Global Women's Issues, and there is a proposal to
downgrade it--I think it is a downgrade, but you will have to
tell me if it is--which is to downgrade the Office of Global
Women's Issues from the Secretary's office to one that instead
reports to the Under Secretary for Civilian Democracy and Human
Rights.
So can you explain the difference that will be? Is there
plans to name an Ambassador-at-Large to lead the office? Those
are my first two questions. Why don't you answer those first?
Mr. Sullivan. Sure. Yes. In fact, I have interviewed
candidates for that position. It will be filled promptly. And
it is the proposal that was sent up to this committee and to
Congress on moving the office. The office is going to remain as
is with the same structure and budget. It is moving it from the
Office of the Secretary to a bureau under the Under Secretary,
as you mentioned. We believe that that actually strengthens the
office. What has happened with all of the special envoys, there
are almost 70 of them, they all report to the Secretary.
For the Secretary to have 70 individuals--or 70 offices
reporting to him, he doesn't have the time to dedicate to each
and every one of them. All of them are important. With this
office, which is important not just to the Secretary but to the
President, if it's got the support of the State Department
bureaucracy, the bureau which it will be located. And I think
the most important feature of this office is the person we
nominate. The office is going to be as good as the person we
nominate, and that really is the key issue.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I am glad to hear that. I want to
say this has emphatically as I can. There is no reorganization
in the State Department that is a substitute for enabling women
around this world to be in control of their own bodies and to
have reproductive health. So that is the message I want to say.
And I think this administration is on the wrong path, and it
caused a lot of harm, not only to the health of women and their
families, but to the economic security of their countries,
because when women cannot be in control of their own bodies,
they don't work, and they don't produce for the economy. And
with that, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentlelady yield for one question?
Ms. Frankel. I am yielding back.
Chairman Royce. I have a question I have to ask just on
behalf of the committee. We need to hear about the redesign
timeline. When will you be coming back to the committee with
the legislative reform proposals?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we have started that process, Mr.
Chairman, with the proposals on special envoys. My expectation
is that as the redesign goes forward, we would be coming, as
they are ready, with proposals to this committee. My hope and
expectation is that all of the major reforms that we are going
to propose will be done by the end of this calendar year.
Chairman Royce. At the end of the calendar year. Thank you.
And Mr. Tom Garrett will be presiding as chairman, and Mr.
Espaillat as ranking member from here on out. Thank you.
Mr. Garrett [presiding]. Thank you. We now recognize
Representative Norma Torres of California for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. Deputy Secretary, congratulations,
you are now 4 months and 2 days into your position.
Congratulations. Modernization is a good thing for any
government agency bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it.
And I fully support giving the State Department the technology
it need to keep our nation abroad safe. At a time when we are
facing serious threats from North Korea, Russia, and elsewhere,
I firmly believe that we need a State Department that is fully
equipped to keep us safe. Unfortunately, this administration
has followed a path, huge budget cuts, leaving senior positions
unfilled, that has weakened the State Department, and has put
our national security at risk. So I am looking forward, as my
colleagues, to seeing that redesign timeline and how
specifically and knowledgeably these cuts are going to be
implemented.
One of the most significant threats to our national
security is the prevalence of corruption across the globe.
Threats to our homeland, including terrorism and drug
trafficking often arise in countries where corruption thrives.
Corrupt actors also pose a real danger to our political and
economic system when they seek to launder their funds in U.S.
banks, lobby our Government to advance their own interests, and
even seek to interfere in our elections.
This past week I traveled to Guatemala as part of the House
democracy partnership delegation. Guatemala is currently in the
middle of a crisis that is the result of political elites
trying to protect themselves from a U.S. supported anti-
corruption drive. I am very worried if the progress that we
have made in Guatemala is turned back, it could have very
significant impact once again at our border. How will the
reorganization process help State become more effective in
combatting corruption? And what steps are you taking to ensure
that State coordinates more effectively with other agencies,
including the Department of Justice, to ensure that we are
protected from the influence of foreign corruption?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, you are absolutely right,
Congresswoman, corruption is a serious problem. It is a serious
problem--a national security problem for us in Afghanistan.
Corruption in Afghanistan is an enormous problem. The Afghan
Government acknowledges it. The issue you raised in Guatemala,
that is a very serious problem. The ray of hope I see in
Guatemala is that judicial decision that reversed the
President's decision on removing the head of that commission.
There is some hope that the rule of law will triumph there.
Mrs. Torres. Well, I cannot hang my hat, if I wore one, on
hope, sir. So I specifically want to know what steps we are
taking to ensure that the State Department is more effectively
coordinating with other agencies to ensure that we know what is
happening, and that we take steps to prevent these governments
from influencing our Government.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we are working closely with the Justice
Department and with other government agencies in Guatemala, in
particular, to address this problem. We have made our position
clear that the United States does not support the actions that
the President took and there will be consequences.
Mrs. Torres. I am going to be a little bit critical of our
folks down there, because I think that they were not fully
informed or were being very evasive with our members at
disclosing everything that has been happening in the region. We
are in a place where there is no going back. Either we move
forward--there were 200,000 people demonstrating in the streets
of Guatemala when we landed. 200,000 people that could be seen
from the air.
If we don't continue to advance and support the people
there at ensuring that this government in Guatemala, the
current government, understands that we will not stand for
their elitist corruption behavior. We are going to be in
serious trouble, sir, when we are going to see more children
come to the U.S.
And I have spent the last 3 years working to ensure that
that doesn't happen. That they can see a future for themselves.
I understand that you have only been at this position for 4
months, but the first hour on your job, I expect everybody to
know what is going on and be prepared for the job.
Recent years, USAID has made significant progress in
monitoring and evaluating its programming. As you work to more
closely align our development efforts with our foreign policies
goals, how would you ensure that the gains of USAID has made in
this area are not diluted back, and maybe you can write back,
or maybe answer some of the letters that I have written in
response to what is happening in the region.
My time is up, so I am going to yield back.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, ma'am. And I would now recognize
Adriano Espaillat of New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Congressman Garrett. Deputy
Secretary, thank you so much for your patience. A long time in
answering our questions. We are really thankful for your
patience.
I want to find out what is the--given the current storms
that have hit the Caribbean hard, what is the extent that
USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, what are they
doing and what is currently in place in these small nations
that have been--Barbuda, the Dominican Republic, that have been
hard hit by Hurricane Irma and Maria, in some cases.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, the DART teams at USAID are very
important tools for the U.S. Government, both with respect to
the hurricanes that have hit the Caribbean and the earthquakes
in Mexico.
Mr. Espaillat. That is correct.
Mr. Sullivan. USAID is really stretched to the limit at
this point in its capacity in dealing with all of these
horrible natural disasters that have occurred simultaneously.
So it is a big challenge for us, and of course we have got in
our own--in our own Puerto Rico, enormous problems that we have
got to, as a U.S. Government, address. So USAID is working on
this with all of its available resources, but it is a big
challenge.
Mr. Espaillat. In terms of funding, how much money has been
allocated to respond to these natural disasters so far?
Mr. Sullivan. I will have to get you the exact figure. I
will undertake to do that right after this hearing, sir.
Mr. Espaillat. Now, you mentioned Puerto Rico--and
obviously, probably the island that has been hard hit the most
is Puerto Rico, it has been termed Caribbean Katrina. And I
wanted to see--and FEMA has been also, just as you have, asking
for help, their resources have been depleted. Is there any way
that you can team up with FEMA to help Puerto Rico and the U.S.
territories?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. We have actually sent teams down over
the weekend both to assist the U.S. Government effort and to
assist our State Department colleagues who work in Puerto Rico.
So for Puerto Rico though, unlike foreign countries, this is a
U.S.--these are U.S. citizens who are in trouble. This is a
U.S. Government problem, not just a State Department problem.
So we are doing all we can to support our colleagues and FEMA
at DHS, it is coordinated by the White House. But it is an
enormous challenge, Congressman, as you know, as well as
anyone.
Mr. Espaillat. Now, having heard that from you, I know that
we often assist U.S. citizens for being evacuated from
Caribbean countries. But there are right now currently 20,000
Puerto Ricans that are on a waiting list to be evacuated or to
leave the Commonwealth. Is there anything that could be done to
help them? They are U.S. citizens, although they are in a U.S.
territory.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Espaillat. They are waiting to come either to the
United States or other places in the world where they may have
families or they may seek the help that they need right now.
Mr. Sullivan. Or people with medical emergencies, for
example, to get off the island.
Mr. Espaillat. Correct.
Mr. Sullivan. There have been problems, as I understand it,
with the airports. And I am not as familiar because it is U.S.
domestic territory, but we are doing all we can at the State
Department to support our colleagues at DHS as coordinated by
the White House in trying to address these problems.
Mr. Espaillat. Will you be able to help them to evacuate
them from the island to wherever they----
Mr. Sullivan. We will do all we can to assist.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. And, finally, with regard to the
medical needs in Puerto Rico, do you have Spanish speaking
personnel, and is there an assistant from the Pan American
Health Organization to Puerto Rico going there? I mean, the
second phase usually of these disasters is health issues.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Espaillat. Seek other kinds of diseases that may spurt
up because of stagnated water and the flooding. Do you have any
plans for medical assistance with the help of DHS?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Just as we did with the original
hurricane that hit Houston, State Department people went down,
were mobilized as part of the response by DHS and FEMA. My
expectation is that we will do the same in Puerto Rico as soon
as we are able to get people on the island, and do not expose
them to danger, but to do all we can to help.
Mr. Espaillat. My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Garrett. I thank the gentleman from New York for
adhering to the time limits. And I thank the Deputy Secretary
for his time, and the Department for engaging with this
committee in this process. I would ask that upon your return
you provide information focusing on how we are not slashing
foreign aid, but instead, trying to be more efficient and more
effective and better stewards. I think that that is something
you have heard a repeated call for. With that, we stand
adjourned.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]