Transcripts For CSPAN3 Secretary Of State Pompeo Testifies On 2021 Budget Request 20240712

Test test captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 acts in a way consistent with American National security and the security of our nato partners as well, diplomats on the ground are working diligently. I had a pointed question. I know that youre a harvard graduate, west point graduate, you know what my question was. Its not about everything else, its about caatsa. Youve decided not to answer that. The final question, you had the Inspector General of the state department, mr. Linick, ultimately fired, that is that correct . I recommended to the president he be terminated, yes. You recommended it to the president he be terminated why . Because he was conducting investigations that may affect you . Senator, at the time i made the recommendation to the president i was unaware of any of the investigations that he had ongoing at the time with one exception i was aware of an investigation he asked me to provide testimony, i provided that testimony. Other than that i was unaware of any investigation. Its not remotely the reason. Was your undersecretary aware and didnt he speak to you about it . He did not speak to me about it. Well, you said that the i. G. Was not performing in the way he should have because he wasnt following, in essence, what you wanted to. Well, Inspector Generals arent supposed to follow what the Department Head wants to. Theyre supposed to be independent in pursuit of their mission. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator johnson. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thanks for your service. I think we can acknowledge the world is a complex and messy place and facts are stubborn things and the administration has track records. A quick review, you came into office, President Trump came into office with a big mess, a lot of messes, you had to clean up. Libya, a failed state because president obamas actions, syria had gone from a few hundred dead over his administration to basically a genocide, about a half million killed in syria, what i consider as one of the historic blunders in Foreign Policy, the removal of troops from iraq allowed isis to rise from the defeated ashes of al qaeda in iraq. Crimea, Eastern Ukraine invaded and president obama did not provide the lethal defensive weaponry on a unanimous basis that congress authorized him to do. North korea was rampantly testing missiles and their Nuclear Weapons. Iran, through that agreement, changed their behavior for the worst. It emboldened them. Illegal immigration, primarily in the form of family units exploiting laws that werent being enforced was exploding. President trump came into office with Foreign Policy messes. Under this administration we started no new wars. Weve destroyed the physical caliphate of isis. General sue la manny, al baghdadi are off the field. President trump actually provided those lethal defensive weaponry, the javelins, which helped stabilize the situation in iran, and quite honestly weve done a pretty good job at reducing that outofcontrol illegal immigration from the southern border by diplomacy with guatemala as one of the things that occurred there. I think we have to put those track records and compare them and talk honestly about these things. The Ranking Member has been brutal regarding the fire of Inspector General linick. I was copied on a letter that undersecretary of management wrote to mr. Horowitz. Ive read it. Its somewhat complex. I want to give you an opportunity to talk about what happened by the way, im very sensitive to Inspector Generals or trying to push Inspector Generals to investigate leaks out of these departments. There were 126 leaks having to do with National Security in the first 125 days of this administration. That needs to be investigated and if you could describe the leaks you were concerned about and how Inspector General linick didnt handle that the way you thought it should be handled. Sure. So thank you, senator johnson. Let me just say, i value inspectors general as well and had a great relationship which the Inspector General at the cia, when i was there he took care of the critical and team and i know what a good i. G. Can do. The incident youre referring to we had a very sensitive Inspector General report when the final draft was prepared, it leaked. The politico reporter i think said it came from two people close to the investigation. At that point it was basically the i. G. s office and a couple others that knew about it which had a real impact on Senior State Department officials lives. When we confronted the Inspector General he was defensive. We asked him to undertake a process. He ignored that request to have a separate i. G. Come and investigate. Its pretty complicated but suffice it to say he didnt comply with the instructions about how we felt that leak needed to be investigated so that we could have an independent investigator do it and he wasnt candid about that process either. He didnt act with integrity throughout that process in the way Inspector Generals have to be counted on to be hive. I have my own issues with Inspector General linick. Senator grassley and i are falsely accused of peddling in russian disinformation because of acting director of National Intelligence grenells effort to declassify four footnote in the michael her row witz i. G. Report the russian disinformation involved in the campaign was bought and paid for by the dnc, the Clinton Campaign was contained in the steele dossier. That is the truth. That is the russian disinformation. I have heard no outrage on the part of our democratic colleagues about that russian disinformation. But we are still undergoing our investigation and were trying to seek documents out of the state department involved in that steele dossier. Let me ask you a question, in october 2016, former state Department Official Jonathan Weiner arranged for Christopher Steele to provide the antitrump dossier he compiled for the dnc. Mr. Winer gave mr. Steele information collected by supporters which mr. Steele passed on to the fbi. This conduct raises serious concerns under the hatch act, federal records act and other department policies. Although then i. G. Linick acknowledged conducting review of this conduct he has not published any of his findings and admitted the oig did not interview any of the key players. Are you aware of these issues and can you commit to the commit that the department will be responsive to our requests from senator grassley and myself . We need these documents. Senator, well do our best to be responsive. We understand the requests. Were working through it and yes, i am familiar with the information that you set forth there with respect to the behavior that took place in october of 2016 in the state department. Were there any other specific instances that caused you to ask for the removal of Inspector General linick. There were several. At the end its about accomplishing the core function. One of the central functions is to make sure we can represent to you all the Financial Statement for the state department is accurate and full, we have an audit team to do that. Inspector general linick screwed that. It said oversight by the oig was ineffective, placing the departments information as well as the reputation, Human Capital and operations at considerable and unnecessary risk. Thats an enormous failure for one of the most important tasks that the i. G. s office does conduct an audit of the state departments books. Theres a handful of others. He refused to take care of his team in important ways. 10 fewer audits of our posts around the world, one of our most important funks is to travel around conduct audits. We were down about 10 and i must tell you morale inside the i. G. s office of all we have 38 assistant secretary level bureaus the i. G. s office was the worst survey results of any of those 38. He didnt take care of his people either. He did not investigate the improper use of personal emails in the state department which was rampant under the previous information. Thank you, senator johnson. Senator cardin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Yes, sir. Americas strength is in our values. We are the Global Leader for democratic values. We have been so recognized. Weve worked with the International Community as the leader of the free world, with other countries that share our values. We led in that and one of the best examples was the passage of the magnitsky sanctions, the global, which was not just bipartisan, it was pretty much universal here supporting promoting u. S. Values. Im gad to work with the late senator mccain on the passage of that legislation and now canada, europe, australia, are all following our leadership to enforce universally recognized democratic values. So when the United States isolates itself from our traditional allies, it affects our credibility as a Global Leader of the free world in promoting democratic values. When we pulled out of the climate agreement, when we isolated ourselves on iran, when our trade policies have been more bilateral rather than working with other countries to try to advance our causes against nonmarket economies or government controlled economies, all that affects americas credibility. When i look at your budget i see a decline of 35 in democracy funds. To me i dont understand that cut, 35 . If were going to be the leader in democratic values. But then i was pleased to hear you mention as the first order of your remarks today human rights and American Values, but i was disappointed that you used the commission of inalienable rights as an example. In my conversations with human rights advocates not just here but globally they look at United States trying to promote a political agenda on rights rather than working with the International Community, the free world, on democratic principles of human rights. Tell me how this commission has engaged the activists globally that are fighting every ta for human rights when it is very much tied towards a particular mill view rather than a universal view on human rights. Senator, i appreciate the question to talk about the commission and the objective i set out, not just over a year with respect to it. I would urge everyone to take look at it and read it. I think they did phenomenal work. I dont agree with everything thats in there. I dont think any of the ten members that came from religious or political backgrounds agreed with everything in there, but what it set out to do was take on what is an enormous crisis in the 20th century human rights project. Were in a bad place all around the world. It was my view as i watched the state department, our drl, all the folks who work on this, great and amazing people, i watched as they were they didnt have a founding. I wanted to talk about how do we moor american human rights policies in the tradition of the United States. Thats what the commission was asked to do. What were you trying what is the problem youre trying to solve . Yes. Theres been a great deal of debate. Yes. In establishing universal values of human rights which has been the core for democratic states, and now all of a sudden were picking winners and losers but it looks like its done on a political basis. A second subject if i might on arms sales we have a proud tradition of making sure that when we supply arms to other countries, that theyre not used against our human rights values. Weve seen in recent years that arms provided by the United States has ended up in the hands of actors that we do not want to see get those arms. What oversight are you deploying to make sure that arms that we make available to other countries are used for the intended purpose and do not end up in the wrong for the wrong use . Senator, we have an elaborate process to do our best to verify that doesnt happen. Its not that we dont have escapes that there arent fail yours but we have a process to validate and verify. We do verification and inspections and big teams in our multiple departments that have responsibility for doing their best to ensure that american weapon systems are used for their intended purpose and we sell them or provide them to our partners and allies around the world. Let me make this offer, i think this committee can help you in that regards and the injur injur jurisdictional battle presents challenges. State has the principal role for a good reason. Legislation ive authored that would help in that regard. I would hope you would engage us to give you the tools you need to take on at some times the military aspects of the Defense Department that may not be as sensitive to these values. Senator, i appreciate that very much. I think the state department is the proper place to lodge the primary responsibility for that activity so i welcome your efforts there. The gao recently issued a report that i had requested in regards to diversity and the report titled state Department Additional steps are needed to identify potential barriers to diversity and point out from the period of 2002, well before your time, 2018, weve seen a decline of minorities in positions within the state department and pronounced within the higher ranks. What steps are you taking to implement the gao concerns . Ive seen that report and internal work weve done. I would characterize it youre talking about from 2002 over the last decade as roughly flat. Thats not good enough. Thats multiple parties, not pattern, partisan. We have about a third today of our members who are minorities excuse me, about 44 of them are women. Weve developed a program to bring more people in and double the applications this year. Big team that works on diversity and inclusion and were almost finished with a major study begun now i think 13 months ago run by carol perez to look at what the failures a lot of money and efforts on diversity and inclusion to your point relatively good outcomes for akz acquisition of talented people but less so at the higher levels. I hope we can Work Together on that. Last point the point on the western hemisphere, i would urge you to evaluate working with us on the aid to the northern triangle to make sure they have the help from the United States to deal with the Economic Issues which takes away the pressure from the northern triangle. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator cardin. Thank you, secretary, for your service. Over the last several years on the asia subcommittee weve been working together on this committee to shape a new policy toward the indopacific. The region is burgeoning in population, promising commercial growth and its critical for Global Security and economic stability. But north korea continues to seek Nuclear Weapons and to threaten its neighbors. China is an emerging global power intimidating its neighbors, suppressing its citizens and remake the world order in its own image. In burma the military is committing human rights abuses against the minority population. Its more important than ever the United States maintains a presence, reaffirms alliance, encourages cooperation and promotes human rights and the rule of law. The administration and Congress Must be united on implementing the strategy that will benefit American National security interests, promote american businesses and create jobs and opportunities, and project American Values of respect for the human rights and freedom in the indopacific region. This includes counter chinas milt tarization of the south china saes and maligned influences in Southeast Asia and ensuri ensuring denuclearization. The United States has been a Pacific Power and like my act ensures that the u. S. Government will speak with one voice to reassure our allies and to deter our adversaries in the indopacific region. In 2018 the agency subcommittee held a hearing series. We talked about democracy, human rights and rule of law. We found that mass concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims necessitated a response from the u. S. And the International Community. The crackdowns are intensifying and beijing continues to refuse negotiations with the central tibetan administration. The human rights defenders in china are jailed and tortured. I was pleased to see that several chinese officials were sanctioned for abuses against uyghurs and the 11 chinese entities in abuses were added to the commerce entity list. What is the administration doing to address global sanctions and other remedies for these abuses . Senator gardner, thanks. Were im familiar and its great work and i want to thank this committee and frankly the Broader Group of senators for the Bipartisan Legislation with respect to the uyghurs and hong kong and democracy as well. Its very powerful when i can talk to my counterparts and say i have not only the support of congress but almost unanimous support on a policy with respect to securing freedom against the threats that the Chinese Communist party is presenting. For what well continue to do in western china with respect to the horrific Human Rights Violations that are taking place against the ethnic minorities there, i dont want to get in front of the final decisions but you can rest assured there are further actions, including further actions with respect to Human Rights Violations that the department of state and department of treasure are working to complete. Mr. Secretary, yesterday, i dont know if you had a chance to see the hearing in the house of representatives regarding some of the Tech Companies operating in the United States and i will read you some of the comments made when asked whether or not china is stealing information from them. Apple ceo tim cook said he had no personal knowledge about Chinese Technology theft. Jeff bezos says no firsthand experience beyond knockoff products. Google ceo said that they didnt have any experience, later had clarified that remark. Can you talk about the tech and china and what you see and whats happening . Is it true that theres no Chinese Technology theft of u. S. Companies . Well they need to get out more. I mean theres a long history, decades long history, of chinese intellectual property threat, against including technologies, and i hear it. Sometimes the case you hear privately because theres continued threats made against their businesses operating not only in china but threats to businesses that are actually working in other parts of asia an Southeast Asia as well. The Chinese Communist party is completely willing to bully and threaten to get companies to behave do you work with these Tech Companies at state department on intellectual property theft, cyber attack . We do. On the side of protecting cyber, weve actually had some good work where we worked alongside each other where we have reduced risks. I thank them for that. The idea that anyone in the tech space could not know of what the Chinese Communist party is attempting to steal and the Cyber Attacks theyre making, seems incred dlus. In march this year as it related to chinese misinformation and the dissemination of misinformation when it came to the covid19 propaganda china was spreading, i suggested that the National Security council set up a task force at the white house to counter that disinformation. Are the Tech Companies doing enough to combat chinese disinformation . No. Theres always more that they can do and we can do as well. On that front i must say i actually think the world mounted a very effective Counter Campaign against the chinese disinformation. As i have traveled and spoken to my counterparts, i think the world understand this virus emanated from china, wuhan in particular, and the world understand that Chineses Communist Party showed up with ppe that didnt work and covered up what they knew about that when they could have prevented this spread. I think the chinese efforts of disinformation failed in this case. The taiwan situation, i wanted to just ask a question about bilateral trade agreements and opportunities for taiwan. Yesterday i sent a letter to u. S. Trade representative light houser asking for the u. S. To begin engaging in a bilateral trade agreement with taiwan. Can you talk a little bit about the administrations pursuit of such an agreement . Senator, i would prefer to leave that to ambassador lighthouser to talk about that. Were aware theres great interest in this. The state department will have its part in that. Our primary work with respect to taiwan is different from the trade piece of this. Weve been diligent about making sure that we honored the commitments that we have made to the people of taiwan, including approving arms sales that are important so that the taiwanese can engage to protect their democracy. The administrations goal of complete verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remains . It does. Thank you senator gardner. Senator shaheen. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you mr. Secretary for being here today. Were you involved in the decision to withdraw troops from germany . Yes. According to senator esper, 6400 of those troops, so over half of those who will be removed from germany, will be coming back to the United States. Theyre not going to be going to parts of europe to deter russia, parts of asia to deter china. In fact, the only country that is publicly supported the removal of u. S. Troops from germany to date has been russia. So, can you share with us whether the impact of this kooi decision to impact china and russia was taken into account and was there any strategic assessment done to support this decision . Thanks for the question. Of course there was and we were very involved at the strategic level. Obviously the troop level decisions and the like are primarily the department of defense and the president s. You characterized the folks who were coming back to the United States as somehow being off the field. Thats not the case. These units will participate in rotational activity, forward deployed, they wont be stationed or garrisoned but they will be fully available to ensure that we can properly prosecute the challenges we have from the global powers. Mr. Secretary, i assume that all of our troops who are in the United States are available to be forward deployed. Now i recognize that there are certain training that needs to be part of them before they are deployed, but i guess i dont understand and was the effect of diplomatically alienating germany, who is the largest and wealthiest country in the eu who has been a historic strategic ally was that also taken into consideration . This is personal for me. I fought on the border of east germany when i was a young soldier. Im aware of that. And your unit is coming back to the United States. I know. It had been once before to fort poke and then back to germany. Germany is no longer a frontline state. As for strategic effort, generale secretary stoltenberg, nato commander, was in the process of helping us think this through. I saw comments out of russia this morning that are different that viewed the actions we took as threatening because we will have soldiers deployed closer to the russian border. This is a thoughtful process. The military piece run out of the pentagon largely, but state department was fully involved in this strategic pieces of this. I am very confident our mission to deter russia, the nato mission to deter russia we are capable of executing. The precise number 200,000 early, about 100,000 when i was there. Our forces need to be repositioned to appropriately confront todays challenges. Well i would just fraeread fa report in bloomberg that quotes dimitri peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin who says that, and i quote, the fewer american soldiers on the european continent the calmer it is in europe he said, answering a question on planned u. S. Troop reductions in germany. That doesnt sound to me like they think this increases the threat from russia. But i would like to go on to another issue because i want to followup on the question that secretary menendez senator menendez raised about the reports on bounties that russia has put on our troops in afghanistan by the taliban, and there was a report last night that said that state officials have secretly warned russia against bounties on our troops, against killing our troops. What more do you think we should be doing to address that, to prevent the taliban and russia from trying to murder our troops in afghanistan . So there are many things and weve been engaged in them consistently. Theres intelligence collection so that if it happens we can identify it, stop it, make sure that the actual tactical event doesnt take place. Thats the task of not only d. O. D. Intelligence services but our broader intelligence services. Our diplomats do make very clear our expectations and set a set of red lines. Our afghanistan policy, its not just russia that has been underwriting the taliban all these years. Theres a lot of focus on that in this town. Were worried about iranian support to the taliban, gulf money to the taliban. I totally agree with that. We are working diligently against every one of those threats diplomatically and from a security perspective to protect our soldiers. Finally to protect our soldiers further weve been working diplomatically to get peace and reconciliation in afghanistan, we had a cease fire that began, weve had a significant Prisoner Exchange since february 29th we havent had a single attack against an american soldier. This is the finest in american diplomacy and im proud of what my team has done, my state Department Team has done to protect american soldiers. So do you think it would be helpful for President Trump to talk to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he needs to back off in terms of paying the taliban to kill american troops . I always leave to the president what he wants to say to other leaders. I dont think theres any doubt in the mind of every russian leader including Vladimir Putin about the expectations of the United States of america not to kill americans and i can promise you that the 300 russians in syria that took action that are no longer on this planet understand that too. When you were here last time, we talked about the potential for negotiations with the taliban in afghanistan. That was before an agreement was reached. There was an exchange that you and i had about the role of afghan women in any talks with the taliban, and you said that afghan women should fend for themselves. Well, weve seen the outcome of our reticence to support afghan women, the agreement between the u. S. And taliban failed to mention the rights of afghan women and it contains no guarantees for their continued constitutional protection. Is the policy to have afghan women fend for themselves consistent, do you believe, with the legal mandate for the u. S. To support and i, quote, the meaningful inclusion of women in peace talks as directed by the women peace and security act that was signed into law by President Trump . I would have to look and see what i said. Were doing our level best to make sure we protect every afghan male and female and i have seen the at least tentative composition of the Afghan Negotiating Team and i think youll be pleased with it. Im out of time but the fend for themselves is an exact quote from your statement when you were before this committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator shaheen. Mr. Secretary, people always say actions speak louder than words. Do you think the specific actions the United States of america took against general soleimani took action to what would happen to people who targeted soldiers on the battlefield . I do. Senator romney. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, its a pleasure to see you and appreciate you appearing before this committee. Im one of many who applauds your recent addresses with regards to china. In these you have called out their predatory behavior, economic military, geopolitical and you note that we have to confront china with our friends and allies if were going to be successful in diverting them from their course. Its a very welcome assessment, a very clear eyed evaluation of chinas intent and their actions, and a statement of what our mission must be with regards to china. Its also a welcome departure from the president s fawning praise of xi jinping and celebrations of agreements that china hasnt honored. Its also my view, inconsistent with actions that weve take than have offended our allies at a time when we need to be drawing them closer to us and one, of course, is the steel and aluminum tariffs against our friends and allies that i thought were misplaced. I would have rather focused our entire ammunition on china. The other is most recently as senator shaheen has indicated the withdraw of troops from germany and doing so while expressing an intent to punish germany for the fact that they spend approximately 1. 5 of their gdp as opposed to the 2 nato target even though they indicate they are on track to get to the 2 number. I have heard from the highest levels of German Government that this is seen as an insult to germany and i cant imagine at a time when we need to be drawing in our friends and allies so we can collectively confront china we want to insult them. My question is this, what actions will the administration take to bring our allies together in a way thats different than what weve done in the past . I know its always lots of talk going on in any administration can talk about the things happening but what are we going to do thats distinct, different, dramatic to bring the nations that follow the rule of law together so that we can hopefully reach some kind of a common approach or common strategy in how were going to deal with china economically, militarily, geopolitically and then collectively confront them with the intent of dissuading them from pursuing the course that we theyre on. We dont want to go to militarically or economically or moist, but we want to dissuade them but that can only happen when we can do that with others. I would note something you said at the nixon library, quote, maybe its time for a new groupings of likeminded nations a new alliance of democracies. I think thats a good idea but im interested in what actions of a new and dramatic nature are you considering or willing to take in order to accomplish the objective you described . Senator, it is absolutely the case that to confront the Chinese Party its going to take a global effort. Thats true. Thats why i talked about this idea perhaps of a new alliance of democracies, what shape that would take. Theres lots of discussions about, many conversations with friends in the region. Step one, senator, to be honest has been to awaken the world to the threat for an awful long time, not just the United States, but the whole world saw that there was lucrative opportunities in china and that was basically Foreign Policy. Sell as much as you can outsource jobs, build supply chains. I spent my first year and change traveling the world trying to raise awareness of the threat. I think thats new and different. You may say its not enough but it wasnt happening before. I went through the list of things that have begun to turn the tide. I will say, there are still nations who understand this threat but dont feel like they are in power or in a position to withstand the threats that come from the Chinese Communist party, we are working with diplomats trying to build out a set of relationships, part of a formal organization or not, im not sure i know the answer to yet, but to convince them that america is prepared to lead in pushing back against the communist cheese party ainese p. We have 26 lines of effort at the state department, probably an equal amount at the department of defense building out the set of alliances in Southeast Asia with our five partners and the quad to build out a set of commitments that can robustly communicate to the Chinese Communist party enough you have to behave on the global stage. If you want to behave on the global stage you do it under a set of rules that has created prosperity around the world. That may be unsatisfying, but its a work in progress to get everyone fully aligned. I mentioned the eu dialog. Very important. Foreign minister high representative boreal asked if we would have a dialog on china. That took a lot of effort to get 27 eu nations to say yes, this is something weve got to confront and identify as a systemic rival. Theres lots of work that goes into what seems pretty simple, i suppose. I think its the most important work that we will be doing as a country and as an administration as we face this challenge. Just parenthetical comment that comes to mind as youre speaking that relates to a discussion held earlier with regards to Tech Companies that senator johnson raiseped. I know theres great interest sometimes politically to go after google, amazon, facebook, and berate them for their market power and if they violate american antitrust laws thats totally appropriate, but i would note were in a global competition and china has been successful in driving a lot of western companies out of business. Theyve not been successful in driving Companies Like these out of business. These are thriving and succeeding and the last thing we ought to be doing is trying to knock down businesses in the United States succeeding on a global stage. So we need to be careful not to flex our muscle and berate those entities successful and beating china. I mean alibaba would like to replace amazon, tik tok would like to replace instagram. Its just an area of concern and hope youre able to point these out to other members of the administration who care deeply about that. Were you surprised by the fact that 57 countries supported china, 53 countries supported chinas crackdown on hehong kon . Did that shock you as it did me . I was surprised and dismayed. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Thank you senator romney. Senator coons. Thank you for holding this important hearing today and thank you, mr. Secretary. Let me start with two specific issues if i can that i think are important. I want to associate myself with a number of other areas that have been explored but let me touch on these two. Im working with members of this committee and your department to resolve terrorism related claims against sudan which is in the middle of a critical democratic transition to provide justice and compensation for over 700 members and their families and move our relationship forward under the dictatorship of omar al bashir. I want to urge you and the administration to do everything you can to support the Prime Minister and make sure we seize this opportunity to bring real justice to the victims and their American Families and foreign nationals involved and to build a new democratic partner in the region. If you personally engaged on this issue and can you commit to working transparently have with congress as we try to find a solution urgently . Thank you for your work. This is really important. Weve proposed that theres a legal peace resolution in the legislation that will be before congress here in the very near term. We think its the appropriate time to bring justice to those from the 1998 bombings and get a real opportunity for the Prime Minister. Ive talked to him a handful of times and the other leaders there in sudan. This is an opportunity that doesnt come along often. We know the history of sudan and the tragedy there. A chance not only for democracy to begun to be built out, but perhaps regional opportunities that could flow from that and lifting the state sponsored terrorism designation there, if we can take care of the victims of those tragedies, that would be a good thing for american Foreign Policy and i appreciate your assist fitness that regard. A number of members with strong interests and its my hope we can move in way to respect the constituent interests and makes progress. On the global fragility act legislation that was bipartisan that i led with senator graham and President Trump signed into law last summer, it requires a long term whole of Government Strategy to address extremism, instability in fragile states. The first deliverable under this legislation the global fragility strategy is due september 15th. Congress really isnt looking for old wine in new bottles so we urge you to look at the gfa as a tool to rethink our approach these challenges and the way that state and d. O. D. Work together. Are you using the tools to address the consequences of this pandemic and development, governance, security and can you commit that you will look hard at and resolve a technical issue on the creation of the prevention and stabilitization fun which was fund . Senator coons, ill get back to you on the last question that you asked. Im familiar with it but not enough to answer your question. I will get you an answer brief he. Youre right, im tracking the first deliverable. I will say i saw the first pass at this, you characterized it about right. There wasnt much that was original and ive asked the team to take a set of fresh looks, ask for outside views, folks on capitol hill, People Experts around the world to see if we cant use this tool you provided us on a bipartisan basis to deliver on the stated objectives of the law. It was an important piece of legislation and i dont want to miss the chance to develop the strategy to underpin all the actio actions we can take once the strategy is done. Its not something we intend to put on the shelf and admire but creates an operational opportunity underneath that strategy. Thank you. Today is the Funeral Service for a friend and former colleague, congressman john lewis. I was struck by a comment made by your former colleague former secretary of defense general mattis, who wrote following the weeks of protests after the unlawful murder of george floyd, general mattis wrote ive watched this weeks unfolding events angry and appalled. That is what the protesters are rightly demanding. Do you agree with general mattis and im concerned about the general direction of the most senior levels of the state department. This has been raised before. I wont go through the gao report. But of 189 ambassadors representing us abroad, only 3 are africanamerican, 4 hispanic, and i recognize that diversity in the department has been a longterm challenge, but i would be interested in hearing both do you agree with general mattis comments and what are you doing to mentor the next crop of Senior Leaders and diversify the seventh floor Leadership Team . I think the seventh floor Leadership Team, my communications secretary, undersecretary from management and Political Affairs are all part of diversity groups. Im proud of what our team has done but that doesnt begin to accomplish what we need to get done in the state department to get this right. Diversity inclusion is broad based and we need to make sure we have people from all across america with all viewpoints, every idea from all across america. Weve been narrow in how we have recruited from a certain set of institutions and certain universities and we dont get a full spectrum of understandings of america and the world if we are too narrow in how we think about diversity and inclusion. Weve built out a set of programs, your point about not having suf is shent minority representation in our administratoral leve administratoral ambassadorial levels is true. 23 will be coming shortly. More than half were female, first time thats ever happened. Were making progress, but i would agree that rate of change is insufficient. How do you think our own failure to address structural racial inequality impacts our diplomacy overseas and advocate around human rights issues . Its important we get it right at home, no doubt about that. I would tell you that we are a beacon for that around the world. I think you can see it in people who want to come to the United States of america because its the freest nation and a place you have immigrants from around the world. I am a believer people vote with their feet. They see america as the greatest most exceptional nation. We are not without flaws but as our diplomats travel the world they can be proud of our progress. Mr. Secretary, i want to ask a last question about our election. President trump has just tweeted that we should delay it. Im interested in whether you were able to vote by mail when you served abroad in the army, vote by mail in your home state of kansas, whether like many of us who serve in congress in both parties youve availed yourself as do virtually all of our diplomats and Development Professionals and Armed Services members of the opportunity to vote securely by mail . Have you done so and do you have any concerns about the security of you are election this november . Senator coons, i believe i have voted by absentee ballot while i was a soldier and member of congress i did a couple times as well. The state department has some some role in making sure we have Election Security. Its not our primariy focus. I will leave to others who have that focus. Is there any reason to be concerned those votes are fraudulent or ineligible to be counted if cast by mail or in absentee ballot by diplomats . Having a small group of people vote by absentee ballot is different than deciding to conduct a full mail ballots program. Those are two different pieces i will leave to the professionals to identify the level of risk associated with that. I also know and i saw this in my home state of kansas when you change the voting rules close to an election, its a difficult task. Thank you senator coons. Senator rubio. Good morning, mr. Secretary. Thank you for being here. I know Election Security is not your area of expertise, but i think you can comment on what im about to ask. Im sure youre well aware of influence efforts on the part of the chinese and taiwan to shape taiwanese policies, policies of their government. Im certain as most people on this committee i hope are aware how they pressure political figures they view are opposed to their interests and i think weve all witnessed, i think you will confirm this, china has engaged in efforts of disinformation particularly about the coronavirus. Im not asking you to comment specifically about the our country. I think im more than anything else asking does china ever decide they want to do those kinds of things to us would you assess they have the capability to conduct disinformation campaign, to pressure american political figures, potentially even members of congress, the way weve seen them do in taiwan and australia and other places . If they decided they wanted to do that, this is the second largest economy in the world, pretty significant capabilities. If they ever decided they wanted to come after us that way they would have the capability to do it, would they not . Senator, if i might have a second to respond to this, they certainly have the capability. Ive talked about this. The united front the chinese united front is working here in the United States today. Theyre meeting with state legislators and governors and running what one of the things that was taking place out of the consulate at houston were influence operations conducted by their diplomats. This isnt i know we have diplomats from all across the world who come to our offices as members of congress and talk about policy. What im talking about is fundamentally different from that. So they not only have the capability but the intention of conducting influence operations in the United States. I think were a pretty resilient nation and push back against that but the world needs to understand when its happening here in the United States, its happening all across and in their countries too. I think one of the things thats interesting yesterday the four ceos of these Tech Companies appeared i believe were House Committee yesterday if im not mistaken asked a simple question, do you believe, they were asked, do they believe that china steals technology from u. S. Firms. They were asked this question. I think theres pretty strong consensus across the board in both parties and in the media and elsewhere that the answer to that question is yes. The ceo of apple said, they havent experienced it. That was his answer. Ceo of google said neither have we. And the ceo of amazon says, oh, ive read that. Only the ceo of facebook said yes, absolutely. So apple, google, and amazon answered that question by saying either they hadnt experienced it or read that somewhere, but wouldnt comment further. Why would corporations such as this, some of whom by the way take it upon themselves to censor truth versus whats not true and what versus whats not true and what they believe some people should be saying on not others on the basis of they judge to be true. Why would three of the ceos of the four of the largest Tech Companies headquartered in the United States be afraid to answer that question . Senator, i can only speculate. I mean its patently clear to anyone whos watching that the chinese are engaged in intense efforts of intellectual property theft including to technology. Would it be fair in your mind to speculate they try influence people even in the Business Community . Absolutely. Okay. One more question. I think i know the answer to this as well, but would you agree with the belief i think again thats pretty widespread that china has systematically identified industries and te technologies they believe will be key, and theyve undertaken a systematic effort to dominate these industries while destroying our capability. The force transfer of technology, subsidies to their firms, blocking access to their markets. There is no doubt at this point that they have a very carefully crafted plan to dominate Certain Key Industries for the 21st century and not just our capabilities in those industries but everybody els. Thats a fair assessment. And theyve not been covert about this. Theyve spoken openly about how theyre approaching their commercial interests. The only thing they dont speak is rather than build these industries inside the tools they use are fundamentally different than the way western democracies do. We invest capital in the market. They run state sponsored enterprises, they steal intellectual property and they endeavor to undermine other companies and threaten to bully other countries around the world into buying their products. My last question is unrelated to china directly, but as youre well aware there have been press reports, speculations, commentators and the like that have made much about recent, you know, allegations and in one case an interview the president gave they took from it the president is willing to engage in negotiations with maduro and the maduro regime in venezuela. Could you envision as long as this administration is in office we would ever negotiate with the maduro regime for them to remain in power . Absolutely not. Our policy is not to negotiate for them for anything other than his departure from ruling that country. Thank you. Thank you. Next after the next question were going to take a ten minute recess, but right now, senator, the floor is yours. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and secretary pompeo. I appreciate your time and testimony today. I want to start with an important subject, democracy promotion. Earlier this year you called for free and Fair Elections in venezuela and nicaragua. If free and Fair Elections are held and current occupants then lose the state department then strongly encourages those leaders to step down from power. And i think that sort of thing is an Important Pillar of our Foreign Policy on a bipartisan basis, correct . Yes, sir. But i am hearing growing concern in this country about whether we are going to set a good example in your november election. In a recent fox news interview Chris Wallace asked President Trump whether he would give, a quote, direct answer that you will accept the election, unquote, in november. In response President Trump said i have to see. No, im not just going to say yes. No, im not going to say no. I didnt say last time either. During a 2016 debate he stated i will tell you at the time, i will keep you in suspense. And hes also called voting by mail as you know one of the major ways americans vote especially in a pandemic. He said over and over again an election is rigged if its vote by mail. So secretary pompeo, if President Trump refuses to accept the upcoming november election due to his lack of faith in voting by mail will you respect the results of the certified election as the state department typically does throughout the world . Senator, im not going to speculate. You had about 15 ifs in there. You should know i have said repeatedly to this committee i will follow the rule of law, follow the constitution. Ive endeavored to do that in everything ive done and ill continue to do that every day. The president has made this a legitimate question in americans minds through his own statements. Former pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security secretary tom ridge, a republican as you know says and i quote here, i think its very sad and very disappointing that with almost five months to go the president seems to want to try to delegitimize the november 3rd election. It just seems to me this may be an indication hes more worried about the outcome than hes worried about the fraud, end quote. This is a serious domestic and Foreign Policy question. We need to set a good example about the peaceful transition of power or else we undermine our entire Foreign Policy. George kennen wrote in his long telegram that in order to counter the soviet union, quote, much depends on the health and vigor of our own society. I think that is just as true today about russia, china, venezuela, iran and other authoritarian regimes that we have challenges with. And i can imagine few scenarios that would endanger our society more than a president ial candidate who refuses to accept the outcome of an election. Secretary pompeo, this year the committee to protect journalists issue said a report on the harm this president has caused to journalists First Amendment rights. In their summary the committee states and i quote, the Trump Administration has stepped up the prosecutions of news sources, interfered in the business of media owners, harassed journalists crossing u. S. Borders and empowered foreign leaders to restrict their own media. But trumps most effective ploy has been to destroy the credibility of the press. Dangerously undermining truth and consensus even as the covid19 pandemic threatens to kill tens of thousands of americans. Thats the end of their quote. Are you concerned that instead of promoting press Freedom Abroad america is now providing moral support to authoritarian efforts to crack down on critical Media Outlets from russia to china to venezuela and beyond . No, im not remotely concerned about that. And over 150,000 americans have now died from covid19 and we mourn their loss. Like most tragedies this is one that could have been prevented like the president s response to Hurricane Maria and other disasters. The federal governments response has been nowhere near up to the challenge. Instead this administration is now trying to change the narrative by attacking its own citizens at home and weakening the United States abroad. Across the world our allies in new zealand, japan, australia, south korea and many in europe have taken the science and the threat of covid19 seriously. The result is that they are beginning to return to normal. Even countries with very different systems than ours such as communist vietnam and cuba are beginning to reemerge from this deadly disease. Secretary pompeo, the best practices of these countries is simple. Isolate, track and trace, quarantine and wear a mask. We dont even know if the National Security advisor has met with you or other members of the National Security counsel lately. The u. S. Has not done those things sufficiently and here we are. Secretary pompeo, you and the white house seem to want to blame china for our inability to respond to this pandemic as well as to our allies. Is it true their handling of the virus and its true their handling of the virus at the early onset was problematic, but we are responsible for our own response. Do you think the president should look to europe, south korea, japan and other more successful nations to learn about how to better contain this pandemic . An awful lot to unpack there, senator. First, i would tell you that some of the countries you identified youre looking at the data theyre putting out, its worthless. So when youre comparing it to data from other countries when not in a Senate Hearing put that data forardwise positive of those conditions in other con. Its silly and the facts are not tracking, theyre not counting cases. So we need to make sure we have a shared factual database. How, we should look everywhere get best practices how to respond to this. And i know dr. Birx who works for me theyve done that and well continue to make sure we protect the American People in an appropriate way. Thank you, senator. With that the committee is going to be at ease subject to the call of the chair for the chair of the committee calling a recess of about ten minutes. The Senate Foreign relations kmilty holding an oversight hearing with the secretary of state mike pompeo. The hearing we understand is expected to last until about 11 30 this morning and our plan here on cspan 3 is once the hearing wraps up we will take you live to atlanta for the Funeral Service of the late congressman john lewis. Thats set to get under way about 11 00. Well join that in progress likely at about 11 30 if they stick to their schedule. Also this morning as this break is under way we had a camera outside the hearing room. Were keeping an eye on that micropho microphone stake out position there just in case members come to speak with reporters. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a hearing this morning from secretary of state mike pompeo on the departments 2021 budget request. They should resume here in about five minutes or so, a hearing expected to run until 11 30 eastern. On the spending side in 2021 the house actually today is taking up a measure that covers six of the spending bills. The house gathering just now for legislative work expected to last throughout the day into the evening with votes later this evening on amendments to that sixbill package. The house is expected to finish work on that spending measure some time tomorrow. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee waiting for the hearing to resume. They are hearing from secretary of state mike pompeo on the 2021 budget request for the state department. The senate itself has just gaveled in. Continuing work on executive nominations. Follow that over on cspan 2. The house also in session today working on a spending package which includes six of the annual spending measures. The house is under way, and thats over on cspan. Here on cspan 3, again, the hearing resuming shortly and we understand from the chair of the committee that they will wrap up by 11 30 eastern this morning. Our plan here on cspan 3 is then to take you live to atlanta and join in progress the Funeral Service for the late congressman john lewis. Among the speakers today three former president s george w. Bush, bill clinton and barack obama. Look for that live here on cspan 3 coming up later this morning, early this afternoon and also streaming on cspan. Org. Committee will come to order. Next up senator vuroso. I appreciated your comments, Opening Statements specifically related to nord stream 2 and i wanted to ask a bit more about that because we know Energy Security is essential to National Security. Nord stream 2 threatens european Energy Security, increases russian monopoly over the region. To me this pipeline is a russian trap. Strongly support your recent announcement aimed at stopping this dangerous pipeline. Congress is quickly working to provide the administration with additional tools to prevent nord stream 2 from ever being completed. Both the senate and house passed their own versions of the Defense Authorization act. Could you talk about the administrations commitment to opposing the nord stream 2 pipeline and applying sanctions against those companies aiding in the completion of this russian trap . The ironny is this administration is accused of not being tough on russia. This pipeline created enormous leverage for russia not only against germany and broader europe but ukraine as well. And so we set about in good sport on capitol hill and we got legislation that was appropriate to and now have delayed this project significantly. We need further tools. Were prepared to use those tools provided to us and weve also used our diplomatic capabilities to make clear to countries we want europe to have a secure, stable, diverse set of energy opportunities. And our department of energy has worked along side of us to do that, and our enr department are working to make sure europe has real secure, stable, safe Energy Sources that cannot be turned off in the event that russia decides they want to do so. We think nord stream 2 is dangerous in that effect. Well do everything we can to make sure that pipeline doesnt threaten europe. Id like to move now to the iranian arms embargo. The International Arms embargo is stet to expire this year. Were having to persuade the International Committee of the importance of having iran the leading state national of terror from purchasing weapons. Itll arm terrorists and proxy groups across the region. Weve seen more weapons will likely flow. Despite the terrible consequences many experts believe that any extension of the iranian arms embargo would be vetoed by russia, by china. What would they want it to expire, and is the Chinese Communist party really willing to betray Global Security in order to be irans arms dealer . I hope not but i suspect so. Were working with our e3 counter parts as well. We will submit the u. N. Security Council Resolution in the near future where we will offer to extend this. This was one of the central failings of the jcpoa was to have only a fiveyear ban on the iranian capacity to purchase Weapons Systems to build out air Defense Systems to protect a Nuclear Program should they continue down that path but also to sell weapons around the world and become again as they were before one of the Worlds Largest arms dealers. Were going to do everything we can. We believe we have the capacity to do this at the United Nations. We hope the u. N. Counsel will conclude extending this arms embargo is the right thing. In the event they dont were going to use every tool we have on our fingerprints. We think it decreases stability in the middle east. We think that would threaten israel. Onto religious freedom Sam Brownback for religious freedom recently wrote humanity is why religious freedom will always win out against government and nonstate actors seeking to suppress and control it. We have authoritarian regimes continuing to restrict religious freedoms and the rights of individuals. Can you discuss efforts of the administration youve taken to promote International Religious freed freedoms . We have raised the priority of International Religious freedom inside the state department. I think thats happened under President Trump and Vice President pence. Thats happened all across the administration. Weve used our diplomatic tools to encourage it, we work with religious leaders in many countries to provide them with security. The work were doing in Northern Iraq today is an example, but theres still lots of challenges. Whats happening in nigeria to christians today, muslims in western china. Your point people of all faiths is under attack in too many places. The state department has an Important Role to increase the capacity for people to exercise their rights of religious freedom, and we werent able to do it this year because of the virus but we brought people from all across the world. The Worlds Largest human rights gatherings in all of history were held at the state department twice around the central idea people need to be able to exercise this important right just to have their own faith. And earlier today, going to move onto china, i think you called Chinese Communist party the central threat of our times. We had your deputy here a couple of weeks ago, had a chance to talk about the issues related to china. To me theyre working to expand their military capabilities to advance their global ambitions. They want to dominate globally. In the last few months weve seen them increase military aggression whether its near taiwan, the south china sea, japan. What theyve been doing in hong kong, what theyve been doing at home. Can you talk about the recent confrontations by china and what that taught us about chinas military ambitions as well as their capabilities . Because when we go to secure briefings we ask lots about their capabilities. Not just what they might do but what they can do. I think these actions and when you say recent the last 24, 36 months i think the actions are entirely consistent with what they have been signaling to the world for decades. You might even argue since 1989. But certainly since general secretary xi came to power. Its a desire to expand their power, their reach. They talk about this. They talk about bringing socialism with chinese characteristics to the world and whether you identify some but claimed theyve now made for real estate the incursion that took place in india. These are indicative of chinese intentions and theyre probing the world to see if were going to stand up to their threats and their bullying, and im more confident than i was even a year ago that the world is prepared to do that. Theres a lot more work to do and we need to be serious about it. Senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning, mr. Secretary. Let me say at the outset im very grateful for your proposal to double the budget of the Engagement Center. This is center to counteract propaganda outside the United States established through legislation written by myself and senator portman. And im glad youve recognized the importance and good work of that center. Though we have spent a lot of time in this hearing talking about many of our concern regarding our adversaries desire to use propaganda not outside of the United States but in fact inside of the United States to influence the 2020 election. And so i want to begin by asking you a question about that. Russia in particular has sought to weave together stories about u. S. Persons and ukrainian persons over the course of the past year in order to both try to sow chaos and dissent in the United States but also to try to screw with ukrainian politics as well. Its kind of a double whammy for the russians. And you can see those efforts ramping up as we head into the 2020 election. Probably the most active foreign individual pushing narratives about the United States in ukraine is a ukrainian legislator by the name of andre derkoch who magically came into secret possession of audio recordings. Hes maintained a Government Relations council here and i would expect hes going to be a pretty active presence in u. S. Politics from here to the election. So just a simple question on behalf of my constituents and many of my colleagues as well. Should we view him as a credible source of information . Ill answer your question but let me just say real quick because i think thats important. Thank you for the compliment. The other thing im worried about with asking for a doubling of the money is to make sure we can deploy it in a way weve been pretty successful as its grown but when you expand something 100 year on year i have a team making sure we dont misuse those resources. I will say this, were taking seriously the threats that russia will try to engage in disinformation campaigns, that there may be oligarchs who try to engage in this, foreign actors not just russian. We were pretty successful with this in the 2018 election. I say we, not the state department alone. But all the United States government. Im confident we will be in this one as well. Why wouldnt you be willing to opine on a specific individual if you had information to suggest that the source was not credible . It seems if that is in fact the function of the u. S. Government. If it has information to that would suggest maligned influence to let congress and the American People know. Yeah. So when its appropriate i will. When theres still work ongoing and theres still unsettled intelligence around these things im going to try to be just a little bit more careful, senator. Let be turn to china for a moment. China is clearly seeking to use the United States failure to control covid as a means to leapfrog us in our traditional leadership position when it comes to Global Health. Senator romney referred to this earlier. I think weve given two big gifts to the chinese since the beginning of this outbreak. The first was the president s just remarkable fawning over chinas earlier response to the virus 47 different times. He commended china for their response and their transparency. But i think china also is pretty happy with our withdrawal from the w. H. O. And i understand that you believe as i understand it that our withdrawal from w. H. O. Is a lever to try to seek internal change, and i would disagree. But it also seems to allow for china to step in and occupy that vacuum. So as you step back and try to articulate this sort of broad strategy to counteract chinas growing influence on the world how does withdrawal from the w. H. O. Counteract the growing influence of china . Thats a good question. These are close calls sometimes. We left the human rights council, the same argument was made better to fight from within than try to reform from outside. I think there are reasonable arguments that could be made on either side. The decision the president made, and i conquer with this decision went through multiple rounds of reforms at the World Health Organization and our team in geneva fought for years. And there was no capacity to make that a science based organization and not a political one. And there comes a point where youre spending half a billion dollars on u. S. Taxpayer money year on year that goes to benefit the political actors in the Health Organization and we made the decision we were more likely to achieve the Global Health Security Issues that the United States cares about deeply if we did not participate any further in the World Health Organization. Im not at all convinced it will be china that benefits from that. Im convinced the world will benefit. Weve seen it other places. Whether the United States leads, and we will absolutely lead good things can happen in the International Health realm. I would dispute your characterization of the w. H. O. It is an international body. Theres no way there wont be some level of politics affecting the decision of a body made up of adversaries will go through, but it is a science based organization and one indispensable to our continuation of our efforts to prevent the next disease. And i shudder our ability to stop the next covid if were not backing w. H. O. Again back to senator romney emphasis line of questions about the capabilities we should be developing with our allies to counteract china. I dont think its sustainable for this administration or any other administration to try to go around the world bullying and shaming our friends and sort of have friends into not doing business with china. Well, youve got to have an answer for the things that china is offering. And on the Technology Front we dont have a great answer for 5g. And we may not have a great answer for whatever china is going to put out there on ai or battery technology. Isnt this essential, not just to same other countries into forsaking technology but actually to work with our allies to develop our own alternatives . 1,000 . Absolutely, senator murphy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator portman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate your having the opportunity to let us talk to the secretary of state today. This has been very helpful, very informative. I would say with regard to china and developing technologies with our allies we have a lot to do right here in the United States to get our own house in order. Were pretty good at pointing fingers at china and its usually appropriate but we also arent doing much here to protect ourselves. And i want to thank you because you have provided some great help from your career professionals with regard to our efforts to push back against china taking our technology. And in particular china has these programs. You mentioned youve been doing it for a while. Youve been doing it for two decades where they come over here and find Promising Research and researchers and systematically target them and take that research up in china. And it is economic, health care, its everything. And over the last couple of years weve worked hard on this with an investigation, a report and now legislation called the securing American Innovation act. But with regard to the state department piece of this your career people have come and testified before us, said they need more tools in order to stop folks who they know are coming here to deal with export control technology, coming over here to actually steal our stuff and take it back to china. But they are unable to stop those people from coming in despite affiliations with the peoples army, affiliations with the Chinese Communist party and in many cases a history of taking research. So we worked with one of your pearson fellows. You told me about the pearson fellowship and i took advantage of it. For the last year mark has been working with us, done a terrific job and weve put together legislation thats wellbalanced that says hey, we we want research. We dont want to have this u. S. Taxpayer funded research being stolen. So i thank you for that. I would ask you do you agree these new visa authorities are helpful to protect Taxpayer Research and intellectual property from our adversaries in china . They absolutely are. And we need an expanded tool set to make sure we get this right. Were making progress. Our teams are working alongside fbi are working hard on this set of issues. We all need to be candid when we go back to our home states. We need to be candid whats taking place in some of these higher institutions of learning all across america and be thoughtful how we respond to this influence and theft operation thats being conducted. Thats absolutely right. There are five different provisions in the legislation. One relates directly to our universities and research institutions. To their credit a number of them worked with us and we work with them. Senator and i have taken this but there are universities and associations pushing back hard. And frankly, i think theyre naive and arent willing to faceup to the threat thats out there. And its a National Security threat. Im glad over the last couple of weeks that we have had opportunity to confirm some good nominees from the department of state and im concerned about the backlog where you really had a tough time building up the department. And theres more to go. One i want to ask you about, though, in particular is ukraine. Back in 2014 we went over to ukraine right over the revolution and in those six years intervening a lot has happened in ukraine. A lot of bad has happened, too. And we see right now once again were at a tipping point. The ceasefire is not holding. I understand theres been about a hundred violations of it recently. Ukraine made a decision six years ago to turn to us in the west and yet we still have a situation where theyre not getting the support they need. Two questions for you. How important is it to get Lieutenant General dayton confirmed as the ambassador in ukraine, number one. I think hes highly qualified. Im really pleased with that nomination. And number two, do you agree with what we just did in the national Defense Authorization bill which was to have a record amount of lethal aid going to ukraine. Weve gone from roughly 50 million to 120 million in that legislation. Do you support that legislation . I do. The administration does support the increase in lethal aid. Its important to get a confirmed ambassador in that position. If i might just add this, too, were still thinking it was a real loss when ambassador volcker departed. The work he was doing was important to the state departments overall effort in the region and were hoping to get that position so we have a full on effort there to help the ukrainian people maintain their democracy. Well have a chance to talk to lieutenant dayton at least remotely when he comes, hes done a good job thereof the military and knows the ukrainian issues inside and out, and hes the right person at the right time and im pleased he was willing to step up and do it. It was the right choice. With regard to germany from my point of view, but i think moving troops out of germany is a good idea if they stay in europe. And in particular poland has been asking for years now, you know, to allow u. S. Troops to come to poland, even offered us a base. I was there several years ago where they agreed to, you know, pay for the base. I dont know if thats still an offer. But the baltics, Eastern Europe in particular it seems to me thats the appropriate place to move those troops. And i agree germany is not the right place for the number of troops we have. Rather it should be closer to where the action is in frankly the countries at most risk right now. So i dont know if you have any comment on that but i would hope theyd be able to stay in europe. Senator, ill we dont yet have our defense Cooperation Agreement quite done, so the state department is working diligently with our dod colleagues to get that done so in the event the department of state makes that decision and the president concludes its the right thing to do we can put those forces in there in a way that protects them as well. Thanks to senator murphy for raising those issues. He asked the same kind of questions i would have asked. Trying to reorder and take the dod money thats now going to go directly to you and used more effectively. Theres a timely example on this. The United States under your leadership has provided 2. 3 billion congressionally appropriated money to help other countries combat covid19. I think weve gotten very little credit for it, and i think we can do more in terms of talking about what were doing thaetts helpful. Russia and china are spreading disinformation. Global Engagement Center is the Perfect Place to push back on that and i hope were doing that. No, sir, we are working on that. Its important. I actually think with respect to covid, i think the world gets it. I think they know who the bad actor was. The efforts not only the United States has made but other countries too have been to push back against this misinformation has been powerful and effective. Thank you. Senator kaine. Thank you, mr. Chair, and mr. Secretary welcome. The context in which we have this hearing is very, very complicated. And its almost its just almost too much to talk about. In the last 24 hours we passed 150,000 deaths in this country to coronavirus in my view and i think in the view of many a sizable percentage of those were preventable had the United States handled the pandemic better. This morning the department of commerce indicated that the economy because of covid shrunk at the greatest rate ervin recorded history in the Second Quarter of the year. And then this morning the president is suggesting that the president ial election should be delayed. And i sort of want to start there. This is not something either you or i were prepared to talk about today because i think it happened in the middle of the hearing. The president sent out a tweet that said, quote, delay the election until people can properly and securely go, question mark. Not saying it will happen but raising a question. Can a president delay the november president ial election, mr. Secretary . Senator, im not going enter a legal judgment on that on the fly this morning. Mr. Secretary, you are an honors graduate of west point. You are a graduate of the Harvard Law School. You were on the harvard law review. I was a Harvard Law School and i went to a lot of harvard red sox games. Very kind of you. You were one of the most highly trained and accomplished lawyers who are part of this administration. Can a president delay a president ial election . Senator, in the end the department of justice and others will make that legal determination. We all should want i know you do too, senator kaine, want an election everyone is confident in. Are you indifferent to the date of the election . It should happen lawfully. It should happen lawfully. So for the record because you may not want to comment ton it buts i do think its important, a president cannot delay an election. The day of the election was established by congress. It was established in 1845. Theres no ability for a president to delay an election, and i dont think its that hard or a question or one that should lead to any equivocation by someone life in fourth of succession to be president of the United States. Let me ask another question. Was Marie Yovanovitch a talented Public Servant . Im not going to comment on that personnel matter. Was she a valuable part of the state Department Family . Again, the president made the very clear decision that he preferred she not be our ambassador. Its fully within his right. Everyone one of us that takes on these jobs knows at any minute we could be gone. Im not asking that. This is not a question about the president s power. Im asking about your opinion of her as a Public Servant. I didnt interact with ambassador yovanovitch. You did not . No, not significantly. So you dont consider that you have im not going to talk about this. There will be a place and a time for me to talk about this and i am looking forward to that. Its not the case i talk about Personnel Matters in public. You were very willing to tell us about what you didnt like about the Inspector General i was. Very different situation. Very, very different situation. There have been accusations about misconduct and malfeasance and assertions i fired someone because theyre investigating me. It demands a response. Theres going to be a public report. This is different. And ive been steadfast in this. So youve asked me about other ambassadors before, too. I havent talked about them who are great and doing wonderful things. Ive trying to determine whether youve been steadfast or not since i have so Many State Department employees who live in the commonwealth of virginia who are very concerned about whether or not a secretary of state might have the back of a career professional who is a valued person. You were on a phone call with President Trump and president zelenskiy of ukraine when the president said about ambassador yovanovitch shes going to go through some things. You know what the president meant when he said that . I dont. But you were on that call. Yes, i was. When he said that about marie did you follow up with the president and ask what he meant . Im confident every step we took was appropriate. Im not going to talk about internal discussions at the state department. You wouldnt want me too neither would your constituents, senator kaine. You know that. Thats not appropriate. Can you just listen to my question. You were on the phone call. You heard the president say that about Marie Yovanovitch, and my question to you is did you ask what the president meant about that . Yes or no . The answer is im going to talk about either. I goes youre asking did i ask the president what he meant. Yeah. You told me you dont know what he meant, but i just asked if you asked i appreciate your question, and you can appreciate why i dont talk about conversations with the president. Here was some testimony we heard in this room the other day from your i believe its executive secretary lisa kennen who was here about her nomination to be ambassador of peru. She said in her work with you, the work that her office does they get correspondence for you. Some they open and sort of categorize and classify before they deliver it to you, and then she said theres a second category of correspondence they dont open if its personal to you, if its for your eyes only, if its something from another cabinet member. They would not open that, but they would just deliver it to you. But she said theres a third category of documents that was documents delivered by Rudy Giuliani to you, which didnt go through the process of being opened. And it also didnt go through the process of coming to her and having it delivered to you. It came directly to you. What was your response to Rudy Giulianis effort to sack ambassador yovanovitch . Did you say, hey, its not your job, its my job . The president of the United States has the absolute right to stipulated for the record. I appreciate this. Dont go into great magical effects with respect to how a package came. Thats all silliness. You should know for the record that package was delivered to capitol hill by the former Inspector General who ran franticly to capitol hill and made big news my time is up. Im just going to say you might think this is silly. You might think these questions are silly, but when somebody works for their entire career for the state department and they are slandered with lies and sacked for no good reason that sends a message that could not be clearer to other state Department Officials, and it may be just a big joke. I mean, hey, look at you smiling and laughing and calling it silly. I dont think its silly to Marie Yovanovitch or the people who work for you. I dont think its silly to understand that every ambassador, every political appointee knows when the president of the United States finds they lack confidence in you the president of the United States you should note i didnt slander anyone. This was handled appropriately and properly, senator. History demonstrates that wars are easier to start than they are to end. I think thats fair. We have agreement. We have agreement. I think the afghan war is a great example of that. You know, after nearly 20 years of war many are questioning the mission. In fact, many have been questioning what the mission is in afghanistan for a decade or more. Including President Trump. I traveled with him to the sad duty at dover receiving two of our soldiers home, and i know it affects him personally. I know hes been very public and consistent and i think very sincere in wanting to end the war in afghanistan. Army Lieutenant General dan mcneal put it this way when asked about the mission. He said i tried to get someone to define for me what winning meant even before i went over and nobody could. Nobody could give me a good definition of what it meant. Some people are thinking in terms of jeffersonian democracy, but thats just not going to happen in afghanistan. This statement was 13 years ago. When asked about our mission general douglas said we were devoid of a fundamental understanding of afghanistan. We didnt know what we were doing. What are we trying to do there . We didnt have the foggiest notion of what we were doing. This is from five years ago. How long is it going to take . You know, what is our Current Mission . Why are we in afghanistan . Do we have a cogent military reason to be in afghanistan right now . Two missions, one is to reduce the risk to our men and women fighting there, and second to ensure theres not a terror attack that emanates from that space. We set about conducting a peace and reconciliation process. Weve now reduced forces there by about half since their most recent peak. Were on our way to reduce even further. Hopeful well get the afghans to begin their negotiations because President Trump has made clear his expectations. Weve entered an agreement well go to zero, well get our forces out of there. I think its may of next year. Would you agree that afghanistan is just one of probably hundreds of places that we potentially have terror threats or radical islamist threats and may not even be no longer the primary hundreds if youll give me dozens and dozens, yes, sir, absolutely. And do thank you that maybe saying we talked about in europe that we had hundreds of thousands of troops in germany because there was a soviet union and they had i dont know 2 million, 3 Million People in their army and we had this sort of cold war standoff. But circumstances have changed and maybe even your opinion has changed whether or not we need so many troops in germany and i applaud that. I think the same is in afghanistan, its certainly changed over 20 years. The war on terror is now and always certainly has been a global one, but i think it may be a 20th century idea we have to occupy territory so much that we have to have acres and large bases particularly in countries that are in prolonged civil war. But the other question is really is our is our goal in these locations around the world our National Security . Or is our goal sometimes muddied by the idea basically, you know, were in afghanistan for the equal rights amendment or for womens rights, or were there for, you know, democracy or making a country out of afghanistan. Are we there for building roads . You know, we build a 45 million natural gas gas station in afghanistan. They have no cars that run on natural gas, so we bought them cars that ran on flacheral gas. They have no money so we gave them a credit card. The gas station cost 45 million and is no longer functioning. So is our goal National Security or is nation building part of what we should be doing as a country . I think President Trump has made it unambiguous our mission is that there is National Security plain and simple. Id add only this. There are times in the world where we are better off if there are democratic nations the state department is designed to build resilience to do this kind of thing. But i do think our Foreign Policy sometimes has been overly ambitious what it is we can accomplish through the use of military force to get other nations i think tencouraging demerac and being supportive doesnt mean we have to institute our image in some other country because it doesnt frankly work. When we look at trying to end the afghan war i think in some ways we are stuck in the sense that people have decided we can only leave with some sort of treaty with the taliban, some sort of agreement with the taliban. Im sort of the opinion that in some ways it might make it worse because i think that the taliban arent necessarily trustworthy, and if we leave under the agreement they have to meet certain parameters which is what were looking towards and then they broke those parameters were right back in with the threat to stay in. I think its almost the threat has to be and maybe the threat should have been this 20 or 30 years ago. The threat should be if you harbor terrorists that are organizing International Terrorism there will be military repercussions, but those dont have to be landing 50,000 troops. It might be landing 50,000 bombs. Absolutely right. I think we need to thing about our were still stuck in this idea weve occupied this acreage and we have to do something with it, you know, and we cant leave until its perfect. Its never going to be perfect there. And the only thing i would exhort you is that dont base it completely on we have to have a perfect deal to leave. I think theres always the threat we can come back. And people say theres ten alqaeda left in afghanistan. They might be plotting right now, and, you know, the president has admitted, you said theyre a shadow of themselves. The president has admitted there have been reports now we are talking dozens not hundreds, were talking dozens not thousands. Same with the Islamic State. General luke came and spoke to our committee and he said he couldnt name any group there he thought had the capability to attack the United States. He said theres no evidence the Islamic State presents a threat to afghanistan. So i do think we have to be mindful of that but we do have to work towards finishing it and i dont want to finish this without mentioning it that it takes friends of the president. People have to try to fulfill his policy and i think for a long time for several years john bolton was trying to thwart that and he was an enemy of the president s policy. So i hope the people remaining will try to fulfill the president s policypermission. You point, senator paul, about the global speble al spectrum om and the fact there are dozens of al qaeda left in afghanistan, thats the central thing the American People need to understand. Where we were 15 or 20 years ago is not where we are today. And our resources, whether its in germany or asia or africa or in afghanistan or syria or anyplace else, we need to make sure its updated for the actual threats presented to the United States of america. Thats what President Trump is driving us to do. Thank you. Senator merkley. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Secretary. Im going to start with the events that have occurred in hong kong and what i really see as a violation of the agreement made with britain between china and britain. And now that these events, this new chinese law that really exerts enormous violations of civil rights in hong kong has occurred, should we extend asylum and visa opportunities to those who are being persecuted by the chinese in hong kong . Senator, were reviewing that. Were considering it. The british have made a good decision, the australians have made a decision. Theyre going to accept up to hundreds of thousands of people. Were looking at how best we might accomplish this, and consistent with making sure t t that we always want to encourage people to try to work from within to the extent they can, as well, so its important that we get this right. And the president is actively considering how we ought to treat those who seek asylum coming to us from hong kong or to grant visa program that surrounds that. It sounds like youre open to the opportunity and are reviewing it, and i do feel like there are folks who will be highly targeted and they are concerned about being locked up for the rest of their lives. Young folks, 18, 20 years old, in china, chinese prisons. Do the events in hong kong change our perspectives on taiwan or make us think about ways to be more supportive of taiwan . We obviously do a lot of arms sales and so forth, but should we be more active in supporting taiwanese participation in International Institutions . Senator, they are different situations. There was an agreement with hong kong, taiwan, they are different. But i think its fair to say that the Chinese Communist party views them as the same. If you ask the Chinese Communist party, they would both view them as part of their territory. And so that requires diligence, and your question about International Organizations not only the team i have assigned to that but the regional bureaus as well, are working on multiple fronts. We took a run at this in the world health assembly, now a couple months back, and we have taken this on at the United Nations to make sure taiwan is represented in every place its appropriate they by represented as part of formal and informal international gatherings. Theres a long standing convention that the president of the United States should not meet with the president of taiwan because it would offend china. Do you agree with that longstanding convention . Senator, if i may defer that. Im happy to have a conversation with you about it. Heres what ill say with respect to taiwan. There are a series of understandings that have been held multiple administrations, multiple parties. We understand taiwan, the relations act and the obligations the United States government has with respect to that. Were working to recognize the changes that general secretary xi has made with respect to this, and we want to make sure we get this right. Saudi arabia has been abetting the flight of saudi nationals who have done horrific crimes in america. And so really two questions. Do you agree that this effort to sweep people out of our country who have done or are charged with doing horrific things before they can be tried is unacceptable . And do you agree if it continues to occur, the u. S. Should use significant diplomatic consequences for saudi arabia . Yes to both questions. Thank you. So there is the report that well, we have done several things in regard to the situation in shin jong and the chinese incarceration basically, slave camps of a million uighurs. And we have done some recent things. I applaud those recent steps to impose sanctions, to block exports that were done with forced labor in china. But i also feel like theres another narrative that has undermined kind of the effectiveness of this. And as we have heard about the president s comments in november 2017 trip to china where he indicated that president xi should go ahead with building concentration camps and then again in june 2019, a year and a half later, the president our president , President Trumps conversation with president xi saying again, basically, go ahead building the camps, its the right thing to do. I think its absolutely the wrong thing to do. And we have done some, as i noted, some steps that suggest that, but should we be more robust at every level in condemning the chinese enslavement of the uighurs . Senator, im actually i think the answer is yes. Im proud of what we have done, the way the United States has responded. Not only the responses we have taken directly but the work we have done around the world to convince the whole world of whats taking place there. I have been disappointed to see muslim countries not respond when theyre often significant muslim populations being impacted there in western china. Were urging them to take this on. In a serious way. And then i guess the last thing i would say is, i think with the objective of changing the behaviors that are taking place there, this is an important economic region. And so the things that were endeavoring to do, its important we get the human rights piece of this right, its important to get the individual sanctions piece right, but its really important and im really happy with the work were doing to convince businesses, not just american businesses because its an international place, a business that they should really look hard at their supply chains, not their just direct employees but their supply chains and whats taking place there. If we get that right, we have the opportunity to change whats taking place there. A quick point and a final question, because im running out of time. The u. N. Factfinding mission on the rohingya, the holocaust museum, the state Department Investigating atrocities have found strong evidence of genocide by burma. I really hope the United States will declare it to be genocide because it is. And it would strengthen our representation and advocacy for human rights in the world, but i want to turn to honduras in my final question. The state Department Human rights report talks about extra judicialal ki akillings, tortur violence against indigenous hondurans, violence against lgbt communities, and in addition, we had in october, a u. S. Federal court find that the president was indicated as a coconspirator in widespread Drug Trafficking and money laundering, and theres huge reports of systemic corruption and human rights abuses. In a context of all of this, is it time to reevaluate our relationship, which has been quite cozy, with the president of honduras . Senator, were constantly demanding that the leadership in honduras take these set of facts onboard. Were well aware of whats taking place, and like in too many countries around the world, we have not had the effect that we desire. Were working on it. I yield. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Good to have you here. In response to Media Coverage over the last few days and the washington post, nbc news, the daily beast, and my hometown newspaper, the indianapolis star, i would like to bring up the situation of peter kasich, and three other americans who lost their lives at the hands of isis. Mr. Chairman, i would like to request the following columns from the washington post, indy star, nbc news be added to the record. Theyll be included. Mr. Secretary, you may recall meeting with the kasich family last year, but as brief refresher, in october 2013, indiana native and former army ranger peter kasich was on a mission in mercy. He was delivering humanitarian aid to suffering people in syria. He was taken hostage by isis and sadly, after months of torture and incredible hardship at the hands of these isis terrorists, and in spite of his embrace of islam, he was brutally beheaded. Sadly, three other americans, james foley, steven sotloff, and Kayla Mueller also lost their lives at the hands of isis murderers. I know each of their stories are familiar to other members of this committee. Since that time, some of the murderers known as the beatles have been killed in u. S. Led drone strikes, but others remain at large, and i know you agree they must be brought to justice. I believe that the United States government should work tirelessly independently, and with the cooperation of allies, to hunt down the killers of these americans and bring them to justice here in the United States of america. Mr. Secretary, do you agree with me . I do. And you should know that the president of the United States agrees as well. What efforts can the state department and our missions overseas take to bring this about . Its a broad effort. I think were making progress. The department of defense, their intelligence assets, the broader set of u. S. Intelligence assets all aimed at making sure we understand and then working with important partners too who who want justice but have a different set of rules about how to think about that, so working to convince them that proceeding to bring them to justice is the right approach. I am very hopeful that we will in the coming weeks have a good outcome here. You alluded to different perspectives that exist out there. What precise obstacles stand in the way, and what can you do to overcome them . So, an example. And ill stay away from this, but in example, when we make a decision from time to time to bring someone back from someplace else, either direct extradition or through another legal process, the country will say because we have a Death Penalty or because of a certain set of rules we have here, they wont either permit that to happen or share the information we might need to complete a successful prosecution, and one of our roles is to make sure that those countries will permit us to do that. I do want to interject, and its important to note here, though youre just using an example, its my understanding that the four families are no longer pursuing the Death Penalty for these terrorists. Their hope is that this shift will alleviate any challenges whatsoever that we have encountered with the British Government and their Justice System in allowing the prosecution to move forward in the United States. I appreciate that, senator. And thats important. Ill leave it at that. I am committed to working with you, and i suspect there are other members of this committee who will join me in that effort to insure that justice is delivered and delivered here in the United States. Will you commit to working with me and this committee to insure that we pursue this matter accordingly . Of course, yes, sir. Thank you. I would like to move to the United Nations and how over the past several years, mr. Secretary, the u. S. Has lost ground in its engagement with a number of u. N. Bodies and programs. Most recently, the administration formally submitted paperwork to withdraw from the World Health Organization. At the same time, the role and influence of other countries, particularly the communist government in china, has been growing at the u. N. Its expanded its role in a range of u. N. Agencies, with chinese nationals currently holding the top job in four of the organizations 15 specialized agencies. The International Civil aviation organization, the food and agricultural organization, the International Telecom union and u. N. Industrial development organization. For comparison, a French National leads two specialized agencies, the imf and unesco. The uk leads one, the ilo, and the u. S. Leads just one, the world bank. Although u. S. National does lead the u. N. Childrens fund and the world food program, which are large and prominent u. N. Organizations. So building on senator murphys earlier line of questioning, why dont we look beyond the World Health Organization, and i ask you, mr. Secretary, what implications does this, this losing of ground within u. N. Bodies and agencies have on advancing u. S. National security interests and other Foreign Policy priorities that we might have in the u. N. System. Its very significant, and it is at least a 15yearlong slide that has taken place and growth of the Chinese Communist partys influence on these organizations. We have done a couple things to turn this around. We had real success at the World International property organization. The chinese thought they had the fast track to that. It wasnt an american candidate, but a candidate we believe has an understanding of intellectual property in the same way freedom loving democracies do, and we crushed them. And it was an amazing diplomatic effort. We built coalitions with the indians, the brits, the australians, and build it across the world. We were asking for about 20 million in this budget to take the team we built there and make it a Permanent Team focused on these major elections for these 15 institutions and then theres another set that are slightly different but still very important. And then we have a second set of operations which is its not just the leaders that matter at the u. N. Organizations. They have big bureaucracies underneath them, and we are sadly inadequately represented at every level inside of these international bodies, and it matters. It matters theres someone there. It matters that theyre american, but it matters if theyre not american, that they come from a nation that understands the rule of law and how the world ought to be conducted in a way that we do. So i have actually worked closely with about seven other countries to build out an effort that is very focused on exactly this. Sometimes, frankly, we had opportunities but we just didnt put we were offered a place and didnt put anybody forward. Thats not the right way to go. We need to make sure we get it right. Im confident that in a year, two years, well be in a better place than we are today and i hope well have the resources to do that. Its a resource issue, but a lot of the focus issue. I think i have cleaned that up materially. Senator perdue. I want to correct the record on a couple things here that have been said this morning. First of all, i believe that secretary tillersons two predecessors oversaw probably one of the most major withdrawals in Foreign Policy from the global stage that america has ever seen. It created a power vacuum that allowed iran, north korea, russia, china, to step into that vacuum and actually during that period of time, created a physical caliphate that allowed the rise of isis in syria. Since january of 2017, mr. Secretary, i believe the world was more dangerous than any time in my lifetime. We faced five threats across five domains. Iran, north korea, russia, china, and terrorism across air, land, and sea, and we woke up and realized that our wouldbe adversaries had been developing capabilities in cyber and space that the priorstration hadnt oned us about. We woke up, and i think we have all now figured out in the United States, theres a consensus on both sides, for the last 50 years with all good intentions, we got china wrong. I think theres a general awakening to that. You have had three other cabinet members along with yourself make tremendous policy speeches here just in the last month, and i would like to quote some of that, that you wrote about. But you had secretary obrien, our National Security adviser obrien talk about ideology, fbi director wray talk about espionage. Attorney general barr talk about economics. And you talked about the warning here. Im going to quote. This is your quote. We had a very clear purpose in those four speeches. A real mission. It was to explain the different facets of americas relationship with china, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist partys design for hegemony. Its interesting you chose that word because the chinese love to quote confucius, and they quote one of his famous sayings as just as and they do this recently. Just as there cant be two suns in the sky, there cant be two emperors on the world. Its not benign deckitatoictato hegemony. You said further, our goal is to make sure the threats to americans that China Addresses are clear in our strategy for securing those freedoms are established. You went on to say in closing this out, securing, and i think this is the most important sentence in the speech, in my opinion. Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist party is the mission of our time, and america is perfectly positioned to lead it because of our founding principles give us that opportunity. Tremendous statement. That will go down in history. The fact that only 6 of chinas population belong to the communist party, mr. Secretary, i would argue our fight is not with the chinese people. Its with the communist party. Theres a statement from the administration here dated may 26th, 2020. It says we do not seek to contain chinas development, nor do we wish to disengage from the chinese people. Can you articulate what threats the Chinese Party represents to our democracy and our freedoms here, and what are we doing to the chinese strategy as we try to manage during your administration here as we try to manage this turn in our relationship with china, to confront them, to stand up to them, but also to protect our freedoms here at home . Senator, there are multiple fronts to this. And these arent created by the department of state. Theyre created by what the Chinese Communist party says, to your point. President trump recognized that. He talked about it in his campaign, as far back as 2015. We have to get this imbalance corrected. And when we do, there will be costs associated with that. We have got the largest increase in our military buildup that President Trump has led. Were very focused on an arms control, Strategic Dialogue were having today, was in vienna on the 27th and 28th of this month. A few days back. We need china to be a part of that too. Theyre now a significant nuclear power. We have seen whats happened on the economic front, the belt and road initiative. Theyre competing. Senator rubio talked about their technology spheres. It will take not only the United States government but the United States citizens to understand this challenge and then we have to build out the global alliance. The last thing ill say here is i have seen the United States is asking nations to pig sides between china and the United States. Its fundamentally false. Were asking every sovereign country to pick between freedom and tyranny. And thats the choice every leader has to make, and thats when i go around the world and thats what i talk to them about, and they all know. They all know that the United States is the country they want to be alongside. They all know that freedom and our value system and the rule of law and Property Rights and the protection of these rights is essential to their country and why i think the tide is turning around the world and people are seeing the Chinese Communist party as what it is, a threat to the freedom of their people. I characterize it a little different. Theres state control and self determination. The world is turning into a binary equation. Russia, china, venezuela, cuba. If you add up all the gdps of those state controlled country, its probably less than 23 billion. If you add up the gdp of the rest, its over 70 billion. I want to relate that back to the last question that goes to your comments earlier about the number one thing, and i think you agreed with it 100 with senator murphy, about allies being the answer here with china. And this is a huge effort thats going to take years to develop, but right now, we have an opportunity with the quad, the quadrilateral security dialogue. United states, india, japan, and india is strongly considering inviting australia to that exercise. Would you comment on how important this particular group is in relation to the bigger conversation you just mentioned, the fact that the gdp of the quad is more than twice that of china today is not to be lost on the conversation. Will you make one last comment on that . Its more populous than china as well. These are nations that all have elected leaders. All have democracies, all understand in different cultures and different settings, all have a central understanding about how commercial enterprise should be conducted and how military should engage and how security is achieved. The good news is i think this grouping is stronger than its ever been. Maybe we were gifted by general secretary xi. He took actions that caused each of the leaders of those countries to recognize the value of this group. I meet with them with some frequency, either by phone or in person, and were working on economic efforts together. Were working on covid responses together. Theres lots of places where were finding common touch points where we can develop real strength in unity that can in fact provide the bulwark we can build out from all across the world. Thank you. Senator graham. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I appreciate the good job you do for our country, and leaning in to hard issues forcefully, and we need more of that, not less. When it comes to u. N. Envoy for libya, do you support that we need a new one . Yes. Good. And im going to try to get a letter from everybody in the committee to the u. N. Secretarygeneral saying please appoint a special envoy, and mr. Secretary, anything we can do to up our game would be great. I know you work with the berlin folks. And we need the ranks. I know you agree with that, not just a new one, but the right person as well. The seizers act, i thank you for using it quickly and holding assads son accountable is a great first step in what i think will be a long journey to punish his regime. Is more coming . Yes, senator. Thank you. Great job. I talked to a general yesterday with sdf. Apparently, they signed a deal with an American Oil Company to modernize the oil fields in northeastern syria. Are you supportive of that . We are. That would be a great way to help everybody in northeastern syria. The deal took longer than we hoped and were now in implementation. You have been terrific in that regard. When it comes to afghanistan, is my understanding correct that any withdrawal from afghanistan would be conditioned space . That correct. And the innerafghanistan dialogue will start fairly soon . Yes. Hopefully. Yes. I dont mean to make light of that. Were very hopeful in the next week. I have heard i may have said that once before, but we see the conditions that have now completed enough that we think theres a real chance we can. In case the taliban are following the hearing, i doubt they are, im a pretty hawkish guy on afghanistan. You have been great on Foreign Policy from my point of view. I would like to end the war too and get everyone to have a say in the democratic pros, and the taliban are part of the afghan culture. Theyre a minority, by no means a dominant voice in afghanistan, but if we could help pakistan and afghanistan achieve a working relationship they have never had before on terrorism, we could get an inner Afghan Dialogue started, im willing to invest in an afghanistan that has a place for the taliban, but not to the exclusion of women or religious minorities, so count me in for your efforts, and i very much appreciate what theyre doing. When it comes to china, is it fair to say that in 2020, Chinese Communist party is running concentration camps to that house religious minorities . Let me be careful about the language. I have described it this way, senator. Something like it . Its the worst human rights violation we have seen this century. Okay, fair enough. Thats a good description. You closed the houston conflict down because they were using the diplomatic platform to cheat, steal, and lie when it comes to intellectual property. Intellectual property and other items as well, yes. The special status of hong kong has been virtually destroyed. Is that fair to say . Yes. I appreciate you speaking about it and taking action. When it comes to the rule of law, the Chinese Communist party sees its more of a nuisance than anything else. I think the litter of promises broken across multiple forums demonstrates that they take those agreements for having very little value. If you got a property, you generally dont build a military base on the contested property. You go to some kind of court and work it out. We just passed in the Judiciary Committee legislation modeled on chasta, allowing americans who have been victims of the coronavirus to sue the Chinese Communist party. Have you do you support that . I havent had a chance to take a look at it. Well get it to you. Please get back to us if you could. Bottom line, syria is never going to end until we get the entire fabric of Syrian Society in a room, working together. The northeastern footprint we have where were working with the sdf, who helped us destroy the isis caliphate, they did most of the heavy fighting. That gives us leverage. I appreciate you being an advocate for the sdf. I appreciate that youve tried to work with a new leadership in iraq. Its important that isis never come back. Its important that we have a say about that part of the world. Finally, as to iran, where do you see the Iranian Regime in terms of their potency . Are the sanctions working . And what would you advise this committee to do Going Forward with iran . So senator, the sanctions have clearly had an impact. It has diminished their capacity to underwrite hezbollah, shia militias in iraq. But clearly hasnt achieved the ultimate objective, which is to change the behavior of the Iranian Regime, so our view is this were happy to see them change, but until such time as they do, we see the best tools to starve the regime of the capacity to inflict terror around the world, so your support in doing that is very important, and i talked a little earlier, i think you hadnt arrived just yet, about the u. N. Arms embargo were working so diligently to make sure doesnt expire in a couple months. Thank you, i think you have done a very good job from my point of view for our country leaning into difficult issues forcefully and with reason. Developmental aid, the house 3 trillion bill didnt have money for vaccines going to the developing world. The republican bill has about 4 billion. I would urge you to work with us to try to find a way, if we can get a vaccine developed, to get it to the developing world sort of like what we did with pepfar, because it will do no good to eradicate here if we dont eradicate it everywhere. Would you work with us in that regard . Yes, we are working on something that is modeled on pepfar, that can be very successful. Well be happy to work with you on it. Thank you very much, senator. Thank you, senator graham. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Senator. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your service as well. Lets cover a number of topics. Lets start with nordstream two, and stopping the completion of that pipeline. As you know, over a year ago, i joined with senator shaheen in passing Bipartisan Legislation, went through both houses of congress. With overwhelming bicameral, bipartisan support, imposing significant sanctions on companies that participated in laying the pipeline of nordstream ii. The president signed that legislation around 7 00 p. M. , if i remember correctly, on a thursday, and 15 minutes before his signature was on the page, the Swiss Company that was laying the pipeline announced they were immediately ceasing all pipeline construction activities. Those sanctions worked. Russia has not stopped. They have a pipeline that is 90 to 95 complete. Now the good thing about a pipeline is a pipeline that is 95 complete is a pipeline that is zero Percent Complete because it aint transmitting anything until they connect the two ends. Its my intention they never complete this pipeline. Both russia and germany continue to press forward aggressively to try to find ways to complete this pipeline. As you know, senator shaheen and i, again, introduced Even Stronger sanctions to any Companies Involved in any way whatsoever with the construction of the pipeline. Those stronger sanctions were included in the ndaa that passed this body with overwhelming bipartisan support just last week. And so im hopeful as the ndaa moves forward that we will have those stronger sanctions in effect. At the same time, you made an important decision within the state department. Under katsa, the administration has the authority, i believe, to sanction Companies Working to build this pipeline. Your predecessor, secretary tillerson, had issued, as i understand it, a guidance that was widely interpreted as essentially exempting nordstream ii, and you made the right decision to rescind that guidance. Can you explain to the committee the importance of that guidance and what authority the administration has right now today with no additional legislation, to sanction any company, any german company, any other company that participates in any way with completing this pipeline . Yeah, thanks, senator cruz. The president made that decision to change that language. It was my recommendation, so im not walking away from it, but i want everyone to know the president was fully onboard with that change. That language is important, and to your point, its a little too simple, but it was essentially a get out of jail free card for those conducting activity surrounding nordstream ii. Thats no longer true. We can see theyre responding as are their insurers, their board of directors, lawyers, all understand the express threat that is posed to them for continuing to complete work on completion of the pipeline. And we we remain hopeful those who have the capacity to finish this pipeline quickly will not do that, and we have the task of those harder to reach by sanctions making sure we do everything we can to stop them. The president has been so clear about the Security Threat this pipeline posed to europe. Not able to convince the germans of that, so were taking action ourselves to try to accomplish that, to preserve security for the european people. I know you care about this issue. I spent about six hours with the president yesterday on air force one, and nordstream ii came up in considerable depth as did the president s frustrations with the leadership of germany. Let me point out that the state department has a long tradition of sometimes obscure speech, perhaps rivaled only by the federal reserve. This is an issue in which ambiguity is not beneficial, and as you know, the russians are actively pushing disinformation that theyre not going to be sanctions for anyone involved in this pipeline. The russians actively push disinformation that the Bipartisan Legislation i had introduced previously was not going to pass. That was wrong. I remember that. We had overwhelming bipartisan support that passed it into law. And so i would encourage i believe under katsa, you have full Legal Authority right now to make clear and explicitly clear to anyone involved with constructing this pipeline that the consequences of doing so are catastrophic and not worth doing, so i would encourage the state department, and i recognize you work within an administration and there may be other agencies that have different views, but if there are those other agencies arent right in this matter. And so i urge you to speak with absolute clarity because it is only that clarity, i think, that has any prayer of actually stopping the completion of this pipeline, and if the pipeline is completed, it will do serious damages to the economic interests and the National Security interests of europe. It will do serious damage to the economic and National Security interests of the United States. And it will benefit putin and put billions of dollars in his pockets. Theres no need for ambiguity. The president hasnt been ambiguous about this at all. There was a reason we made the change in that language, essentially the waiver language, if you will. Were fully intent on sanctioning those who violate the provisions contained there, both in katsa and otherwise. Thank you. Thats helpful. Lets shift to another area. I hope thats clear enough. That last statement had substantially greater clarity, so i am grateful and look forward to amplifying it loudly. Thank you, senator. Lets shift to another topic that you and i have also discussed at length. Which is irans snapback. Mmhmm. I believe maximum pressure should be maximum pressure. That the Iranian Regime, the ayatollah when he says death to america, that he means it. When he says death to israel, that he means it. Under the terms of the Obama Iran Nuclear deal and the u. N. Security Council Resolution implementing it, the United States has the authority to invoke snapback sanctions if and when iran is in violation of the deal. We have that authority, even though we have withdrawn from that deal. Iran is now nakedly, openly, fragrantly flouting the deal. Theyre not pretending to comply with it. It is obvious theyre defying it, and theyre telling us theyre defying it. Will the United States invoke the snapback sanctions, which would result in reimposing not just american sanctions but far broader sanctions on iran for their violations of the deal . I think the president has been very clear. We believe we have this authority. I have spoken to this a couple times. We believe that under the u. N. Security council 2231, we clearly have the authority to do this, and were not going to prevent this arms embargo to expire on october 18th. Well introduce the resolution, we hope will be met with approval from the other members of the p5, in the event its not, well take the action necessary to insure that this arms embargo doesnt expire. We have the capacity to execute snapback, and well use it in a way that protects and defends america. Thank you. Thank you, senator cruz. Mr. Secretary, we promised you a hard stop at 11 30. We like to keep our commitments, and we have by about 30 seconds, according to my clock. Thank you so much for your service to the United States of america. Thank you for working with this committee, as you have. We sin slecerely appreciate it. Record will remain open until the close of business on friday, and any responses given will be made part of the record. With that, thank you, mr. Secretary, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Members. All of todays hearing online at cspan. Org. Were going to stay live and take you now to atlanta for the Funeral Service, the memorial for the late congressman john lewis, which is just getting u