Transcripts For CSPAN3 Secretary Of State Pompeo Testifies On 2021 Budget Request - Part 1 20240712

Washington journal program. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Secretary of state mike pompeo appeared today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify about his 2021 budget requested. He was asked about President Trumps tweet about delaying the president ial election. From earlier today, this is just shy of three hours. The committee will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Today we have with us secretary of state mike pompeo to discuss the state departments fiscal year 2021 budget request. Though, if history is any judge, secretary pompeo, you will face a wide variety of questions which i know you can handle. The United States and our allies and partners continue to face serious foreign challenges that will test us for decades to come. China is our chief competitor. Russia too remains a key advair. The efforts of these nations to sow discord and undue the free and open International Order upon which shared prosperity and security are built have reached new heights. They have stepped up disinformation and manipulated International Institutions, suppressed the voices of freedom and democracy, propped up dictators, invaded their neighbors and denied millions of people access to lifesaving humanitarian assistance. We have a long road ahead of us in this new era of great power competition. We need sustained political will. These challenges require nothing less. On top of all of this, we are confronted by a new challenge, a biological enemy that we still do not fully understand, an enemy that in six short months has inflicted levels of physical and economic harm upon the world that we have not seen in more than 100 years. Here, again, china, especially, but also russia, has played a destructive role from with holding vital Global Health data to spreading disinformation and stealing vaccine research, china and russia have again chosen to be and proven themselves to be adversaries. Sanctioning bad actors will never be enough. The department will need to rely upon a vast array of tools and resources. Our diplomats must be backed by assistance so they can help partners help themselves and contribute to the growth of healthier, more stable societies. We are eager to support a budget that will advance these critical interests. In support the state departments most critical resources, its people. As the coronavirus emerged from china and accelerated across the globe, you were forced to pull back thousands of our diplomats and their families, but you didnt just pack up and go without a thought of your fellow americans. Instead, the department launched an Unprecedented Mission to help return more than 100,000 americans safely home. All of us who participated in that are greatly appreciative of the departments work in that regard. In some cases, this involved convincing countries to reopen their air space for flights and roads for transport. In our places you chartered planes to get our American People home. There are lots of folks that may never come in contact with the department but now more than 100,000 americans can personally attest to the tremendous work that the department does for our people every day. As the challenges get more numerous and complex we want to support a state department that is up to the task. Fully funded, staffed, and eq p equipped to help on all fronts at all times. We have threats that impede this being health or security. But as the saying goes all politics are local. Our adversaries understand this all, too well. We need our diplomats to be included as well. I want to thank you mr. Secretary for your availability. It is important that i have instant facts for information, and you have always made yourself accessible. I sincerely appreciate that. When i am asked for advice from other branchs or allies, it is imperative that i have this information. You have always provided that and you have always made it happen, and for that i have been and remain very grateful. Thank you for joining us this morning, mr. Secretary. It has been awhile since you have joined us and i appreciate you fulfilling your responsibilities. I dont imagine we will see you here any time soon, so while this is your opportunity to defend your stunningly ill received request to slash the budget, i would like to take a wholesale look at how your department represented the American People and American Interests on the world stage over the past year. Unfortunately that view is not good. We have faced set back after set back on the world sage today iran is closer to a nuclear bomb, and iran and their bro approximatproxies continue to get closer. And the president and your administration has, at best, not seriously addressed this threat. You have never fully used the tools that we provided. Failing to take action when evidence emerges that russia was paying bounties to kill u. S. Troops in afghanistan meanwhile the confrontational plus ter at not stopped chinas march in the South China Sea, hong kong, and suppressing their young people. The north korea diplomacy that you ensured you would have wrapped up in a year, as of two years ago, has flatlined. Across africa the state department has been woefully absent on issue after issue after issue. Most recently in its engagement on negotiations related to nile waters. Our approach seems to be antiimmigrant and bullying all while gutting our capacity to deal with the root causes of migration. There is support for ven jay la, but millions are still offering and the administration will not support those who are already exiled here. As we struggle with an opioid epidemic, you oppose cutting our narcotics and law enforcement. On Climate Change you have not just failed to be part of the solution, but you have become part of the problem. Undermining safeguards for our future. Allies routinely wonder out loud if we can be counted on. Our values have been denigrated. From the revisionist and sometimes repulsive views espoused by your so called unalienable rights commission. In the face of a Global Pandemic when we could be leading the global response, we have taken a base seat in witnessing the collapse at home and abroad. Rather than a real strategy, our leaders point fingers at china and the World Health Organization. Are absent from critical global meetings, and refuse to be straight with congress and the American People on the Public Health threat. All the meanwhile infections and deaths surge across the country. We know the strength of our diplomacy starts and ends with the strength of our core. The trumps administrations december nati designaticembe career dip plomats with a disdain for their employees. Many asking if their service is still valued. As President Trump refers to our diplomats as the deep state department you have stood there and said nothing. The result is an exodus of expertise. 7 of the Department Staff left in the first year and a half of the administration. While i realize you were not at the department in that time the department has continued to suffer persistent va cancies. They continue to put forth people who do not represent the American People abroad and are not qualified. When you send them we act. We have more than 190 nominees and dozens have advanced quickly and without incidents. You continue to send us nominees that have allegations against them, and whose conduct disqualifies themselves for service. The administration promised the best people, the best, terrific, tremendous but mr. Secretary, the best people dont seem to want to work for you. I know you were passionate as a former member of congress and at your direction the president recently removed the state departments Inspector General who was investigating, among other things, last years emergency declaration. I, and the Bipartisan Group of colleagues raises serious concerns. Additionally we learned of allegations. Creating at least the appearance of using taxpayer resources to impress high profile political donors. While this hearing is convened for the president s fy 21 budget request, you, i, and everyone else knows that the president s wish to gut our International Affairs budget by a shocking 34 is dead on arrival. Im tempting to to provide it to see how you could actually operate under it. It is misguided and unsuited to the needs of safeguarding our nations security. I recognize youll take issue with what i have said. When you entered office i offered a hand to work with you for building real agendas. Venezuela, iran, russia, china, and indeed im disappointed. As i look at your tenure in office and at the track record of this administration, im disappointed that instead of making America First among the nations of the world, you have instead relinquished our leadership to the applause and approval of china and russia and that makes america last. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we proceed, first let me say those views are the views of senator menendez individually. We, for the members of this committee we have an 11 30 hard stop. That will give us a round for questions. Ly take a short break halfway through. As usual we will stick with the long standing commitment of this committee. And when the witness is asked a question we will give the witness full opportunity to answer that question and not interrupt his answer simply because he is doing so well at answering the question. I will enforce that strictly. With that, secretary pompeo. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. If we have answer thats are filibusters, i suspect that we will not allow that either. Senator menendez. I will run the committee and i will do it as i indicated. We will not interrupt answers from the witness with that secretary pompeo. Thank you. I have a full statement in the interest of time. I will just read the first onethird of that if i could get your agreement to put the rest in the record i would appreciate that. Today i am here for the state department and usaid. Increasing american prosperity and advancing the development of democratic societies. Critically the strategic and efficient results for the American People. I want to make a bigger point. We reflect americas values. Two weeks ago in philadelphia i unveiled the report of the state departments commission. I message that day was simple. We are placed at the core of american i ddiplomacy. Securing american lives in the pandemic, and helping friends across the world cure those rights. On authoritarian threats, we evaluated with the same realism that the american founders did. We see the Islamic Republic of iron for what it is. We have gone full bore on our campaign. We slashed the vital oif revenues. We rallied nations to our side through diplomacy. And we both had military readiness. There is more work to do. The security they already mine ships, study oil facilities, and ships arms. Should the Security Council fail to act we will have a freer hand to so destruction. Russia too is a destabilizing force. This administration is enacted to protect our interests and our frequents. We have supplied you rain with lethal military, we have sanctioned more than 360 targets. From human rights abuses to proxies around the world. The question for the Global Engagement center is 138. Double it million. We wont tolerate this by the kremlin or any other adversaries. Further in russia, two weeks ago they had a swift implementation and an important bipartisan entestify vor. Were the toughest administration ever on russia. Most importantly, on china, we see the Chinese Communist party also for what it is. The central threat on our times. Leading an international awakening. The tide is turning. The number was in the single digits. In the hemisphere, they have stood firm. Its three Major Telecom carriers have also banned untrusted vendors. Denmark has rejected the attempt at sensorship, sweden closed their institutes. They have identified china as a political a potential threat for the first time, and in the region, the South China Sea claims unlawful and ill legitimate as have we and were proud to have stepped up meritime maneuvers. India banned 106 chinese applications that threatened security. Momentum is building to mitigate the threats that the Chinese Communist party indicates. Japan led the g 7 condemnation. The eu condemned the law, too, and also declared china a systemic rival just last year. We agreed to start a dialogue focused sewly on china solely on china for the eus request. We led a multilateral effort to make sure the organization directed a company that gave a darn. We worked hard at this. Our diplomats have done wonderful work and im proud of the progress that were making. In addition to the efforts the department of justice is cracking down on chinese i. P. Threats. We sanctioned them for their brutality and posed export controls on companies that support it and warned u. S. Businesses against using slave labor in their supply chains. We terminated special treatment agreements in onk congress, and we closed our consulate in houston because it was a den of spies. We asked nearly 1. 5 billion for the endopacific region. We want that part of the world to be free, open, and prosperous. With that, mr. Chairman, i will close and im happy to take questions. Thank you, mr. Secretary pip appreciate that. Were going to do a questions on a seniority basis since it is the secretary and cabinet level as opposed to the usual first come rule. And again, i ask each member to be respectful of other members and stick to the five minutes youre allotted. Once we have gone around well make a determination of where were going to go from there. With that senator menendez. What will it be. I intend to do five lets do a seven because that will just about take up the time, but were going to have to stick right to that seven otherwise people wont get a chance. Well do seven. Mr. Secretary, as i outlined, the investment in donald trump by Vladimir Putin continues to pay off handsomely. Troops in germany is not about troops in germany, it is our own National Security interest. Redirecting alternatives, paying for the president s ineffective border wall, and imposing meaningful sanctions. More shocking while we have all known for some time that russia has provided support to the taliban, arms and resources, imposing bounties on the heads of u. S. Service members is an outrageous escalation. President trump astonishingly admitted in an interview on tuesday that he never raised the issue with mr. Putin even though he has spoke ton him about seven times this year alone. Mr. Secretary, do you think about how you would react to the behavior if you were in your old house seat . A president that abandoned our troops and did not even raise this with the kremlin . Ranking member, you have identified four items that youre concerned about. Actions with respect to russia and i would like to address each of them. I only asked one question. I dont spend much time thinking about what i would have done if i am in the house of representatives, im focused on my job. Have you raised concerns with russias foreign minister with respect to russia placing bounties on the heads of Service Members in afghanistan . I want to be very careful about what is Public Record and what is intelligence based. But yes, i can assure you that each time i have spoken to foreign minister lavrov, i have raised questions about american soldiers at risk. On the ground, in afghanistan, the activities in libya, ukraine, all of them that potentially threaten American Interest or things i raise in my conversations, and i speak with him with some frequency. I appreciate that answer. I asked specifically, there are public reports, very well documented, that the russians were supposedly paying bounties to kill our Service Members. Have you raised that issue with foreign minister lavrov. I will be more careful than you are with the intelligence, make no mistake about it, the proper people have been aware of every single threat to our soldiers on the ground in investigation if that was general miller or my team at the embassy. Any time there was a tactical threat on the lives, the health, safety, or security, we have raised this. Not only at my level, but ambassador sullivan and more. We made very clear our threats. Let me turn to a few other questions and maybe you can answer these yes or no. I think theyre just factual in nature. It turkey purchase the s 400 system from russia . Yes. Did they pay about 2. 5 billion . Im not aware of the amount of the transaction . But they did pay them . I believe that is correct. I apologize, im not certain that the cash has been exchanged. Does the turkish government have the s 400 in their possession. They have an s 400, yes. Did they test is on an american built f16. I. Im not going to answer that. Has the president raised the s 400 with president erdogan . I dont talk about things the president speaks about with foreign counter parts. The white house is free to, but im not going to. Let me ask you a simple question. You sent me a response on monday saying you take your responsibilities seriously and youre fully intent to comply with the law. All of these elements clearly are in violation. So over a year since all of these facts have attached, when will the Administration Fall low the law and im pose sanctions impose sanctions on turkey . We have taken significant actions. We pauled out a very significant reps program they were building significant peaces of in turkey, and we continue to evaluate how to apply sanctions to achieve our end objective. It is not to punish. Its to act in a way that is in line with our American Security. We are working diligently. I had a very pointed question. I know that youre a harvard graduate, a west point graduate. You know what my question was. Its not about everything else. You decided not to answer that. Let me go to the final question. You had the head of the state department to be terminated, is that correct . Yes, i recommended that he be terminated. At the time i made the recommendation i was unaware of the investigations he had ongoing at the time with one exception. I was aware of an investigation that he asked know provide testimony. Other than that i completely unaware of any of them. Did he speak to you about it . He did not. You said the ig was not performing in the way he should have because he wasnt following, in essence, what you wanted to. The Inspector Generals are not 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, thank you for your service. I think we can acknowledge the world is a complex and messy place. As the Ranking Member said facts are stubborn things and the administrations have track records. You came into office with a big mess, a lot of messes, to clean up. Libya, a failed state it is base clay basically a genocide. One of the foreign policies allowed isis to rise from the ashes of al qaeda and iraq. C crimea annexed, and president obama did not provide the lethal weaponry 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. They were exploiting laws. They came in with a lot of Foreign Policy messes. The last time i looked this administration we we started no new wars. We destroyed the physical caliphate of isis. President trump provided those lethal defensive weaponry, the javlins, and has done a good job at reducing that out of control illegal immigration from the southern border by diplomacy with guatemala. One of the things that occurred there. I think we have to compare them and talk honestly about these things. The Ranking Member has been pretty brutal regarding the firing of the inspect or genera. I was copied on a letter, i read it, it is somewhat complex. I just want to give you an opportunity to talk about what happen happened. By the way im very sensitive to the Inspector General being pushed to investigate the leaks from these departments. There were 126 leaks having to do with National Security. That needs to be investigated and im not, if you could describe the leaks you were concerned about, and how the Inspector General didnt handle that the way you thought it should be handled. Sure, thank you senator john. I value the Inspector General as well. I had a great relationship with him when i was there. He did his job, he took care of the agency. I know what a good ig can do. He was not that. We had a very sensitive Inspector General report. When the final draft was prepared i think it came from two people close to the administration. It is a couple others that knew about it in the full report that had a real impact on senior and state Department Officials lives. When we confronted the Inspector General he was defensive. He ignored the request so have a separate ig come and investigate. It is complicated, but he didnt comply with the instructions. And then he wasnt candid about that process either. He did not act with integrity throughout the process in the way that they have to be counted on to behave. I have my own issues. I wont go into those. Right now im being falsely accused of peddling in russian disinformation. Because of acting director of National Intelligence effort for four footnotes we know the russian disinformation involved in the 2016 campaign was bought and paid for by the dnc, the Clinton Campaign was contained in the steel dossier. That is the truth. I heard no outrage on the part of our colleagues about that russian disinformation. We are still undergoing our information. Were looking at documents for the state department. Involved in that steel dossier. He compiled it for the dnc and the Clinton Campaign. That same month they had information collected by clinton supporter which is they passed on. This conduct raises serious concerns under the hatch act, and department policies. Although then ig linnick has not published any findings and are you aware of these issues and can you commit that the department will be responsive to our requests from senator grassley and myself . We need these sdudocuments . Well do our best. Im 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. There was any other specific incidents that asked for you to ask for the removal of him. Yes, there were several. One of the central fupgss to make sure that we can respect to you all the Financial Statement for the state department is accurate and full. The Inspector General screwed it up. Oversight was ineffective and placed the departments information and the reputation, human capital, and operations at considerable and unnecessary risk. That is huge. There is a handful of others. He refused to take care of his team in important ways. There was 10 fewer audits of our posts around the world. One of our most important function Social Security to make sure theyre conducting business. Morale in the igs office, the igs ufs was the worst survey results of any of those 38. He didnt day care care of his peach, either. Thank you, senator. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Americas strength is in our values. Were the Global Leader for democratic values. We have been so recognized, and we have worked with the International Community as the leader of the free world. With other could be tries that share our values. And we lead in that and one of the best examples was the passage of the global mcninski sanctions. Im glad to work with the late senator mccain on the passage of that legislation. And now canada, europe, and australia are 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 in the free world in promoting democratic values. When we pulled out of the climate agreement, we isolated ourselves on iron. Our trade policies have been more bilateral. Government controls economies, that all effects the governments control and creditability. When i look at your budget i see a decline of 35 in democracy funds. I dont understand that cut. 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 to use the commission of rights. With my conversations with human rights advocates, not just here but globally, they look at the United States trying to create the free world on democratic principals of human rights. Tell me how this commission has engaged the activitie activists when it is tied tour a political view rather than a personal view on human rights. I appreciate the answer to talk about the commission and the objective that i set out now just over a year ago. I urge everyone to take a look at it and read it. I think they did phenomenal work. I dont agree with anything that is in there. I dont think any of them agree with everything in there. But it set out to take on what is an enormous crisis in the 20th century human rights process. It was my view as i watched our state department, the folks that work on this, i watched as they didnt have a founding. I wanted to go back and talk about how do we do more for american human rights policy nap is what commission was asked to do. What were you trying what was the problem that you were trying to solve . There has been a great deal of debate, it has been the core for democratic states and now were picking winners and losers. Let me move to 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. We have seen in recent areas that arms provided by the United States ended up in the hands of actors that we dont want to see get those arms. What oversight are you deploys to make sure that arms that we make available to other countries are used for the intended purpose and dont end up with the wrong use. We have an elaborate process. Its not that we dont have escapes or failures nap has certainly been true for a long time, but we have an elaborate process to validate and verify. We have big teams in our multiple departments that have responsibility for doing their best to ensure that american Weapons Systems are used for their intended purpose. Let me make this offer. I think this committee can help you in that regard and the jurisdictional battle between defense and state sometimes presents challenges. States has the principal role for a good reason. There is legislation i have offered that would help in that regard. I hope you would engage us to give you the tools you need to take on, sometimes, 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 lace for that activity. I welcome your effort there is. The g. A. O. Release ad report, and they are titled state didnt steps, and they point out that from 2002, from 2018, we have seen a decline of minorities in positions within the state department, and its particularly pronounced in the higher ranks. What steps are you taking to implement the g. A. O. Concerns . I have even that report and the internal work that we have done. I would characterize it from over the last decade as flat. That is not good enough. That is multiple parties, this is not partisan at all. We want to get this right. We have about a third today of our members who are minorities, excuse me, about 44 of them are women. We have developed the program. We have double applications this year. We are almost finished with a major study that started 13 months ago run by carol perez to look at the failures. There has been a lot of money and effort. To your point a relatively good outcomes for acquisition of new talented people, and less so at the senior levels. I hope we can Work Together on that. I would urge you to evaluate working with us on the aide to the northern triangle to make sure we have the help from the United States to deal with the pressure and the migration. Thank you, senator gardener. Thank you, secretary for your service, and being here today. In the last several years we have been working together to shape a new policy toward the endopacific. It is promising growth and it is critical for Global Security and economic security. But north korea continues to threaten its neighbors. China is intimidating its neighbors and attempting to remake the world order in its own image. In perma they are committing human rights abuses. It is more important than ever that we maintain a presence in the region. Encourage economic cooperation. The administration and Congress Must be united on a longterm strategy for american National Security interests, create jobs through trade promotion and opportunities, and project American Values of respect for the human rights and freedom in the region in includes the mi militarization. United states has always been and will always remain a pacific power. And we ensure that the u. S. Government will speak with one voice to reassure our allies and to deter our adversaries in the endopacific region. We held a threepart series, talking about human rights and the rule of law. We found that mass concentration camps necessitated a serious response from the u. S. Beijing is continuing to refuse negotiation with a central administration. They are routinely jailed and tortured. I was happy to see similar abuses were added to the entity list. But what is the administration doing to address more angsts and other remedies for these abuses . Senator gardener, thanks. Im familiar with the great work, and i want to thank this committee and a Broader Group of senators for the legislation that we had with respect to this. It is powerful to say i have the support of congress and almost unanimous support with policies on respect to freedom with the threats that the Chinese Communist party is presented. For what we will continue to do, with respect to the horrific Human Rights Violations taking place there, i dont want to get in front of the final decisions, but you can rest assured that there are further actions, including further actions with respect to human rights vie rations that the department of state and department of treasury are working to complete. Secretary, i dont know if you had a chance to see the hearing in the house of representatives. I will read you some of the comments they made when asked if china was stealing information from them. Tim cook said he had no information about Chinese Technology theft. They have no is knowledge about knock off products. They said they didnt have any experience later and they clarified that remark. Can you talk about tech in china and what you see happening. Is it true that there is no theft in u. S. Companies. They need to get out more. I fleen is a long history, decades long history, of chinese intellectual threats. The communist party is willing to bully and threaten them. Yes, and on the side of protecting cyber we have worked alongside each other on important projects with reduced risk. But saying that no one could know what they are attempting to steal and what theyre doing seems incredulous. When it comes to the covid19 propaganda that china was spreading, i suggested that the national Security Council counter that disinformation. Are they doing enough to combat the chinese disinformation . No, there is always more they can do. More that we can do as well. On that particular front i must say they think the world pointed a very effective Counter Campaign against the chinese disinformation. As i have travelled and spoken to my counter parts, i think the world knows it disseminated from china, and that the communist party showed up with ppe that didnt work and covered up what they knew about it when they could have prevented this spread. I want to talk about the opportunities for taiwan. I asked for the ambassador to engage in a bilateral trade agreement. I prefer to leave that to the ambassador to talk about that. Were aware of the great interest in this. The state department will have its part in that. But respect to taiwan, it is different from the trade piece of this. We made sure that we honored the agreements we have made. What they need do, so they can protect their democracy. And the administrations goal will be irreversible. It does. Thank you, senator. Senator sheheen . Thank you for being here today. Were you involved in the troops being withdrawn from germany . Yes. 6400 of those troops will be coming back to the United States. Theyre not going to parts of europe, parts of russia or asia. The only country that supported the removal of u. S. Troops from germany, to date, has been russia. So can you share with us whether or not the impact of this decision on our efforts to Counter China and russia was taken into account and was there any sort of strategic assessment done to support this decision . Thank you for the question. Of course there was and we were very involved at the strategic level. It was the department of defense and the president. You characterize the folks coming back to the United States as somehow being off of the field. That is not the case. These units will participate in rotational activity. They will not be stationed, but they be fully available and we have to ensure they will proplyly prosecute the challenges that 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 deployed. I recognize there is certain training that needs to be part of them before they are deployed, but i guess i i dont understand, and was the effect of diplomatically ali alienating germany, the largest country in the eu that has been a historical alley. This is personal for me. Your unit is coming back to the United States. I know, they had been back once before and they went back. When i was there there was six figures. Germany is no longer a front line state. The nato commander was in the process of helping us think this through. I saw comments this morning that are different than you described. We will have soldiers deployed closer to the russian border. Yes, the military piece of this ran out of the pentagon department, and im very confident that our mission to deter russia is still fully capable. The precise number about 100,000 early. Conditions changed around the world and our forces need to be repositioned to confront todays challenges. I would just read from a report that quotes the press secretary for Vladimir Putin that says, and i quote, the fewer american soldiers on the european continent the calmer it is in europe. That doesnt sound to me like they think that this increases the threat from russia. But i would like to go on to another i would like to follow up on a question that senator menendez raised about the reports on bounties that russia put on our troops and afghanistan by the taliban. There was a report last night that said that state officials have secretly warned russia against bounties on 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 . There are many things. There is intelligence collection. Making sure the tactical event doesnt take place. That is the task of dod but our broader sbjs services. Our diplomats make clear our expectations, and we have our larger afghanistan policy. It is not just russia. I flow is a lot of focus on that, but at the state department and the department of defense were worried about iranian support. Were worried about gulf money, were working against every one of those threats diplomatically. And finally to protect our soldiers further, we are working to get peace and reconciliation in afghanistan. We have a cease fire, we now have a significant prisoner exchange. We have not had a single attack against an american soldier. This is the finest and im very proud of what my team has done to protect american soldiers. 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 will always leave it to the president what he wants to say to other american leaders. I dont think there is any doubt about the expectations of the United States of america not to kill americans. I promise you the 300 russians in syria who took action to threaten america, 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. And there was an exchange about the role of afghan women in any talks with the taliban. And you said they should fend for themselves. We have seen the outcome. The agreement between the u. S. And the taliban failed to mention the rights of the afghan women, and there is no guarantees for their continued protection. Is the fols have afghan women fend for themselves, is it consistent with the legal mandate for the meaningful inclusion of women and peace talks as directed by the women, piece, and security act . I would have to look a and see what i said, were doing our level best and i have seen the k compilation. Im out of time, but fend for themselves is an exact quote from your statement when you were before this committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, people say actions speak louder than words, do you think the specific action that the United States of america took against general soleimani sent a message to every country on this planet for people that targeted United States soldiers on the battlefield . Thank you, mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure to see you. Im one of many who applauds your recent addresses with regards to china. You have called out their predatory behavior and you note that we have to con frornt chfr. It is a welcome assessment. A clear eyed assessment, and a clear intent. It is also with welcome departure from the president s fawning praise of xi jing ping and the agreements that china has not honored. It is also my view, inconsistent with actions, that we have take than offended our allies. One is the steel and alum enough tariffs they thought were miss placed. I would rather have focused our entire ammunition on china. And doing so while express pressing an attempt to punish germany for the fact that they spend their gdp on nato i will hear from the highest levels and this is seen by them as an insult to germany. I cant imagine at a time when we need to dau in our friends and allies, so we can collectively confront china, that we want to insult them. What actions will the administrations strategy be. All of the things happening, but what is distinct, different, and dramatic to bring the nations that follow the rule of law together so that we can reach a common approach or common strategy in how to deal with china. And then collectively confront them with the intent of dissuading them from the course that theyre on. We dont want to go to war economically, militarily, or otherwise. But we want to dissuade them and i think that can only happen when we are, as you pointed out, that we can do that with others. I notice something you said, maybe it is time for a new groups of like minded nations. I think that is a good idea, but what actions of a new and dramatic nature are you considering or willing to take in order to accomplish the objective that you described . Senator, it is absolutely the case that to confront the Chinese Communist party will be a global effort. That is a new alliance of democracies. There is lots of discussion about it and we had many conversations with friends in the region. Step uone, senator, is to awake the world to this threat. The world saw opportunities in china and it was foreign false, sell what you can, i spent my first year and change traveling the world trying to raise awareness of the threat. So that i think that is new and different. You may say it is not enough, but it was not happening before. I went through the list of things that started to turn the side. Some nations dont feel like theyre empowered. So were working, diplomats, trying to build out a set of relationships if that is part of a formal organization or hot, im not sure i note the answer, yes, but to convince team this america is prepared to lead. We have some 26 lines at the state department, and the same at the department of defense, all aimed at building out this set of alliances in southeast asia, more broadly with our partners and the kwaquad to bui out a set of commitments to robustly communicate to the communist party enough. If you want to behave on the global stage it has to be under a set of rules that has created much prosperity around the world. That may be unsatisfying, senator. But its a real work in progress to get everyone fully aligned. I mentioned the eu dialogue. Very important. Borrell asked me if we would have a dialogue with them on china. That look a lot of effort to get 26 eu nations to say, yes, this is something we have to confront, to identity a systemic rival. 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 paraphernal it relates to a discussion that was held yearly, i know theres great interest sometimes politically to go after some of the Big Tech Companies and facebook and berate them for their market power. If they violate american antitrust laws, thats totally appropriate. But were in a global competition and china has been successful in driving a lot of companies out of business. Theyve not been successful in driving Companies Like these out of business. The last thing we ought to be doing is trying to knock down businesses in the United States that are succeeding on a global stage. So we need to be careful not to flex our muscle to berate those entity that is are successful and are beating china. Alibaba would like to replace amazon. Tiktok would like to replace instagram. Its just an area of concern and i hope youre able to point these things 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 hong kong . 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. Let me just 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 terrorismrelated claims against sudan to provide justice and compensation for over 700 terror victims and their family members and to move our relationship forward after 30 years under the brutal dictator ship of omar al bashir. I want to urge you and the administration to do everything you can to support the Prime Minister and to make sure that 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. Have you personally engaged on this issue and can you commit to working with congress as we try to find a solution urgently . Senator, thank you for your work. This is really important. Weve proposed that theres a resolution that would be in legislation that will be before congress here in the very near term. We think its the appropriate time to both 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, ive talked to others of the leaders there in sudan. We all know the history of sudan and the tragedy there. Theres a chance not only for democracy to begun to be built out, but perhaps regional opportunities that could flow through that as well. If we can take care of the victims of those tragedies, it would be a good thing for american Foreign Policy and i appreciate your assistance in that regard. We have a number of members of this committee will strong interest and its my hope that you can move in a way that can respect those interests and makes progress and doesnt miss this moment. Legislation that was bipartisan that i led here with senator graham and President Trump signed into law last december, it requires a longterm whole of Government Strategy to address extremism and instability in fragile states. The 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 to these challenges and improve the way that state and dod Work Together. How are you using tools to address the consequences of this pandemic on development, government and security, and can you commit that youve look hard at and resolve a technical issue on the creation and prevention of Stabilization Fund which was designed to replace and improve on the Rapid Response fund in the statute. Senator coons, ill get back to you on the last question you asked. Im familiar with it but not enough to answer your question. Ill get you an answer briefly. Im tracking the first deliverable. I saw the first pass at this. You characterized it about right. There wasnt much that was original and ive asked for outside views, folks on capitol hill, people who are experts around the world to see if we cant use the tool that you provided us to deliver on the stated objectives of that law. It was an important piece of legislation and i dont want to miss the chance to develop the strategy that can underpin all of the actions we can take. Its not something that we intend to put on the shelf and admire, but something that creates opportunities underneath that strategy. Today is the Funeral Service for friend and former colleague congressman john lewis and i was struck by a comment made by form 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. The words equal justice under law are carved in the Supreme Court and thats what the protestors 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 three are africanamerican, four 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 mattiss comments and what are you personally doing to mentoring the next crop of Senior Leaders and to diversity the Leadership Team . Yeah, i think the seventh floor Leadership Team, my entire Communications Team are all part of diversity groups. Im proud of what our small team has done. But that doesnt begin to accomplish what we need to get done in the state department to make sure we get this right. By the way, it is diversity and inclusion that is broad based. We need to make sure that we have people from all across america with all viewpoints, every idea, from all across america. Weve been very narrow in how we have recruited from a certain set of institutions and universities and we dont get a fullspectrum of understandings of america and of the world if were too narrow in how we think about diversity and inclusion. We built out a set of programs, your point about not having sufficient minority representation in our ambassadorle levels is true. It was three days ago is that a set of 23 that will be coming to you shortly, we had more than half of them were female. Thats the first time thats ever happened. So were making progress. But i would agree that the rate of change is insufficient. How do you think our own failure to address structural racial inequality impacts our diplomacy overseas and our ability to advocate around human rights issues . Its important that we get it right at home. And i would tell you that were a beacon for that around the world. And i think you can see it in people who want to come to the United States of america because its the freest nation, its the place that you have immigrants from all across the world who want to come here. They see america still as this greatest nation. Were not without flaws. But i think as our diplomats travel the world they can be proud of your progress mr. Secretary, i want to ask a last question about your 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, whether you vote by mail in your home state of kansas, youve availed yourself as do virtually all of our diplomats and Development Professionals and Armed Forces Member of the opportunity to vote securely by mail. Have you done so and do you have any concerns about the security of your election this november . Senator, i believe i have voted by absentee ballot when i was a senator and in the army. Its not our primary focus to make sure we have Election Security. Ill leave to others who have that primary centered focus. Is there any reason for us to be concerned that the votes are fraudulent or ineligible to be counted if cast by mail . Having a small group of people vote by absentee ballot is very different than deciding youre going to conduct a full mailin balloting program. Ill leave it to the professionals to identify the level of risk associated with that. But i also know 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 chinese and taiwan to shape taiwanese policies, the policies of their government. Im certain as most people on this committee i hope are aware how they pressure political figured they view are opposed to their interests and i think well all witnessed that china has engaged in efforts of disinformation about the coronavirus. Im not asking you to comment specifically about our country. I think im more than anything else asking if if china decided they wanted to do those kinds of things to us, would you assess they have the capability to conduct Disinformation Campaign to pressure american political figures, the way weve seen them do taiwan and other places. If they decided they wanted to do this, this is the second largest economy in the world, pretty significant capabilities. They would have the capability to do it, would they not . Senator, ill take it they certainly have the capability. Ive talked about this. The united front is working here in the United States today. Theyre meeting with state legislators, governors. One of the things that was taking place out of houston were influence operations conducted by their diplomats. We have diplomats from all across the world who come to our offices and talking about policy. What im talking about is fundamentally different from that. They have the capability and the intention of conducting influence operations in the United States. I think so were a resilient nation. But the world needs to understand that when its happening here in the United States, its happening in their countries too. I think one of the things that was interesting was the four ceos of these Tech Companies appeared before a House Committee and they were asked a very simple question, do they believe that china steals technology from u. S. Firms. They were asked this question. I think theres strong consensus across the board in both parties and 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. The 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 they read that somewhere but wouldnt comment further. Why would corporations such as this, some of whom take it upon themselves to censer truth versus whats not truth, why would three of the four ceos of the four largest Tech Companies headquartered in the United States be afraid to answer that question . Senator, i can only speculate. Its patently clear to anyone who is watching that the chinese are engaged in intense efforts of intellectual property threat, including to technology. Would it be fair in your mind to speculate that they try to influence people even in the Business Community . Absolutely. Okay. One more question. I think i know the answer to this as well. Would you agree with the belief i think again thats pretty widespread that china has systemically identified industries and technologies that they believe will be key to the 21st century and have undertaken an effort to dominate these industries while destroying our capability, the forced 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 to wipe out not just our capabilities in those industries but everybody elses. Thats a fair assessment. Yes. And theyve not been covert about this. Theyve spoken openly about how theyre approaching their commercial interests. The only thing they dont speak about, rather than build these industries inside, the tools that they use are different than the way western democracies do. We train our people, we build our businesses, we invest capital in the market. They run statesponsored enterprises. They steal intellectual property. And then they endeavor to undermine the companies and threaten and bully companies around the world to buying their products. My last question is unrelated to china directly. As youre well aware, there have been speculations, commentators and the like that have made much about recent, you know, allegations and in one case an interview the president gave in which they took from it that the president would be willing to engage in negotiations with maduro and the maduro regime in venezuela. As you understand our policy, could you envision as long as this administration is in office we would ever negotiate with a maduro regime for them to remain in power . Absolutely not. Our policy is not to negotiate with them for anything other than his departure from ruling that country. Thank you. Next after the next questioner, were going to take a recess. The floor is yours. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And secretary pompeo, i should 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 the current occupants in power lose, the state department 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 were going to set a good example in our november election. In a recent interview, Chris Wallace asked President Trump whether he would give a direct answer that you will accept the election, unquote, in november. In response, President Trump said, i have to see, no, im not going to just 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 the election is rigged if its vote by mail. So secretary pompeo, if President Trump refuses to accept the upcoming november election, will you respect the results of a certified election as the state department typically does throughout the world . Senator, im not going to speculate. You had about 15 ifs in there. I will follow the rule of law. I will 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 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. 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 a 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 issued a report on the harm this president has caused to journalists First Amendment rights. In their summary the committee states, quote, the Trump Administration has stepped up the prosecutions of news sources, interfered of 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 covid19 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, americas 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 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 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 adviser has met with you or other members of the national Security Council 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 that their handling of the virus its true that their handling of the virus at the early on set 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 . Awful lot to unpack there, senator. First, i would tell you that some of the countries that you identified, youre looking at the data that theyre putting out. Its worthless. When youre comparing it to data from other countries, its silly. And the facts theyre not tracking, theyre not counting cases. So we need to make sure we have a shared factual database. We should look everywhere to get best practices about how to respond to this and i know that our doctors, dr. Birx who works for me, now over at the white house, theyve done that. Theyll continue to do that to make sure we protect the American People in an appropriate way. Thank you. Thank you. With that, the committee is going to be at ease subject to the call of the chair for approximately ten minutes. Committee will come to order. Next up, senator barrasso. Welcome back, mr. Secretary. I appreciated your comments and Opening Statement related to in order stream two and i wanted to ask about that. We know Energy Security is essential to National Security. It threatens european Energy Security. This pipeline is a russia trap. Strongly support your recent announcement aimed at stopping this dangerous pipeline. Congress is working to quickly provide the administration with additional tools to prevent it from ever being completed. The last few weeks, the senate and house passed their own versions of the National Defense authorization act and includes new bypass sanctions. Could you talk about the administrations commitment opposing the nord stream two pipeline and applying sanctions against those countries aiding in the completion of this russian trap. This administration is accused by some on not being tough on russia. President trump saw this was a threat. It created enormous leverage for russia not only against germany and broader europe but ukraine as well. We need further tools. We prepared to use those tools should you provide them to us. And weve also used our diplomatic capabilities to make clear to countries that were going to do the other end too. Were going to make sure that american lng we want europe to have a diverse set of Energy Opportunities and our department of energy has worked alongside of us to do that and our department are working to make sure that europe has real secure, stable, safe Energy Sources that cannot be turned off in the event that russia wants to do so. Were going to do everything we can to make sure that pipeline doesnt threaten europe. I would like to move to the iranian arms embargo. Its set to expire october of this year. To my great astonishment, were having to persuade the International Community from purchasing advanced weapons. It will dramatically increase the ability of iran to arm terrorists. Weve seen that more weapons will likely flow to hamas, hezbollah. Many experts believe that any extension of the iranian arms embargo would be vetoed by russia or china. What do russia and china want are why would they want it to expire and is the Chinese Communist party willing to betray Global Security . I hope not, but i expect so. Weve been working to convince the russians to prevent this embargo from getting extended. Were working with our counterparts. We will offer to this was one of the central failings of the jcpoa was to have only a fiveyear ban on the iranian capacity to purchase weapon systems, build out air defense systems, the capacity 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. We believe we have the capacity to do this at the United Nations, we hope. That the u. N. Security council will conclude that extending this arms embargo is the right thing. In the event they dont, were going to use every tool to make sure that arms embargo is not lifted. It would threaten israel and reduces American Security as well. Onto religion freedom. A former member of this body, ambassador at large for International Religious freedom wrote, humanity is why religions freedom will win out against governments and nonstate actors speaking to repress and control it. We have seen around the world regimes continuing to attempt to restrict religions freedoms. Could you discuss efforts by the administration, youve taken to promote International Religions freedoms. So we have raised the priority of International Religious freedom in the state department. Thats happened all across the administration. We use our diplomatic tools to encourage it. We build resilience. We work with religious communities in many countries to provide them security. The work were doing in Northern Iraq today is a good example. But theres lots of challenges. Whats happening in nigeria to christians today, muslims in western china. Your point about the threat to religious freedom for people of all faiths is under attack in too many places. The state department has an Important Role to decrease or increase the capacity for people to exercise their rights of religious freedom and we we werent able to do it this year because of the virus. The Worlds Largest human rights gatherings were held at the state department twice around the central idea that people need to be able to exercise this important right to just have their own faith. And earlier today, let me move on to 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. In the last few months, weve seen them increase military aggression whether its near taiwan, the South China Sea, japan. Weve seen what theyve been doing in hong kong and 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. When we go to secure briefings, we ask lots about their capabilities not just about what they might do, but can do. Can they or cant they. 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 in the since 1989. Its a desire to expand their power and reach. They talk about bringing socialism with chinese characteristics to the world. A claim theyve made for real estate in bhutan, the incursion that took place in india. Theyre probing the world to see if were going to stand up to their threats and bullying. Im more confident that the world is prepared to do that. Theres more work that we need to do. Senator murphy. Thank you very much. Let me say, im very grateful for your proposal to double the budget of the Global Engagement center. This is of course a center to counteract propaganda outside of the United States that was established through legislation written by myself and senator portman and im glad that you have recognized the importance and the good work of that center. We have spent a lot of time in this hearing talking about many of our concern regarding our adversarys desire to use propaganda, not outside of the United States, but in fact inside the United States to influence the 2020 election. I want to begin by asking you a question about that. Russia in particular has sought to weave together about stories over the course of the past year in order to both try to sow chaos and dissent in the United States but screw with ukraine politics as well. 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. He was the individual that magically came into possession of secret audio recordings of Vice President biden and then president poroshenko. Hes retained 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 maybe my colleagues as well. Should we view him as a credible source of information . Ill answer your question, but let me say real quick, because i think thats important, thank you for the compliment. The only thing im worried about with asking for a doubling of the money is to make sure we can deploy it in weve been successful as its grown. When you expand something at 100 , i have a team driving to make sure we dont misuse or waste those resources. I dont want to comment on any particular individual. I will say this, were taking seriously the threats that russia will try to engage in Disinformation Campaigns, there may be oligarchs, foreign actors, not just russian. We were successful at this in the 2018 election. I say we, not the state department alone. All of 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 as if that is in fact a core function ot u. S. Government. If it is information to that that would suggest malign influence, to let congress and the American People know. Yeah. When its appropriate, i will. When theres still work ongoing and still unsettled intelligence around these things, im going to try to be just a little bit more careful, senator. Let me turn to china for a moment. Chinas clearly seeking to use the United States failure to control covid as a means to leapfrog us in our traditional leadership position. 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 early response to the virus 47 different times. He commended china for their response and their transparency. But i think china is happy with our withdrawal from the w. H. O. And i understand that you believe, as i understand it, that our withdrawal from the w. H. O. Is a lever to try to seek internal change and would disagree. But it seems to allow for china to step in and occupy that vacuum. And so as you step back and try to articulate this sort of broad strategy to counteract chinas growing influence in the world, how does withdrawal from the w. H. O. Counteract the growing influence of china . Senator, its a good question. These are close calls sometimes. We left the human rights council, the same argument was made. I think there are reasonable arguments that can be made on either side. The decision that the president made and i concur with this decision. We went through multiple rounds of reforms. Each time we got reforms, there was no capacity to make that a sciencebased organization and not a political one. There comes a point where youre spending half a billion dollars of u. S. Taxpayer money year on year that goes to benefit political actors inside the World Health Organization and we ultimately made the conclusion that 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. I am not at all convinced that it will be china that benefits from that. Im convinced that the world will benefit. Weve seen it other places when the United States leads and we will absolutely lead, good things can happen in the International Health realm. It wont surprise you that i would dispute your characterization of the w. H. O. Its an international body. Theres no way there wont be some level of politics infecting the decisions will go through, but it is a sciencebased organization and it is one that is indispensable to the continuation of our efforts to try to prevent the next disease and i shutter to think about our ability to stop the next covid if were not back in the w. H. O. Finally, in the remaining time i have, this is a complicated question. Again, back to senator romneys line of questioning about the capabilities that we should be developing with our allies to try to counteract china, i just 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. We have 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 what china is going to put out on ai. Isnt this essential to our Counter China strategy to the just to shame other countries into fore saking Chinese Technology but to work with our allies to develop our own alternatives. 1,000 . Absolutely, senator murphy. Thank you. Senator portman. Appreciate having the opportunity to let us talk to the secretary of state today. Its been helpful and informative. I will 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 good at pointing fingers at china and its usually appropriate. But we also arent doing much here to protect ourselves. 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 theyve been doing it for a while, theyve been doing it for two decades. They come over here and find promising research, they target them and they take that research over to china. And it is military. It is economic. Its 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 that they need more tools to stop folks who they know are coming here to deal with export control, technologies, who are coming over here to take steal our stuff and take it back to china. But theyre unable to stop those people from coming in despite their affiliations and in many cases, you know, a history of taking research. So we worked with one of your fellows, you told me about the pearson fellowship. Done a terrific job. And we have put together legislation that is balanced saying we want research. We want the American Research enterprise to benefit but we dont want to have a u. S. Taxpayerfunded research being stolen. Thank you for that. I would ask you, do you agree that these new authorities we have in that legislation are helpful to protect taxpayerfunded research and intellectual property from our adversaries including china . They are and we need an expanded tool set. Were making progress. Our teams are working alongside the fbi to identify these working hard on this set of issues. Ill say this too, we need to be candid when we go back to our home states and talks to the universities in our states. The Industrial Complex is alive and well. We need to be candid about whats taking place in some of these institutions of Higher Learning and be thoughtful about how we respond to this influence and theft operation thats being conducted. Thats absolutely right. There are five different provisions in the legislation. One of them relates to our universities and research institutions. To their credit, a number of them have worked with us and weve worked with them. We have a bipartisan bill and supporters. But there are universities that are pushing back hard and frankly i think theyre naive and arent willing to face up to the threat that is out there. Its a National Security threat. Im glad that over the last couple of weeks that we have had the opportunity to confirm some good nominees from the department of state and im concerned that the backlog build up to the point where you had a tough time running the department. And theres more to go. We have more nominees coming up next week, understand we might have the nominee for ambassador to japan. The one i want to ask you about is ukraine. You know, senator cardin is not here today, but we went to ukraine and those six years, a lot of good has happens in ukraine. A lot of bad has happened too. Were at a tipping point, the ceasefire is not holding. There have been about 100 violations of it recently. The russia aggression continues. Ukraine made a decision 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 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 aid going to ukraine. Weve got from roughly 50 million to 125 million in that legislation. Do you support that increased funding for aid for ukraine to be able to defend its . I do. The administration supports the increase in aid. Its important to get the general out there. I will say theyre doing very, very good work. But its important to get a confirmed ambassador in that position. It was a real loss when ambassador volker departed. Were hoping to get that position with just the right person filled as well so we have a fullon effort there to help the ukrainian people maintain their democracy. Well have a chance to talk to the lieutenant remotely when he comes. But hes done a good job of modernizing their military and knows that ukrainian issues inside and out. And hes the right person at the right time and im pleased hes willing to step up and do it. It was a good choice. With regard to germany, my point of view for what its worth, not asking you a question here, but i think moving troops out of germany is a good idea if they stay in europe. And poland has been asking for years now to allow troops to come to poland. I was there several years ago where they agreed to pay for the base. I dont know if thats still an offer. But the baltics, Eastern Europe in particular, thats the appropriate place to move those troops and i agree that germany is not the right place for the number of troops that we have. They should be closer to where the action is and the frankly the countries that are at most risk right now. I dont know if you have any comment on that. I would hope they would be able to stay in europe. Senator, ill just one thing ill add, with respect to poland, we dont yet have our defense Cooperation Agreement quite done. And so the state department is working to get that done so that in the event the department of defense makes that decision, we recollect put the forces in there in a way that recollects them as well. Finally, thanks to senator murphy for raising those issues, he asked the same kind of questions that i would have asked. Trying to reorder and take the dod money thats going to go directly to you. We of course agree with you that that needs to be well spent. 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. I hope we can do more in terms of talking about what were doing thats helpful. But whats happened is instead, china and russia are spreading disinformation and weve heard about it in this committee, saying the virus was created by bill gates or covid19 was brought to china by american soldiers. Global Engagement Center is a Perfect Place to push back on that. Were working on that. Its important. I actually think with respect to covid, i think the world gets it. They know who the bad actor is here. They cant say it publicly, im convinced that the efforts to push back against this disinformation have been powerful and effective. Thank you. Senator cane . Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, welcome. The context in which we have this hearing is very, very complicated and its almost too much to talk about. In the last 24 hours, we passed 150,000 deaths in this country to coronavirus and in my view and 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 and this morning that president is suggesting that the president ial election should be delayed. This is not something either you or i were prepared to talk about today. The president sent out a tweet that said, quote, delay the election until people can properly securely and safely vote, 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 to 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 at Harvard Law School and i went to a lot of red sox games. I wasnt on the harvard law review. You were one of the most highly trained and accomplished lawyers who were part of this administration. Can a president delay a president ial election . Senator, the department of justice and others will make that legal determination. We all should want i know you do too, senator, want to make sure we have an election that everyone is confident in, thats not only are you indifferent to the date of the election . It should happen lawfully. Right. Yeah. It should happen lawfully. So for the record because you may not want to comment on it, but i do think its important, a president cannot delay an election. The date of the election is issued by congress. It was published in 1845. Theres no ability for a president to delay an election. And i dont think its that hard a question or one that should lead to any equivocation by somebody who is fourth of line in succession to be president of the United States. Let me ask another question. Was Maria Yovanovitch a talented public servant. Im not going to comment on that matter. Was she a valuable part of the state department family. The president made the very clear decision that he preferred that she not be our ambassador. That completely every one of us that takes on these jobs knows that at any minute we could be gone this is not a question about the president s power. Im asking about your opinion on her as a public servant. I did not interact with her. You dont consider that im not going to talk about this. There will be a place and a time for me to talk about this. And im looking forward to that. Its not the case that i talk about Personnel Matters in public you were very willing to tell us what you didnt like about the Inspector General thats 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 on that i want to make sure i understand your testimony. This is different and ive been steadfast in this. Youve asked me about other ambassadors before. I havent talked about them who were great and doing wonderful things. Im trying to determine whether youve been steadfast or not since i have so Many State Department employees that live in the commonwealth of virginia who are very, very concerned about whether or not a secretary of state might have the back of a career positional who is a valued person. You were on a phone call with President Trump and president zelensky of ukraine when the president said about ambassador yovanovitch, shes going to go through some things. Do you know what the president meant . I do not. You were on that call . Yes, i was. When he said that about Marie Yovanovitch, did you followup and ask what the president meant . Im confident that every action thats not the question i asked. Its the truth. That may be the truth, how about answering my question. Not going to talk about internal discussions at this state department. You wouldnt want me to. Neither would your constituents. They wouldnt want the secretary of state to come up here and talk about Personnel Matters. Thats not appropriate. Listen to my question. You were on the phone call. You heard the president say that about Marie Yovanovitch and did you ask what the president meant about that . Senator yes or no. The answer is, im not going to talk about it either. Did i ask the president what he meant . Yeah . I dont talk you told me you dont know what he meant. I just asked if you yeah, i appreciate your question. And i hope you can appreciate why i dont talk about conversations with the president. Here was testimony we heard in this room the other day from your i believe its executive secretary lisa kenna who was here for a hearing about her nomination to be ambassador to peru. She said in her work with you, the work that her office does, they get correspondence, and she said theres a second category that they dont open if its personal to you, if its for your eyes only, if its, you know, 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, its not your job . This is my job . President of the United States has the unconditional right to have the ambassador stipulated for the record. What was your its the central senator, i appreciate this. Dont go into great magical effects with respect to how a package came. Thats its all silliness. You should know that that package was delivered to capitol hill by the former Inspector General who ran to capitol hill my time is up. Im 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. It may be just a big joke, look at the you smiling and laughing im smile i dont think its silly to Marie Yovanovitch i dont think its silly to understand that every ambassador, every political appointee knows that the president of the United States finds that they lack confidence, the president has the right to terminate them. Its that easy. It includes me. Senator paul. And 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. After nearly 20 years of war, many are questioning the mission, many have been questioning what mission is in afghanistan for 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 very consistent and i think very sincere in wanting to end the war in afghanistan. Army Lieutenant General dan mcneill put it this way, i try to get someone to define for me what winning meant even before i went over and nobody could. Nobody would give me a good definition of what it meant. Some people were thinking in terms of jefferson democracy. But thats not going to happen in afghanistan. This statement was 13 years ago. General doug lute said we were devoid of a fundamental understanding of afghanistan. We didnt know what we were doing. What are we trying to do there . This is from five years ago. How long is it going to take . What is our Current Mission . Why are we in afghanistan . Do we have a military reason to be in afghanistan right now . The president has given two missions, one is to reduce our force posture both the risk to our young men and women who are fighting there and the second is to ensure that theres not a terror attack that emanates from that space. We have reduces forces there by about half since their most recent peak. Were on our way to reduce even further. Im hopeful well get the afghans to begin their negotiation because President Trump has made very clear his expectation. Weve entered into an agreement, well go to zero. I think its may of next year. Were looking to do that in terms to make sure we protect would you agree that afghanistan is one of probably hundreds of places that we potentially have terror threats or radical islamic threats and may not be if youll give me dozens and dozens, yes, sir, absolutely. And do you think that maybe its saying we talked about in europe that we had hundreds of thousands of troops in germany because there was the soviet union and they had 2 million, 3 Million People in their army and we had this cold war standoff. But circumstances have changed and maybe your opinion has changed over whether or not we need so many troops in germany. I applaud that. I think the same is in afghanistan. Its changed over 20 years. The war on terror is now and always has been a global one. But i think it may be a 20th century idea that we have to occupy territories so much that we have to have anchors and large bases particularly in countries that are in prolonged civil war. But the other question is, is really, is our goal in these locations around the world, National Security, or is our goal sometimes muddied by the idea that 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 . We built a 45 million natural gas gas station in afghanistan. They have no cars that run on natural gas. We bought them cars. We have no money, so we gave them a credit card. The gas station was supposed to cost a half a million, it cost 45 million and is no longer functioning. Is our goal National Security or is nation building part of what we should be doing as a country . I think President Trumps made it unambiguous. Our mission is there american National Security. Plain and simple. I would add this, there are times in the world where were better off if there are democratic nations. The state department is designed, right, to provide to build resilience to do this kind of thing. But i do think our foreign over ambitious about what we can accomplish through the use of military force with respect to getting other nations i think encouraging democracy and being part of supportive democracy doesnt mean we have to pay for trying to institute our image in some other country because it just 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 that they have to meet certain parameters and they break those parameters, were right back in with the threat to stay in. I think its almost that the threat has to be and maybe the threat should have been this 20 or even 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. So i think we need to think about what are and i think we havent escaped. Were stuck in this idea that weve occupied this acreage and we have to do something with it and we cant leave until its perfect. Its never going to be perfect there. The only thing i would just ex hort you is that lets dont base it completely on that we have to have a perfect deal to leave. I think theres always the threat that we can come back and people say, well, theres ten al qaeda left in afghanistan, they might be plotting right now. The president has admitted, youve said theyre a shadow of themselves. The president has admitted there have been reports that now we are talking dozens, not hundreds. Were talking dozens, not thousands. Same with the Islamic State. General loout spoke to one our committees and he said he couldnt name any group that he thought had the ability to attack the United States and theres no evidence that the Islamic State presence a threat to afghanistan. I dont want to finish this without mentioning that it takes friends the president. The president has policy and people have to try to fulfill his policy and for a long time, for several years john bolton was trying to thwart that and was an enemy of the president s policy. I hope the people will try to fulfill the president s policy and get us out of afghanistan. Thank you. To your point, senator paul, about the Global Spectrum of terrorism and the fact that there are dozens of al qaeda left in afghanistan, i think thats the central thing that the American People need to understand. Wherever we were 15 or 20 years ago is not where we are today, and our resources, whether its our decision in germany or the decision about forced posture in asia, africa or in afghanistan, syria or anyplace else, we need to make sure its updated for the actual threats presented to the United States of america and thats what President Trump is driving us to do. Thank you. Thank you. Senator merkley. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Secretary. I want 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. Now that these events, this new chinese law that really excerpts civil Rights Violations in hong kong has occurred, should we extend visa opportunities to those in china and hong kong . Were reviewing that. 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. The president is actively considering how we ought to treat those who seek asylum coming to us from hong kong or to korea, a visa program that surrounds that. 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 people, 18, 20 years old in chinese prisons. Do the events in hong kong change our perspectives on taiwan or make us think about ways to be more supportive of t taiwan . We obviously do a lot of arms sales and so forth but should we be more active in supporting taiwanese participation at International Institutions . Senator, they are different situations. There was an agreement with hong kong. Taiwan is theyre 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, so that requires diligence. Your question about international organizations, not only the team that 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 weve taken this on at the United Nations to make sure that taiwan is represented in every place that its appropriate that they be represented. Its part of formal and informal international gatherings. Theres a longstanding 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 understanding that have been long held, multiple administrations, multiple parties. We continue to continue on with that. We understand the taiwan relations act and the obligations that the United States government has with respect to that. Were working to recognize the changes the general secretary xi has made with respect to this and we want to get this right. Saudi arabia was abetting the flight of saudi nationals who have done horrific crimes in america, 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, senator. Thank you. So there is the report that well, weve done several things. In regard to the situation in shin jong and the chinese incarceration basically of slave camps of a Million People and weve done some recent things and 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 weve 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 and build the camps and its the right thing to do. I think its absolutely the wrong thing to do and we have done, as i noted, some steps that suggest thats but should we be more robust at every level in condemning the chinese enslavement of the w weekers . I think the answer is yes. Im proud of the way the United States has responded, not only the responses weve taken directly but the work weve done around the world to convince the whole world of whats taking place there. Ive been disappointed to see muslim countries not respond when there are often significant muslim populations being impacted there in western china. Were urging them to take this on in a serious way. Then i guess the last thing id 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 of this right. Its important that we get the individual sanctions of this right but it is very important and im really happy with the work were making to convince businesses, not just american businesses because its an International Place of business, that they should really look hard at their supply chains and whats taking place there. I think 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 row wing ga, the u. S. Holocaust museum, the law group to investigate 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 of human rights report talks about killings, torture, detention, violence against indigenous hondura hondurans. In addition, we had in october the u. S. Federal court find that the president was implicated as a coconspirator in widespread Drug Trafficking and money la d laundering and human rights abuses. In the context of all of this, is it time to reevaluate our relationship which has been quite cozy with the president of honduras . Were constantly demanding that the leadership in honduras atake these set of facts on board. Were well aware of whats taking place. Like in too many countries around the world, weve not had the effect that we desire. Were working on it. Senator young. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Good to have you here. In response to Media Coverage over the last few days, the washington post, nbc news, the daily beast and my hometown newspaper, the indianapolis star, id like to bring up the situation of peter kasich and three other americans who lost their lives at the hands of isis. Mr. Chairman, id like to request the following columns from the washington post, the star and nbc news be included. Included. Mr. Secretary, you may recall meeting with the kasich family last year but as a brief refresher, in october 2013, indiana native and former army ranger peter kasich was on a mission of mercy 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 murders. I know each of their stories are familiar to other members of this committee. Since that time some of the murders known as the beatles have been killed in u. S. Led drone strikes, but others remain at large. 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 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 . An example, and ill stay away from this particular instance but an example is when we make a decision from time to time to bring someone back from someplace else, either through extradition or through another legal process, the country will say because we have the Death Penalty or because of a certain set of rules we have here they wont either permit that to happen or share the information that we might need to complete a successful prosecution. 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 you were 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 weve encountered with the British Government and their Justice System in allowing the prosecution to move forward in the United States. I appreciate that, senator. Thats important. Yeah, 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 ensure that justice is delivered and delivered here in the United States. Will you commit to working with me and this committee to ensure that we pursue this matter accordingly . Yes, sir. Thank you. Id 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 food and agricultural organization, the international telecome union in the u. N. Industrial 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 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 a at least 15yearlong slide that has taken place and growth of the Chinese Communist partys influence in these institutions and organizations. Weve 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. We put up a candidate, it wasnt an american candidate but a candidate that we believe has an understanding of intellectual property in the same way that freedom loving democracies do, and we crushed them. It was an amazing diplomatic effort. We built coalitions with the indians, brits, australians and built it across the world. Were asking for 20 million in this budget to take the team that we built there and make it a Permanent Team that is focused on these major elections for these 15 institutions. Then theres another set that are slightly different but still very important. Then we have a second set of operations which is its not just the leaders that matter at these 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 that theres someone there. It matters that theyre american but it matters that they if theyre not american, that they come from the nations that understand the rule of law and how the world ought to be conducted in a way that we do. So ive actually worked closely with about seven other countries to build out an effort that is very focused on exactly this. Sometimes, frankly, weve had opportunities, 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, in two years, well be in a better place than we are today and i hope well have the resources to do that. Its a little bit of a resource issue but a lot of a focus issue and i think ive cleaned that up materially. Senator purdue. I want to correct the record on a couple of things that have been said here this morning. First of all, i believe that secretary tillersons two predecessors oversaw probably one of the most major withdrawals in Foreign Policy america has ever seen and 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 such that in january of 2017, mr. Secretary, i believe that the world was more dangerous than at any time in my lifetime. We faced five threats across five domains, iran, north korea, russia, china and all of a sudden we woke up and realized that our wouldbe adversaries had been developing. We woke up and i think weve all now figured out in the United States, i think theres 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 id like to quote some of that that you wrote about. You had secretary obrian National Security adviser obrian 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 built up over decades and the chinas communist partys design for hedge money. Its interesting you chose that word because the chinese love to quote confucius. They do this recently. Just as there cant be two suns in the sky, there cant be two emperors on the earth. They want to be the one they feel like they were for 4,000 years. You said further, our goal was to make clear that the threats to americans that President Trumps china policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established. You said later in closing this out, you said securing and i think that is the most important sentence in this speech, in my opinion. Securing our freedoms from the chooinds 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 that our fight is not with the chinese people, its with the communist party. Theres a statement from the administration here dated may 26, 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 the threats the Chinese Communist party threatened or 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 in 2015. Weve got to get this imbalance corrected and when we do, there will be costs associated with that. Weve got the largest increase in our military buildup that President Trump has led. Were very focused on an arms control, Strategic Dialogue that were having today, was in vienna on the 27th and 28th of this month. We know we need china to be part of that too. Theyre a significant nuclear power. We see whats happening on the economic front. Theyre competing. Senator rubio talked about their efforts in four or five technology spheres. This is a multicut campaign. It will take not only the United States government but United States citizens to understand this challenge and then weve got to build out the global alliance. The last thing ill say is ive seen it said that the United States is asking nations to pick 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 leaders got to make. When i go around the world thats what i talk to them about and they all know the United States is the country they want to be alongside. They know that freedom and the rule of law and the protection of these rights is essential to their country and its why i think the tide is turning around the world and people are seeing the Chinese Communist party for what it is, the threat to the security of their people. I agree with the tyranny and freedom. I characterize it as state control and selfdetermination. The world is turning into a binary equation. If you add up the gdps of those statecontrolled countries, its probably less than 23 trillion. If you add up the gdp of all the rest, its over 70 trillion, mr. Secretary. I want to relate that back to the last question that fwogoes your comments earlier. I think you agreed 1,000 percent with senator murphy about the allies with china. This is a huge effort thats going to take years to develop but right now we have an opportunity with the quad lateral security dialogue. This is United States, india, japan and australia and a Great Development is happening right now that india is very strongly considering binding 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. Would you make one last comment on that, please. 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 of how commercial enterprise should be conducted and how militaries should engage and how security is actually 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 in those countries to recognize the value of this group. I meet with them with some frequency 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 that we can build out from all across the world. Thank you. Thank you, senator purdue. Senator graham. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I appreciate the good job you do for our country and leaning into hard issues forcefully. We need more of that, not less. When it comes to u. N. Enjoy for bolivia, do you support that we need a new one . Yes. Good. Im going to try to get a letter from everyone in the committee to the u. N. Secretary general. Anything we can do to up our game would be great. I know you work with the berlin folks and well see if we can bring stability. I know you agree with that, not just a new one but the right person as well. Okay, thank you very much. The caesars act, thank you for using it quickly and in a Holding Assad sun accountable is a great first step. Is more coming . Yes, senator. Thank you. Great job. I talked to general meslun yesterday. Apparently theyve signed a deal with an American Oil Company to modernize through 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 we hope with implementation it will be very powerful. When it comes to afghanistan, is it my understanding that any withdrawal from afghanistan will be conditions based . Thats correct. And the Afghan Dialogue hopefully will start here fairly soon. Yes. Hopefully. Yes. I dont mean to make light of that. Were very hopeful that in the next week, i fear that i may have said that once before but we see the conditions that are not complete enough that we think theres a real chance. In case the taliban are following the hearing, i doubt they are, im pretty hawkish on afghanistan. Youve been great on Foreign Policy from my point of view. Id like to end the war too and get the taliban integrated into a new afghanistan that respects the rights of women, everybody can have a say through the democratic process and the taliban are part of the afghan culture. Theyre minority. Theyre by no means a dominant voice in afghanistan but if we can help pakistan and afghanistan achieve a working relationship theyve never had before on terrorism, we can get an inner afghanistan 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 our efforts. I very much appreciate what zal is doing and adam when it comes to china. Is it fair to say that in 2020, Chinese Communist party is running concentration camps that house religious minorities . I have to be careful about the language. Ive described it this way, senator, it is Something Like that . It is the worst human rights violation that we have seen this century. Okay, fair enough. Thats a good description. You closed the houston consulate 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. And i appreciate you speaking about it and taking action. When it comes to the rule of law, the Chinese Communist party sees it as more of a nuisance than anything else . I think the litter of promise was broken across multiple forums and demonstrates that they take those agreements for having very little value. If you have a property speech you generally dont build a military base on the contested property. You actually go to some kind of court and work it out. We just passed in the Judiciary Committee legislation modelled on jassta allowing americans who have been victims of the coronavirus to sue the Chinese Communist party. Do you support that . I havent had a chance to take a look at it. Well get it to you and please get back to you 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 twriri to work with the 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 potencpotency . Are the sanctions working, and what would you advise this committee to do Going Forward with iran . Senator, the sanctions have clearly had an impact. It has diminished their capacity to underwrite hezbollah in iraq but clearly hasnt achieved the ultimate objective 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 start of the regime to the capacity to inflict terror around the world. Your support in doing that is very important. I talked earlier, i think you hadnt arrived just yet, about the u. N. Arms embargo that were working to make sure it doesnt expire in a couple months. One last topic, and again, thank you, i think youve done a very good job from my point of view in our country leaning into very difficult issues. Developmentally, the house 3 trillion bill doesnt have any 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 petfar because it will do no good to eradicate it here if we dont eradicate it anywhere. Would you work with us . Yes. Weve presented something thats modelled on petfar that we think would be successful if we can get a vaccine and i would be happy to work with you all on it. Thank you very much, mr. Secretary. Thank you, senator graham. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your service as well. Lets cover a number of topics. Lets start with nord stream two. We worked with 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 nord stream two. 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 activity. So those sanctions worked. Russia has not stopped. They have a pipeline that is 90 to 95 complete. The good thing about a pipeline is a pipeline thats 95 complete is a pipeline that is zero Percent Complete because it aint transmitting anything until they connect the two ends. It is my intention that 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. 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 cats sa, 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 nord stream two, 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. Thanks. The president made that decision to change that language. It was my recommendation so im not walking away from it but i want to make sure everybody knew the president was fully on board with that change. That language is important because to your point and this is a little bit too simple but it was essentially a get out of jail free card for those conducting activities. Thats no longer true. Both the state department and the department of treasury made very clear in our conversations with those who have equipment there and we can see that theyre responding as are the board of directors, insurers, board of directors, all understand the expressed threat for continuing to work on completion of the pipeline. We remain hopeful that those who have the capacity to finish this pipeline quickly wont be able to do so, will choose not to because of these sanctions and then we have the task are those that are 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 that the pipeline poses to europe. We have not been able to convince the germans of that so were taking action ourselves to try and accomplish that, to preserve security for the european people. Secretary pompeo, i know you care about this issue. I spent about six hours with the president yesterday on air force one and nord stream two 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 rivalled 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 there are not going to be sanctions for anyone involved in this pipeline. The russians pushed disinformation that the Bipartisan Legislation i had introduced previously was not going to pass. That was wrong. I remember that. And we had overwhelming bipartisan support that passed it into law. And so i would encourage i believe under cats sa 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. 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 interest of europe. It will do serious damage to the economic and National Security interest of the United States, and it will benefit putin and put billions of dollars in his pocket. Theres no need for on ambiguity. There was a reason that we made the change in that language, essentially the waiver language if you will. Were fully intent of sanctioning those that violate the provisions that are contained there, both in cats sa and otherwise. Thank you. Thats helpful. Lets shift to another area. I hope thats clear enough. That last statement had substantially greater clarity, and 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 iran snapback. I believe maximum pressure should be maximum pressure, that the Iranian Regime, the ayatollah when he said death to america, that he means it, that 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 has now nakedly, openly, flagrantly flouting the deal. 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. Ive spoken to this a couple times. We believe that under the u. N. Security Council Resolution 2231 we have the authority to do this and were not going to permit this to expire on october 18. Were going to introduce the Security Council resolution we hope and will be met with approval from the other members. In the event that its not, we will take the action necessary to ensure that this arms embargo doesnt expire 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 sincerity appreciate it. The record will remain open until the close of business on friday and any responses that are given will be made part of the record. With that, again, thank you, mr. Secretary. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Members. Cspan3 takes you live now to the white house where President Trump is about to give an update on the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic