[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY AND
FY20 BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-589PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
Pompeo, Hon. Michael, Secretary, United States Department of
State.......................................................... 7
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Information submitted for the record from Representative
Cicilline...................................................... 45
Information submitted for the record from Representative McCaul..
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 97
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 98
Hearing Attendance............................................... 99
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Statement for the record submitted by Chairman Engel............. 100
Statement for the record submitted by Chairman Engel............. 102
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Response to questions submitted by Chairman Engel................ 103
Response to questions submitted by Representative McCaul......... 222
Response to questions submitted by Representative Sherman........ 223
Response to questions submitted by Representative Perry.......... 228
Response to questions submitted by Representative Sires.......... 232
Response to questions submitted by Representative Burchett....... 239
Response to questions submitted by Representative Keating........ 240
Response to questions submitted by Representative Cicilline...... 242
Response to questions submitted by Representative Bera........... 262
Response to questions submitted by Representative Lieu........... 272
Response to questions submitted by Representative Allred......... 283
Response to questions submitted by Representative Houlahan....... 285
THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY AND FY20 BUDGET REQUEST
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:35 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Engel [presiding]. The committee will come to
order.
Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit
statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record,
subject to the length limitation in the rules.
Chairman Engel. This afternoon, we will hear testimony from
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the Trump Administration's
2020 international affairs budget request and a range of other
issues dealing with the Administration's foreign policy and
management of the State Department.
Welcome back to the House, Mr. Secretary. I know you spent
many good days here, and I appreciated your reaching out
shortly after the election when you were first nominated as
Secretary of State. I value our open line of communication.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Welcome to the public and members of the
press as well, especially our friends from C-SPAN who are
celebrating its 40th birthday this week.
So, let me, first of all, start with the budget. The
Administration's first budget request before you were
Secretary, Mr. Secretary, was deeply disappointing. Slashing
investments in diplomacy and development by nearly a third, it
met resounding bipartisan rejection here in Congress.
The second budget was baffling. After Congress made it
clear we would not gut American diplomacy, the Administration
made essentially the same request to do just that. Again, it
was rejected.
And the third budget, which, once again, in my opinion,
seeks to hobble the State Department and other agencies, this,
in my view, demonstrates contempt for diplomacy and diplomats
and contempt for the Congress, frankly, whose job it is to
decide how much to spend on foreign affairs.
The first year, when the budget was sent, it was rejected,
and we came up with our budget, in a bipartisan way I should
say. And then, the second year, the Administration came to
lowball us once again. And now, the third year, at the same
time when the budget has been rejected twice before, why would
the Administration send a similar budget, only to be rejected a
third time?
So, Mr. Secretary, let me be clear, this budget request was
dead the moment it arrived on Capitol Hill. I do not know
whether the Administration really believes that we can mount an
effective foreign policy, one that advances American interests,
values, and security, on a shoestring budget, or if the people
calling the shots just do not care. But Congress will not stand
by and see American leadership on the global stage undermined,
and that is not just our opinion; that is the power of the
purse. That is what we are supposed to do. So, that is the good
news.
The bad news comes when the Administration shows the world
just how little stock it puts in diplomacy and development, in
building bridges of friendship and forging alliances, in
resolving conflict and crises. This budget, in my opinion,
signals to the world that the Trump foreign policy is one of
disengagement, of pulling back from places where American
leadership is needed the most. And we know other countries that
do not share our values, countries like China and Russia and
Iran, those countries are more than happy to fill the void.
So, it also tells our diplomatic and development work force
that their efforts are not valued. That has had an impact that
we can already see. We see it in the plummeting morale at the
State Department and the number of diplomats chased to the
exits. We see it in report after report after report of
politically motivated targeting and harassment of career
employees, allegations on which the Department has failed to
respond to multiple committee requests for information. We see
it in the drop of the number of civil servants at the
Department and the sharp decline in employee satisfaction,
according to the Partnership for Public Service.
And when I look at the Administration's policies, I am left
wondering how often, if State Department experts are being
ignored completely. From denigrating our alliances; NATO; to
cozying up to strongmen; to walking away from our international
agreements and obligations; from an abortive summit with North
Korea; to saber rattling in Venezuela; to clearing the way for
Iran and Russia to run roughshod over Syria, if we leave; from
waging a trade war with China that is hurting American farmers
and consumers; to slamming the door on vulnerable people around
the world seeking to come to our country, those do not seem
like policies to me built on the expertise and experience that
our diplomats offer. They seem like what I call fly by-the-
seat-of-your-pants diplomacy.
And so, as Congress exercises its constitutional
responsibility in rejecting the inadequate budget request, this
committee will also conduct oversight to deal with what I
consider major problems in foreign policy and at the State
Department.
Mr. Secretary, I was hopeful that the Department would work
collaboratively with us to allow this committee to carry out
its constitutionally mandated oversight duties, but I must say,
3 months into this Congress, the response from the Department
to our requests has ranged from foot-dragging to outright
stonewalling. It is very frustrating, and that is not
acceptable. I believe you would feel the same way, since I know
you, if you were still a Member of this body.
I hope the trend changes, but if it does not, I will use
every tool at this committee's disposal to get the answers we
need. And I hope we can get some of those answers today. I look
forward to a frank conversation and to your testimony, Mr.
Secretary.
And before I introduce you, I will call on my friend, the
ranking member, Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas, for any opening
statement he may have.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I applaud the work that you are
doing for our country. Let me say, in my recent visit to the
State Department, I found that the morale is very good.
Over the last 2 years, the Administration has embarked on a
forward-leaning agenda which is putting America back where it
needs to be. And I want to thank you for ending the era of
leading from behind and strategic patience. The importance of
our diplomatic mission cannot be overstated. With the growing
crisis in Venezuela, an unpredictable North Korea, China and
Russia creating mischief around the globe, terrorism on the
rise in Africa, and Iran threatening Israel, we must show our
strength through hands of diplomacy.
The President's budget request identifies our most
challenging threats. For example, it includes $662 million to
counter Russia's malign influence in Europe and Eurasia. This
vital assistance will support our allies like Ukraine to help
enhance their cybersecurity infrastructure, to counter Russian
attacks and their propaganda and disinformation campaigns.
In regard to the Ukraine's upcoming elections, I will
closely watch, and I know you will as well, how the Russians
interfere. It may be a precursor to what we will see here in
2020.
The President's budget proposal also contains some much-
needed reforms. However, I do agree with the chairman; I
believe that certain cuts have unintended consequences that
cost us more in the long term. This is especially true of cuts
to critical humanitarian and developmental assistance programs
that promote democracy, support economic growth, and provide
lifesaving resources to bolster stability in areas at risk of
terrorism and extremist ideologies. As the former Secretary of
Defense Jim Mattis once said, ``If you do not fund the State
Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.''
On terrorism, a few years ago, you and I had the
opportunity to travel to Northern Africa and the Middle East,
and I remember watching the F-18s taking off in the Persian
Gulf from the deck of the Harry Truman to hit ISIS targets in
Syria. Today, it almost feels a little surreal to be able to
finally say that their so-called caliphate is gone. And I
applaud your efforts in that mission. But we also still note
the threat from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others still remains.
On fragile States, a key lesson from violent conflicts and
fragile States is that they provide a fertile recruiting ground
for terrorists and transnational criminal organizations. This
broken model can be fixed, and we need to do more in terms of
prevention. That is why Chairman Engel and I reintroduced our
fragile States bill this Congress. It will require that the
Administration launch a new initiative to coordinate our
assistance to these broken States.
On the Middle East, any strategy there must always include
strengthening our ties with Israel. And for starters, I was
very proud of your efforts and the President's to see our
embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Mr. Secretary, I want to applaud your efforts, also, in
countering Iran. Some do not see their true menace. They are
still the No. 1 State sponsor of terror. They support
Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, hold Americans hostage. They
have an assassination campaign in Europe, a reckless missile
program, suppress their people's freedom, and let's not forget
want to wipe out Israel, and chant death to America.
I applaud last week's sanctions that target Iranian weapons
of mass destruction proliferators. We cannot let Iran get
nuclear weapons ever.
On China, their government aggressively steals our
intellectual property, threatens Taiwan, partakes in growing
military adventurism, and targets both developed and
underdeveloped nations through their One Belt One Road
Initiative.
I am very supportive of the action items laid out in your
Indo-Pacific speech last year. As you know, many countries tell
us America is just not there the way the Chinese and other
countries are. And that is why I introduced the Championing
American Business Through Diplomacy Act with Chairman Engel. In
sum, it bolsters U.S. economic and commercial diplomacy by
mandating that our diplomats have better training and do more
to ensure countries do business with American companies rather
than with the Chinese.
On Venezuela, we can all agree that the socialist policies
of Nicolas Maduro have turned the once rich country into a
failed mafia State. With little food and medicine, millions of
people are suffering more every day and forced to flee to other
countries in the region. Maduro's armed thugs are blocking the
delivery of humanitarian aid. They have shot innocent
civilians, kidnapped the chief of staff of Interim President
Guaido, and just yesterday attacked Guaido's motorcade. I would
also like to note that Maduro has taken four Texans who work
for Citgo and put them in a Venezuelan prison.
I commend the President for supporting the people of
Venezuela in their quest to take back their country through
free and fair elections, and applaud neighbors like Colombia,
Brazil, and the Lima Group for their effort.
Secretary Pompeo, it is a great honor to welcome you today
as a Secretary, as a former colleague, and a friend. And I have
always said that partisanship, as the chairman says, must end
at the water's edge. This hearing gives us a chance to put
partisan politics aside and offer solutions to complex issues.
I look forward to your testimony.
And I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
And now, let me introduce our witness. Michael Pompeo is
the 70th United States Secretary of State, taking office April
26th of last year. From January 2017 until he became our top
diplomat, Mr. Pompeo served as the sixth Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency. From 2011 until 2017, he
represented Kansas' 4th congressional District right here in
the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a lawyer, an
entrepreneur, and from 1986 until 1991, served in the United
States Army.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the House. We are pleased to
have you with us today. And I now recognize you for 5 minutes
to summarize your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL POMPEO, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Pompeo. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Engel. Thank you, Ranking Member McCaul. I will be brief this
morning.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the Administration's
Fiscal Year budget. It is designed around the national security
strategy to achieve our foreign policy goals. The request for
$40 billion for State Department and USAID puts us in position
to do just that. These moneys will protect our citizens at home
and abroad, advance American prosperity and values, and support
our allies and partners overseas. We make this request mindful
of the burden on American taxpayers and take seriously our
obligation to deliver exceptional results on their behalf. This
budget will achieve our key diplomatic goals. Let me walk
through many of them.
First, we will make sure that China and Russia cannot gain
a strategic advantage in an age of renewed great power
competition. We will continue our progress toward final, fully
verified denuclearization of North Korea, and we will support
the people of Venezuela as they work toward a peaceful
restoration of their democracy, so they can achieve prosperity
in their once rich nation. And we will continue to confront the
threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its maligned
behavior. We will work to help our allies and partners around
the world to become more secure and economically self-reliant
as well.
I take it as a personal mission to make sure that our
world-class diplomatic personnel have the resources they need
to execute America's diplomacy in the 21st century. Mr.
Chairman, I know that you, too, care deeply about the welfare
of our dedicated professionals. I have seen it. They get up
every day and carry out the Department's vital national
security and foreign policy missions. And like you, my foremost
priority is to ensure we have the resources to recruit, hire,
develop, retain, and empower them to remain the world's finest
diplomatic team. We especially need the extremely qualified
individuals we nominated to serve in important management
positions across the Department, many of whom have been
awaiting Senate confirmation since last year. I also appreciate
this committee's focus on ensuring that the 75,000 men and
women of the Department's work force are treated respectfully
and justly.
I have great respect for the committee's oversight role,
and I work to ensure that those commitments are carried out.
When I served in this chamber, I pressed Administration
officials hard about the importance of executive branch
responsiveness to requests from Congress, and my team will
continue to work with yours to fulfill your requests for
briefings, meetings, information from the Department, to work
constructively to identify how we can appropriately respond to
the committee's oversight and investigative requests.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on all of
these key foreign policy priorities and many more. And I will
now end my remarks, so that we will have fulsome time for a
good conversation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Pompeo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I will now begin with my questions, and after my time has
expired, I will recognize members for 5 minutes for the purpose
of questioning the witness.
So, I have three questions. I am going to try to get them
in. And so, if you could give us a short answer, perhaps it
would work, and then, we will follow it up.
Mr. Secretary, from your experience in Congress
investigating Benghazi, you know, of course, that we cannot
conduct our constitutional oversight duties effectively if the
executive branch stonewalls or drags its feet on committee
requests for information. I want you to know, for over a year,
the State Department has not responded to my concerns about
allegations that senior officials targeted career employees for
improper reasons, including their work for previous
Administrations, their sexual orientation, and even their
national origin. As you know, the Inspector General will finish
his investigation of this matter shortly. You testified last
May that people engaged in such targeting should not be working
at the State Department.
I am holding two emails from 2017 right here from a senior
official, Brian Hook. In one, he pledges to gather intel on an
employee who was, quote, ``born in Iran''. On the other, he
makes a list of employees. I was shocked to see how he
characterized these employees, not by anything related to their
job performance, but by national origin, ethnicity, perceived
political affiliation, and even gossip that some might be
troublemakers.
So, I want to ask you an easy question. Is targeting
employees for these reasons appropriate?
Secretary Pompeo. I came onboard and immediately made sure
that both the Office of Special Counsel and the OIG had all the
information they needed to complete their investigation. And I
am disappointed that they have not completed their work yet and
hope that they will do so soon. Other than that, I am not going
to respond to anything about any particular person, but I can
assure you I want every employee at the Department of State
treated with the dignity that they deserve because of their
humanness.
Chairman Engel. Can you tell us, then, Mr. Secretary, why
have not you shared with us any of the information?
Secretary Pompeo. I think we have shared a great deal. We
have come over and we have talked with you. We have talked with
folks on the Senate as well. We are working diligently to
comply with the requests that you have.
It is complicated when you have IG investigations and
Special Counsel investigations. You would be the first to
remind me that, if we started asking hard questions of the IG,
it would suggest that I might be trying to improperly interfere
with their work. And I have tried to do everything I can to
make sure that accusations like that could not possibly be
leveled.
Chairman Engel. I just want you to know that I have here
the OIG's email confirming that they have no problems with the
Department providing these documents to Congress. It has just
been very frustrating, and I am sure you can understand, the
stonewalling we have been getting for over a year now. And it
is very frustrating. All we want to know is what we are
entitled to know. A call from your staff just days before this
hearing in which they did not agree to produce any documents is
really not a good-faith effort. So, I would hope, based on what
you have said, that you will provide us the documents the
committee requested, and I hope you can do that within 1 week.
There is nothing outlandish or outrageous. We are just trying
to do our jobs.
I want to ask you a question about Syria. I am very worried
about President Trump's statement that we are going to pull out
of Syria. I do not want the United States to be in a foreign
country any more than we have to, but pulling out of Syria
would be a betrayal to the Kurds, our faithful allies for many,
many years; saved American lives. It would create problems for
our ally Israel because it would put the Iranian regime right
on Israel's border. And if and when we ever had to come back,
it would probably result in more American casualties. Right
now, we seem to have the situation pretty much in hand.
So, I hope that the President's precipitous statement that
we were going to, after he allegedly spoke with Mr. Erdogan of
Turkey, that we were going to pull out of Syria soon,
immediately, or whatever, is not the truth, is not so, and that
we have rethought it. And can you give us some assurances on
that?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not want to speak about particular
troop levels. I will leave that to the Department of Defense.
But I can talk about the policy. The President has made clear
he wants to put as few American soldiers' lives at risk as he
possibly can and do so while achieving America's important
policy interests. I think we can do that.
By the way, I have a senior State Department official who
is working diligently to implement U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2254 and to work with the Turks and with the Kurds
to create conditions on the ground, in the real estate that
separates Syria and Turkey, so that we can continue to maintain
the vigilance that led to the destruction of the caliphate.
It is a longer answer, but this fits inside our policy
throughout the Middle East, whether it is Iraq or in Syria, the
work that we are doing to help Lebanon, the work we are doing
with our Gulf partners to achieve precisely what it is I think
you describe, a secure situation for the American people and an
increase in the stability throughout the Middle East.
Chairman Engel. And, of course, we do not need Iran in
Syria or Russia in Syria, right up to Israel's northern border.
Secretary Pompeo. That is correct.
Chairman Engel. Let me finally ask you this question: the
Balkans, how is the U.S. pushing back on Russian encroachment
in the Balkans? I am very supportive of the independence of
Kosovo, very supportive of the U.S. alliance with Kosovo. I
would like to see Kosovo in the United Nations, in all the
international organizations. I know they are having
negotiations with Serbia, but Serbia is actually trying to
undermine them the minute they walk away by trying to get other
nations to withdraw their recognition of Kosovo, by making
noise in terms of preventing them from getting into INTERPOL,
and some of the other international organizations.
I just want to say that I hope the Administration stands by
our ally. I know of no country that is more pro-American than
Kosovo. And I just would like to hear you respond to that.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are watching the situation closely. We understand all
the rest. Under Secretary Hale was in the region not too
terribly long ago. He reported back to me on the challenges. We
understand Russia's efforts to influence and use various forms
of power to control that region.
And I would be happy--I know you want short answers--I
would be happy to talk to you in detail about how it is we are
trying to achieve those through all the diplomatic tools we
have, not only the soft power of diplomacy, but through our
economic tools as well.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first say, Mr. Secretary, that the chairman and I
will be working in a bipartisan fashion to plus-up your budget.
I think we need stability throughout the globe, and we look
forward to working with you on that issue.
Tomorrow, the chairman and I will be traveling to the
Venezuelan border in Colombia. And I have kind of a two-part
question. First is I do not think failure is an option here,
but what would be the consequences for the United States and
the region if Maduro succeeds in Venezuela? And the second part
is, if Maduro does not succeed, what would a post-Maduro
reconstruction strategy look like?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I am of the nature that I try not to
contemplate failure too often, but we have certainly considered
what the risks are associated with the efforts that we have
provided to date and the efforts. Frankly, you mentioned the
Lima Group, all the countries in the region now, some 50-some
that have recognized the proper leader, as designated by the
Venezuelan people through their constitution.
Look, we have seen Russia continue trying to exert
influence. We know that the Cubans are providing substantial
support to the Maduro regime. Allowing Maduro to continue will
have as its primary negative outcome continued destruction of
the Venezuelan economy and real hardship for the Venezuelan
people. It will certainly have an importance in terms of the
risk of terror, the risk of chaos, the economic, and refugees
flowing from those regions, from Venezuela to the region as
well. So, there is lots of downside if the Venezuelan people's
objective is not achieved.
Second, the day and week after is going to be a long
process. The Maduro regime's destruction of the economy in
Venezuela is not as a result of the sanctions that the United
States has put in place over the last months. This is years of
socialist leadership that has completely put their primary
revenue source, their fossil fuel resources, in a place that is
going to cost, I have seen estimates between $6 and $12
billion, and years to repair. So, the day after means making
sure the Cuban and Russian influence are out; Maduro and his
cronies are all gone, and we begin to rebuild the democracy.
And the world will have to provide the economic assistance to
get them through this transition period.
The United States will certainly be part of it, but I am
confident we will find the coalition that we have built, some
50 countries strong, that our State Department has built, will
be part of that as well.
Mr. McCaul. And thank you. I think it is an historic
opportunity for the region, the hemisphere. I think it will
transform Venezuela, which is now a failed State. It was a
prosperous nation. Now, 20 years later, it is in utter chaos.
And I think it would also impact Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia. It
could really transform the Western Hemisphere and be a major
foreign policy victory.
On China, as I get my threat briefings, Islamist terror has
always been the focus, but it seems to me that China now is
becoming more the No. 1 threat in nation States. Can you tell
me about the threat from China? In particular, what I am
concerned about is the One Belt One Road Initiative. You know,
their theft of intellectual property--they are in our medical
institutions, our universities. But the One Belt One Road, they
are literally overleveraging countries, and particularly in
Africa, too, where they can take over these countries without a
shot fired. And they are in Sri Lanka now--they have that
port--and in Djibouti.
What is the Administration doing to counter the Chinese
threat?
Secretary Pompeo. So, the first thing we did is we
identified it, something previous Administrations were loath to
do. I get it. We have important economic interests with China.
Many American jobs depend on that. President Trump is doing his
level best to set the trade relationship so that it is fair and
reciprocal. So, I would describe that as the first thing the
Administration did.
The second thing is we recognize this is a great power
battle and we are engaged in it across the world. It is our
support of ASEAN. It is identifying the threat from Chinese
State-owned enterprise technology companies, sharing that with
countries in the Middle East and in Europe, identifying these
risks, so that Western democracies around the world will wake
up to the risks and will push back.
And you mentioned One Belt One Road, in particular. We are
doing our best to make sure that there are Western competitors
every place there is a project that China is putting forth. We
are happy to compete. If it is fair, transparent, open
transaction, you know, the Chinese may win a few, but I am very
confident that American businesses will do incredibly well
there.
What we have seen is just the opposite. We have seen
transactions that were not straight-up, that were not fair,
that were designed with a national security interest, and not
an economic interest for the people of their country. The State
Department has shared with these countries and their people and
their leadership the risks from entering into these. And
frankly, I think countries throughout Asia/Southeast Asia are
waking up to this concern as well.
Mr. McCaul. And let me just close. I know my time has
expired.
Just commending you for your engagement with Kim Jong-un in
North Korea. I think that is vitally important, given the
threat that we face in the region. I also commend you for
walking away from the table. I think the best thing Ronald
Reagan did was walking away from the table from the Soviets,
and then we, ultimately, saw the end of the cold war.
And I think just to get a deal, like the Iran deal, for
instance, it is not adequate. We need a good deal. And so,
thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
We will now go to Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary of State, thank you and welcome.
I want to talk a little bit about the Western Hemisphere
and what is going on. I see a bigger plan in what is going on
in Venezuela I think than most people. I see a lot of
similarities of what happened with Cuba and what is happening
in Venezuela. In Cuba, they allowed the people to leave that
were disenchanted with the government. In Venezuela, there are
5,000 people leaving every day. They expect, by the end of this
year, to be about 5 million people that have left Venezuela,
those who are disenchanted with this government.
I really believe that there is a bigger plan here to
destabilize the Western Hemisphere with what is going on in
Venezuela. You have a million people putting a great deal of
pressure on Colombia, and they have opened their doors and they
have done a great job in helping these people. You have 700,000
people going into Peru. You have people all the way down to
Argentina. Some of these countries cannot absorb the quantity
of people that are leaving Venezuela daily. So, to me, I think
this is part of a bigger plan to destabilize this whole region.
It continues to keep us busy. It continues to make America
the bad apple in all this. And I would hope that we will
continue to put pressure on Maduro. I do not believe in
military action, but I do believe that sanctions will be
effective and working with the Lima Group will be very
effective.
This afternoon, I am meeting with Fabiana Rosales, the wife
of Guaido. She is very concerned about her husband. She feels
that any day now they are going to pick him up, and God knows
where they are going to put him.
Are we prepared to increase our sanctions and make it even
harder for Maduro to continue being in power if anything like
this happens?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Sires. Do you know, can you share with us kind of
sanctions would you be considering?
Secretary Pompeo. What we have done so far is historic.
Mr. Sires. I agree with what they are doing so far.
Secretary Pompeo. And your analysis, I actually share most
all of the analysis that you just laid out as well of the risks
to the region. I would prefer not to get out ahead of what we
are prepared to sanction and what we are not, but suffice it to
say, you have this Administration's commitment to continue to
work to deliver for the Venezuelan people. Whether that is
economic sanctions, sanctions on family members, military
leaders, our outreach through diplomats to try and convince the
Venezuelan army of the fool's errand it is to stand with this
thug, we are hard at it.
Mr. Sires. I am concerned that it is going to go from
Venezuela to Nicaragua. I mean, Nicaragua last year bought $80
million worth of tanks from Russia. They are one of the poorest
countries, if not the poorest, in the region. So, to me, they
are going on the same path.
This idea that somehow they are having this dialogue now,
they keep walking away from this dialogue with the opposition.
And it is only a matter of time until they pull one of these
Maduro issues where they become absolute power.
Are we willing to put sanctions on Nicaragua if they go the
same way as Venezuela?
Secretary Pompeo. I am confident that we will respond. If
the threat is similar and the risks are similar, we will
respond in a similar fashion.
Mr. Sires. And the last thing I have is, Uruguay, Mexico,
they were talking about somehow some sort of dialogue to see if
they could move Maduro out. Has the Administration talked to
these two countries in terms--I think Brazil was probably
involved in that also--to see if they could help in moving this
guy out of there before more people die?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, we have been in conversations with,
I personally have been in conversations with each of those two
governments. And I must say, there is no evidence that there is
any value in speaking with Maduro at this time. His time has
come; his time has gone. It is time for him to leave.
Mr. Sires. I have so many questions, but my time is running
out.
But I know the Turks----
Secretary Pompeo. I tried to be brief.
Mr. Sires. You are; you have been.
The Turks, the Iranians are in Venezuela. Very concerned.
And thank you for being here.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Pompeo. May I just add to that? And they have
provided financial assistance and support to the Maduro regime
at a time when it was incredibly unconstructive.
Mr. Sires. And I see that the Russians landed 100 soldiers,
or something, the other day?
Secretary Pompeo. That is correct.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for your great
leadership and for being here today.
A few months ago, I chaired a hearing on the Chinese
government's complicity in the production and trafficking of
fentanyl. As we all know, 29,000 people in the United States
have been killed, the most recent numbers in 2017. I have a
bill, H.R. 1542--Mr. Suozzi is my principal Democrat
cosponsor--called the Combating Illicit Fentanyl Act of 2019.
And what we are looking for is a listing of people who are
complicit. At the hearing, I walked away thinking we are not
doing perhaps all that we can do. I know you are doing much.
But it seems to me the Magnitsky Act sanctions and other things
ought to be brought to bear against those people.
Second, thank you, on Ambassador John Richmond and Special
Envoy Elan Carr, for two very superb choices, the Special Envoy
on Antisemitism and Ambassador Richmond heading up the
trafficking office. So, thank you for that leadership because
they are two wonderful people that are doing a good job
already.
Let me just jump back to a second ago. Last night I was at
a premiere of a brand-new film called ``Unplanned,'' which
opens this weekend at over 1,000 theaters, based on the life of
Abby Johnson and her book Unplanned, which I have read. The
film chronicles Ms. Johnson's life as a Planned Parenthood
student activist, followed by almost 8 years as director of a
large Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas where over 20,000
abortions were performed.
In Unplanned, Ms. Johnson points out that she assisted in
the first ultrasound-guided abortion at that clinic and she
says, and I quote her, ``The details startled me. At 13 weeks,
you can clearly see the profile of the head, arms, and legs,
even tiny fingers and toes. With my eyes glued on the image of
this perfectly formed baby, I watched as a new image emerged on
the video screen. The cannula, a straw-shaped instrument
attached to the end of the suction tube, had been inserted into
the uterus and was nearing the baby's side. It looked like an
invader, out of place.'' She then says that, ``at first, the
baby did not seem aware the of canaula. ``The next moment there
was a sudden jerk of the tiny foot of the baby as it pressed
in."And then the doctor's voice broke in and said, ``Beam me
up, Scottie,'' telling the assistant to turn on the suction,
and the child crumpled right before her eyes.
I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. In this country, we
have lost 61 million unborn babies to abortion, a number that
equates with the entire country, the population of Italy. And
yet, there are many of those who would like to export abortion
through our foreign policy.
So, I want to thank you for your faithful implementation of
the Protecting Life and Global Health Assistance Policy, which
continues to be a significant reiteration and expansion of
President Reagan's Mexico City policy. Members might recall
that, announced by Ronald Reagan at the U.N. conference in 1984
in Mexico City--hence, its name--the policy was and is designed
to ensure that U.S. taxpayer funding is not funneled to foreign
NGO's that perform or promote abortion as a method of family
planning.
Thirty-four years ago, in July 1985, I authored the first
of several successful amendments that became annual amendments
to preserve this policy. People said then that NGO's would not
accept those conditions. We found out very quickly that they
did, and they divested themselves, if they were complicit in
the taking of life, to what their mission happens to be,
malaria and some other important program. So, I want to thank
you for that.
Let me also remind my colleagues--and you know this so
well, and special thanks--that President Trump has said he will
veto any bill that weakens or nullifies any pro-life policy,
any of them, and that includes Mexico City. And we will sustain
that veto.
More than 169 Members have signed the letter to the
President in the House, 49 in the Senate, saying clearly, if it
is on any bill, that bill, we will sustain your veto, Mr.
President. And I want to assure you, because life is so
precious and we need to protect it, we will do that and those
Members will be true to their words.
If you could speak on those issues briefly and on fentanyl.
Secretary Pompeo. Let me take two of them briefly.
President Trump has made this a priority. He got a
commitment from President Xi that President Xi would do all he
could in his space to stop fentanyl from moving out of China.
We have not yet seen as much action as we had anticipated we
would see. The day I was there I heard President Xi make that
commitment.
This Administration is determined. This crisis, this opioid
crisis is real. It is tragic. We do not have our hands around
it yet, but know that the State Department and my colleagues
across the Cabinet understand the risk that this presents to
the United States and its people.
Second, your statements on the Mexico City policy I
appreciate. We made an extension of it yesterday. I am very
confident that the things that we did yesterday will be
absorbed by the NGO community. They will continue to deliver on
the health needs that you and I both are so committed to
delivering. Not a single dollar will be reduced in terms of
spending, and we will make sure that those dollars go to the
right place and that not one dollar of taxpayer funding goes to
the tragedy of abortion around the world.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
As you can see, we have a vote on the floor right now, and
it is 4 minutes 40 seconds. There are only two votes, though,
luckily. So, I am going to recess for now.
Secretary Pompeo. Great.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Secretary, there is a room we were in
before if you would like to go in.
And we will be back and start as quickly as we can. It
should only be about another 15 minutes or so.
So, we stand in recess until then.
[Recess.]
Chairman Engel. Mr. Secretary, we are about to get some of
our members. I know you remember the days fondly.
Secretary Pompeo. I do.
Chairman Engel. So, what we will do is we will start. OK,
as our members are coming back, we will start immediately, and
then, we will continue to the end. I am told we are not
expecting any more votes. So, that should be a good thing.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your patience.
It is now my pleasure to call on Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. Hello.
Mr. Meeks. I missed your testimony, but I read it, and I
thought it was an important point that you made when you
mentioned Colombia and this whole scenario that is dealing with
Venezuela. I guess you would say that the people of Venezuela--
I think we would agree on this--are in crises, correct?
Secretary Pompeo. I am sorry, the people in Venezuela? Yes.
Yes.
Mr. Meeks. And so, they are fleeing and, fortunately, they
are going to Colombia. And we have got a great ally in
Colombia, and Colombia is doing the right thing by taking care
of these folks who are in crises.
It just seems to me that it is in contrast to the position
that we are taking on our southern border, because I do not
hear any talks--I am now speaking to the members of the
Colombian government--they are not saying they are being
invaded. They have got millions of people crossing their border
every day. They are not saying they are being invaded. There is
no talk about building a wall. But, rather, they are calling
for a coordination of humanitarian assistance and working
within their group.
The fact of the matter is, in talking to some of the
Colombian members of their government, I was talking to them
not too long ago, yesterday to be a fact, they expect the
possibility of a bigger crisis. They say 2-3 million people may
be coming across. But they were going to try to make sure they
take care of them, not prevent them from coming across.
A stark contrast to the policies that we have on our
southern border. Do you see a difference from people trying to
flee for their life and safety on the southern border of the
United States and the border between Venezuela and Colombia?
Secretary Pompeo. In what respect?
Mr. Meeks. Well, in the respect of being humanitarian and
trying to take care of people that is in crises, people that
are fleeing their homeland because of their safety. And what we
have seen on our southern border, families who are fleeing
their homeland for fear in losing their life. And we have had
the policy of either building a wall, so they will not come
over here, separate them from their families, locking them up.
That has been our policy, as opposed to what I see happening on
Colombia and Peru and the other bordering countries around
Venezuela. And there is nowhere near the amount of people on
our southern border that are now crossing the border in
Colombia, but the response is substantially different from our
Administration and President Duque's Administration in
Colombia.
Secretary Pompeo. Well, every nation gets to make its own
sovereign decisions about how to handle crises of this nature.
I think that is to be sure. Our President----
Mr. Meeks. Well, you praise them. So, then, maybe you
should say something different about us because we are having a
situation completely different than they are.
Secretary Pompeo. We----
Mr. Meeks. Let me just go from there. Let me ask, because
you are here about budget also, and I understand that there was
a cut, somewhere between 17 and 20 percent reduction, for
embassy security, construction, and maintenance, is that not
correct?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not have the numbers in front of me.
I know that we have increased our budget for the overall scope
of security inside the Department of State. It is something I
have as a real priority.
Mr. Meeks. But I just want to be sure because, look, last
time we had a conversation, we talked about security and you
said at that time that you take a backseat to no one with
respect to caring about protecting the people that work for us.
Cutting their security, given what is going on, I know it is
concerning to me because I want to make sure that we protect
our diplomats.
In fact, do you recall the incident in Dhaka, Bangladesh? I
think that took place on August 4th of 2018.
Secretary Pompeo. I am sorry, where was this?
Mr. Meeks. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Secretary Pompeo. I do not know what incident you are
referring to. We have security incidents with great frequency,
and we do our level best to address them. Our teams are
fantastic and have kept our people safe during----
Mr. Meeks. Well, let me tell you about it. Fortunately, no
one was injured. But, on August 4th, 2018, armed men on
motorcycles targeted our then-Ambassador to Bangladesh while
her--attacked the vehicles.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I now recall the incident, yes.
Mr. Meeks. OK. And so, luckily, nobody is hurt. But when I
hear, as a matter of policy, that we are cutting back on
security, that gives me some real concern, particularly from
you, Mr. Secretary, because when you were on this side of the
bench, you questioned Democrats, when we had a Democrat
Administration, on their sincerity with reference to protection
of our embassies. But, yet, you are silent when we are cutting
the budgets for security and the State Department, but nothing
said. And clearly, our Ambassadors are at a state of risk.
I think I am out of time. So, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, last Congress I introduced the
Taiwan Travel Act, and President Trump signed it into law last
March. The intention of this legislation was to allow our high-
level officials to go to Taipei and to allow their high-level
officials to come here to the United States, including
Washington. In fact, as I had mentioned when you were here last
time, I would absolutely advocate President Tsai addressing a
Joint Session of Congress here in Washington, DC, sometime in
the not-too-distant future.
As you know, you and I were elected together back in 2010,
the historic 2010 class, majority-makers. And you have moved
on. It was your first time, my second time, but you moved on
to, I guess, to some would argue bigger and better things. But
you are now Secretary of State. As you may know, I was first
elected back in 1994, and a member of my class back then, Sam
Brownback, was here for a while, and then, he moved up and on
to the Senate, although we do not necessarily think that is
``up'' on this side of the building.
[Laughter.]
Of course, then he became Governor of Kansas. And the
reason I bring Sam up is not only were we classmates, but he is
no Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. And
he did visit Taipei recently. And I would certainly encourage
more visits like that.
So, I guess my question, Mr. Secretary, would be, do you
think that the full implementation of the Taiwan Travel Act
would improve U.S.-Taiwan relations? And can the people of
Taiwan count on you to advocate for further implementation of
that I think very important legislation, the Taiwan Travel Act?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I think it is important to consider
all of these things in the context of the challenges from
China. You have seen what we have done with respect to Taiwan.
It was just in the past few days that we sailed through the
Straits, that the United States Department of Defense----
[Interruption from audience.]
Chairman Engel. If everybody will hold--excuse me. You are
out of order. We will hold for a minute.
[Interruption from audience continues.]
Chairman Engel. The chair reminds all members of the
audience that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of
proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House and its
committees. And if there are any further disruptions, the
police will be called back to remove the person or persons from
the hearing room.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary was in the process
of answering a question. I would ask that our time be restored.
Chairman Engel. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Chabot. I appreciate that.
I would also note that the--I guess I will use the term--
``gentleman'' who just interrupted this meeting was neither
from Taiwan nor the PRC and had nothing to do with my question
or the Secretary's answer.
So, Mr. Secretary, if you could continue?
Secretary Pompeo. I appreciate you stopping people from
disapproval, Mr. Chairman. If there is approval, you can let
them go on.
[Laughter.]
So, this is a very serious matter. The Taiwan Travel
Relations Act is an important piece of legislation. You have
seen our Administration do a great deal to implement that. I am
sure there is more to follow. I do not want to get too far out
ahead of what we are doing.
But, make no mistake about it, we understand the importance
of that relationship and, more importantly, we have taken a
much fuller view than previous Administrations. This is not
partisan. It goes back to Republicans and Democrats alike, the
concerns about the risks that China presents to American wealth
creation and our continued democracy.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that.
I would like to move on at this point to Burma. A year and
a half ago, the Burmese military drove the Rohingya out of the
Rakhine State through a campaign of killings and rapes and
burning of villages, and some of the most horrific and
unspeakable crimes that we had seen on this globe in a long,
long time. We all appreciated when then-Secretary Tillerson,
your predecessor, dubbed these atrocities as ethnic cleansing.
Now, as you know, ethnic cleansing is a powerful message, but
it does not have legal weight.
And since 2017, overwhelming evidence has come out that
clearly shows that the Burmese military committed crimes
against humanity. Even the Department's own investigation into
these atrocities came to similar conclusions. Several entities,
including the House, have concluded that these crimes
constitute genocide. The State Department has not made any
legal pronouncement at this point beyond ethnic cleansing.
Given all the evidence available to you, could you comment
today if you are ready to conclude or where you are in
determining whether the crimes committed against the Rohingya
by the Burmese military did constitute at least crimes against
humanity?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, let me try to address that. You
referenced the report that the State Department did. It was
amazing work by some really talented State Department officers
to go out and collect that data. I think the data speaks for
itself in terms of the horrific nature of what took place
there.
With respect to making this legal determination, I am not
prepared to provide you an answer today. Know that we are still
looking at it, frankly, that I am still looking at that more
specifically. My objective here is to get a really good
outcome, to change this behavior, then to hold those
responsible accountable. I want to make sure that we do this in
a thoughtful way. I get the messaging that takes place when a
Secretary of State makes these designations. I value that and
it is important. But I think we would all agree the most
important thing we can do is get both accountability and
behavioral change, and that is what the State Department is
working to do. We are still actively considering how to
approach those conclusions.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Georgia and Ukraine both face intense continued pressure
from Putin. Both have territory illegally under Russian
control. Despite the risks, Georgia and Ukraine, and really
many Eastern European countries, actively pursue pro-Western
policies. Could you describe how the President's budget
enhances our support for these two critical partners?
Secretary Pompeo. So, you have seen real tangible ways we
have done in Ukraine, providing defensive items to the
Ukrainian people. We have provided intelligence assistance. I
saw that in my previous role and before I was the Secretary of
State. You have seen our efforts all across the world, Ukraine
and Georgia included, to push back against Russian efforts to
interfere when elections are approaching, as we are in Ukraine
today.
There are many elements. And I was speaking about things
mostly that the State Department and the Department of Defense
were involved in. There are elements all across the U.S.
Government determined to help the Georgian people, who are very
pro-American and share our understanding of the way that region
ought to operate.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
I have only got 30 seconds. So, I want to conclude on North
Korea. I want to applaud both you and the President and his
team for being willing to walk away from a bad deal in Hanoi.
It reminded me a lot of a President who up to this point was my
most respected President, Ronald Reagan, walking away from
Gorbachev in Reykjavik. So, thank you for doing that. It is
easy to enter into a bad deal and you get some press that is
positive. But you were willing to walk away. God bless you for
doing it. Keep the sanctions up, and let's denuclearize that
peninsula. Thank you for your efforts.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for being here.
Mr. Secretary, I do not want to talk at a political level
today with you. I want to talk from the heart. And I want to
talk about a matter of justice on behalf of one of my
constituents well known to you. I want to show you a picture.
This picture took place on November 19th, 2017 in my
district. I am holding a cane because I had had a bad accident
at a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, a few months before
and I still needed a cane to hobble around, not the most
flattering picture of me.
Next to me is a man named Jamal Khashoggi. He is a mild-
mannered man. He and I are discussing Middle East issues. He
was a Saudi citizen, family, children, had on occasion worked
for the Saudi government or for members of the royal family. He
was mild-mannered, soft-spoken, and a moderate critic of the
Kingdom. He wanted to see modernization. He wanted to see
reforms. He was a columnist sometimes for The Washington Post,
our local newspaper here in Washington.
On October 2d, 2018, 11 months later, my constituent, a
legal resident of the United States who lived in Tysons Corner
in Fairfax County, the Commonwealth of Virginia, was lured into
the sovereign territory, the consulate of the Saudi government
in Istanbul because he was seeking papers to get remarried. He
had his fiancee outside waiting for him. He had been to the
consulate before, and they had lulled him into believing he
would be safe. But, of course, he was not.
What we know was that, on that day, two planes under the
control of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia flew in with two
teams whose objective was to either kidnap or kill Mr.
Khashoggi. One presumes the objective involved killing because,
not a diplomatic tool normally, they brought with them a bone
saw. We know all of that because of revelations from Turkey.
But those revelations, as I understand it, have been confirmed
by our intelligence community; you would know better than I.
Nonetheless, what we do know is the Saudi government lied
consistently. They lied about whether he safely left the
consulate that day, knowing full well he did not. They lied
about his murder. They lied about the conspiracy to murder him.
They lied about who did it and how it was done.
And I guess I want to show you another picture, Mr.
Secretary. This is a picture that took place 14 days after the
murder. And that shows you and the Crown Prince, who many
believe orchestrated and ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi,
my constituent. And I guess what this picture raises is a
question. At what point, as Americans, do we insist that the
inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of
Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all
three of which were denied my constituent, Mr. Khashoggi, when
do they trump diplomatic nicety? Is there ever a time when we
are going to, as a country, insist, you know what, we are not
going to do business as normal and we are going to hold you to
account?
Now, at that meeting, you said, I believe, that they would
be held to account, but you were meeting with a man who was
assuring you they would be held to account, when he is himself
suspected strongly of having orchestrated the murder. And so, I
guess I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, were you aware of the
fact at that point of the gruesome details of the murder of my
constituent, Mr. Khashoggi? Did you discuss that murder with
the Crown Prince? And how are we going, moving forward, to hold
the Crown Prince and the Saudi government responsible for one
of the most grisly episodes ever to occur in a consulate or an
embassy in our diplomatic experience?
Secretary Pompeo. So, you asked three questions there, I
believe. The first one was what was my knowledge base. I think
at that time I knew most of what had taken place, although I do
not recall the exact sequence. I certainly have learned more
about that since then. I have learned additional facts since
that moment in time.
The second question was did I discuss the murder. The
answer is yes. I think I said it that day, that I had discussed
the murder with him.
And then, the third question is how will we hold them
accountable. You have seen the Trump Administration do just
that with respect to 17 individuals. We are continuing all
across the government, certainly with overt means and all the
tools that we have in our capacity, to learn more facts about
this. President Trump has made very clear that we will continue
to work to identify those who are responsible for Jamal
Khashoggi's murder and hold them accountable. We will. I stand
by that today. I am sure President Trump will as well.
Mr. Connolly. And just a real quick one. And does that
mean, Mr. Secretary, no matter how high up it might go?
Secretary Pompeo. I said ``anyone''.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And I pray we get justice for Mr. Khashoggi
and his family and friends.
Thank you.
Mr. Sherman [presiding]. Now I recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you. We are proud of
your service in this body and your current efforts.
I want to begin by applauding the President and your
Department for taking steps to recognize the Israeli
sovereignty over the Golan Heights. As you might recall, I
wrote you a letter last year in that regard, encouraging that
recognition. And I just think at this time, with Iran and their
proxies, terrorist organizations, the IRGC, Hezbollah, all on
the border, there is no more an important time than now to take
this action. And I speak for all the people in the district
that I am privileged to represent that are proud of this
action, support it, and just say thank you very much. And we
offer our support and assistance.
Moving on, regarding Tibet, I am just wondering, what is
preventing the Administration from formally placing a
diplomatic post in Lhasa?
Secretary Pompeo. It is something that previous
Administrations and this Administration continue to review. We
have to place it in the context of our larger policy, Indo-
Pacific policy, even more broadly. We are trying to make sure
that we get each of these steps right.
What President Trump has directed each of us to do is
recognize facts on the ground, try to apply good common sense,
and then, generate policies that actually get outcomes. I think
for an awful long time, we have done things that made us feel
good, but did not deliver. And so, with respect to this
particular issue, and all the issues that surround it in Asia,
we want to make sure that we actually deliver for the American
people. And so, as we consider the appropriateness of a lot of
decisions on designations, on sanctions, on how the Department
of Defense is going to posture, how we work with Southeastern
countries, we want to make sure that we actually deliver for
the American people.
Mr. Perry. We hope you do. It has been a long time, and I
think it would be helpful for our broader relationship, so to
speak.
Moving on, but somewhat within the realm of China, will the
State Department consider revoking pouch status for
construction materials regarding the housing complex on
Connecticut Avenue that China is building in association with
their diplomatic mission here until they respond to a
reciprocal-type arrangement with our embassy in Beijing?
Secretary Pompeo. I am familiar with the challenges we are
having with delivering diplomatic materials consistent with
international treaty obligations there in Beijing. We are
considering lots of different ways to convince the Chinese to
permit us to do this basic diplomatic function.
Mr. Perry. Is it not part of their agreement that they
cannot be shipping their construction materials in via
diplomatic pouch? I mean, did not they sign that agreement or
agree to that provision?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not certain if that is the case or
not.
Mr. Perry. It is my understanding, but if there is
something other than that, maybe we will followup afterwards.
But it seems to me that this is a circumstance that should be
easy. When our construction, our building over there, needs
assistance and needs attention, that we should be able to do
that, and certainly under the exact same provisions that they
are. And the fact that they would not allow that, while we
allow them to build on Connecticut Avenue, on the high ground,
mind you, as a military officer, that concerns not only me, but
many Americans greatly.
Moving on, with the advent of the Mueller report, I am
wondering if your Department is starting to investigate people
at the State Department that used their official position to
distribute elements or discuss elements of the Steele dossier,
with the intent of sparking an investigation into the President
of the United States, that work in the State Department, those
folks. Are there ongoing investigations or are you considering
investigations at this time?
Secretary Pompeo. I am going to honor the commitment I made
when I signed up for this gig. I am not going to talk about
ongoing investigations that we have. But you can rest assured
that, if we see malfeasance, misbehavior, those doing things
that are inappropriate, the team understands their mission set,
which is to hold every officer accountable against the mission
set that the Constitution and President Trump have laid out for
us.
Mr. Perry. And I appreciate not discussing ongoing
investigations, but now that the Mueller investigation is
complete and the report, at least the summary is issued, and we
expect the full report or at least a portion of that when able,
do you envision any new investigations or opening any
investigations subsequent to that, based on what you know now
about some of the people at the State Department who have
engaged in circulating or being a part of the Steele dossier?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I am not going to speculate on
investigations that we might or might not open.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes himself.
I have four questions for the record that I just want to
have my colleagues be aware of.
The first of these is whether we can count on you to
support continued assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh Artsakh,
especially for demining efforts, and expanding support to
health care and rehabilitation services, especially those
injured in mines.
The second is whether we can count on you to support aid to
Armenia for the 25,000 Syrian refugees that they have taken in.
The third is I am chair of the Sindh Caucus. Southern
Pakistan's Sindh has faced extrajudicial killings, forced
conversions of Hindu girls after they have been kidnapped, and
then, forcibly marriages. And Dr. Anwar Leghari, the brother of
a dear friend of mine, was subject to extrajudicial killing 4
years ago. So, I hope that you can pledge to raise a gross
human rights in Sindh with the Pakistani diplomats that you
interact with. And I hope that you will also be able to support
more outreach in the Sindhi language from our Karachi
consulate, and to support $1.5 million a year, so that the
Voice of America can broadcast in the Sindhi language.
Now I want to pick up on Mr. Connolly's comments. Khashoggi
was brutally murdered. So far, our sole response has been to
tell 17 thugs that they cannot visit Disneyland, these 17
button men who will not get U.S. embassies. That is an
inadequate response. I am going to suggest a better response.
There are a lot of things we could do to Saudi Arabia that
may not be our traditional policy, may not be in our interest,
but one thing that is in our interest is to prevent Saudi
Arabia from getting a nuclear weapon for three reasons. If you
cannot trust a regime with a bone saw, you should not trust
them with nuclear weapons. Second, even if you think MBS is a
tremendous leader for the future, he is a not a democratically
elected leader. He could be overthrown by the Wahhabi clerics
at anytime. And, of course, the Middle East does not need a new
nuclear weapon.
What I have seen in this Administration recently--and it
has just come out--is an effort to evade Congress, and to some
extent evade your Department, and provide substantial nuclear
technology and aid to Saudi Arabia while Saudi Arabia refuses
to abide by any of the controls we would like to see regarding
reprocessing, enrichment, et cetera. And we see strong advocacy
of this coming from a group called IP3 and others show seem
very close to the Saudi regime.
In particular, we have seen your Assistant Secretary of
State Chris Ford say the Department will conduct some nuclear
cooperation through memorandums of understanding, which do not
require congressional oversight or approval, rather than
through a one-two-three agreement.
And we see that there were some six licenses granted by the
Department of Energy which in normal course are made available
to the public, but are, instead, being kept secret, all of
which provide for the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi
Arabia.
So, can I count on you and the Administration to release
these six--they are called Part 810 authorizations--by the
middle of this month?
Secretary Pompeo. I will have to look into it.
Mr. Sherman. Can your staff prepare for us or you prepare
for us a list of all the types of nuclear commerce the
Administration believe it is entitled to engage in without a
one-two-three agreement that has gone through congressional
review?
Secretary Pompeo. We can certainly take a look at that. I
can assure you that we will do our level best to comply with
the law every day. And if you believe that we are not doing
that on our obligations, please let me know.
Mr. Sherman. It appears to be in one case, it appears that
this is an end run around the law in an effort to achieve a
policy. Do we want to provide nuclear technology to Saudi
Arabia before they enter into agreements for no reprocessing
and no enrichment?
Secretary Pompeo. We have been working--``we''
collectively, the U.S. Government, the Department of Energy,
the State Department, and others--have been working to get--the
Saudis have indicated they want civil nuclear power. We have
been working to make sure that they do----
Mr. Sherman. But why would not they want controls, except
for the reason that they want nuclear weapons? How do you
generate an extra kilowatt by keeping the IAEA inspectors out?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, you know, I can only tell you that
the Islamic Republic of Iran very much wanted to do the same,
right? They did not want any of these things in, either, and we
got----
Mr. Sherman. We treated Iran like an enemy. If Saudi Arabia
is hell-bent on developing a nuclear program that is
uncontrolled and designed to make them a nuclear State, or a
possible nuclear State, we will treat them as an enemy?
Secretary Pompeo. We are working to ensure that the nuclear
power that they get is something we understand and does not
present that risk. That is the mission statement----
Mr. Sherman. These six secret Part 810 authorizations are
inconsistent with that, and I look forward to you making them
available to the public, or at least to this committee.
And with that, I recognize my fellow head of the Asia
Subcommittee, the ranking member thereof, Ted Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again, and thank you for the
great job you and the Administration are doing. And it is good
to see Ms. Mary Elizabeth with you.
When you came into office, what were the biggest threats to
the U.S. and the world that you guys saw or inherited from the
previous Administration?
Secretary Pompeo. Goodness. You know, I get asked to rank
all the time. It is always a challenge. There are some that are
immediate, right? The threat from terrorism is on top of us. It
is real. It is a threat every day. We have done our best to
make progress. We have made progress in certain parts; in other
places we still have a tremendous amount of work to do.
But the threats, our renewed efforts to build that
coalition is to push back against what I will call the
traditional power rivalries have been very real, the threat
from China, the threat from Russia, the threat from Iran. And
then, of course, we have spent a lot of time on proliferation
issues, Iran there, too, North Korea.
Mr. Yoho. Well, and that is what I wanted to bring up.
Terrorism, ISIS, obviously, DPRK, China, Afghanistan, the
situation. Has that threat of ISIS been lessened in the 2-years
this Administration has been there?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I believe that it has. I think the
numbers are different. It is still there.
Mr. Yoho. It is, and it will never go away, but I think the
immediate threat has been the dynamics have changed
drastically.
Has the DPRK threat been lessened? And that is an obvious
because, if we look at the last ballistic missiles or nuclear
bombs launched or detonated, it has been over 15 months. So, I
think the results that you guys are doing and pursuing are
doing a great job.
Has the Administration backed or signed into law
legislation to counter China's BRI? I almost feel guilty asking
that.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Pompeo. We have. President Trump did sign.
Mr. Yoho. He did sign the BUILD Act? And that is a way that
we can stand up to what they are doing with the BRI.
Do you have sufficient resources, i.e., people or budget,
to accomplish your mission to advance America's diplomacy?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. In the staffing shortfalls, my understanding is
many people have been nominated and positions have been
nominated. Where is the holdup?
Secretary Pompeo. On staffing, I brought the data with me.
Our staffing levels were actually in pretty good shape. The
overall size of the work force, the Foreign Service Officer
work force, by the end of this year, will have at or near more
Foreign Service Officers than ever in the history of the United
States of America.
We are challenged. I have in front of me a list of 40-plus
senior leaders. I have not had a Chief Operating Officer in 2
years. I do not have a head of Near East Affairs. These are
highly qualified people that have been held up.
Mr. Yoho. By the Senate?
Secretary Pompeo. They are sitting in the U.S. Senate
today.
I made a commitment to get the team on the field. I have
got an ambassador waiting to go the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a
topic we just talked about. I want to get these folks out
there, so that we can deliver American diplomacy in every
corner of the world.
Mr. Yoho. And I am going to give a shoutout to you because
I had the opportunity to travel with you for a better part of a
day. What I saw you and your team doing I thought was pretty
phenomenal, because I have never seen this done before where
you were traveling within the States to promote what the State
Department does. You were talking to young students to get them
involved in thinking about going into a career in the State
Department. And I commend you and your team for doing that,
because I look back when I grew up as a pretty sheltered life.
I did not even think that was a realm of possibility. Again, I
cannot tell you how much I appreciate that.
I share the same beliefs as Mr. Sires, of my colleague, in
regards to Russia, Cuba, China, and Iran, that there is maybe a
destabilizing, coordinated effort underway to destabilize the
Western Hemisphere. And I think you and I have talked about
this, that Venezuela could be but the rubicon, because if
Venezuela fails, it will show that Cuba, you know, they cannot
survive because they are the ones that have been propping that
up.
How do you assess that? And along with that, how should we
respond to Russia's interference under the guise of support to
the Maduro regime in Venezuela? And do we need to reemphasize
the Monroe Doctrine?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I have spoken to my Russian
counterpart no less than three times on the issue of Venezuela
and their interference, the fact that they are undermining
Venezuelan democracy. It was met with precisely what you would
expect from them.
We are doing our level best to push back against the
capacity of Cuba, who has had intelligence officers and
security officers on the ground there today protecting Maduro.
It shocks me that the Venezuelan military will tolerate these
foreigners, right, coming to run their security service. As a
former U.S. Army officer, it would have been embarrassing if a
third country had to come in and provide security for the
leadership of our country. But that is where we are today.
We are doing our level best to put sanctions in place, to
put restrictions in place, and to, more importantly, build our
coalition, not just in South America and Central America with
the OAS and the Lima Group, but European countries from all the
around the world who understand that democratic Venezuela is
the only path forward and Maduro has to go before we can get
there.
Mr. Yoho. I look forward to working with you.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairman Engel [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. Thank you for
your service.
March 9th marked the 12th anniversary of the disappearance
of Bob Levinson from Iran's Kish Island. Bob is my constituent.
He is part of our community back home in Coral Springs. He is a
patriot, as you know, who devoted 30 years to serving his
country, first, with the DEA, and then, a quarter century with
the FBI. He is a husband of 40 years. He is a father of seven.
He is a grandfather of six, five of whom he has never met.
Iran's despicable practice of holding Americans and other
foreign nationals hostage should not be tolerated by any
responsible nation. Mr. Secretary, I know you are well familiar
with Bob's case and the Levinson family. Bob's son, Doug, is
here today. I appreciate that you have always been willing to
engage with the Levinsons and with me on this matter. And I
would ask that you look for every opportunity to raise Bob's
case; also, to make bringing Bob home a priority. I would ask
that you implore the President himself to sit down with the
Levinsons and the other families of others detained in Iran.
And I am willing to work with you, Mr. Secretary, others in the
Administration, anyone--anyone--who can help bring Bob home.
I would like to turn to Syria. Mr. Secretary, I am troubled
by your Syria policy because I, frankly, do not understand it.
I do not understand how freezing assistance, pulling back U.S.
troops, and ceding American leadership to Russia and Iran will
help protect our national security interests. I have a series
of related questions.
The first has to do with the role of Russia in Syria. There
have been now several requests for information, so that we can
do the job that we are supposed to do in providing oversight,
requesting information about the meetings that the President
has had with Vladimir Putin, particularly the summit that took
place in Helsinki, that took place without anyone there. We
have an obligation on behalf of the American people to know
what was said. And as the chairman of the Middle East
Subcommittee, it is of great interest to me and our
subcommittee to understand what may or may not have been said
on the topic of Syria.
And my first question is, why has the Administration
refrained from providing information of those Trump-Putin
meetings to Congress?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, let me begin by saying, it is not
remotely unusual for senior leaders to have private
conversations with their counterparts around the world. So, to
suggest otherwise I find surprising. I might use a different
descriptor, but I will use ``surprising'' in a second.
As for what is going to be shared and released on
conversations between the President and his foreign partners,
the White House ultimately makes those decisions. And so, the
inquiries would properly be lodged there.
Mr. Deutch. And we have. And you are the Secretary of State
before us. And as a former Member of this body, you also
understand the constitutional obligation we have to provide
oversight of the Administration.
The Fiscal Year foreign affairs budget eliminates all
economic assistance to the Syrian people and all security
assistance, known as foreign military financing. That is to
Iraq. Since the re-emergence of ISIS, Iraq used FMF to fund
urgent counterterrorism requirements, and the State Department
claimed those funds were critical to Iraq's efforts to defeat
ISIS and improve the security environment in Iraq.
Given these statements by the State Department, why the
decision to cut FMF when it seems, based on those statements,
that it would undermine efforts in Iraq, our efforts in Iraq,
and create the conditions that would allow ISIS to revive?
Secretary Pompeo. Look, I am proud of what this
Administration has done in Iraq. I think we have been prepared
to do things, take risks, act against Iran, the true malign
actor inside of Iraq today, in ways the previous Administration
just had no interest in whatsoever. So, I am very proud of the
work we have done there.
I have traveled now to Baghdad as the Secretary. I had been
there before in my previous role. I have senior officials on
the ground. I would love it if I could get my Ambassadors from
the region confirmed. If you could talk to your colleagues on
the Senate side, that would be most helpful to us in executing
American policy.
But I am convinced that we will have the resources we need
to deliver all of the assistance to build out the Iraqi
security forces in a way to give the Iraqi leaders--the speaker
of the house will be here this week; I will get a chance to
meet with him again--to deliver all the support needed, so that
Iraq can become independent, free, and sovereign. I think that
is your goal. It is certainly mine.
Mr. Deutch. It is. We will have an opportunity to talk more
about those budget decisions.
Moving to a different part of the world, but continuing a
discussion that we started on human rights, Mr. Secretary,
there are more than a million Uyghurs who have been detained
without due process in Xijiang, kept in internment camps,
reeducation camps, under the guise of antiterrorism efforts.
There are reports that China is now considering implementing
this same approach in Tibet. Can you tell us what the State
Department has done to raise these human rights abuses with the
Chinese government and to elevate these issues which are so
critical to us as we try to advance our values around the
world?
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger?
Mr. Deutch. Could the Secretary answer?
Chairman Engel. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Pompeo. Let me just try to do it briefly. The
human rights violations that you identified, we have spoken
about strongly. If you watch our Human Rights Report, what I
said and what the head of DRL said that morning when the Human
Rights Report came out, we have elevated this. We have raised
this. We have done that publicly. You have seen that.
I met with a group of Uyghurs just yesterday in my office.
Ambassador Brownback has been relentless, if nothing else, with
respect to this issue. And you should know that we have done
that not only publicly in the way that you can see, but each
time we interact with our Chinese counterparts this issue is
raised as well.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Kinzinger?
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
We talk a lot about politics ending at the water's edge. I
believe it does and should. Even under the prior
Administration, I very much religiously held that. But what
kind of an effect does it do for our politics when we do not
have Ambassadors in place? Just briefly, I mean, how does that
hurt you?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I do not want to criticize any of the
charges who are running, doing their level best to manage the
chief-of-mission responsibilities in theater in the countries
that they are in. But other countries know that it is different
when you have a Senate-approved nominee who has gone through it
and is now the dedicated Ambassador. It reduces your capacity
to speak on behalf of America.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
And would you trust Iran with a bone saw? In other words,
earlier the question was, would you trust Saudi Arabia with a
bone saw; therefore, we cannot give them nuclear weapons or
engage with them at all. I think an important point to note is
I would not trust Iran with a bone saw. They have quite a few
bodies, frankly, on their conscience from Syria, from a lot of
places.
And so, I just want to commend you and the Administration
for your decision to get out of the Iran nuclear deal. I think
that was a smart move. I think it sent a very strong message
that it is not just about the development of nuclear weapons
over a period of 10 years; it is also about behavior in the
region and development of ballistic missiles. So, I just want
to commend you on that.
Closer to home--actually, I want to hit Yemen real quick.
The very first thing this committee did--and I hate to obsess
about it and channelize on it, but it has really stuck with
me--the very first thing this committee did, Mr. Secretary, in
the new Congress was, basically, to take away the authority of
the Administration to be involved in any way with Yemen. And I
think most of the members of this committee have never had a
classified briefing on what is occurring in Yemen. They have
never had a briefing on the SCIF. And I think there is a
perception out there that it is the United States and Saudi
Arabia that are creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
Mr. Secretary, can you briefly talk about maybe the
Houthis' role in a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, many actions
of Iran, and maybe some of the role that we do not hear about
in terms of who is really driving that crisis?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not sure I can do it briefly, but
let me try. It is complicated space.
Mr. Kinzinger. Take whatever time you need.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. So, let me start with something that
often gets neglected in this debate, too. There is still active
al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula there. The United
States is engaged in trying to crush it there, in Yemen as
well. Remember that Yemen sits on the southern border of Saudi
Arabia and has launched hundreds of missiles into the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia out of Yemen. They were launched by the Houthis
and they were Iranian missiles in nearly every case, missiles
that had been brought across the borders, in through ports, in
pieces and parts. And now, the Iranians are attempting to
establish the capacity to actually build out missiles inside of
Yemen.
The United States has a responsibility to do all that it
can to prevent the humanitarian crisis, which is ravaging that
nation. We have done that. I think the number is now close to a
billion dollars that the United States has provided. The Saudis
and Emirates each have provided billions of dollars as well.
The one country that has not provided a single dollar to aid
the humanitarian crisis is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Instead, they have chosen to use their money to get Houthis and
Yemenis killed and spur the continuation of the civil war, and
frankly, put Americans at risk.
We all fly. Members of Congress fly into King Khalid
International Airport in Riyadh. They are launching missiles
that can range to Riyadh. This is a very real risk, and the
Saudis have a right to defend their nation, just in the same we
would if we had missiles at airports in Denver or LA or New
York. And at its root, Iran is driving this behavior.
Mr. Kinzinger. You obviously represent one instrument of
power, which is diplomacy. Actually, you have a few others in
your toolkit. But when you think about diplomacy and you think
about the message that this Congress sent on the Yemen issue,
and considering there are hundreds of defense cooperation
agreements that, frankly, for the first time ever now could be
brought up and brought under privileged resolution, including
our agreement with Israel, what does that do to your ability,
for instance, to try to solve diplomatically the crisis in the
Middle East when Congress is sending kind of contrary messages?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, look, the good news is I am hopeful
that Martin Griffiths, the U.N. Special Envoy in Yemen, in the
next handful of days will make progress. He may not. We have a
great agreement in Stockholm. We have not been able to enforce
it. The Houthis have refused to withdraw from the Port of
Hodeidah. I hope that they will in the coming days. Frankly, if
I were betting, I would probably bet against, but one lives in
hope.
Congress obviously has its own independent right to act as
it so chooses. It has its constitutional authorities. I can say
this: I hope everyone who cares about the people of Yemen
understand that the legislation that passed did not remotely
benefit them. Indeed, it will work to their detriment.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you for your service, sir. I
appreciate it.
And I will yield back to the chairman.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I do want to go back to the instance where a bone saw was
used and just had a couple of questions. I know that you would
agree that every single person who is responsible for the
murder of Jamal Khashoggi needs to be held accountable. You
said that in January in Saudi Arabia. And thank you for saying
that.
I do want to ask, however, along those lines: 17 people
were sanctioned out on that. So, there seems to be--is there a
discrepancy between the people that were arrested and the ones
that were sanctioned under that? Is there a difference in that
number?
Secretary Pompeo. Congressman, can I get back to you? There
is a large overlap. I could not tell you that they are
completely coincident, that those were----
Mr. Keating. OK, but did you or anyone from our country
have discussions with the Saudis about who was going to be
sanctioned or how that list was determined?
Secretary Pompeo. No, we did not. Indeed, the sanctions
decisions were based on information that we had in our
possession. It was information that the American Department of
Treasury was able to validate.
Mr. Keating. Well, I know that, it is my understanding that
the intel chairs had a briefing.
Now you mentioned that you had some information when you
met with the Crown Prince. Did you hear the tapes? And what was
the nature of that? Did you hear the tapes at that point that
Turkey sent us or tapes that we had ourselves, either one?
Secretary Pompeo. I have not to date heard the tapes.
Mr. Keating. Did you think it would have been a good idea,
before you sat down with the Crown Prince, to get as much
intelligence as you can to deal with that?
Secretary Pompeo. I did.
Mr. Keating. But you did not do that? Or you did not have
access to the tapes at that point? Is that it?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not recall the precise timing. I do
not recall the precise timing of when the information
transited. I am very confident I have a deep understanding of
all the intelligence the U.S. Government has in its possession,
and I would have had every bit of it that was in its possession
at that time.
Mr. Keating. Oh, OK, because you had just said a few
minutes ago that you got some more later on.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. No, we continue to learn things. I
am confident we will learn something this afternoon and
tomorrow as well.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you for that.
Another question. I believe that the Senate has requested
that their Members have a classified briefing on the
intelligence surrounding the Khashoggi murder. Is that correct?
Secretary Pompeo. It would not have come to the State
Department. I assume it would have gone to the intelligence----
Mr. Keating. Well, I thought you might know since you knew
everything about what was going on. So, let me ask you this:
would you join us if we requested, as a committee, that
classified briefing, so we could be informed? Indeed, we are
the committee that will be involved in arms sales to Saudi
Arabia. It would be important for us to have that access. Can
you see, in your current capacity or your former capacity as
CIA Director, why this committee should not have that
information?
Secretary Pompeo. I will say this: I know this often gets
caught up on your side, in the legislative branch. There are
jurisdictional debates about which Member sees certain pieces
of classified information. I am not about to wade into that
briar patch.
Mr. Keating. I see. Well, I think we should, and I think,
Mr. Chairman, we should make that request formal in terms of
our committee, if not for the whole membership of the House.
Yesterday, I had a hearing here in our Subcommittee on
Europe and Eurasia. And as part of that hearing, we dealt with
the historic 70-year alliance that we had with Europe, one of
the most successful alliances in modern history, if not the
history of Europe itself.
And one of the things that came across to me in a recent
trip there about three and a half weeks ago was the concern
with the officials there. Let me give you one example that
really was difficult for me to address when I was asked. The EU
officials that we met with, they used words like ``painful''
and ``hurtful,'' and they meant it sincerely, when they were
talking about how they felt from actions of the United States.
And one thing they said, in particular, was that the
emergency security powers that we used to assess the tariffs
that were there struck them, because they asked the question,
``You are using emergency security powers to create tariffs on
our closest allies.'' And they were asking us--and maybe you
could help us with this--when did they become a security risk
to the United States?
Secretary Pompeo. I will tell you, I do not know with whom
you were speaking. If you want to share with me who you spoke
to and exactly what they said, I would be happy to----
Mr. Keating. It was repeated through all. I will tell you,
you could go right to the leadership of the EU----
Secretary Pompeo. Because my conversations have been very
different.
Mr. Keating. I was in the room. So, trust me, it was a
high-ranking EU leader.
Secretary Pompeo. I believe you.
Mr. Keating. As a matter of fact, I would like to know the
answer to that. It does not matter who asks. I am asking.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, so I am happy, if it is from you, I
am happy to answer.
Mr. Keating. Well, it is for me, but, you know what, it is
important that our allies know this, too.
Secretary Pompeo. This Administration has worked with
European countries in ways the previous Administrations simply
refused. I get it. Sometimes when we ask them to do more, when
we ask hard things, when we ask the American taxpayers for
money in America for our Department of Defense, I know many
Americans would prefer we spend those resources someplace else.
When I encounter European officials and they say, ``Boy, it
is hard for us to get to our own promise for 2 percent. It is
just really hard to convince our people,'' I----
Mr. Keating. Well, can I, because my time is out, I just
want to say this: that the President said--again, the NATO
officials we met with, they are great allies, they remain great
allies, but there were some comments that were made, Article 5
concerns. And that came up at yesterday's hearing, too. And the
President said ``Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong
people. . . . They are very aggressive people. They may get
aggressive, and congratulations, you are in World War III.'' Is
that the way we should approach our Article 5 agreement with
our NATO countries?
Secretary Pompeo. Next week, I will host here in
Washington, DC, the 70th anniversary of the NATO alliance. I
will be with Secretary General Stoltenberg. America will once
again, this Administration will once again reaffirm our
commitment to our NATO allies, and we will again ask them,
because it is important, to do their share to make sure that
NATO is around for the next 70 years.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, and I look forward to the
information, the personnel information, that the chair
requested. And hopefully, you can provide that to the committee
in 7 days.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
And I want to remind everyone that Mr. Stoltenberg is going
to speak before a Joint Session of Congress, I believe it is
next week.
Mr. Zeldin?
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I have great
respect for your service to our country, first in your class at
West Point, a great colleague of ours, did an exceptional job
as our CIA Director, and I am really a big admirer of your work
so far as Secretary of State.
I do have some concerns I want to bring up. I have been
working with Chairman Engel and other colleagues with regards
to the Bytyqi brothers, who were constituents of the First
congressional District of New York. They were murdered 20 years
ago in Serbia. And the chairman and I recently met in Munich
with President Vucic and asked him about this. There really
needs to be justice delivered. And anything that you and your
team can do, and any opportunities that present itself, we
would really like to see justice in that case.
I am concerned about Turkey's acquisition of the S-400's
and what that means, especially with our upcoming transfer,
potential transfer, of F-35s.
I am greatly concerned with the human rights violations
that we see around the world, but I also want to touch on a
number of other topics that I think are just going really well.
And one of the words that has been mentioned at this
hearing was the term ``disengagement''. Over the course of
these last few years, ISIS has been nearly wiped off the map in
Iraq and Syria. The caliphate is gone.
Thank you for the recognition of Golan Heights and Israel's
sovereignty over the Golan; the embassy move in Israel to
Jerusalem, and encouraging other countries to follow suit, as
we are seeing now; helping the Taylor Force Act get passed and
signed into law, so that the Palestinian Authority does not
financially reward, as they continue to do, terrorists who
murder innocent Americans and Israelis. We should be cutting
off our U.S. tax dollars when that happens. It is a better
policy for us to go forward with the Taylor Force Act and the
principles behind it.
The use of the MOA when President Trump first came into
office. I was in Afghanistan shortly thereafter, and a direct,
positive response with morale and effects, but our troops know
that their President and this Administration has their backs.
Standing with Guaido and recognizing him as the
constitutional Interim President of Venezuela; and all your
efforts to combat antisemitism, recently appointing a Special
Envoy, I thank you for doing that. That was a position that was
long vacant, and it is great to see it filled with Elan Carr.
In Syria, it should be noted that we followed through with
air strikes after Assad's use of chemical weapons against his
own people. In the past, there have been threats that use of
chemical weapons would result in consequences from the U.S.,
and the United States now follows through. And I believe that
the Assad regime and their allies know what the consequence is
of use of chemical weapons.
In Russia, the imposition of sanctions in response to the
use of biological or chemical weapons in the U.K.
As far as engagement with regards to North Korea, when
President Trump first came into office, putting the military
option back on the table, but understanding that the military
option should always be the last possible option of anyone on
the entire globe between any nations.
The USMCA, which Congress should pass. I met with President
Trump yesterday on it. I believe this should be a bipartisan
effort, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate,
to get speedy passage.
In China, confronting the currency manipulation and the IP
infringement and trade deficits; the imposition of tariffs if
China does not positively change their behavior.
I know Congressman Cicilline is following me, something
that he is deeply passionate about. I am working with him with
concern about the LGBT community in other parts of the world
where they have been criminalized. They are being murdered
simply because they are LGBT. Over the course of recent weeks,
I have seen that the State Department has taken an important
leadership role in confronting that.
But, in our brief time, I just hope you could talk about
your upcoming efforts as it relates to religious freedom. I
know it is a personal topic. There is a lot of religious
minorities who are being persecuted across the world. And with
our remaining time, I am hoping you could touch on that. Thank
you.
Secretary Pompeo. On religious freedom, protecting
religious minorities, not simply--we have talked about the
Uyghurs, Muslim minorities in China, but Christian minorities
in Iraq that we spoke about earlier this morning of every
religion. We will host the second ever ministerial for
religious freedom at the State Department this summer. We had--
I have forgotten the number--dozens and dozens of foreign
ministers to talk about religious freedom, not all of whom were
in the place we want them to be, but each of those who was
present that day was making real progress in places one might
not expect. It is important. It is America's first freedom. All
our other freedoms build from that, and I hope that we can
expand that around the world.
Mr. Zeldin. Our Secretary contacted me at 1:58 a.m. on your
time to talk business on Monday morning. The last person that
Secretary Pompeo and his team--the last thing they should be
accused of is disengagement. I appreciate your continued
service.
[Laughter.]
And I yield back.
Secretary Pompeo. It was a different time in my time zone.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin.
We are going to just go out of order quickly because one of
our members has to be on the floor. I am going to call on Ms.
Wild.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Pompeo, I am deeply concerned about the
unprecedented lack of transparency and potential conflicts of
interest in this Administration. Members of Congress and the
American people do not always know what foreign policy
decisions are being made or whose interest they are intended to
serve.
Earlier this month, on March 18th, you held a telephone
press briefing focused on, quote, ``international religious
freedom,'' end quote, that was only open to faith-based media
outlets. This briefing was closed to the State Department's
press corps and closed to major independent news organizations.
The State Department has said it will not release a transcript
of the briefing to the public, which is highly unusual for this
type of high-level briefing.
To me, this instance raises concerns about First Amendment
violations. The Administration should not be granting some
media outlets access to briefings while selectively excluding
others based on the Administration's preferences. As a public
official, what you say, especially during a press briefing, is
inherently of interest to the public and the media. And I am
concerned, also, that the Department during your tenure has
greatly reduced the frequency with which it holds regular open
press briefings on foreign policy matters of the day.
So, my question to you is, why did you want to limit the
type of participants who could join this press briefing call on
March 18th, and why are you not releasing the transcript of
that briefing and the call participants who participated?
Secretary Pompeo. Congresswoman, I talk to the press all
the time. I talk to different groups of the press all the time.
Indeed, sometimes I talk to single members of the press. I do
that with great frequency. And when I do, I do not release
transcripts of those conversations. Those are interviews that I
grant individual reporters. They write certain pieces and
certain other pieces they do not. This was no different from
that in any material respect. I am confident I will do so
again.
Ms. Wild. Excuse me. Secretary, my question was very
specific about the March 18th press briefing----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Wild [continuing]. Which was specifically focused on
international religious freedom and was made open only to
faith-based media outlets. So, my question to you is not about
individual press discussions that you may have on a daily
basis, but about a very specific briefing.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I was answering that question.
Ms. Wild. And so, will you release a transcript of that
briefing?
Secretary Pompeo. No.
Ms. Wild. Will you identify who the participants were in
that briefing?
Secretary Pompeo. No.
Ms. Wild. And your rationale for that is simply that it is
something that you like to do?
Secretary Pompeo. It is something that every Secretary of
State that I am aware of has done consistently on a consistent
basis.
Ms. Wild. So, that will continue to be your practice?
Secretary Pompeo. It will continue. It was Secretary
Powell's practice. It was Secretary Rice's practice. It was
Secretary Kerry's practice. And Secretary Pompeo intends to
continue that practice, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wild. OK. So, that was a decision made on your own, not
with influence by anybody else from the Administration?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Yes, it was my decision.
Ms. Wild. All right. Secretary, my colleague, Mr. Yoho,
commended you on your travels through the United States sharing
the message of the State Department. I noticed that you visited
Iowa, an interesting choice, along with Texas and Kansas this
month on 1-to-2-day visits. Can you reassure this committee
that you are not using your travels and engagement as Secretary
of State to advance your own personal brand or political
ambitions?
Secretary Pompeo. Of course I can.
Ms. Wild. And the purpose, again, for these travels
throughout the United States?
Secretary Pompeo. Look, it is true, I did not go to
Martha's Vineyard.
Ms. Wild. That is not my question.
Secretary Pompeo. No, but may I----
Ms. Wild. Secretary----
Secretary Pompeo. It's that Secretaries travel----
Ms. Wild. May I----
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Domestically all the time,
ma'am. And the fact that I went to places outside the Acela
corridor somehow seems to have alarmed people here in the
Beltway. I went there, I will tell you what----
Ms. Wild. I am not alarmed by travel throughout the United
States.
Secretary Pompeo. I went there--let me tell you what, let
me tell you what my mission set was, what I said when I was on
the trip. There were multiple missions. When I went to Houston,
I was talking about American energy and its importance to
diplomacy. When I went to Kansas, it was a long-planned Global
Entrepreneur Summit that we will repeat in the Netherlands in
June. When I went to Iowa, I was talking to Iowa farmers about
President Trump's trade policy and how it fits into American
diplomacy.
And then, second, I had a very selfish mission. I want the
most talented people from all across the country to apply and
become Foreign Service Officers working as America's finest
diplomats.
Those were my mission sets. I spoke publicly at each of
these events, in some cases numerous times. I think it would
track with what I just told you.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to this sea of tranquility
compared to what your current job is now.
I have a couple of questions. We have seen a rising level
of antisemitism across our country and even in our own
government institutions. Several high-profile individuals have
spouted off anti-Israel rhetoric that has had to be countered
with condemnation resolutions by the House. The Administration
is currently attempting to craft a peace agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians. The two questions, Mr. Secretary,
are: will these statements damage our standing with Israel and
make is a weaker ally? And second, do these types of
antisemitic acts and rhetoric damage the United States'
credibility in the Middle East nations that will be involved in
the final agreement?
Secretary Pompeo. I think the answer to both questions is
yes, and antisemitic language is abhorrent regardless of the
U.S. diplomatic outcome. But, yes, it makes more difficult,
undoubtedly.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. So, what we say here, particularly when
it is way off base, does make the job of our diplomats more
difficult when they are attempting to reach a peace agreement
in a part of the world where real peace has not come for
centuries?
Secretary Pompeo. Language used by Members of Congress
matters. These countries all around the world are listening to
you all. They are watching. They are watching to see if this is
a whole-of-government United States process, and they are
watching voices, even if sometimes those voices are outliers.
They do not always know what to make of it.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. My second issue is, as you know, the
opioid and fentanyl epidemic has been plaguing our Nation for
almost a decade now. Congress has taken aggressive steps to
better fund treatment programs and curb the implementation of
these deadly substances. Recently, my good friend, Mr.
Connolly, and I introduced the Blocking Deadly Fentanyl Imports
Act. This would add illicit fentanyl to the list of substances
under Section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which makes
any exporting nation ineligible for U.S. taxpayers' subsidized
foreign aid or Export-Import Bank loans if it fails to
cooperate with American narcotics control efforts.
Now, Mr. Secretary, do you believe that this section of the
Foreign Assistance Act is an effective tool of combating
illegal drug imports into the United States? And do you believe
that Mr. Connolly's legislation and mine, bipartisan, would be
an effective additional tool in combating illicit fentanyl in
our country?
Secretary Pompeo. With respect to your first question, is
that section important and effective, the answer is yes. With
respect to the particular language you are proposing, my gut
tells me it is right. I would love the chance to actually
review it and make sure that I understand it in its full
context.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. OK. We will talk to you later about
that.
And I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
You and other Administration officials have repeatedly
claimed that military action is an option in Venezuela or all
options are on the table. As a former Member of Congress, I
assume you are familiar with the War Powers Act?
Secretary Pompeo. I am.
Mr. Cicilline. And as your Special Representative for
Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, confirmed for me before this
committee there is no current statutory authorization for a
military intervention in Venezuela. So, is the Administration
currently planning any military action against Venezuela?
Secretary Pompeo. I am certainly not going to speak to that
today. I will leave the Department of Defense to speak about
their planning. I can say this: any action that we take with
respect to Venezuela, whether it is military action or action
otherwise, will be in full compliance with U.S. law.
Mr. Cicilline. And so, I take that that is an agreement
that you will honor the Constitution and, as a member of this
Administration, seek congressional authorization before any
military engagement in Venezuela?
Secretary Pompeo. We will fully comply with the
Constitution.
Mr. Cicilline. I will take that as a yes.
In August, the Administration announced it would cutoff
funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine,
UNRWA, claiming that the U.N. body provides a lifeline and
truly vital assistance, but needs reform. Your spokeswoman
pledged, then, that the United States will intensify dialogue
with the United Nations, host governments, and international
stakeholders about new models and new approaches, which may
include direct bilateral assistance from the U.S. and other
partners that can provide today's Palestinian children with a
more durable and dependable path toward a brighter future.
Can you please tell me about this intensified dialogue?
Secretary Pompeo. Sure.
Mr. Cicilline. What concrete steps has the United States
taken and what specific reforms are you working on? And how
many suggested reforms has the Administration submitted to the
U.N. or to UNRWA as of today?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I could not tell you numbers. I can
tell you that we have absolutely lived up to the commitment
that you just described there. Indeed, I spoke about it with
the Egyptian Foreign Minister just yesterday. I spoke to the
Jordan----
Mr. Cicilline. No, my question, Mr. Secretary, is----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, well, I understand----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. What steps have you taken,
concrete steps has the United States taken with respect to
these reforms?
Secretary Pompeo. This is how you do reforms, right? This
is how you work on them. You go build out coalitions that are
designed to resolve the very problems that we identified with
UNRWA. And so, we are working--may I answer?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes, of course. I am anxious for you. I am
waiting.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, well----
Mr. Cicilline. Are there concrete actions that the U.S. has
taken or reforms that you have proposed?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, we are trying----
Mr. Cicilline. What are those?
Secretary Pompeo. We are trying to make sure that the
resources that the American taxpayers provide go to the right
places and achieve American outcomes. We have made a number of
suggestions. We do not have any--we have not had any takers
yet.
Mr. Cicilline. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. But I am confident that we will continue
to work on this----
Mr. Cicilline. Will you be willing to provide a summary of
those reforms and suggestions that you have made to the
committee?
Secretary Pompeo. I would have to take a look at it. If
they were private conversations, I likely will not be able to
do that.
Mr. Cicilline. OK. Next, Mr. Secretary, around the globe,
as you know, LGBTI people have been targeted, rounded up,
tortured, and even killed just for being who they are. We have
seen this in Chechnya, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Indonesia,
Bangladesh, and other places. The United States recently
refused to join a statement delivered to the United Nations
Human Rights Council calling for the perpetrators of violence
in Chechnya to be held accountable. Why did the U.S. not join
over 30 other nations in signing the recent joint statement to
the U.N. Human Rights Council calling for a thorough
investigation into the anti-LGBTI crimes being perpetuated in
Chechnya?
Secretary Pompeo. I will have to get back to you on the
reasons for that particular decision. But I will defend
staunchly the work that we have done. I hope you have seen
that. I hope when you talk to our diplomats as you travel
around the world you see our commitment.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Secretary, it makes the refusal to sign
this very important document particularly concerning. So, I
would like an answer back on that. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you had made reference to NATO just a moment
ago. Are you familiar with the report ``NATO at 70,'' prepare
by Ambassador Burns and Ambassador Lute?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not. I know who----
Mr. Cicilline. Well, I urge you, encourage you to read this
report. They identify the single greatest challenge to NATO
today is the President of the United States. And they detail
conversations with NATO officials who explained, for the very
first time in the history of NATO, there is an American
President who does not seem to support or understand its
significance, who has said that he has considered withdrawing
from NATO, that NATO is obsolete. And so, it is a really
alarming report. And I wonder what steps you, as the Secretary
of State, are taking to reassure our allies that the U.S.
remains committed to NATO and that we understand its critical
role in our shared values of advancing democracy, human rights,
and the very important alliance that has provided such peace
and stability around the world.
Secretary Pompeo. No, I have not read the report. I have
known Doug Lute since I was a young lieutenant when he was the
S3 of my squadron in Bindlach, West Germany--he was a major--a
long time ago. I have great respect for him. He is just simply
wrong. If the conclusion he drew is that President Trump is the
biggest impediment to NATO, he is just simply wrong. We have
worked diligently to make NATO stronger. I am convinced that we
have done so.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
And my final question, Mr. Secretary, is, just to go back
to the question about your March 18th briefing, it has been the
practice of every other Secretary of State, not on individual
meetings, but when there are press briefings or press
roundtables, that transcripts are prepared and the State
Department press corps are present. You have changed that
practice. So, when you say it has been the practice of every
Secretary, with respect to one-on-ones you may be right. With
respect to press briefings, the State Department press corps is
there, and there is a transcript provided.
I am asking you today whether you will reconsider your
position and go back to that past practice and bring greater
transparency, because we are all concerned about a significant
reduction in press access and a significant reduction in access
to transcripts of these proceedings, which goes against a very
basic principle of freedom of the press and is very dangerous
for our democracy.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to take a long at it again.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mast?
Mr. Cicilline. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. Mast. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Yes, Mr. Mast, if you will just hold for a
second, please?
Go ahead.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to
put into the record remarks delivered by Senator Menendez on
the floor today directly refuting both the President and the
Secretary's claim that Senate appointees are being held up by
the U.S. Senate. And I would ask that be placed in the record.
Chairman Engel. Without objection, so moved.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. Mr. Mast?
Mr. Mast. Thank you again for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to say thank you to you and to the
State Department for the truths that you have gone out there
and made it a point to address that have been ignored year over
year. And there is an extensive list that many of my colleagues
have brought up.
You have addressed the truth that Jerusalem is the capital
of Israel. If folks have a problem with that, they should
probably take it up with God.
You have addressed the truth that, if your enemy wants to
shoot you, you do not go take them out to buy a gun. And we do
not allow nations like Iran, who threaten to kill us, who would
be more than happy to slit the throat of every person in this
room, we do not give them access to weapons of mass
destruction. That is a truth that your State Department went
out there and addressed.
You addressed the truth that we should seek peace with
nations like North Korea. We should attempt to reach
denuclearization agreements, but that we should also walk away
from bad deals that do not benefit the citizens of the United
States of America.
You addressed the truth that China has been ripping us off
year after year, penalizing our goods, stealing our ideas,
stealing our intellectual property, and said that that is not
going to happen any further.
You addressed the truth that many in Europe want us to go
out there and defend them from Russia while at the same time
they are doing business with Russia and not picking up their
piece of the check in terms of defense.
You have addressed the truth that we have exhausted
tremendous treasure and lost far too many sons and daughters of
the United States of America in our 18 years of war.
You have addressed the truth about the people crossing our
border illegally on our southern border. Whether it be for the
purpose of bringing drugs, for trafficking humans, or for
seeking a better life, they are crossing our border illegally,
and you have addressed those truths.
And my question for you today, as we are supposed to be
having a hearing on strategy of the State Department going
forward, is, what truths do you want to see us go out there and
confront moving forward for the United States and for the State
Department for the betterment of our citizens?
Secretary Pompeo. One of the things I have focused on is
ensuring that our team had what it needed to go out and make
sure that America was leading, and it was leading in a way that
was not, frankly, from behind, but was, rather, building
coalitions. And we have been pretty successful at that. I think
the world needs to see that.
When we supported Venezuelan democracy, we built out an
enormous coalition. I sent folks to every corner of the earth
explaining what was taking place in Venezuela and why the
recognition of Juan Guaido made sense and was the right thing
to do.
When we wanted to take on North Korea, we got the largest
coalitions and the biggest sanctions, voted on by every member
of the United Nations Security Council uniformly to achieve the
objective there, the denuclearization, the risk that we take of
proliferation takedown from the world.
The counter ISIS campaign that has now taken down the last
piece of real estate in Syria and in Iraq from ISIS. We know
work continues, but we built out an enormous coalition to do
that. That was the great work, largely, of the team that I have
the privilege to lead.
And I want everyone in the world to know that we are
prepared to do that. Where problems and challenges confront us,
the United States Department of State will lead and build out
organizations, so that we can confront these challenges that
present risks to America and to the world.
Mr. Mast. I thank you for that leadership, Mr. Secretary.
And I yield my time back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing here.
I was pleased to hear in your opening comments that you
recognize the important role that Congress has and the
important role that Congress has with regards to oversight and
investigations.
As the new chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee for giving us broad jurisdiction really to take a
look and a deep dive into the State of America's diplomacy and
development. It is a big task, and I am sure I share your
commitment that we want to have the best State Department; we
want to have the best development agencies; we want to have the
best people out there serving the interests of the United
States of America in our soft power.
I cannot do this by myself, and I am going to need your
help and your commitment to allow your staff to work with us as
we take this deep dive. Do I have your commitment that you will
make your staff available to us?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir, you do.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Also, in your opening I was glad to hear you talk about the
important work that the men and women around our country who
serve and represent us abroad every day, the work that they do
is incredibly valuable. They are patriotic Americans often
working in difficult environments and difficult situations.
I do have one concern. A March 2019 GAO report found that
13 percent of the overseas Foreign Service's positions were
vacant as of March 2018. Now that is not your doing because
these are similar vacancy levels as such positions in 2008 and
2012.
But, also, in interviews GAO found that the staff at
overseas posts told us that the vacancies really are increasing
their workloads, contributing to low morale, and high stress
levels. And this seems to be borne out in other reporting.
In the latest annual rankings of Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government, produced by the Partnership for Public
Services and the Boston Consulting Group, the State Department
dropped from eighth place to 14th place amongst the 17 large
Federal agencies.
Meanwhile, I think as you have already mentioned, the
registration for Foreign Service Officer tests saw a 22 percent
decline from October 2017 and October 2018, according to an NBC
News report.
I am glad you are out there recruiting. I am glad you are
out there trying to get the next generation of America's
diplomats to think about service to country through the Foreign
Service. But we realize that morale is taking a beating.
What I would like to do is, again, obviously, it is
important for us to fill those positions. In our oversight
role, I would be curious, who is the person responsible for
implementing your plan to help fill these positions, help with
recruitment, and so forth? You cannot do it by yourself. So,
who should we be working with?
Secretary Pompeo. So, the person you would work with would
be my Under Secretary for Management, but I do not have one.
Mr. Bera. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. So, it would be great if I did. We have
now gone 2 years without a confirmed Under Secretary for
Management, essentially, the chief operating officer. We did
get, although it took too long, we did get Carol Perez, who is
a talented career Foreign Service Officer, whose title is
Director General for Human Resources.
Mr. Bera. Do you have a nominee that----
Secretary Pompeo. Well, we do, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Bera. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. That is the second one we have put
forward.
Mr. Bera. Well, let's try to get that position filled.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Highly qualified, I believe every
Member of the U.S. Senate so believes. And yet, we have not
been able to get him across the floor. But we have someone you
can work with.
Mr. Bera. Great.
Secretary Pompeo. Her name is Carol Perez. She is a career
Foreign Service Officer. She runs what is called the Director
General of Human Resources.
Mr. Bera. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. She is a great lady and is driving----
Mr. Bera. And I got your commitment that we could work with
that to get these positions filled.
And last, I have a concern. And I want to thank you for
being here. Over the years in both Democratic and Republican
Administrations we had had an interagency process that has
served us well, where the various agencies are working together
to make sure the President has the best advice before the
President makes a decision. I have got a couple of yes-no
questions, because I do have some concerns about the
decisionmaking process currently.
On the decision to withdraw troops from Syria, General
Votel, the Central Command commander, said, quote, ``I was not
consulted before this decision was made.''
Our Special Envoy to defeat ISIS, Brett McGurk, said he
spoke with you after the President has made up his mind, and he
wrote in a public op-ed, ``During the December call, Pompeo
informed us that there had been a sudden change in plans.
President Trump, after a phone conversation with his Turkish
counterpart, planned to declare victory over the Islamic State
and direct our forces to withdraw from Syria.''
A yes-no question. Did the President consult you before
deciding to withdraw troops?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Bera. Five days ago, the President tweeted that, ``It
was announced today by the U.S. Treasury that additional large-
scale sanctions would be added to those already-existing
sanctions on North Korea. I have today ordered the withdrawal
of those additional sanctions.''
Bloomberg News reported yesterday that the President was
referring to sanctions that the Treasury Department had
announced the day prior against two Chinese shipping companies
that were helping North Korea avoid U.S. sanctions. A yes-no
question. Did the President discuss removing those sanctions
with you prior to the tweet?
Secretary Pompeo. They were Treasury sanctions, as I
recall.
Mr. Bera. But, again, in an interagency manner, was the
State Department consulted for that?
Secretary Pompeo. We have had lots of discussions. The
reason I cannot answer that yes or no is because we have had
discussions on sanctions issues with respect to Iran, with
respect to Venezuela, with respect to China.
Mr. Bera. Right. I know----
Secretary Pompeo. We have these discussions consistently
and over time, and then, there does come a point where
Presidents make decisions. And at that point in time, we inform
our team, and we go execute and implement with all of the
energy and vigor that we have.
I must say, too, if I may, you made a statement about some
of the things that Mr. McGurk said. I cannot answer them
because what Mr. McGurk said in that was classified, and it
should not have been uttered publicly. And I regret that very
much.
Mr. Bera. OK.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Bera, I am going to let you get one
more quick question. We have to move on.
Mr. Bera. Just very quickly, a final--I think it is very
concerning that there may be a lack of an interagency dialogue
where our leaders at State, Defense, et cetera, are being
consulted prior to these decisions being made. Does that sound
like sound foreign policy? And you do not have to answer that
question because we are out of time.
Chairman Engel. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, over here.
Secretary Pompeo. I have got you.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you for your time today and for your
service.
I have to say that it is appalling the number of nominees
that this Administration still has in State and other agencies
that have not been confirmed by the Senate. We hope that they
can move much more swiftly and waive the 30-hour rule.
Sir, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention
Act, a bill that I introduced, that was signed into law by
President Trump in January, affirms the critical importance of
interagency coordination to prevent genocide and mass
atrocities. Secretary Pompeo, how is State supporting atrocity
prevention and response activities?
Secretary Pompeo. There are multiple mechanisms inside the
Department of State. We have teams that have responsibility for
the implementation. The State Department's element of
implementing that particular statute and law, we have a broader
group of folks who work on human rights issues. And then, yet,
we have another group that have regional responsibility. Each
of them has tasks to ensure that we do all that we can to
reduce the risk that there would be genocide, atrocities,
crimes against humanity all of these horrific activities that
we find too many governments taking.
Mrs. Wagner. And are they reaching posts actually?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mrs. Wagner. Are they trained up----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I think so. I am sure we could do
better. Just I am sure we could get this information out more
broadly and execute this, and I am happy to look at how
effective we are at getting this out into the missions.
Mrs. Wagner. I have some ideas about that, as a former U.S.
Ambassador and on this piece of legislation. So, I would love
to share them with your team, Mr. Secretary.
China has been working to isolate Taiwan through diplomatic
channels. We have heard a little bit about this earlier with
Mr. Chabot. In the past year, China convinced three countries
to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and, instead, recognize
Beijing. How is State working to prevent China from further
eroding Taiwan's international support?
Secretary Pompeo. We are using every tool that we have in
the toolkit. You have seen that we have used our economic
toolkit to try to convince countries that this was not the
right thing to do. We have used our, I will call it our
diplomacy/political toolkit to convince them that this was
something that mattered to America. As a former Ambassador, we
have issued demarches to countries.
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. We have a commitment with respect to
Taiwan and how we will deal with that, a longstanding set of
policies that goes back now decades.
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. The United States is firmly committed to
enforcing that set of understandings, and inside of that, doing
our level best to make sure that we honor the commitments to
Taiwan as well.
Mrs. Wagner. I was glad to see us in the Taiwan Strait
recently.
Secretary Pompeo. Yesterday.
Mrs. Wagner. Yesterday, yes.
Speaking of recently, on Sunday, Mr. Secretary, Thailand
held its first elections since the military junta seized power
in 2014. Although voting was expected to be free and fair,
worrisome reports have emerged that cast doubt on the
election's legitimacy. How will State work with civil society
and government officials in Thailand to facilitate a return to
genuine democracy? Thailand has the chair of the ASEAN Caucus,
of which I am a co-chair and care deeply about this region,
especially vis-a-vis a counterbalance to China.
Secretary Pompeo. So, I have been to Bangkok. We have
reengaged in ways that the American leadership has not engaged
since 2014. I have also seen the reports from the election
yesterday, albeit only what I would call first reports. So, I
want to see more about what actually transpired. Our team on
the ground there worked diligently to ensure that we would be
able to make determinations about the election and, in fact, to
ensure that we provided whatever support we could to make sure
that there was a free and fair election.
Thailand is an important place, a place where I believe
America can find an important counterbalance to the risk that
China presents to the United States.
Mrs. Wagner. I could not agree more. I care deeply about
the entire ASEAN region from a security standpoint, from a
trade standpoint, from a humanitarian standpoint, and, most of
all, as a counterbalance to China.
Given the Burmese government has cutoff Rakhine State to
humanitarian and AID workers and international observers, how
is State working with local actors to direct aid to those who
need it most, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Pompeo. So, State Department proper is doing it.
USAID is on the ground as well.
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. There are other commercial partners, non-
governmental partners as well. It is tough. It is heavy
slogging. Our capacity to deliver that is, unfortunately,
limited, but we are working. We are working to reopen some of
the ways we were able to do that previously as well, but we
have not had much success.
Mrs. Wagner. These atrocities, whether it is in Burma with
Rohingya, the Kachin, Shan, and the Rakhine, are just horrific.
We thank you for all of your service and your support in
this area.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Castro?
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, for your testimony today.
I have a question about what seems in some parts of the
world to be the growing cooperation between Russia and China to
pursue mutual interests. In Venezuela, for example, it seems as
though both have been involved to some extent. And I came
across, not too long ago, a quote by an African leader that
said that, ``China is the money and Russia is the muscle.'' Do
you find that to be true, and what do you see in terms of their
cooperation?
Secretary Pompeo. That is a very important question. We
have seen Russia and China begin to work together in ways that
they had not done 15-20 years ago. That is a trend that has
probably gone on for a handful of years now. They have just
found themselves in places where they have overlapping
interests. They have strategic challenges between the two
countries, long-term strategic challenges in places that I do
not believe will ever truly overlap. But certainly, tactically
and operationally, we see that today.
Venezuela is a very, very good example, but we have seen it
in other places as well. We see it at the United Nations,
where, as members of the U.N. Security Council, they work
together as well, almost always against freedom, democracy,
liberty, the things that the United States and democracies hold
dear.
Mr. Castro. Also, let me ask you about recent news that
Italy is joining the effort on China's One Belt One Road
Initiative. And obviously, a major European country, friendly
to the West, historically, what that means for the United
States and for China and its effort at expanding its might,
economic might and military might, around the world.
Secretary Pompeo. It is disappointing anytime any country
begins to engage in behavior and commercial interactions with
China that are not straight-up. China has every right to move
around the world and compete transparently, private companies
engaging. They will win a handful of times. I am convinced that
we will do great if there are rule-of-law transactions that are
open and transparent.
That is not the case with many of the initiatives under One
Belt One Road. And so, your point, whether it is Italy or other
countries that have gone down this path, we are saddened
because we think those countries, we think the people of those
countries will ultimately lose. We have seen that in some
smaller, less wealthy countries. That is, the debt trap
diplomacy, this predatory lending that takes place comes home
to roost more quickly than it does in nations that can survive
that, that are wealthier.
But when you engage in these non-economic transactions with
essentially State-owned or State-directed enterprises, nothing
good happens for your people. It may feel good in the moment.
You think you got a cheap product or a low-cost bridge or road
built. In the end, there will be a political cost attached to
that which will greatly exceed the economic value of what you
were provided.
Mr. Castro. We certainly support your efforts to obviously
allow China to compete, but not to cheat around the world.
And let me ask you one last question with respect to North
Korea. I want to get your perspective on whether you think,
think or know whether North Korea's nuclear capacity and
capabilities have increased or decreased since the first Trump
summit.
Secretary Pompeo. So, the fact that they have not conducted
missile tests or nuclear testing is a good thing. It reduces
their capability. Their systems become less reliant. But we
have not yet seen them make the big move that we were hoping,
frankly, that they would do in Hanoi. We have not yet seen them
take the big step that I spoke about the very first time I met
Chairman Kim, goodness, almost exactly a year ago, where we
talked about the fact that there would be a brighter future for
the North Korean people, but it had to be this complete
denuclearization. We have not seen them take a step in that
direction yet.
I am still hopeful that we can engage and negotiate with
them and get to the right outcome. Chairman Kim, even in this
last visit between the Presidents, the conversations between my
team and his team, they still tell us they are committed to it.
It is time that we begin to see real actions in that regard.
Mr. Castro. And where does it all go from here with North
Korea?
Secretary Pompeo. My team is engaging at every level, not
only with the North Koreans. Steve Biegun, the Special
Representative, has been in China these past couple of days. I
think he may be on his way back here now. He has been working
with our allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, to ensure
that we keep the pressure campaign, that we continue to enforce
the U.N. Security Council resolutions, and then, continue our
diplomatic efforts to achieve this outcome.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Curtis?
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, greetings from Utah. It is a delight to
be here with you today.
I am not sure all of us can appreciate that one of your
skill sets is sitting there hour after hour and answering our
questions, but thank you.
We have paid homage, rightly so, to C-SPAN for their 40-
year anniversary over the last day or two, but, interestingly,
I think we have missed one of the most significant 40-year
anniversaries. Forty years ago yesterday, President Carter,
Sadat, and Begin signed the historic peace treaty. I happened
to be 19 years old and living in Jerusalem at the signing of
that treaty, and I grabbed a newspaper and, for years and
years, I kept it in a file in my office.
And when I came to Congress, I took that newspaper and I
had it framed. And this now hangs in my office as a reminder of
the many lessons that came out of that, among other things,
that we can do what seems near impossible; that we can bring
these groups together that seem so far apart; that we can be
bipartisan in the way that we approach these. And I worry that
our relationship with Israel is becoming a partisan issue, and
I hope that it is not. I think our success depends on this
being a bipartisan issue.
Could you touch just a minute on what the Administration is
doing that might take us back to a point like this in our
relationships with Israel and their Arab neighbors?
Secretary Pompeo. Sure. So, your point is well-taken. I am
also reminded, if I have the history right of that day, that if
you looked at the outsiders the day before, at least a week
before, months before, it seemed almost imaginable----
Mr. Curtis. It would not happen, yes.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. That that would have
happened. So, I am mindful.
We were talking about North Korea a little bit ago. As
difficult as these problems look, if you continue to work at
them, if you continue to engage in good-faith negotiations, and
try and grind away and resolve these resolutions, that
sometimes things happen quickly and big. And I am hopeful that
the Trump Administration will be able to achieve some of those.
With respect to the efforts in the Middle East, there has
been a lot of groundwork laid, working with each of the
countries in the region, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the
Saudis, the Emirates. I am going to miss a few along the way.
We have worked with the Iraqis. I was just in Lebanon. I was in
Israel. In my previous role, I met a number of times with the
Palestinian leadership.
Working to try and understand the conflict as it sits
today, not as we might have imagined it 5 years ago or 10 years
ago or 30 years ago, and to try to identify those places where
we can find congruence, overlap, places where we can
acknowledge the history, but move past it. And we will lay out
our vision for that in the not-too-distant future, and I hope
that every one of those countries will take a good look at it.
There will be something in there, I am sure, that they do not
find too wimpy, but I hope they will at least take a serious
look at it and take it as a good-faith effort to resolve this.
Mr. Curtis. And to your point about the naysayers, I
actually was in Galilee the night that it was signed, and Syria
had said they would invade over the Golan Heights. And I
remember, as a 19-year-old, looking up and seeing the Golan
Heights, wondering if they were coming. But I think it is a
great testament that we can do these hard things.
Unfortunately, this week we have also seen rockets launched
at Israel from Hamas, from Gaza. There is some belief that Iran
had a hand in this. Can you address that and, also, does that
show us one of the flaws in the Iran nuclear deal with the
long-range ballistic missiles not being addressed? And is this
an example of why that is a problem?
Secretary Pompeo. With respect to the recent rocket
attacks, when I came this morning, I think both sides had
agreed that they had gotten to a pretty good place. Whether
that will hold, I do not know. It was pretty fragile when I had
the last conversation, but I am hopeful that it will.
Second, I could not tell you if the Iranians were directly
involved in this particular attack. I can tell you that they
underwrite Hamas, the entity, the terrorist entity, that is
responsible for those missile launches.
And then, finally, your third question was about the JCPOA.
Look, most of the behavior that has led to Iran being the
world's largest State sponsor of terrorism increased during the
JCPOA. It was because the JCPOA prevented the Administration
from taking any action against Iran. They said that it did not,
but, in fact, you just need to look at the activities that they
engaged in. They permitted Iran to expand. They gave Iran
resources. They opened up economic wealth for Hezbollah and for
Shia militias all across Iraq.
Those were the kind of things that our policies are trying
to cabin, to reduce the capacity for the Islamic Republic of
Iran to engage in terror behavior, whether that is in the Gaza
Strip or the assassination campaigns that are taking place in
Europe, or the missile launches that are coming out of Yemen.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield my time.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
It has been reported that Jared Kushner offered Prince
Mohammad of Saudi Arabia, and I quote, ``advice about how to
weather the storm'' in the aftermath of the murder of Jamal
Khashoggi. Do you know if that is true or not?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not.
Ms. Titus. Well do not you think it would be important for
the Secretary of State to know what the senior White House
officials are telling world leaders, including the leader of
Saudi Arabia?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I believe I know everything that he
told him, but you suggested some report that I have not seen.
And so, I am happy to----
Ms. Titus. Well, do you know if he gave him PR advice?
Secretary Pompeo. To the best of knowledge, he did not.
Ms. Titus. Do you think it would be----
Secretary Pompeo. I talk with Mr. Kushner all the time. I
think we are fully in sync with respect to how we are handling
each of the issues around the world. We know what his files
are. We know the ones that I am engaged in. We know where we
have overlap, and we are working toward the same end State.
Ms. Titus. Well, I want to ask another question about some
of our relations, whether it is through you or through Mr.
Kushner. And that is the setting up of an Air Marshals-type
program with Saudi Arabia. I know this was begun under a
previous Administration, but I wonder if you have any
reservations about continuing the program now, since it comes
in the wake of the murder of The Washington Post journalist, in
the wake of arrests and detentions and abuses of women's rights
activists, in the wake of air strikes that have hit schools and
hospitals, even a bus carrying 40 children. Thousands of people
in Yemen have died as a result of it. Both Houses have voted in
opposition to it. Do you think that we might want to reassess a
program that we have set up with Saudi Arabia to create this
special Air Marshals-type program?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not familiar with the program. I am
happy to take a look at it.
Ms. Titus. You are not familiar with the program? Because
it is supposed to go into place fairly soon, and we have sent
TSA officials----
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to look----
Ms. Titus [continuing]. Over to set it up.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I vaguely recall. I do not have
responsibility for TSA.
Ms. Titus. Yes, I know you do not, but it is through the
State Department.
Secretary Pompeo. That might be why I am not as familiar
with it as I might otherwise be. But I am happy to take a look
at it.
Ms. Titus. Well, great. Maybe you will take a look at the
other countries in the Middle East where we already have these
programs. Are you familiar with those at all?
Secretary Pompeo. I know of the existence of the program,
yes.
Ms. Titus. Well, can I ask you what you might think, if we
set up a program with Saudi Arabia, what we can do to put some
safeguards in place to be sure that it will not be used against
our interests or fall into the wrong hands that, then, might be
used against us?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I think, most appropriately, DHS
would be the best place to lodge those questions. But I am
happy to take a look at them and see if they have important
State Department equities or foreign policy elements to them.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. I would appreciate it if you
would get back to us on that. And I am a little disappointed
that you are unaware of a major program that is taking place
with collaboration of the State Department.
Let me ask you about another program that maybe you do have
more information about. It has been reported that the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services--I know that is not
directly under you--but they are closing 23 international field
offices. These are offices that work on refugee applications,
family reunification, visas, and foreign adoptions. And they
plan to transfer those over to the workload of the State
Department. That would be what you are in charge of.
Secretary Pompeo. It would, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. I wonder, did you sign off on that decision?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am, I am very familiar with this.
I am very familiar with how our Consular Affairs team interacts
with the USCIS, and I am very comfortable with the path that we
are taking.
Ms. Titus. Well, there is nothing that is reflected in your
budget to show how you are going to take up this work. Can you
explain how you are going to be able to cover these new
assignments?
Secretary Pompeo. I am very comfortable that we can deliver
on that mission set, and my team has told me the same.
Ms. Titus. And are you going to continue to make this a
priority or will this be put on the back burner? And what is
going to be the impact on refugee applications as a result of
your just kind of absorbing this process?
Secretary Pompeo. When you say ``this,'' I am not certain
what you are----
Ms. Titus. This was family reunification, visas, the
refugee applications, those activities that used to be done by
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that are being
transferred to you, that you are so comfortable about taking
up.
Secretary Pompeo. I am very confident that we can deliver
these services.
Ms. Titus. Well, we will be watching that to be sure that
that is the case. But it seems to me it would be a little more
responsible if you had made some mention of it in your budget,
that this will be a new task that you are undertaking, as
opposed to DHS. You do not have any problem with that?
Secretary Pompeo. Do you have a question, ma'am?
Ms. Titus. My question was, why did not you put it in your
budget?
Secretary Pompeo. Ma'am, I would have to go take a look at
that line item and see what we did and where it is that line
item fits. But I have talked with the team on the budget. The
Consular Affairs team was very involved in delivering the
budget and they are comfortable that they can deliver on all of
the missions that we have provided to them.
Ms. Titus. Well, I am glad you are comfortable because I am
not very comfortable. I am not very comfortable with the
answers, that you do not seem to know what is going on. But I
would be more comfortable if you would get back to us and tell
us about this TSA Air Marshal program that you are setting up
with Saudi Arabia.
Secretary Pompeo. I will ensure that DHS gets back to you,
ma'am.
Ms. Titus. And I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Buck?
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Secretary Pompeo.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
Mr. Buck. During your time at the CIA and at the State
Department, did you receive training on how classified
information should be handled?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Buck. Does everyone handling classified information at
the State Department receive a briefing or training course on
how to handle classified information?
Secretary Pompeo. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Buck. Did this training cover the different
designations indicating a document's level of classification?
Secretary Pompeo. Anyone who receives a clearance and has
access to classified information would receive training on the
various levels and how those various levels are required to be
handled.
Mr. Buck. And does a classification marker of ``TS''
indicate that it is top secret information contained in that
document?
Secretary Pompeo. That is what those two letters would
normally indicate, yes.
Mr. Buck. And if it is an ``S,'' would it indicate that it
is a secret classification?
Secretary Pompeo. Also correct.
Mr. Buck. And if it is a ``C,'' would it indicate that it
is a classified document?
Secretary Pompeo. ``C'' typically means confidential.
Mr. Buck. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. That is the level of classification, but
I suppose it could--yes, I think----
Mr. Buck. OK. So, confidential?
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Typically, it means
confidential, yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. OK. And you were taught these designations at the
training that you received as Secretary of State?
Secretary Pompeo. You know, I know I went through that
training as Director of CIA. I do not know that I went through
the course again when I became Secretary of State. I may have.
Mr. Buck. I do not want to suggest something about your
age, but were you grandfathered into that as a result?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not know. Here is what I am
confident of: if I was required to go through the process, I
did.
Mr. Buck. OK. Have you ever gone home for the night and
left classified documents on your kitchen table?
Secretary Pompeo. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Buck. OK. Have you ever left them in your car?
Secretary Pompeo. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Buck. Have you ever taken classified documents home
with you and had them outside of your possession?
Secretary Pompeo. I have, only because I have a location
that I can store classified information in my home.
Mr. Buck. OK. So, it has----
Secretary Pompeo. So, they would have been stored in an
appropriate location inside the secure facility that is inside
of the house in which I live.
Mr. Buck. And a security official has approved that as a
secure location?
Secretary Pompeo. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. OK. Do you have a private server in your home?
Secretary Pompeo. No, I do not.
Mr. Buck. And if you had left classified information in
your car or if you had left it in your home outside of the
private area, would that be a violation of the training that
you had received about how to handle classified information?
Secretary Pompeo. Anytime that classified information is
not stored in an appropriately approved facility or is outside
of the control of to whom that information has been provided,
whether that is written or even if one speaks about it, lets it
out orally, yes, that is inconsistent with the requirements.
Mr. Buck. OK. Could you be prosecuted for receiving
information outside of a secure or sending information outside
of a secure location or email serving--a non-classified email
server?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Buck. OK. Mr. Secretary, you are also a lawyer, is that
correct?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not certified to practice anywhere
today, but, yes, at one point I went to law school and I used
to have a bar registration.
Mr. Buck. And as a lawyer, you have heard of the term
``circumstantial evidence''?
Secretary Pompeo. I have.
Mr. Buck. And would it be considered circumstantial
evidence of guilt for someone to take evidence of a crime and
destroy that evidence?
Secretary Pompeo. It might well be.
Mr. Buck. OK. I have no further questions, and I yield
back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat?
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, I believe the last time I spoke, I was the
Mariano Rivera of this. Now I am sort of like a middle
reliever, or still find myself asking questions that may have
been addressed already.
But I want to start by expressing my serious concerns with
plans to close USCIS. The international field offices was
previously mentioned. This may seem a little bit out of scope
with this hearing, but I guarantee that it is not.
Two weeks ago, the USCIS Director Cissna put forward a plan
to close its 12 dozen overseas offices and said that many other
responsibilities would be shifted onto the State's Consular's
Office. It is my understanding that the very reason that these
offices exist is to take some of the workload off the Consular
officials.
Let me make myself clear. I oppose this plan. I know that a
number of my colleagues also oppose it. I will be leading a
letter in opposition to it.
I just want to find out how are you going to address the
overload of work for these Consular Offices. Are you going to
increase staff? There is currently a backlog to begin with. And
now, you are shifting these services to another unit that may,
in fact, be overburdened to begin with. Do you have a plan to
increase staffing and do you project--what kind of workload do
you project these Consular Offices are going to have?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not have that in front of me, but I
know our team is very well apprised of this transition that is
taking place, and our Consular team is confident that they can
achieve their mission set.
Mr. Espaillat. One of the issues that often comes forward
is the lengthy times that folks have to wait for these
services. With regards to family reunification, some families,
some mothers have to wait as long as 7 years. By the time they
are done, those kids that they want to reunite with are now
adults. And this brings about a great degree of issues to the
families. So, I urge you to please come back to us and give us
what your plan is for this change.
Secretary Pompeo. I will make sure that we collectively do
that, that we help you. This is a longstanding issue, as I
understand the history of it--it is not the last couple of
years; it predates that--and one that we need to seriously make
sure that we understand fully.
Mr. Espaillat. I want to shift now to the Caribbean. I find
that the Caribbean is often overlooked for its strategic
importance to the U.S. The Caribbean is, in fact, our third
border, and we ought to direct necessary focus to the region.
We must work to curb the flow of illicit drugs, combat
corruption, promote good governance, and buildupon trade
partnerships for our relationship with these nations to
prosper.
One important aspect of our relationship with the Caribbean
is the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, to which the U.S.
contributes roughly $58 million annually to combat drug trade,
promote social justice, and increase public security. I believe
that the CBSI is critical to the U.S. national interest and
that we ought to continue to grow the program. I will be asking
for a substantial increase to the CBSI.
I just want to know from you, Mr. Secretary, how do you
plan to ensure that we continue to work with the Caribbean, the
CBSI program to fight drugs in that region?
Secretary Pompeo. The CBSI is, in fact, an important
program. I concede that. We have to make hard choices from time
to time. You will have to make hard decisions about how many
dollars to allocate to particular programs. You will have to
make tradeoffs, ones that you are not always happy with as
well.
Mr. Espaillat. Will you be supportive of a substantial
increase to that program?
Secretary Pompeo. I will have to take a look at it in the
context of all the other demands on resources for the State
Department.
Mr. Espaillat. Finally, Mr. Secretary, I consistently hear
of our allies in the region that they feel, in that region and
Latin America, that they feel ignored by the U.S. because we
have stepped away from the region. We do not invest in our
allies. And instead, they turn to China because we have left
sort of like a vacuum.
I know that you, the Administration has sort of like given
a green light or winked at some of those nations saying, you
can trade, but there are certain projects that we would oppose.
For example, ports, access to data, other important--could you
enumerate which are the kinds of projects that the
Administration will oppose some of the countries in Latin
America engaging with China?
Secretary Pompeo. Sure. I am agree with the predicate of
your question with respect to a couple of decades where America
did not engage and invest in that region in the way that it
should have. We are trying to correct that.
And China has shown up and made proffers that we think are
not in the best interest of those nations. I do not know that I
can segregate them out as categories other than to say free,
open, private companies competing transparently, Chinese
companies, all good.
Mr. Espaillat. But do you think----
Secretary Pompeo. When it presents a security risk to the
United States, no good.
Mr. Espaillat. Do you think, for example--real quickly, Mr.
Chairman--do you think that allowing Chinese to run ports,
given the crisis of fentanyl in the region and in the
hemisphere, is a good idea?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I want to
compliment you on what I believe is outstanding leadership of
your Department.
I recently introduced the Digital Global Access Policy Act,
which would expand internet access to developing countries and
promote U.S. export of technology. We have heard a lot about
China.
So, my question relates specifically to internet access.
And, yes, we work with private companies and all of that, but
is there anything the State Department is doing with regard to
that? We talked about this yesterday in the African
Subcommittee hearing. And could you tell us what the State
Department is doing just in that regard?
Secretary Pompeo. With respect to internet access?
Mr. Wright. Yes.
Secretary Pompeo. And globally? Speaking around the world?
Mr. Wright. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. So, there are places that is our
responsibility. We try to make sure that there is freedom of
speech, freedom of expression. The internet is, obviously, part
of that, the capacity for citizens to communicate. We talk
about that in every place we go where there is substantial risk
of that. We also do our best, when malign actors are attempting
to close down, create closed systems which prevent citizens
from speaking, from getting this information that comes through
the internet, the State Department has a role in trying to
prevent that as well.
Mr. Wright. Great.
Now I want to shift to the border. You know what the
national numbers are. I can tell you that in Texas 11,000 per
week are coming across into Texas, 9,000 into three Texas
counties, the three most southern counties. I toured that area
last week by plane, by helicopter, by gunboat on the Rio
Grande. I saw firsthand where the drug cartels are operating,
where human traffickers are bringing people across on rafts.
And I have a lot of questions for one of your counterparts.
Nobody is going to mistake you for the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
But, as it relates to Mexico and our policy toward Mexico,
what can we do to get Mexico to do more on their side of the
border?
Secretary Pompeo. I have personally been very involved in
this. Frankly, I think I have been to Mexico more than any
previous Secretary of State in our first--what now?--10 or 11
months as Secretary of State, and met with my Mexican
counterpart and spoken with him more. I have a great
relationship with Foreign Minister.
We have asked them to do a number of things. We have asked
them to strengthen border security at their southern border, a
very important component----
Mr. Wright. Right.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Of what is taking place
today at America's southern border.
We have asked them not to create incentives for people to
travel this dangerous path through Mexico. And then, we have
come to an understanding with respect to how those coming to
the United States to seek asylum can remain in Mexico during
the time of the pendency of their claim.
We are working with the Mexican government on each of
these. We need them to do more. We need them to set up more
checkpoints. We need them to do the things that prevent what
you describe is happening in your State.
Mr. Wright. With regard, though, to the drug cartels and
the human trafficking--and the human trafficking aspect of this
is something that we do not hear a lot about, but it is
absolutely horrible, what is happening to young women that are
being brought across the border. I do not see Mexico stepping
up to the plate when it comes to that.
Secretary Pompeo. I have talked with them a great deal. I
know my counterparts at DHS, at DEA, all the elements that work
on these transnational criminal organizations, the narcotics
and human trafficking that flow through those networks, we are
there to help. The United States taxpayers actually provide
significant resources to assist them. We are prepared to
continue to do that, but we certainly need the Mexican
government to do more.
Mr. Wright. Well, I can tell you that what U.S. Border
Control, the Texas Department of Public Safety working in
tandem with them, and the county sheriffs, they are doing
outstanding work. I can also tell you they are overwhelmed.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Wright. And they need help down there.
My last question, it is a little more personal. I have some
constituents in my district, a family who has a family member,
Majd Kamalmaz, who is being held in Syria, has been for almost
2 years. You have been very responsive. Your office has been
very responsive to my office as well as to the family. I would
just ask that you continue to work with the Czech Republic--
they are the ones that are actually helping us with this--and
not let this man fall through the cracks.
Secretary Pompeo. You have my commitment. Next week, we
will hold an event at the State Department talking about this
specific set of issues, about Americans that are detained
wrongly abroad. I will have some of the families in.
The Trump Administration has had some success we are very
proud of in getting people back. I personally got to bring back
three Americans who were being held in North Korea. We focus on
this every single day.
Mr. Wright. Great. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you
for your service.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, as a Gold Star son, I am particularly
grateful for your service to our country.
My question is about Afghanistan. It goes without saying
that a secure and peaceful Afghanistan is not in our country's
best interest, but, of course, the world's. I know that will be
difficult to achieve. But it also goes without saying that
Members of Congress are concerned about the lack of
communication between the State Department and Congress
relative to both our strategy and an update relative to the
negotiations with the Taliban.
I think since November 2018, this committee staff has been
asking for a briefing. I believe Chairman Engel and Ranking
Member McCaul have sent a letter as recently as February asking
for that briefing. And all have been ignored.
So, my question is, can you confirm that within 2 weeks
that Ambassador Khalilzad would appear for a briefing in front
of this committee?
Secretary Pompeo. No, I am not prepared to do that, to
confirm that he will do that. I am happy to share with you our
strategy, what it is the State Department has been tasked to
do, and frankly, all the U.S. Government has been asked to do
in Afghanistan by President Trump.
Mr. Phillips. Before you continue----
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to share with you--you
describe, by the way, our negotiations. Our negotiations are
with every element inside of Afghanistan aimed at there to be
Afghan-led conversations. That is the mission set that
Ambassador Khalilzad is engaged in.
Mr. Phillips. OK. Specifically----
Secretary Pompeo. So, it is just important to characterize
it correctly.
Mr. Phillips. I respect that.
But, going back to the Ambassador, what is a reasonable
timeframe for him to appear in front of this----
Secretary Pompeo. You know, when you are engaged in complex
negotiations, one needs to be really careful to make sure that
the contents of those negotiations remain in a very small
circle. And I am happy to share with you. I know precisely what
he is doing. I do not speak with him every day, but almost
every day.
Mr. Phillips. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. It is either I are Under Secretary Hale
that is working closely with Ambassador Khalilzad.
I am happy to come share with you what we can, but you have
to know the success of these negotiations depends on every one
of those partners having confidence that what they say in those
negotiations will not end up in The Washington Post.
Mr. Phillips. I respect that. But, in his absence, and with
about 3 minutes here, if you could brief us on both strategy--
--
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Phillips [continuing]. And any update that you can
share, it is most important.
Secretary Pompeo. You bet. Let me walk you through
President Trump's strategy. He has talked very publicly about
ending endless wars and about taking down America's substantial
commitment in Afghanistan as quickly as we can, consistent with
American national security interest. That is the aim that he
has set out for us.
So, I, working closely with, first, Secretary Mattis, now
Acting Secretary Shanahan, have laid out our effort for
reconciliation to see if we can take down the violence levels,
and then, begin to have real negotiations about what a
political resolution would look like in Afghanistan, always
being mindful of the risk. There is continued ISIS-Khorasan
inside of Afghanistan. Although America has done enormously
good work under multiple Presidents to take down the threat
from al-Qaeda, it remains there as well. So, all the while
being mindful that we have important counterterrorism equities
that we need to make sure that we address appropriately.
And that is what Ambassador Khalilzad and the Department of
Defense who is working alongside him on these reconciliation
discussions are trying to convince all the parties, the
government of national unity, including President Ghani, other
Afghan actors, and the Taliban to come together to see if we
cannot find a way to reduce the violence. When we do that, we
will be able to reduce not only American forces there, but,
importantly, the NATO forces that are located inside and
working together alongside us inside of Afghanistan.
Mr. Phillips. And in your estimation, can the Taliban and
other extremist groups be trusted?
Secretary Pompeo. I am a believer that whoever it is we are
negotiating with, we have to have deliverable, measurable
outcomes that can be verified. That goes for everyone I
negotiate with. When I was in the private sector negotiating
with customers and suppliers, I did not want to have to resort
to enforcement mechanisms, but, rather, I wanted to be able to
have the capacity to understand that we could measure, work
together, and see deliverable outcomes on the ground. That is
what we will expect from all of the parties in the region.
Mr. Phillips. OK. All right. My understanding is the
Ambassador is now going back to the region, will be there
through April 10th.
And I will just ask one more time. Your encouragement would
be appreciated on behalf of this entire committee to extend
that invitation for a briefing. I think it is important, and
you having been a former Member of this body, I think you
probably recognize that.
Secretary Pompeo. I understand. And I remember when
negotiations were taking place with the previous
Administration, they were very careful about information ending
up in places that harmed the very effort that we would agree we
are engaged in trying to achieve.
But I am happy to consider if there is a way we can execute
what it is I know you want. You do have an obligation on
oversight.
Mr. Phillips. Yes, we do.
Secretary Pompeo. I understand that deeply. And I will do
my best to make sure that we keep you apprised, as we move
along, of the success and absence thereof with respect to our
reconciliation efforts.
Mr. Phillips. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzpatrick?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Thank you
for your service.
I wanted to touch on Ukraine. I am the co-chair of the
Ukraine Caucus. Also, before being in Congress, as an FBI
agent, my last international assignment was in Ukraine, and
spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort into working with
their anti-corruption efforts to start the NABU, the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau, and also working a lot of
counterintelligence.
And my question, sir, is, the Administration, their broader
policy with regards to Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea,
the ongoing battle occurring in the Donbas region. Do you feel
that we are supplying them with enough of what they need? What
has the followup been with regards to the commitments we have
made? Do you think it is sufficient? That pertains to eastern
Ukraine. And with respect to Crimea, are we satisfied just
accepting the status quo there with the annexation? I know we
have made statements of not recognizing it. But recognizing
that what Mr. Putin did was a violation of international law,
what is next in that regard?
Secretary Pompeo. Let me, if I may, take the second
question first. We have issued statements. We have issued a
Crimea declaration. We have worked with our partners along the
Black Sea in the region. When the Russians captured soldiers in
the Sea of Azov, sailors in the Sea of Azov, we have done a
great deal of work to try to push back against that. We need to
do more.
Next week, I am hopeful when our NATO colleagues are in
town for the 70th anniversary of NATO we will be able to
announce another series of actions that we will jointly take
together to push back against what Russia is doing there in
Crimea and in the Sea of Azov and in the region.
So, the answer is, I do not know that we have done all that
we can yet. We are continuing to work to make sure that we are
building out the right policies, so that we can ultimately
restore what we have said with respect to Crimea. It belongs to
Ukraine, and we want to see that fixed.
Second, we are constantly evaluating whether we are not
only providing enough resources to Ukraine in the southeast, in
the Donbas, along the line of contact, not only whether it is
enough, but whether if it is the right tools, not only the
tools that you see, munitions and arms, but intelligence
sharing, situational awareness, all the things that we have the
capacity that you were engaged in, building out infrastructures
and institutions inside of Ukraine. We are constantly reviewing
whether or not we are doing enough there.
We are hopeful that there will be a successful election and
a successful government formation that follows that. And then,
we hope, too, that we can continue the very efforts you
described, the anti-corruption efforts. They are incredibly
important. Those reforms will be central to restoring the full
democracy that the Ukraine and people so richly deserve.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. I can tell you, the
younger generation, particularly in Ukraine, provides a very,
very bright future for that country. They want, more than
anything, closer ties with the West.
I think the greatest thing we can do in that region is to
keep our word to the Ukrainians, provide them with as much
military assistance as they need, because that is a big, big
constraint for them right now. And I just wanted to share that
thought with you, sir. If you could keep that in mind when you
are enacting policies pertaining to that region, that we
maintain close contact and ongoing communications with
Ukrainian leaders, particularly in the area of the military.
The more military folks we can have joint exercises and
training with--I know predominantly now it is the National
Guard in California that does most of the work in Ukraine--but
it would certainly help to have some of their military leaders
in Ukraine train here at some of our academies. I think that
would really go a long way.
Thank you, sir.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Levin?
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
I have several questions for you on the Administration's
implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Let
me be clear. There is bipartisan support for ending human
trafficking, but we must follow the letter of the law and
ensure vulnerable populations are not punished for their
government's conduct.
In November, a Presidential memorandum restricted aid to
countries that are not meeting or trying to meet standards set
out by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, meaning
governments that are not doing things like seriously
investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases. This
memorandum said the United States ``will not provide
nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related assistance'' to the
governments until they make progress, but it is not totally
clear, at least to me, what that means. Does assistance to
governments include aid administered through NGO's directly to
populations where the government does not provide any financial
or in-kind support?
Secretary Pompeo. We look at each of those on a case-by-
case basis to determine whether it is appropriate. I think you
noted that in the memorandum there was an exclusion for
humanitarian assistance. Many of the NGO's, indeed, are
providing just exactly that.
Look, there is a good reason for that memorandum. I think
it makes enormous sense. I am fully supportive of the decision
the President made there. It is the right thing to do to
encourage these governments, ultimately, for it to be
successful at taking down this threat from trafficking. It is
going to be those governments that do that. So, our work, the
State Department's work----
Mr. Levin. Right.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Is to make sure that those
governments do it and build that infrastructure.
Mr. Levin. We are all for that, sir, but what I am trying
to get at is the boundary, and, in particular, we do not want
to restrict direct NGO aid to victims and vulnerable
populations.
Several Senators and Representatives sent you a letter on
this very matter on December 17th, and the Department did not
respond at all until March 5th. And even then, in the response,
it did not answer the question at all. We are talking about
things like nutrition assistance and health care without which
people suffer. So, it has been more than 3 months since we
first asked the Department this question. Why isn't there an
answer?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, you just said we sent you a letter.
I think we have provided an answer. If you think the letter is
insufficient, we are happy to review it and see if we cannot
provide you additional context, additional color, some more
detail. But it sounds like that----
Mr. Levin. So, when can we expect a followup?
Secretary Pompeo. If you would, please, send us a letter
indicating what it is you think----
Mr. Levin. So, another letter? We will just go back and
forth----
Secretary Pompeo. Well, I mean, we clearly think we
responded. We believe we responded to you.
Mr. Levin. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. If there are particular places where you
have concerns or you think we did not adequately respond, it
does not have to be a letter, but if you would share with us
what it is you are----
Mr. Levin. Yes, time is short. Let me ask you another
question about waivers to aid restrictions and how they are
being applied. I understand that PEPFAR funds are being granted
waivers, so that assistance can continue, even though PEPFAR
programs require coordination and some integration with
governments. Yet, I have also heard that education and other
programs that are not working through governments are being
impacted. I do not think there is any question that cutting off
education assistance will hurt local populations. So, I would
like to understand the decisionmaking process. What criteria is
the Department using to determine which forms of assistance can
continue and which cannot?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I cannot give you a blanket answer.
Do you have a particular country? I mean, I can talk to you
about our understanding about how it is we deliver that. We are
trying to get the very outcomes that are described in the
program. So, we are trying to make sure that U.S. American
taxpayer dollars are used for programs that actually have
positive outcomes, that actually deliver the results. Where
we----
Mr. Levin. Well, for sure. I do not mean to interrupt you,
but, you know----
Secretary Pompeo. Well, you did.
Mr. Levin. This is also--yes, I did--this is also a matter
we asked in the December 17th letter. And the reason I am
asking you these questions is because the assistance we are
talking about is absolutely critical to some of the world's
most vulnerable people, and because this is hardly the first
time requests for key information from this committee have been
ignored. I am extremely concerned that, despite the Secretary's
own experience with congressional oversight, that this State
Department has no qualms stonewalling Congress and keeping us
from carrying out our constitutionally mandated oversight
responsibilities.
Let me just ask you one other quick question about Paul
Whelan, a Michigander. He is an American citizen. He was
arrested, as you know, on December 28th in Russia by the FSB,
purportedly for espionage. He remains in prison, and a Russian
court recently extended his pretrial detention until May. Given
that we have little time left here, can you just give me some
sense? We are very concerned about him, that he remains in
prison. And we would like to know what you are doing to secure
his rights under international law and, ultimately, his
release.
Secretary Pompeo. I cannot say much about what we have
taken, only to reassure you that our Ambassador Huntsman there,
our team on the ground, our team that travels and has
communications with the Russian government raises this issue
consistently and is doing all that it can to make sure that we
treat this issue with the highest priority.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, and I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, brother. You have
incredible control. I have had to leave three times for
restroom breaks; you stay right there. So, I am not sure what
was in your criteria for hiring, but a large bladder must have
been. So, I am appreciative of that, brother.
I am going to ask you some questions about Israel and the
Golan Heights. And I was wondering if you could elaborate some
further on the strategic implications that will have for the
region, and will it be helpful for the peace process?
Secretary Pompeo. So, first of all, the decision the
President made was one that we had been working on for some
time. And ultimately, it was done because it was the right
thing to do, in the sense that it recognized the reality on the
ground. So, in the first instance, the decision was made
because it was simply the right thing to do to recognize
Israel's claim for the sovereignty of the Golan Heights.
Second, we also believe--and we took a look at this--we
believe this increases the likelihood that we get resolution of
the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. We think it
speaks with the clarity that takes this away from any
uncertainty about how we will proceed. And so, we think that,
when one is involved in a complex negotiation, that more
certainty is better. And so, we do think this will benefit both
Israel and the Palestinians, so that we can get resolution.
Secretary Pompeo. Cool. Thank you.
And also, I noticed the United Nations, to me, it is pretty
apparent they have a clear anti-Israel voting pattern, I would
call it. Will the U.S. be leveraging American foreign aid to
encourage countries to stand with us at the United Nations, as
has been suggested. You know, we talk about the carrot or the
stick. It seems like we are always giving the carrot, and maybe
the stick might be in order at some point.
Secretary Pompeo. So, we have certainly done that in terms
of using all the tools at our disposal to make the case that we
needed partners certainly on the U.N. Security Council, not
only the permanent members, but those that are there for a
shorter time, as well as folks in the broader U.N. General
Assembly, that they would support us and vote with us.
One of the reasons we have ended the U.N. Human Rights
Council was because it had clearly lost its mission; it had
lost its focus. It was behaving in ways that were deeply
inconsistent with the very charter of that commission.
Mr. Burchett. Clearly, I guess some of the countries that
were on it were some of the worst actors that we have seen.
What steps is the State Department currently taking to stop
the flow of resources to the Hezbollah, and are we doing to
stop Iranian resources from going to them?
Secretary Pompeo. So, the major global campaign is the
sanctions regime that we have put in place. We have taken them
from 2.7 barrels of oil per day down to something around a
million barrels of oil per day. We will make another set of
decisions in May about that. That has denied them hundreds and
hundreds of millions of dollars.
We have active campaigns with countries around the world to
deny Iran the capacity to move weapons and money around the
world. So, Treasury is obviously in the lead, but the State
Department is doing work for financial sanctions to deny those
countries the capacity to trade with Iran.
There are other tools the U.S. Government uses as well. It
is a full-on campaign.
With respect to Hezbollah, I was in Beirut just this past
week to talk with them about how we can work to ensure that
Lebanon gets the democracy they want without a third-party
armed force inside of their country. It presents real risks to
them. It is not to the people of Lebanon's best interest. And
we are around the world working to make sure that wherever the
Islamic Republic of Iran is fomenting terrorism or trying to
undermine democracy or behaving in a malign way, we are pushing
back.
Mr. Burchett. All right. It seemed like I asked something
about the Chinese and the Huawei--I am not sure; I think that
is how you pronounce it--with the Chinese using them. And
Secretary Albright was here, I believe last week or the week
before, and she concurred; she agreed that they were a national
security threat, especially if they were allowed to be a part
of the 5G internet infrastructure.
And with the recent news that Germany will most likely
allow them to bid on the 5G networks, will that threaten our
NATO intelligence-sharing and transatlantic security?
Secretary Pompeo. I do not want to talk specifics about
what the Germans are telling us, but I can say this: we have
made clear publicly to every country the risks of putting
technology from a Chinese State on the enterprise, or one that
is closely affiliated with Chinese State-owned enterprises
inside your network, and then, the subsequent risk about
decisions that we will have to take, that America will have to
take with respect to where we can put our information. Not only
our government information, but the private information of our
citizens is at risk as well.
And we are out talking about this, making sure that
everybody understands America's view of the risk. Then,
countries will make their own sovereign choices, and we will be
forced to then make ours as well.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield no time back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. So, do with it what you will.
Chairman Engel. I appreciate it. I appreciate it anyway.
Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
Chairman Engel. Ms. Spanberger?
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Secretary, for being here today.
Secretary Pompeo, as a former intelligence professional, I
am extremely troubled by the apparent lack of respect for the
intelligence community's objective, nonpartisan intelligence
assessments and their critical importance in the formulation of
sound, well-reasoned, and balanced foreign policy which is your
responsibility as Secretary of State. I would like to ask you a
few questions regarding some of the most pressing foreign
policy issues facing our Nation today. As time is short, please
answer with a simple yes or no, sir.
Do you believe the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will
covertly retain his nuclear weapons program despite
negotiations?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I cannot answer that yes or no, and I
would challenge, by the way, the predicate of your question. I
think it is important to let----
Ms. Spanberger. So, sir, I am a former intelligence
officer.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Spanberger. So, I understand that nuance is deep, but
these are actually----
Secretary Pompeo. I worked there for a little while, too.
Ms. Spanberger [continuing]. In-public, open source. They
are answered in a very straightforward yes or no.
So, shall I take your response as a no or a yes, sir?
Secretary Pompeo. You may take my response however you
please. But I am happy to answer your questions substantively--
--
Ms. Spanberger. Do you believe Russia interfered with the
2016 U.S. general election, sir?
Secretary Pompeo. If you will permit me to answer your
question, I would be happy to do so. But----
Ms. Spanberger. Please go ahead, sir.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. It is not fair to ask a
question that cannot be answered yes or no and demand that I do
so. As you said, you know nuance. There is nuance in
responding----
Ms. Spanberger. Well, sir, I would argue that point because
in the 2019 Threat Assessment where we had leaders from the
intelligence community here before us, they did answer with a,
yes, that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will covertly retain,
their assessment is will covertly retain----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, but I am happy to give you my answer
to that.
Ms. Spanberger. Well, moving on to the next one----
Secretary Pompeo. You never get a deal until you get a
deal. And I understand how intelligence works. They look at
history. They stare at the past.
Ms. Spanberger. Sir, let's move on to the next one.
Secretary Pompeo. But I am looking at forward and I am very
hopeful that we----
Ms. Spanberger. Do you believe Russia interfered with the
2016 U.S. general election? This is looking toward the past.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Spanberger. So, that one should be one that you can
answer.
Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes, they did, and the 2012 and the
2008 and the 2004----
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
Do you believe Iran is following the provisions of the 2015
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to reduce or eliminate its
enriched uranium stockpile and enrichment facilities?
Secretary Pompeo. That is a very complicated answer, not
all of which I can give in public.
Ms. Spanberger. Also answered in the January 2019 threat
testimony. The answer that the intelligence leaders of our
intelligence community gave was yes.
Do you believe that global climate change is real and
represents a threat to U.S. national security?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, the climate is changing.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
And is it a threat to our national security, sir?
Secretary Pompeo. It is not at the top of my list.
Ms. Spanberger. I am not asking about your list. I am
asking about the intelligence community's list and their
assessments, which should be driving the policy you are
pushing.
Secretary Pompeo. But policymakers have an obligation to
form their own independent judgment on priorities, and that is
what this Administration is doing. It is what I, frankly, wish
the past Administration----
Ms. Spanberger. And for the record, I would like to put
into the record that the 2019 Annual Worldwide Threat
Assessment did say that global climate change does present a
threat to U.S. national security.
So, thank you. I am glad that, ultimately, overall it seems
like we are in agreement that, when we are looking at threat
assessments, you are listening to the career intelligence
professionals, and differing, and learning from, and listening
to their years of training and expertise. However,
unfortunately, sir, this has not matched some of the previous
comments that you have made over the past years, certainly not
those of the White House.
So, my question is, why is there such a disconnect between
your positions and that of the President, the assessment of the
intelligence community and those of the President?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, there is not.
Ms. Spanberger. Is there not, sir?
Secretary Pompeo. No.
Ms. Spanberger. So, OK. Well, thank you very much for your
answers on this.
I do want to close because, as a former intelligence
officer and as someone who has been deeply disturbed by the
lack of the credence given to some of the work or most of the
work of the intelligence community, I would like to close with
a note to my sisters and brothers in the intelligence
community. And as one former DNI has said, ``The IC will
continue to speak truth to power, even when the power ignores
that truth.''
I want to commend the men and women of the intelligence
community for risking their lives across the world, and too
often their livelihoods as well, every day to collect the
information that should be directing and informing the policy
that the U.S. Government is pursuing throughout the world.
Thank you to you, sir, for being here today. And thank you
to the intelligence community serving around the world.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, and----
Ms. Spanberger. I yield back.
Secretary Pompeo. And I would just add that you should know
that it is; the very work that they are doing is important and
used by this Administration to inform its policy decisions all
across the spectrum.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, sir. Then, I would urge you, in
your conversations with the President, for him to potentially
speak more respectfully of the life-risking work that so many
of our intelligence community members pursue, so that you may
have well-informed, well-sourced information in your day-to-day
work.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Watkins?
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Pompeo, thank you for your selfless service. It
brings honor upon our great State of Kansas, our country, and
the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Last time you were home, we were at the GES Heartland
Institute, and we talked about the role of the State Department
when linking up our growers, our farmers, and producers in
Kansas to the global market. Can you talk me through the State
Department's role in that?
Secretary Pompeo. Certainly. So, both the State Department
team that works here in the United States and the team that
works across missions across the world, we have a
responsibility to ensure that we have open access to markets.
So, that is a policy decision inside of those countries that we
work diligently to make sure they understand that America is
going to demand reciprocal trade. You see the President raised
this to new levels of importance. We want to make sure that, if
they are selling their goods here, we can sell our goods inside
of their country as well. It is only fair and right.
And with respect to agriculture, in particular, we have got
a whole big team. We have 1500 economic officers stationed
around the world whose singular mission is to make sure
American companies understand rules, understand customs,
understand tax laws, have the capacity to build out their
businesses and create wealth and jobs here in the United States
by selling all across the world.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Secretary Pompeo.
Chairman, I yield my time.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. Houlahan. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your
time today.
My name is Chrissy Houlahan, and I am here representing the
people of Pennsylvania's Sixth congressional District. And so,
I take great responsibility of making sure that my people in my
community understand the importance of the State Department,
frankly.
I am a third-generation military service member myself. I
have active-duty cousins, many of them in harm's way right now.
But I firmly believe that the work that you do prevents the
work that my family needs to do.
Secretary Pompeo. Amen.
Ms. Houlahan. And so, my questions are along a couple of
lines, the first one regarding women and peace and security. I
am member of this committee, but I am also a member of the
Armed Services Committee. And I am actually quite concerned
about the Administration's delay in submitting to Congress its
strategy on bolstering women's inclusion, peace, and security
efforts globally. It was required by the Women, Peace, and
Security Act of 2017.
And so, my first question is to you, which is, when will
you plan to deliver this strategy, which was due October 2018?
Secretary Pompeo. I cannot answer that question, but I will
get you an answer in the next day or two, of when we will have
delivered it.
Ms. Houlahan. I would very much like to have a very
specific answer to that question because I am also a former
teacher, and deadlines matter. And I would love to have an
actual, concrete deadline.
Secretary Pompeo. As a former businessperson, I understand
how important deadlines are. And I now run a 75,000-person
organization. I am with you.
Ms. Houlahan. Yes, sir.
And the question is, if you have not yet submitted that,
how can you possibly, therefore, have an implementation
strategy for that, and how does that possibly, or can it even
possibly be folded into this proposed budget that you have put
forward with regard to women's issues and women's issues of
safety?
Secretary Pompeo. I am proud of the work we have done on
women's issues in this Administration, both in my time as CIA
Director--you might not think of that as a place where this
rises to the forefront, but it certainly did for me. Indeed, my
deputy was a very talented CIA officer who is now the Director
of the CIA. But, even more broadly than that, it is certainly
part of what I do at the State Department, what I demand of my
team on the ground all over the world.
Ms. Houlahan. Well, and I appreciate that, sir, and I
definitely would love to get with you in the next day or two to
get a very firm date on when that particular report will be
due.
And my next question also has to do with women's issues and
the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative. I
also an a former businessperson, and I was really pleased to
see that you included $100 million in the women's economic
empowerment through the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity Initiative. But I understand in your testimony this
morning, in the appropriations hearings, that you spent a lot
of time discussing the long-term viability of this program,
given the proposed cuts to other programs that assist and
empower women worldwide, like the Global Health Program and
basic education.
And I really appreciated in your testimony that you
expressed flexibility and a willingness to evaluate the
effectiveness of that program. But my question to you is, how
do you reconcile the decreased commitments in some programs and
this increased commitment in this particular initiative? How do
you reconcile the critical programs that have been decreased
with this program that you have increased?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, as a former businessperson, you
know you have to make tough decisions all the time and you have
to make priorities and allocate resources. We certainly did
that in the budget that we presented to Congress. We are
confident that we can deliver on the objectives that I think
you have outlined in the predicate to your question, and we
believe we can----
Ms. Houlahan. Can you give me a couple of specifics of why,
what----
Secretary Pompeo. Tell me what you are most interested in?
I would be happy to----
Ms. Houlahan. Well, just in general, when you are talking
about making specific decisions and weighing kind of pros and
cons of different decisions, what was it that made you decide
to do a new program versus some old programs?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, it is our observation that we were
not as effective with those resources as we believe we can be
in the new programs in delivering the real outcomes that
matter, matter to these nations, matter to women in those
nations. That was the analysis that was undertaken.
Ms. Houlahan. If it is all right, I would love to ask for
you to put to the record what were those analyses, what were
those decisionmaking processes, that it made you evaluate those
particular things. Because I am a businessperson, a metrics-
driven human being, just like you are, and I know, in
particular, with things like this that are ``social sciencey''
and that are very squishy----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Houlahan [continuing]. You know, that it is really
important to have those quantifiable ideas behind them of what
it is that you were weighing pros and cons on.
Secretary Pompeo. I appreciate that, and you are right,
sometimes things that you cannot put a number to, you can still
measure qualitatively. I will concede it is softer. And that is
what we undertook in this allocation decision as well.
Ms. Houlahan. And thank you. I do actually have a couple of
other questions, but I only have half a minute remaining. So,
if it is all right, what I will do is I will submit the
remainder----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Houlahan [continuing]. Of my questions to the record.
And I appreciate your time, sir.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to get back to you on them.
[The information referred to appears in the Appendix]
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Guest?
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in your written statement that was provided
to us prior to your testimony, on page 2 of that testimony, you
say, ``President Trump has made it clear that U.S. foreign
assistance should serve America's interest and should support
countries that have helped us advance our foreign policy goals.
This budget, therefore, maintains critical support for key
allies.'' And the first ally you list there is the Nation of
Israel.
First of all, I want to thank you, in a time of rising
opposition and the increase of antisemitism, both domestically
and internationally, I want to thank you and I want to thank
the Administration for supporting our longstanding alliance
between the United States and Israel. Recently, the
Administration has shown support by relocating our embassy to
Jerusalem and has recognized Israel's sovereignty over the
Golan Heights.
Mr. Secretary, even with our recent support, we continue to
see attacks on Israel, including just this week where we saw
rocket attacks that injured seven, including two young
children. And so, my question is, can you please address the
Administration's approach to working with the international
community to support Israel's right to, one, defend itself and,
two, to prevent future attacks on the Nation of Israel?
Secretary Pompeo. So, I am not sure exactly where to begin
in responding to that question. I have addressed some of this.
Look, we have tried to find places where these countries had
overlapping interest with Israel. There is a long history in
the Middle East where these countries could not find any place
to overlap.
We managed to put together a meeting in Warsaw where you
had senior-level leaders from Gulf States, from Arab States,
sitting in the same room having discussions about Middle East
stability and security with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Those
kinds of things are incredibly important. They reduce risk to
Israel. They reduce risk to the United States of America.
And then, I could go through a series of other places we
have done, perhaps no place more important with respect to the
Islamic Republic of Iran, right, a country that has sworn to
wipe Israel off the map. We have taken an approach that is 180
degrees from the previous Administration, recognizing the
threat that Iran is not only to Israel, but to Europe, where
they are conducting assassination campaigns, to the capacity
for Iraq to stand up an independent, sovereign government. We
are working on each of these things, and each of those--our
effort to build that MESA, the Middle East Strategic Alliance--
each of these projects, each of these coalition-building
exercises, it is aimed at reducing risk to Israel.
Mr. Guest. What additional support can Congress provide the
Administration, again, to show our support? I know we have
talked a little bit about the international community. What can
we, as a legislative body, do to show our support for Israel
and work toward peace in the Middle East?
Secretary Pompeo. I think Congress over the past decade has
done a lot. It is important that every Member of Congress speak
out about this issue. And the more Members of Congress, the
more that the world sees that this is bipartisan, this
commitment, that this commitment to Israel will not change from
Administration to Administration, the more successful we can
be.
Mr. Guest. And if the Congress and the Administration were
to speak in a bipartisan voice, do you believe that that would
help advance the peace process in the Middle East?
Secretary Pompeo. Undoubtedly.
Mr. Guest. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Malinowski?
Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Secretary, you have been eloquent in
denouncing the harm that socialism has done to Venezuela, and I
agree with you. I applaud you for it. But I am confused about
one thing. If we are going to be so forceful in denouncing
socialism, why is the Administration so high on communism?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I mean, the very statement there is
pretty outrageous.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, I am talking about North Korea, sir,
the most perfectly realized communist State in history, a
country where the State owns everything and everyone. And yet,
the Administration is repeatedly referring to how it has,
quote, ``awesome economic potential,'' how it can become an
``economic powerhouse,'' quote/unquote, without changing a
system, simply by giving up nuclear weapons.
And so, my question is, why are you so confident in the
capacity of a communist State to provide for its people?
Secretary Pompeo. Let me just back up for just a moment. We
have both the toughest sanctions on North Korea in the
history--this Administration built out this coalition against
this Nation. The previous Administration did not do it, did not
take it seriously. This Administration has done that. I am very
proud of what President Trump has been able to do there. We
have the toughest sanctions while still engaged in some of the
most serious negotiations and diplomatic efforts.
And our mission set is, in fact, to get the proliferation
risk reduced, to get North Korea denuclearized, and then, our
commitment is to say, at that point, we want a brighter future
for the North Korean people. The form of government that will
take place there will evolve over time. We have seen countries
in the region who have not fully transformed in the way we
like, countries like Vietnam, be able to grow their economy,
provide better for their people. We think that opportunity
exists in North Korea as well.
Mr. Malinowski. I am asking because there is a whole lot of
rhetoric about liking Kim Jong-un, falling in love with Kim
Jong-un, Kim Jong-un being our friend. And so, let me ask you,
why is liking Kim Jong-un a sufficient reason to cancel or not
to pursue sanctions against companies helping his nuclear
program, as the White house said last week? I am quoting the
White House there.
Secretary Pompeo. There have been more sanctions put in
place by this Administration with a global coalition than at
any time in the world's history, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. And yet, liking him is cited as a reason
not to do more. And, sir----
Secretary Pompeo. Let me answer. We will continue, we will
continue----
Mr. Malinowski. It is a simple yes-or-no question.
Secretary Pompeo. Well, if I may, we will continue to
enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions and do our best
to encourage every nation in the world to do so. I only wish
the previous Administration had undertaken this same effort.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, actually, it did. Now let me ask a
yes-or-no question.
Secretary Pompeo. These sanctions were not in place, sir.
That is factually inaccurate.
Mr. Malinowski. Is Kim Jong-un responsible for maintaining
North Korea's system of labor camps?
Secretary Pompeo. He is the leader of the country.
Mr. Malinowski. Is he responsible for ordering the
execution of his uncle, the assassination by chemical agent of
his half-brother?
Secretary Pompeo. He is the leader of the country.
Mr. Malinowski. Was he responsible for the decision not to
allow Otto Warmbier to come home until he was on death's door?
Secretary Pompeo. I will leave the President's statement to
stand. He made that statement. We all know that the North
Korean regime was responsible for the tragedy that occurred to
Otto Warmbier. I have met that family. I know those people. I
love them dearly. They suffered mightily, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. So, what is to like?
Secretary Pompeo. They suffered mightily, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. So, what is to like about Kim Jong-un?
Secretary Pompeo. So, do not make this a political
football. It is inappropriate. It is inappropriate to do.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, when the White House says that
sanctions decisions are based on liking Kim Jong-un--has the
President ever used that kind of language with respect to
Angela Merkel? Has he ever publicly called her a friend?
Secretary Pompeo. I have heard him talk about her that way,
yes. I do not recall if it was in a public setting or not.
Mr. Malinowski. OK. Let me go back to the questions--there
have been a number of questions about Saudi Arabia and the
Khashoggi killing. Do you believe that the Saudi authorities,
the most senior Saudi authorities are capable of investigating
themselves for a murder that has been attributed to them?
Secretary Pompeo. I think the most important commitment
that the United States made is the one that I spoke about
earlier--it would have been earlier this afternoon--which is
the commitment for the United States to conduct its work and
hold every person responsible. That is what the United States--
--
Mr. Malinowski. We will base our judgment on our own
assessment?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir, that is what we have done to
date, and it is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you very much.
And if Saudi Arabia's cover story here, if their story is
that this was a rogue operation, do we not risk reinforcing
that cover story if all we do is sanction the rogues, the
henchmen, the people who have been accused by the----
Secretary Pompeo. I have made very clear, as has President
Trump, we are continuing to develop the fact set using all the
tools that we have at our disposal. And as we identify
individuals who we can hold accountable for the heinous murder
of Jamal Khashoggi, we will do so.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, thank you
for convening this hearing.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for
your fantastic service to this country.
I noted with great interest that you were recently in
Houston at CERAWeek. During your address, you stated, and I
quote, ``Our plentiful oil supplies allow us to help our
friends secure diversity in their energy resources. We do not
want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the Nord
Stream 2 project any more than we, ourselves, want to depend on
Venezuela for our oil supplies.''
You went on to note that there is a desperate need for
diversification, while pointing out the fact that last year the
United States exported more crude oil to places like India,
Japan, and the Republic of Korea. These are great achievements,
but you also outlined challenges. You specifically singled out
China, Russia, Syria, and described how these countries are
attempting to leverage their energy resources for political
purposes. You stated that we are ``not just exporting energy;
we are exporting our commercial value.'' I could not agree
more.
Mr. Secretary, can you elaborate on what you and Assistant
Secretary Fannon's priorities are in the energy security space,
and how can we best address these challenges?
Secretary Pompeo. As America's senior diplomat, I am an
enormous beneficiary of the capacity for American innovation
and creativity, whether that is through fracking, the capacity
to deliver energy around the world. When America shows up, when
I talked about exporting our commercial values, when we show
up, we do straight-up deals. We demonstrate value. We have
contracts. We honor contracts. We engage in deals that are
commercial and honor the rule of law, independent from
government directions, with no political gain to the United
States.
Having American companies do business in those ways
provides an enormous opportunity for us because these countries
no longer have to be dependent on those countries that are
trying to undermine Western democracy and Western values. They
have the capacity to create electricity for their countries, to
have natural gas, to fuel all of the energy needs of their
nation without having to turn to bad actors around the world.
When I was talking about those exports having value, that is
what I was referring to.
Mr. Pence. Again, thank you for your service. Thanks for
being here today and keeping us all informed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Trone?
Mr. Trone. Mr. Secretary, the Trump Administration Muslim
ban, that is an appalling policy. It has affected my friends.
It has affected my neighbors. They have been unable to see
their families. They feel discriminated in their own country.
In 2017, a thousand visas were denied. In 2018, that number
was 37,000. There is a waiver there to Proclamation 9645 for
undue hardship, when it is not a national security threat, but
the waiver is rarely used. As a matter of fact, it is used less
than 2 percent of the time. Your own consular officers have
described the waiver process as a fraud, window dressing.
Would you talk about what discretion the consular officers
have in utilizing this waiver?
Secretary Pompeo. I would be happy if you tell me which
consular officer thinks it is a fraud because I would be happy
to speak with him or her about the fact that it is not, in
fact, a fraud.
Mr. Trone. His name is in the press.
Secretary Pompeo. Great. I will----
Mr. Trone. We can have that sent to you.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to take a look at it. I am
happy to make sure he understands the Trump Administration's
policy there.
We are determined to make sure that we understand who is
coming in and out of our country and that we are vetting people
properly. I am proud of the work that we are doing there. I am
confident that we have reduced risks to the United States of a
terror attack here.
Mr. Trone. The same officers allege that the discretion
issue waivers is consistently countermanded by Washington. Your
answer is the same?
Secretary Pompeo. What is the question, sir?
Mr. Trone. It is they do not have that discretion that they
should have, and that is why we have 2 percent.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I actually think we have the
authority, sir, precisely right.
Mr. Trone. OK. Is it the policy of the State Department to
implement a ban on visas for predominantly Muslim countries? Do
you believe it is due to nationality or religious affiliation
that makes them a unique threat?
Secretary Pompeo. We evaluate each individual based on the
characteristics of the threat that they pose.
Mr. Trone. These are great people, great Americans, and
their lives are being disrupted.
Let's talk about the Kingdom for a second. Thousands of
people in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have disappeared or been
murdered. The Crown Price has stolen over $100 billion from his
own countrymen. He has moved against Qatar, our ally. He has
kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and Yemen is a
nightmare with tens of thousands dead, millions threatened by
starvation. He is 33. He will probably be the king, if he moves
up, for 50 years.
I always like to think about my kids and your kids and
their kids and future generations. Is this the type of
individual that would use a bone saw as part of his foreign
policy that you would invite home for Thanksgiving dinner?
Secretary Pompeo. Are you suggesting a regime change in
Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Trone. Would you invite him home to cut the turkey?
Secretary Pompeo. I have met with the Crown Prince. I have
worked with him. The challenges that you have cited there, the
death that you just cite in Yemen is not because of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. You have the wrong end of the stick on that--
--
Mr. Trone. I am not talking about the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. I am talking about the Crown Prince----
Secretary Pompeo. You are talking about----
Mr. Trone [continuing]. With a bone saw and the whole
litany of items we just discussed that all emanate from one
individual.
Secretary Pompeo. That predatory question is unfounded. I
am happy to talk about our strategy with respect to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. I am happy to talk to you about the
conversations I have had with the Crown Prince, to the extent
that I can.
We have acknowledged the incident with respect to Mr.
Khashoggi was a murder and it is outrageous. And we are working
to do everything we can to hold everyone who is responsible
accountable, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Trone. Well, I am disappointed in my own country, and I
know many, many others are, too. It was not that long ago that,
short-term convenience, an individual that was in a position of
power was not tolerated, but, instead, now we just tolerate
that individual because it is convenient to the Trump
Administration's national policy. But at some point in time we
have to draw a line. Where do you draw that line? How many more
Khashoggis do we have to have?
Secretary Pompeo. Sir, we are effectuating policies that
will keep America safe. We are determined to do that. The Trump
Administration has put human rights at the top of its list in
every single conversation we have had. It is a tough, nasty
world out there, if you had not noticed, and we are a force for
good everywhere we go.
Mr. Trone. But long term are we really safer in a tough,
nasty world when we tolerate that type of behavior? That is my
concern?
Secretary Pompeo. We simply disagree. I believe the policy
we have makes America infinitely safer today, next week, and
for our children and grandchildren.
Chairman Engel. The time has expired. I am going to go on.
Votes have just been called. We have only about three or
four more people. I am going to see if we can do this. The
Secretary of State has been very generous with his time, and I
would like to try to see if we can get this in before the votes
are finished. So, if people would understand that and maybe
give back a minute or so, that would be appreciated. If not, we
will do the best we can.
Mr. Costa?
Secretary Pompeo. Congressman Costa, I will do my best to
answer briefly, too.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the
Secretary will appreciate brevity. I will do my best.
First of all, on behalf of the chairman, I wanted to
followup on his line of questioning regarding the committee's
request for documents. On March 14th, 2019, this committee sent
you a letter reiterating two specific set of document requests,
and we wanted to know, the chair wanted to know, yes or no, can
you commit to providing the committee with the requested
documents within the next seven business days?
Secretary Pompeo. Making sure I have got the right set of
documents, these are documents that had to do with--which
request was this?
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman?
Secretary Pompeo. There are dozens and dozens.
Mr. Costa. I am trying to be helpful here.
Secretary Pompeo. No, no problem. I am happy to take a look
at it. I just do not want to answer a question when I am not
thinking about the right set of documents.
Chairman Engel. The bottom line--and I will say this fast--
the bottom line is it is very frustrating when we send
something and we do not get a response or get stonewalled, or
maybe it got caught in the bureaucracy. I do not know what it
is, but we will get those things back to you again and we will
highlight them as second requests. And hopefully, we can get
through it then.
And I thank my colleague for mentioning it----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
Chairman Engel [continuing]. For reiterating it.
Mr. Costa. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That has been about
a minute of my time.
Mr. Secretary, since we have last chatted, I have become
the chairman of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialog. And for
the purpose of the focus of the State Department's strategy for
this Congress and your budget, I want to focus most of my
questions, if I can, with regards to Europe and NATO.
In the most recent meeting, we Members of Congress and the
members of the European Parliament, we asserted our joint
statement on the bond between the United States and the
European Union. It is the most fundamental economic and
security strategic partnership. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, our European partners are----
Mr. Costa. OK. Let me just continue to go on.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Costa. The bond is also based upon the strong
foundation of our common history and values, including the
principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights, free and
open societies, and markets. Do you agree with that concept?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. And obviously, this partnership has had a long
history. We have talked a lot about this this afternoon. And
certainly, there have been concerns, I can tell you, and I know
you know it because you hear them, too, by our European friends
about where this relationship is today. And words do matter.
And whether it is the issues where we disagree or the
Administration disagrees with Iran, tariffs, climate change, or
defense, many of our European colleagues are scratching their
head and they say, ``Jim, what has happened? Where is our
relationship?''
What have you tried to do to reinforce it, because I know
you have been asked the same questions?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Costa. Words matter.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, they do, and the words that I have
shared with them is that they have a continued deep, important
relationship. You identified three and a half places where we
have disagreements. On Iran, frankly, we are working together
on large pieces of pushing back against the Islamic Republic of
Iran. And there are hundreds of other issues on which we work
closely with the Europeans.
You are talking about Europe, France and the U.K. Please
know this is much broader than that. We have deep relationships
all across with the Balkans----
Mr. Costa. I know that.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. And Eastern Europe. These
are all important places.
Mr. Costa. And there were previous Administrations that
talked about ``Old Europe''. And so, I mean, this is not new
ground.
Secretary Pompeo. I try not to use that language. I talk
about our friends.
Mr. Costa. No, and our most important allies, I believe.
Let me move on. What kind of message does it send to our
European allies when the State Department downgraded last fall
the status of the European Union's Ambassador, and then,
recently reinstated it to the rightful status a few months
later, because that is where it should have been? I do not know
what happened.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, we messed up and we fixed it.
Mr. Costa. OK. Well, that is good.
Let me move over to NATO quickly. You know, this
partnership post-World War II that we helped create has
resulted--and I suspect most Americans, probably most Europeans
do not realize--in the longest peacetime dividend post-World
War II, 70 years that we will celebrate next month, as you
noted, in over a thousand years in Europe. I mean, that is
significant by any way you examine it.
Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan said in his testimony
before the Senate that the cost of 50 percent-plus present for
our military commitments, that we are not an outfit of U.S.
mercenaries, that we are not going to run a business, our
common defense. And, yes, you are right, Europe is a wealthy
continent. Germany should pay more, all these countries. And by
the way, I applaud you for that effort, but that has been
continuing now for three Administrations, to do their part, in
fairness.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. So, I would like to hear your thoughts on
whether or not we should have a cost-benefit basis analysis in
terms of how our European partners do their part, as they
should.
Secretary Pompeo. So, it is certainly more complicated than
that. But it is the case that we are constantly--we have shared
values with these European partners.
Mr. Costa. Of course. Let me put it this way to make it
simple.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Costa. Do you think that the kind of cost-plus-50-
percent proposal would be a bad idea?
Secretary Pompeo. I saw precisely what Assistant Secretary
Shanahan says. He got it exactly right.
Mr. Costa. Good, good.
Let me move over quickly. I have a little bit of time left.
Secretary Pompeo. I said ``Assistant Secretary''. I meant
Acting Secretary. He would be offended if I did not correct
that.
Mr. Costa. Acting Secretary. You are duly corrected, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Anyway, finally, I do agree--I will commend you
when I think we agree--that your efforts to bring a coalition
together in Venezuela is the proper thing to do. I am wondering
why--and maybe it is under the radar screen--you have not
convened the Organization of American States together to
formalize this strategy and this commitment to do the right
thing with Venezuela, to make the changes that are necessary.
Secretary Pompeo. I have attended, on this issue, I have
attended two OAS meetings on this very issue. You should know
we are actively working alongside them. They have been great
partners. There is not total unanimity inside the OAS----
Mr. Costa. No, there never is with the OAS.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. But they are an important
force that we have worked through with this great----
Mr. Costa. I think we need to continue to utilize that.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I completely agree.
Mr. Costa. Along with our partners in Mexico.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Allred?
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience. I know it
has been a long afternoon.
I want to talk about Afghanistan. My colleague earlier was
questioning you and asking about Special Envoy Khalilzad coming
to speak to our committee. And you said that, during ongoing
negotiations, that this would be something that would be very
hard to do that has not been done in the past. We have had two
Special Envoys come speak to our committee without leaks to The
Washington Post.
Secretary Pompeo. That is actually not true.
Mr. Allred. Well, I have been in classified briefings from
some of your Special Envoys. We have a constitutional duty to
make sure that we are overseeing what you are doing in the
State Department. And so, I do not accept the excuse that
ongoing negotiations mean that we cannot have the information
this committee deserves.
Secretary Pompeo. I am trying to make sure you get the best
information that you can that is consistent with your oversight
duties. I am determined to do that. I am also determined to
make sure we protect this information in a way that prevents us
from undermining U.S.----
Mr. Allred. I hope you understand that, with a 17-year war
heading into the 18th year, that the Congress deserves to have
a role in how we are going to proceed here.
Secretary Pompeo. A hundred percent.
Mr. Allred. OK. Well, thank you. I think this committee
deserves to have--we can have a classified briefing. We can do
it in a way that I think is secure. I think if you were in our
seat during the Obama Administration era and we were having the
discussions around the JCPOA, and they refused to give you any
information until the very end----
Secretary Pompeo. I actually was, and they did.
Mr. Allred. Oh, they did not. They gave you briefings. I
know that that is----
Secretary Pompeo. Meaningless and unimportant.
Mr. Allred. Meaningless briefings?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Allred. OK. Well, I would like to have some kind of a
briefing because we have not had that at all.
Secretary Pompeo. You want more than a meaningless
briefing, and I would not be doing it right if we gave you a
meaningless briefing.
Mr. Allred. Well, this is an important issue, and I think
this committee, in particular, deserves to have some
information on it.
And I want to also talk about the conditions for our
withdrawal, because previous U.S. policy has required the
Taliban to accept the current Afghan constitution, including
its provisions and protections for women and minorities. Why
have we dropped that condition?
Secretary Pompeo. You should not be certain that we have
dropped any conditions based on what you may have read in some
newspaper.
Mr. Allred. Well, I have not had a briefing. So, I do not
know what our conditions are.
Secretary Pompeo. You should know we are very, very focused
on making sure that the gains that have been achieved are not
lost as part of this. The security gains that have been
achieved, the gains, albeit intermittent, with respect to
corruption, we hope we can actually do better. But, as you well
know, this is still a very difficult place. It is the reason we
still have thousands of soldiers on the ground. And we are
focused on taking down the level of violence, so that we can do
precisely what it is I think you just----
Mr. Allred. Well, I share the recognition that we are not
going to have a military solution to Afghanistan. My concern
is, if we have a precipitous withdrawal, and then, we pull out
without the correct conditions in place, that the progress that
has been made, particularly for Afghan women, will be lost. And
I think that this is something that is in the interest of our
country. It is in our national interest. We need to make sure
that does not happen. So, I am hopeful that, as part of those
negotiations, as you said, that is going to be part of it.
Secretary Pompeo. To describe a departure after 18 years as
precipitous is----
Mr. Allred. No, the withdrawal would be precipitous if we
just take whatever conditions the Taliban will offer us so that
we can get out.
Secretary Pompeo. I promise you we are going to maintain
American security.
Mr. Allred. Well, my concern is that it seems that there
might be just trying to fulfill a political promise going on
here, instead of a rational and reasoned withdrawal, and doing
it in the right way. And that is what I think this committee's
jurisdiction directly falls upon, and that is why we need to
have a briefing and talk to the folks who are involved in that
negotiation.
Secretary Pompeo. Just so you know, I am running the
negotiation. So, you are talking to the guy who is in charge of
it.
Mr. Allred. Well, yes, but I would like to know, have some
more information. And maybe we should have you back to talk
about that specifically then. I think we should consider that.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to do it in the right setting,
yes, sir.
Mr. Allred. So, are we also caving to the Taliban's stance
that the Afghan government is an illegitimate puppet of the
U.S.? Because that is what they have said previously. Our
conditions previously have been that they should be part of the
Afghan government. Is this funny, sir?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, the fact that you are relying on
third-hand reporting for something that the Taliban might or
might not have actually said in some print report, yes, I think
we should all have better information.
Mr. Allred. Is the Afghan government actively part of this
negotiation that we are having?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, we speak, Ambassador Bass talks to
President Ghani multiple times every week, multiple times every
day on some days.
Mr. Allred. So, your testimony is that, right now, the
Afghan government is part of our negotiations with the Taliban?
Secretary Pompeo. Right now, the Afghan government is fully
apprised----
Mr. Allred. Apprised?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, exactly, and we are diligently
trying to get these parties to work together.
Mr. Allred. And is that----
Secretary Pompeo. The previous Administration went at that
for 8 years. We have had, I have had 10 months. We are
diligently trying to----
Mr. Allred. Well, my concern is that you are undercutting--
--
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Enter Afghan conversations,
so that we can resolve this----
Mr. Allred. Undercutting the Afghani government by not
having them as part of the negotiations is a direct----
Secretary Pompeo. But that is just untrue.
Mr. Allred [continuing]. A direct role, not to be apprised
of it, sir----
Secretary Pompeo. They are just untrue.
Mr. Allred [continuing]. But a direct role, risks, when we
do pull out----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Allred [continuing]. Undercutting the legitimacy of
that government.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Allred. Leading to the Taliban retaking power.
Secretary Pompeo. It is just I disagree with the facts as
you have stated them.
Mr. Allred. Do you agree that al-Qaeda and ISIS are still
in Afghanistan right now?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Chairman Engel. OK. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, I know, all day.
Secretary Pompeo. It is good to see you.
Ms. Bass. Good to see you as well. We came in together.
So, I want to ask you about two countries and one general
question. The one general question is about U.S. aid to Africa
and the Administration's pledge to review all U.S. aid to
Africa in order to target assistance toward key countries and
particular strategic objectives. And I am wondering if that
review has happened.
The second question is about Zimbabwe. They have had
elections, and they are attempting to address the economic
issues of the country. I wanted to know if we are reviewing or
have plans to review U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.
And then, the third question is about Sudan and the current
crackdown and our efforts toward normalizing relations. And I
wanted to know how the Administration was weighing these
actions as it addresses Sudan's progress on phase 2.
Secretary Pompeo. Let me take each of them as best I can
recall them in sequence.
Ms. Bass. Sure.
Secretary Pompeo. First, with respect to the assistance in
Africa, we are reviewing it. There will be all the factors that
you could imagine. I think we will give it every thought across
every element of the U.S. Government to make sure that we get
the levels right. I am sure there are places our assistance
will increase; there may well be those where our assistance
decreases. And I am very confident there will be assistance
that moots. That is, we put it in in different ways and try to
make sure we get better outcomes, that have better outcomes
from those resources that we are expending.
That review is not complete. It is an interagency process,
and probably----
Ms. Bass. Do you have a timeframe possibly?
Secretary Pompeo. It is going to be a while still.
Ms. Bass. Well, months?
Secretary Pompeo. I have watched these interagency
processes move. It will be too slow.
Ms. Bass. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. And it will take time.
Ms. Bass. While it is under review, then you maintain the
same levels?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, that is largely the case, although
it is also the case that from time to time we will see things
that we just say they are disconnected from what has happened
and transpired, that we feel compelled to make a decision on
the spot. That is usually----
Ms. Bass. Like the cyclone?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, exactly. That is usually a State
Department-USAID decision where we do that, a cyclone, a
tragedy, a particular terrorist incident where we are trying to
react in a very, very timely fashion, but not laying down a
longer-term, thoughtful strategy about the region, and a
country in particular.
Does that answer that first part of the question.
Ms. Bass. Yes, it does.
And in Zimbabwe and Sudan?
Secretary Pompeo. You know, the same thing. I am happy to
give you a readout on what we are doing in each of those
places.
Ms. Bass. OK.
Secretary Pompeo. There have been great changes in Sudan.
And this Administration has tried to find places where we can
find a more comfortable place to work alongside them and
continue to develop them. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe. I
am hopeful we can deliver that too.
But I am happy to have my team come give you particular
briefings on the details of what we are doing real time in each
of those two spaces with respect to our assistance, the State
Department's role there.
Ms. Bass. I would appreciate that, especially with
Zimbabwe. I mean both countries, but Zimbabwe also, trying to
move forward. I just recently met with the Ambassador from
Zimbabwe, and they are very concerned about basically their
economy, where they want to move to privatize certain sectors,
but their hands are tied because of our previous policies. And
as they move forward and try to comply and try to bring their
constitution in line with some past policies----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bass [continuing]. How do we make sure we do not hold
them back?
Secretary Pompeo. These are very real concerns. Sudan is
also the case.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Secretary Pompeo. I was with yesterday, or perhaps it was
the day before, with the Prime Minister from Mali, a similar
set of concerns and an incredibly difficult environment in
Mali----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Terror and trying to figure
out how to get not only U.S. assistance there, but U.S.
economic private sector industry to grow and help them, so they
can build out and take care of the terror threats that are
there in Mali.
There is a country-by-country effort and a regional effort
that we are undertaking.
Ms. Bass. OK. Thank you very much.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Bass. I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
We have two members, I am told, that want to come back
after the vote to ask you questions. I do not know what the
timing is on this. But, right now, we--let me put it this way.
Let me call on the ranking member for----
Mr. McCaul. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I would like to submit for the record a statement, an op-ed
by Chairman Risch of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
the importance of getting the President's nominees confirmed.
Chairman Engel. OK.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. We have been here a long time, Mr.
Secretary. I think what we will do is we will call the hearing.
I want to thank you for your patience. I hope you will come
back and visit us----
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you. I promise I will.
Chairman Engel [continuing]. Many, many times.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. And thank you for running a very
professional hearing today. I appreciate that.
Chairman Engel. Well, thank you. Thank you for coming.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]