    [Senate Hearing 115-802]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 115-802

                         AN UPDATE ON AMERICAN DIPLOMACY
                            TO ADVANCE OUR NATIONAL
                               SECURITY STRATEGY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 25, 2018

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Available via the World Wide Web:
                             http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    40-413 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               TIM KAINE, Virginia
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
                      Todd Womack, Staff Director
                Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
                        John Dutton, Chief Clerk

                                  (ii)

                              C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee....................     1

    Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey..............     3

    Pompeo, Hon. Mike, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State,
      Washington, DC.................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Bob Corker.....................................................    63

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Robert Menendez................................................    66

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Marco Rubio....................................................    90

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Benjamin L. Cardin.............................................    91

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Jeanne Shaheen.................................................    95

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Tim Kaine......................................................    96

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Edward J. Markey...............................................    97

    Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions Submitted by Senator
      Cory A. Booker.................................................   100

    Buzzfeed News Article Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine.............   107

    Arab News Article Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine.................   116

    Statement of President Donald J. Trump Submitted by Senator Cory
      A. Booker......................................................   127

                                 (iii)

                        AN UPDATE ON AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.
                            TO ADVANCE OUR NATIONAL
                               SECURITY STRATEGY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m. in room
    SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
    chairman of the committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio,
    Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman,
    Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine,
    Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to
    order.
        I know that sometimes these hearings can generate a little
    emotion. I just want to say again we have been very generous on
    the committee in the past when people have been arrested. When
    you are hauled out of here, you are arrested. And I have gone
    down in the past and caused people to be un-arrested. But that
    cannot happen anymore. So if you would, please respect others
    who are here. This is what great democracies do. We are glad to
    have our outstanding witness here, and we will begin our work.
        Secretary Pompeo, we are glad to have you here today. We
    are grateful for your service to our country. I have faith in
    your leadership and I appreciate what you are doing to change
    the culture of the State Department in positive ways.
        But I want to get straight to the point. You come before a
    group of Senators today who are filled with serious doubts
    about this White House and its conduct of American foreign
    policy. There are a number of reasons to be concerned. Among
    them is the lack of information the administration has provided
    to members of this committee. It is our hope that you will
    reduce our level of concern by providing us with clear answers
    that might help convince us that those at the White House know
    what they are doing and that, to be candid, you know what they
    are doing.
        I cannot say it more forcefully. We really need a clear
    understanding as to what is going on, what our President is
    agreeing to, and what our strategy is on a number of issues.
        Last week, President Trump held a summit with Vladimir
    Putin, someone who has violated the most fundamental
    international norms through his efforts to annex Crimea, has
    interfered with elections, including our own, has supported the
    brutal Assad regime in Syria, has used chemical weapons to
    poison a Russian agent and his daughter in the United Kingdom,
    has occupied portions of Georgia, continues to violate the INF
    Treaty, has reportedly hacked U.S. utilities. The list goes on
    and on, and you know the list.
        In the face of these hostilities and the summit's
    aftermath, we saw an American President who appeared submissive
    and deferential. We have heard that some agreements were
    reached but as of yet have little idea what those might be,
    even though the President has already extended an invitation to
    Putin to come to Washington to discuss the implementation,
    quote on quote, ``of these undefined agreements.''
        The President also recently met with North Korean leader
    Kim Jong Un, one of the most ruthless leaders on the planet,
    who has continued to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic
    missiles that could hit the United States, has executed his
    half-brother with poison in Malaysia, and reportedly killed his
    uncle back home, has essentially murdered an American college
    student, and has enslaved millions of his own people. One in 10
    North Koreans are living in slavery today, and 1 in 5 children
    are stunted due to malnutrition. In the face of these
    realities, the President has called him very talented and that
    he loves his people. Really?
        At the recent NATO summit, the President not only pushed
    NATO member countries to dedicate more of their budgets to
    defense, a goal we all share. He went on to berate them,
    question the very premise of NATO, in my opinion used false
    information to turn public opinion in the United States against
    the alliance. He even went so far as to cast doubt on the
    United States' willingness to enforce article 5 of the NATO
    treaty. We want to know if this is real or just another off-
    the-cuff statement.
        And the confronting of our partners goes beyond traditional
    security and extends to the economic space as well. I know you
    are aware of my strong feelings about the administration's
    abuse of its authorities in using section 232 to implement
    tariffs in the name of national security. So far, we have zero
    clarity from the administration as to what the end game is on
    the Trump-Pence tariffs, which in reality are a massive tax
    increase on American consumers and businesses. And now the
    administration appears ready to offer welfare to farmers who
    would rather have trade than aid.
        As you know, Senators have gone to the White House in
    groups to discuss these actions, and not a single person that I
    am aware of has left those meetings with the sense that there
    is a coherent strategy driving these policies. The
    administration tells us do not worry, be patient, there is a
    strategy here. But from where we sit, it appears that in a
    ready, fire, aim fashion, the White House is waking up every
    morning and making it up as they go.
        This is the first in a series of hearings we will hold in
    coming weeks dealing with the troubling dynamic I have
    described, one in which we are antagonizing our friends and
    placating those who clearly wish us ill. This series will deal
    specifically with Russia as perhaps the most troubling example
    of this emerging reality. I hope that in your position you will
    do all in your power to provide us with the answers we need
    today and as we move forward in our future hearings.
        I look forward to your testimony, and I want to thank you
    again for being with us and for the many outstanding people you
    are bringing on to the State Department to work with you.
        With that, I will turn to Senator Menendez.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start by saying I applaud you for making this the
    first of a series of rigorous oversight hearings on Russia. The
    committee has gone for about a year without a full committee
    hearing on either Russia or North Korea. So I appreciate your
    leadership in this regard.
        And now it seems to have taken a three-ring circus of a
    debacle of a meeting with President Putin, a walk-back of
    whether the President's trusts his own intelligence officials,
    the suggestion that it might be even okay for a U.S. diplomat
    to be interrogated by Russian intelligence, and a reality TV
    summit that was little more than a photo op with a brutal
    dictator to merit one hearing with the Secretary of State.
        Having said that, Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for
    your service to our country.
        The members of this committee are strongly supportive of
    strategic, well-crafted diplomacy to advance America's foreign
    policy interests. Unfortunately, all we have come to expect is
    a saber-rattling President who embraces and provides
    legitimacies to some of the world's most notorious bad actors
    and who denigrates our closest allies, whose sons and daughters
    have gone to war alongside Americans. We have not seen any
    substantive deals or strategies that put Americans or American
    national security first. We have seen our President look weak
    as he stands beside our adversaries and intends to roll out the
    red carpet at the White House. I hear that is postponed till
    January, but nonetheless, to invite Putin to the White House, a
    thug who is actively trying to undermine our elections.
        Well, Mr. Secretary, we in this body are taking heed of our
    intelligence and law enforcement officials and working to
    protect our country from the flashing red lights of ongoing
    Russian aggression. Senator Graham and I and others plan to
    introduce legislation in the coming days to ensure we have the
    toughest tools to go after Russian bad actors.
        As of this moment, we find ourselves in an unimaginable
    situation. The American people, elected officials in this body,
    and members of the President's own cabinet have heard more
    about the meeting in Helsinki from Putin and his associates
    than from our President. We know that the Kremlin state-run
    media operations have a dubious commitment to the truth, but we
    do not know what the truth is because nobody else was in the
    room where it happened. The American people expect and I
    believe they deserve to know what happened.
        I also have serious questions about the summit in Singapore
    that took place nearly 2 months ago. In that time, we have yet
    to hear or see anything that provides us with real confidence
    that North Korea, as the President gloated, quote, ``no longer
    poses a threat to the United States'' or that we have a
    coherent strategy to achieve a verifiable denuclearization
    agreement. We have only seen a vague agreement of promises to
    make more promises but of weaker commitments that North Korea
    has previously made. The United States and North Korea seem to
    remain far apart on even basic issues such as the definition of
    denuclearization. In fact, over the past 18 months under this
    administration's watch, North Korea has perfected its
    intercontinental ballistic missiles and tested its largest
    nuclear detonation rather than any verifiable steps to
    dismantle their program. It seems Kim Jong Un got everything he
    wanted in Singapore, including international recognition and
    the suspension of U.S. military exercises.
        Now, this week's reports of dismantlement at a launching
    station may be good news, but it may simply be a signal that
    North Korea has completed all the testing it needs to. Frankly,
    the Singapore agreement seems more the art of concessions than
    the art of the deal. And we are weaker for it.
        Last week, Russia and China blocked a U.S. request to
    impose penalties on sanctions violations, calling our maximum
    pressure posture into question. As you know, I have introduced
    bipartisan oversight legislation, along with Senator Gardner,
    to provide the sort of support and guidance that this
    diplomatic effort needs and exercise the oversight
    responsibility Congress owes to the American people. Goals that
    you previously laid out before this committee are incorporated.
        Finally, let me raise one more deeply alarming issue that
    broke this week. I understand that despite its ability to stop
    this ridiculous notion, the State Department is about to allow
    Internet posting of do-it-yourself 3-D printable firearm
    blueprints. Why on earth would the Trump administration make it
    easier for terrorists and gunmen to produce undetectable
    plastic guns?
        I remain deeply concerned by the administration's
    incoherent and contradictory views. We need comprehensive
    strategies across the world because the result of the lack
    thereof is chaos and confusion or even worse.
        I recognize the President considers himself to be a
    masterful deal-maker and a very stable genius. But we need to
    call the President's statements out for what they are. At this
    point, I find him to be misleading and untruthful. So I look
    forward to your testimony to find out what the truth really is.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, we welcome you again. If you could summarize
    your comments. If you have any written materials you would like
    entered into the record, we will do so. And with that, we look
    forward to your testimony.

        STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.
                  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Secretary Pompeo Good afternoon, Chairman Corker, Ranking
    Member Senator Menendez, and distinguished members. Thank you
    for the opportunity to be with you today.
        During my confirmation hearing, you asked me to work on a
    host of world problems, and for 12 weeks, I have been doing
    just that. I hope we get a chance to talk about each of those
    today. In the last few weeks, I have been engaged in three
    areas of particular interest to this committee: North Korea,
    NATO, and Russia.
        On the subject of Russia, I want to bring something to your
    attention right off the bat today. Today the Trump
    administration is releasing what we are calling the Crimea
    Declaration. I will not read the whole thing. I will submit it
    for the record. It has been publicly released as well. But one
    part reads as follows. ``The United States calls on Russia to
    respect the principles to which it has long claimed to adhere
    and to end its occupation of Crimea.''

        [The information follows:]

                               crimea declaration

        Russia, through its 2014 invasion of Ukraine and its
    attempted annexation of Crimea, sought to undermine a bedrock
    international principle shared by democratic states: that no
    country can change the borders of another by force. The states
    of the world, including Russia, agreed to this principle in the
    United Nations Charter, pledging to refrain from the threat or
    use of force against the territorial integrity or political
    independence of any state. This fundamental principle--which
    was reaffirmed in the Helsinki Final Act--constitutes one of
    the foundations upon which our shared security and safety
    rests.
        As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United
    States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the
    Kremlin's claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force
    in contravention of international law. In concert with allies,
    partners, and the international community, the United States
    rejects Russia's attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to
    maintain this policy until Ukraine's territorial integrity is
    restored.
        The United States calls on Russia to respect the principles
    to which it has long claimed to adhere and to end its
    occupation of Crimea. As democratic states seek to build a
    free, just, and prosperous world, we must uphold our commitment
    to the international principle of sovereign equality and
    respect the territorial integrity of other states. Through its
    actions, Russia has acted in a manner unworthy of a great
    nation and has chosen to isolate itself from the international
    community.

        Secretary Pompeo. I want to assure this committee that the
    United States does not and will not recognize the Kremlin's
    purported annexation of Crimea. We stand together with allies,
    partners, and the international community in our commitment to
    Ukraine and its territorial integrity. There will be no relief
    of Crimea-related sanctions until Russia returns control of the
    Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. This Crimea Declaration
    formalizes U.S. policy of non-recognition.
        There is another indicator of diplomatic progress I want to
    mention. This morning, Pastor Andrew Brunson, who was in prison
    in Turkey for nearly 2 years, has been let out of jail in Buca.
    He is still under house arrest, so our work is not done. But it
    is welcome progress, one that many of you have been engaged in
    and something the State Department has been working on
    diligently as well. We will continue to work for the speedy
    return of all Americans unjustly held captive abroad. President
    Trump will never forget about our own.
        Our diplomacy on these issues is advancing the goals of
    President Trump's National Security Strategy, which laid down
    guiding principles for American foreign policy in December. In
    late April, I started executing on the strategy of Secretary of
    State, and today here we are and I want to present you some
    progress.
        The National Security Strategy established protecting the
    American people, the homeland, and the American way of life as
    the pillars of our national security. On July 17th, President
    Trump stated his firm conviction that diplomacy and engagement
    are preferable to conflict and hostility. These principles have
    guided our actions on North Korea. President Trump's diplomacy
    deescalated a situation in which the prospect for conflict was
    rising daily. Americans are safer because of his actions.
        As far as the Trump administration's goals on North Korea
    are concerned, nothing has changed. Our objective remains the
    final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea, as
    agreed to by Chairman Kim Jong Un.
        As a follow-up to the President's successful summit with
    Chairman Kim, on July 5th I traveled to North Korea to make
    progress on the commitments that were made in Singapore. We are
    engaged in patient diplomacy, but we will not let this drag out
    to no end. I emphasized this position in the productive
    discussions I had with Vice Chairman Kim Yong Chol.
        President Trump remains upbeat about the prospects for
    North Korean denuclearization. Progress is happening. We need
    Chairman Kim Jong Un to follow through on his commitments that
    he made in Singapore. Until North Korea eliminates its weapons
    of mass destruction, our sanctions and those of the United
    Nations will remain in effect. Multiple U.N. Security Council
    resolutions require North Korea to eliminate all of its weapons
    of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. Those
    resolutions were passed unanimously and they remain binding. We
    absolutely need every single nation to maintain the enforcement
    of those sanctions to which every nation has committed. The
    path ahead is not easy, but our hopes for a safer world and a
    brighter future for North Korea endure.
        The National Security Strategy also calls for peace through
    strength. President Trump's engagement on NATO has resulted in
    greater burden sharing that will strengthen the entire alliance
    against myriad conventional and unconventional threats. Allies
    have spent more than $40 billion in increased defense spending
    since 2016, and there will be hundreds of billions of dollars
    more in the years ahead.
        Last year's $14.4 billion in new spending was a 5.1 percent
    increase. It was the largest in a generation. Eight allies will
    meet the 2 percent this year; 18 are on track to do so by 2024.
    The Trump administration is demanding that every country make
    its own commitment.
        NATO will remain an indispensable pillar of American
    national security. We know weakness provokes our enemies, but
    strength and cohesion protect us. The more every NATO member
    contributes, the better the alliance can fulfill its mission of
    deterring threats to each of our nations. This is the increased
    commitment that the President wants.
        From the outset of this administration, the National
    Defense Strategy and the Russia Integrated Strategy--our
    approach has been the same: to steadily raise the cost of
    aggression until Vladimir Putin chooses a less confrontational
    foreign policy, while keeping the door open for dialogue in our
    national interest. Between our two nations, the United States
    and Russia possess over 90 percent of the world's nuclear
    weapons. President Trump believes that two great nuclear powers
    should not have a contentious relationship. This is not just in
    our interest but in the interest of the whole world. He
    strongly believes that now is the time for direct communication
    in our relationship in order to make clear to President Putin
    that there is the possibility, however remote it might be, to
    reverse the negative course of our relationship. Otherwise, the
    administration will continue imposing tough actions against
    Russia in response to its malign activities.
        We cannot make progress on issues of mutual concern unless
    we are talking about them. I have heard many of you on this
    panel say that for years and years. I am referring to key
    issues like stopping terrorism, obtaining peace in Ukraine,
    stopping the civil war in Syria and delivering humanitarian
    assistance, ensuring security for Israel, and shutting down all
    of Iran's malign activity.
        And on the subject of Iran, President Trump has said that
    Iran is not the same country it was 5 months ago. That is
    because our campaign of financial pressure, our withdrawal from
    the nuclear deal, and our full-throated support for the Iranian
    people, which I articulated in a speech this past Sunday, are
    having an impact.
        In Helsinki, we sought to explore whether Russia was
    interested in improving our relationship but made clear that
    the ball is in Russia's court. We defended America's
    fundamental strategic interests in Syria and Ukraine, and I
    personally made clear to the Russians there will be severe
    consequences for interference in our democratic processes.
        I would also add that President Trump is well aware of the
    challenges that Russia poses to the United States and our
    partners and allies. He has taken a staggering number of
    actions to protect our interests. As just a few pieces of
    proof, I would like to cite the following: 213 sanctions on
    Russian entities and individuals in the Trump administration;
    60 Russian spies expelled from the United States of America and
    the closure of Russia's consulate in Seattle in response to
    Russia's chemical weapons use in the United Kingdom; the
    closure of Russia's consulate in San Francisco, cutting U.S.
    diplomatic staffing by Russia by almost 70 percent. 150
    military exercises have been led or participated in Europe this
    year alone. More than $11 billion have been put forward for the
    European Defense Initiative. We made defensive weapons
    available to Ukraine and to Georgia, and just last week, the
    Department of Defense--this is after Helsinki--added an
    additional $200 million in security cooperation funds to
    Ukraine. None of this happened for the 8 years that preceded
    President Trump.
        If it is not enough for you, there is a long list. I am
    happy to go through them. And I am guessing sometime today I
    will get that opportunity. I look forward to it.
        Finally, I want you to know, President Trump has stated
    that he accepts our intelligence community's conclusion that
    Russia meddled in the 2016 election. He has a complete and
    proper understanding of what happened. I know. I briefed him on
    it for over a year. This is perfectly clear to me personally. I
    am also certain he deeply respects the difficult and dangerous
    work that our patriots in the intelligence community do every
    single day, and I know that he feels the same way about the
    amazing people that work at the United States Department of
    State.
        Thank you, Chairman Corker.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Pompeo follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Pompeo

        Good afternoon, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Menendez, and
    distinguished members.
        Thank you for the opportunity to brief you today.
        During my confirmation hearing you asked me to work on a host of
    world problems--so I did. In the last few weeks I've been engaged on
    three areas of great importance to SFRC members: North Korea, NATO, and
    Russia.
        Our diplomacy on these issues is advancing the goals of President
    Trump's National Security Strategy, which laid down guiding principles
    for American foreign policy in December. In late April, I started
    executing on the strategy as Secretary of State. And today in July I
    present to you the progress we are making.
        The National Security Strategy established ``Protecting the
    American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life'' as one of
    the pillars of our national security. On July 17th, President Trump
    stated his firm conviction that ``diplomacy and engagement are
    preferable to conflict and hostility.'' These principles have guided
    our actions on North Korea. President Trump's diplomacy de-escalated a
    situation in which the prospect for conflict was rising daily.
    Americans are safer today because of his actions.
        As far as the Trump administration's goals on North Korea are
    concerned, nothing has changed. Our objective remains the final, fully-
    verified denuclearization of North Korea, as agreed to by Chairman Kim
    Jong Un.
        As a follow-up to the President's successful summit with Chairman
    Kim, on July 5th I traveled to North Korea to make progress on the
    commitments that were made in Singapore. We are engaged in patient
    diplomacy, but we will not let this drag out to no end. I emphasized
    this position in the productive discussions I had with Vice Chairman
    Kim Yong Chol.
        President Trump remains upbeat about the prospects of North Korean
    denuclearization. Progress is happening. We need Chairman Kim Jong Un
    to follow through on his commitments made in Singapore. Until North
    Korea eliminates its weapons of mass destruction, our sanctions, and
    those at the United Nations, will remain in effect. Multiple U.N.
    Security Council resolutions require North Korea to eliminate all of
    its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. Those
    resolutions were passed unanimously, and are binding. We absolutely
    need every single nation to maintain the enforcement of those sanctions
    to which every nation is committed. The path ahead is not easy, but our
    hopes for a safer world--and a brighter future for North Korea--endure.
        The National Security Strategy also calls for ``Peace through
    Strength.'' President Trump's engagement on NATO has resulted in
    greater burden sharing that will strengthen the entire alliance against
    myriad conventional and unconventional threats. Allies have spent $41
    billion in increased defense investment since 2016.
        Last year's $14.4 billion in new spending, a 5.1 percent increase,
    was the largest in a generation. Eight allies will meet the 2% pledge
    this year, and eighteen are on track to do so by 2024.
        NATO will remain an indispensable pillar of American national
    security. We know weakness provokes our enemies, but strength and
    cohesion protect us. The more every NATO member contributes, the better
    the Alliance can fulfill its mission of deterring threats to our
    nations. This increased commitment is what the President wants.
        From the outset of this administration, as outlined in the National
    Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Russia
    Integrated Strategy, our approach has been the same: to steadily raise
    the costs of aggression until Vladimir Putin chooses a less
    confrontational foreign policy, while keeping the door open for
    dialogue in our national interest. Between our two nations, the U.S.
    and Russia have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. President Trump
    believes that two great nuclear powers should not have such a
    contentious relationship. This is not just in our interest, but in the
    interest of the whole world. He strongly believes that now is the time
    for direct communication in our relationship in order to make clear to
    President Putin that there is the possibility to reverse the negative
    course of our relationship. Otherwise, the administration will continue
    imposing tough actions against Russia in response to its malign
    activities.
        We can't make progress on issues of mutual concern unless we are
    talking about them. I am referring to key issues like stopping
    terrorism, obtaining peace in Ukraine, stopping the civil war in Syria
    and delivering humanitarian assistance, ensuring security for Israel,
    and shutting down all of Iran's malign activity.
        On Iran, President Trump has said that ``Iran is not the same
    country it was five months ago.'' That's because our campaign of
    financial pressure, our withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and our full-
    throated support for the Iranian people, which I articulated in a
    speech this past Sunday, are having an impact.
        In Helsinki, we sought to explore whether Russia was interested in
    improving the relationship, but made clear that the ball is in Russia's
    court. We defended America's fundamental strategic interests in Syria
    and Ukraine, and I personally made clear to the Russians that there
    will be severe consequences for interference in our democratic
    processes.
        I would also add that President Trump is well-aware of the
    challenges that Russia poses to the United States and our partners and
    allies. And he has taken a staggering number of actions to protect our
    interests. As just a few pieces of proof that President Trump holds
    Russia accountable when warranted, I cite, as a sample:

       the 213 sanctions we have imposed on Russian entities and
            individuals,

       the 60 Russian spies expelled from America and the closure of
            Russia's consulate in Seattle in response to Russia's chemical
            weapons use in the U.K.,

       the closure of Russia's consulate in San Francisco, in response to
            Russia's cutting U.S. diplomatic staffing in Russia by almost
            70 percent,

       the 150 military exercises we have led or participated in in Europe
            this year alone,

       the more than $11 billion we have put forward for the European
            Deterrence Initiative,

       and the defensive weapons we have helped make available to Ukraine
            and Georgia.

       And just last week the Department of Defense announced an
            additional $200 million in security cooperation funds to
            Ukraine.

        If that is not enough for you, I brought a long list with me today
    of other actions the administration has taken in response to Russian
    malign activity.
        Additionally, I want to assure this Committee that the United
    States does not, and will not, recognize the Kremlin's purported
    annexation of Crimea. We stand together with allies, partners, and the
    international community in our commitment to Ukraine and its
    territorial integrity. There will be no relief of Crimea-related
    sanctions until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to
    Ukraine. To this end, today we are formalizing United States policy of
    non-recognition by releasing a Crimea Declaration.
        Finally, President Trump has stated, ``I accept our intelligence
    community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took
    place.'' He has a complete and proper understanding of what happened.
    This is perfectly clear to me personally based on the many hours I have
    spent briefing President Trump on Russia-related issues as CIA Director
    and Secretary of State.
        I am also certain he deeply respects the difficult and dangerous
    work that our patriots in the intelligence community do every single
    day.
        I'm now happy to take your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        The Secretary's staff has asked that we absolutely stay to
    the 7-minute deal. So if we could not ask five-part questions
    and end at 6:58, if you give the respondent time to answer
    within the 7 minutes too, I would appreciate it.
        With that, I will defer to Senator Menendez. I withhold my
    time for interjections along the way. Senator Menendez?
        Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, when the President meets alone with
    President Putin, it allows the Kremlin-sponsored state media
    and the Russian Ministry of Defense to provide more
    information, at least from their perspective, not only to the
    American people, but sometimes it seems to the members of the
    President's own cabinet. So I would like to ask you some
    questions to get to understand what actually happened.
        Has the President told you what he and President Putin
    discussed in their 2-hour closed door meeting in Helsinki?
        Secretary Pompeo. The Presidents have a prerogative to
    choose who is in meetings or not. I am confident you have had
    private one-on-one meetings in your life as well. You have
    chosen that setting as the most efficient way to----
        Senator Menendez. I just asked you a simple question. Did
    he tell you whether or not--what happened in those 2 hours?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, Senator. The predicate of your
    question implied some notion that there was something improper
    about having a one-on-one meeting. I completely disagree with
    the premise of your question.
        Senator Menendez. I did not ask you a predicate. I asked
    you a simple question. I hope we are going to get through it.
    Did he tell you what transpired----
        Secretary Pompeo. I have had a number of conversations with
    President Trump about what transpired in the meeting. I was
    also present when he and President Putin both gave us a sense
    of what they discussed in the meeting that followed immediately
    after. I have also had the chance to speak with Sergey Lavrov
    twice about the Russian view on what took place. I think I have
    a pretty complete understanding of what took place in that
    meeting.
        Senator Menendez. Good. Did you speak to the translator who
    was at that meeting?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, I have not.
        Senator Menendez. Have you seen any of her notes?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I have never--I have been in
    lots of meetings. I have had lots of notetakers and lots of
    translators. I have never relied on the work that they did to
    understand what took place in that meeting, and it does not
    need to done here.
        Senator Menendez. Did the President discuss----
        Secretary Pompeo. And it will not be.
        Senator Menendez. Did the President discuss relaxing U.S.
    sanctions on Russia, including CAATSA sanctions?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, the U.S. policy with respect to
    sanctions remains completely unchanged.
        Senator Menendez. So the President did not--is what you are
    telling me--I asked a very specific question.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, Senator, and I gave you a very
    specific answer.
        Senator Menendez. Did the President tell you that he
    discussed relaxing Russia sanctions or not? Yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, Presidents are entitled to have
    private meetings. I am telling you what U.S. policy is. I came
    here today----
        Senator Menendez. No. But you told me that you had a
    conversation----
        Secretary Pompeo. That is right.
        Senator Menendez. --in which he told you what transpired. I
    think the nation and all of us who are policymakers deserve to
    know so that we can fashion policy accordingly. Did he tell
    Putin that I will release or ultimately relax sanctions?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, what you need to conduct your
    role, your appropriate role, I will provide you today, that is,
    United States policy with respect to the issues you request.
    You asked me about U.S. policy with respect to sanctions, and I
    can confirm to you that no commitment has been made to change
    those policies in any way.
        Senator Menendez. Did the President at this meeting call
    upon President Putin to withdraw from Crimea and eastern
    Ukraine?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I began my statement today with
    the United States Government's policy with respect to Crimea.
        Senator Menendez. I understand the declaration. I welcome
    it. I am glad--it seems like we had to do a lot of effort to
    get there, but the question is, when he had a chance, did he
    confront Putin and say we do not recognize your annexation of
    Crimea, we do not recognize your continuing hostilities in
    eastern Ukraine, and there are consequences for that?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, the President was very clear
    with Vladimir Putin about U.S. positions. They are the U.S.
    positions that are the Trump administration's positions, and he
    spoke about them very firmly and clearly when he met with
    Vladimir Putin.
        Senator Menendez. And he told you that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am telling you what he had a
    conversation with Vladimir Putin about, and I am telling you
    what U.S. policy is today. Senator, I understand the game that
    you are playing.
        Senator Menendez. No, Mr. Secretary, with all due respect,
    I do not appreciate you characterizing my questions. My
    questions is to get to the truth. We do not know what the truth
    is. And the only way that we will know what the truth is, what
    transpired in those 2 hours, a highly amazing period of time to
    spend alone one-on-one, is by understanding at least that if
    you were briefed by the President, what he told you. I do not
    think that is unfair to know, to understand what policy is.
        Let me ask you this. Did the President say that we are
    going to change our force structure in Syria?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, Presidents are permitted to have
    conversations with their cabinet members that are not repeated
    in public. I owe the President the capacity for him to have
    conversations with him, provide him the best foreign policy
    advice that I can. It is what I was brought on to do.
        Senator Menendez. Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary. Here is
    something you can answer for me because you are not going to
    answer any of the questions that would get us to the truth.
        As CIA Director, you stated in an interview with the BBC
    that you fully expect Russia to continue its attacks on our
    democracy by attempting to interfere in our midterm elections
    as we speak. In his conversation with Putin, I hope the
    President laid out the consequences of interference in the 2018
    election. But I know you cannot tell me that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Actually I can tell you that.
        Senator Menendez. Okay. You want to share that one with me.
        Secretary Pompeo. No, I cannot----
        Senator Menendez. That one you want to share with me?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator, I can tell you that because
    the President has disclosed that. The President disclosed what
    he said to Vladimir Putin about Russian interference in our
    elections, and he said that he is confident that as a result of
    that conversation, Vladimir understands that it will not be
    tolerated.
        Senator Menendez. I wish he had said that in public in
    Helsinki.
        Let me ask you this. Senator Graham and I and others are
    working on a new bill to hold Russia accountable. Given that
    you assert the administration is tough on Russia, will you
    commit to working with us on a new Russia sanctions bill?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you.
        North Korea. When you last appeared, I asked you a series
    of critical questions about what is our policy in North Korea,
    and to your credit, I must say that I largely agreed with what
    our goals are.
        Now I want to ask you, since we have not heard anything,
    not a classified briefing, not anything as it relates to North
    Korea, did North Korea agree with our definition of
    denuclearization, meaning the dismantlement, removal of all
    nuclear weapons, facilities, technology, and material from
    North Korea?
        Secretary Pompeo. I think I can answer your question, but
    let me begin by saying I am engaged in a complex negotiation
    with the North Koreans, so I do not intend in this public
    setting to share the details of every conversation that took
    place in those. But I will attempt to answer your questions
    without disclosing the contents of the negotiation.
        I am very confident that the North Koreans understand our
    definition of denuclearization, a very broad one that goes from
    infrastructure and nuclear warheads through chemical,
    biological weapon----
        Senator Menendez. We understand it because you laid it for
    the record.
        Have they agreed with you that that is the definition----
        Secretary Pompeo. I believe they thoroughly understand
    that.
        Senator Menendez. They understand it, but they did not
    agree.
        Did they agree to end their production and enrichment of
    uranium and plutonium for military programs?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I would welcome the chance to
    respond to your questions. If you would let me finish----
        Senator Menendez. It is a simple yes or no.
        Secretary Pompeo. --I think it would be most illuminating
    for the folks watching.
        Senator Menendez. It is a simple yes or no.
        Secretary Pompeo. Could you repeat the question, please,
    Senator. It was the previous question I did not have a chance
    to answer.
        Senator Menendez. Surely. Did North Korea agree to end the
    production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium for military
    programs?
        Secretary Pompeo. They have agreed to denuclearize fully.
    Yes, Senator. And it certainly includes the full range of----
        Senator Menendez. I would love for you to come to a
    classified setting and tell all members what exactly transpired
    because we do not know.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Risch?
        Senator Risch. Mr. Secretary, thank you for doing this job.
    The President made a wise decision appointing you as Secretary
    of State, and you are acquitting yourself very well here today
    and we appreciate that. You have always been straightforward
    with us, and I appreciate that. I know many of my colleagues--
    not all, but many of my colleagues fully appreciate that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Are you prepared to say ``most,''
    Senator, or are you just going to go with ``many''?
        Senator Risch. I am going to stay with ``many.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Risch. Let me say that as far as what happened at
    the NATO summit, very few Americans heard anything except the
    argument that went on about funding. Now, I know the President
    believes and I know you believe and I believe and I think most
    everyone believes that NATO is the most successful military
    alliance in the history of the world. And as you pointed out,
    it is certainly one of the pillars of our national security and
    one that we need to support and one that we need to work well.
        There are very few downsides of NATO, but there is one
    blemish. And the President has underscored that publicly and
    well. His predecessor attempted to do it. All their
    predecessors attempted to do it. All those of us that meet with
    the Europeans from time to time underscore it, and that is the
    funding, or the lack thereof, that the Europeans have done.
    Only eight of the NATO nations are actually meeting the
    commitment of 2 percent. First of all, the President is to be
    commended for underscoring this, as only he can do in his
    unique way, and actually getting them to start talking about
    and now finally starting to agree to that.
        But there were other things that were lost as far as that
    meeting is concerned, and I would like you to talk about those
    things for a few minutes.
        Number one is on the deterrence side, the four 30s
    commitment to increase NATO readiness and speed up the time it
    takes allies to assemble and deploy forces. And that is a huge
    step forward.
        The efforts to improve mobility and establish a process to
    enhance the speed at which NATO can make decisions.
        The fight against terrorism and increase in allied
    resilience against terrorist threats through a new framework to
    share biometric data is a major accomplishment.
        And finally, the opportunity for Macedonia to receive an
    invitation to join NATO and fulfill the promise from the
    Bucharest summit. That was a positive step for the alliance and
    for the Balkans.
        Could you comment on those very important steps forward
    that happened at this NATO summit?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator Risch, it was an incredibly
    productive NATO summit. From my conversations with Secretary
    General Stoltenberg, he said among the most productive that he
    had ever been part of, and he has been doing this a little
    while.
        You talked about the four 30s, 30 squadrons, 30 battalions,
    and 30 naval combatants ready to go in 30 days. It is something
    NATO has not been able to do for quite some time. There is now
    a real commitment. We have to follow through to make sure that
    the implementation of that occurs. It would be a great thing to
    deter Russia if we can get those countries and our allies to
    get to that level.
        You talked about the increase in burden sharing. It seemed
    to get all the focus. It is certainly important that the
    Europeans are as committed to deterring Russia as the United
    States of America and need to demonstrate that through their
    defense not only dollars but readiness as well. We have seen
    reports about the absence of German readiness. They need to
    truly be ready.
        The President also raised another issue about energy and
    energy security at the NATO summit. He talked about the
    Nordstream 2 pipeline and the risk that that creates to the
    alliance in the event that Russia should decide to use energy
    as a weapon to coerce either formally or informally Germany or
    other European countries. He raised it to the forefront, and
    frankly, there are European countries that understand that risk
    and support America and our position on that as well.
        And then finally you talked a little bit about the NATO
    mission, its new role in fighting terrorism. I want to say
    thanks to so many of the European countries that have stepped
    forward. Even just this past few--I guess it is now 2 weeks
    since the NATO summit--over 1,000 additional commitments from
    allied NATO partners headed to assist us in Operation Resolute
    Support in Afghanistan. That is a great commitment, something
    that President Trump worked hard on at the summit and really
    good outcomes for America.
        Senator Risch. Well, thank you so much. You are to be
    personally commended for those great successes, as is the
    President, for leading in that regard.
        It is unfortunate that our friends and allies' feathers
    were ruffled a little bit just because we said they were not
    paying their bills, but that has been going on for some time
    and I think we are going tolerate that. But they have got to
    step up, and I know you underscored that and the President has
    certainly underscored that with them.
        I want to talk about Iran for just a moment. One of the big
    unreported stories as far as foreign relations is concerned is
    the issues and the difficulties that the Iranian people are
    having internally, financially and otherwise. And I know we are
    not in a classified setting, but there is some open reporting
    on these sources. And the regime that is there is struggling
    with this. Indeed, I think that is probably why they tried to
    poke the President the other day to try to take the heat off,
    the heat they are getting at home.
        Could you talk a little bit about what is going on
    internally, again knowing that we are in an open setting?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, there is an enormous economic
    challenge inside of Iran today. It is an economic structure
    that simply does not work. When you are a country of that scale
    that foments terror through Lebanese Hezbollah, through Shia
    militias in Iraq, into Yemen, conducts assassination attempts
    in European countries, provides enormous support for Hafez al-
    Assad outside of Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria, that is
    expensive.
        And I think the Iranian people are beginning to see that
    that is not the model that they want, that the Iranian
    expansionism that the Supreme Leader and Qasem Soleimani so
    favor is not what they are looking for. And I think you are
    beginning to see the economic impact combined with
    understandings inside of Iran of the kleptocracy that it is
    leading to fundamental decisions that the Iranian people will
    ultimately have to make.
        Senator Risch. Do you agree with me that that acceleration
    of that understanding by the Iranian people has been very rapid
    over the last 6 months?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I think it has been going on longer
    than that, but yes.
        Senator Risch. It has been going on longer, but I am
    talking about the acceleration.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, Senator, I think that is a fair
    statement.
        Senator Risch. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. If I could, just one interjection. I know the
    phrase ``paying their bills'' has been used, and every NATO
    country needs to be contributing 2 percent to defense. And I
    have noticed those near the Russian border always do. But that
    is a misnomer, is it not? What we want them to do is contribute
    at least 2 percent. These NATO countries are not paying bills
    to the United States, as sometimes is projected. Is that
    correct?
        Secretary Pompeo. The shortfalls that the President
    identified really are in two buckets. There is a NATO common
    fund that is contributed to by every nation, and the United
    States is, by far, the largest contributor to that fund. And
    then there are monies that are paid for nations to raise their
    own militaries and to defend themselves. That is the 2 percent
    number to which we have been referring.
        The Chairman. Right, right. But it would be a
    mischaracterization to make it appear that they are not paying
    bills to the United States.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is correct, Senator. That is
    correct.
        The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
        It is my understanding that the President is going to
    invite Mr. Putin to the United States to follow up on the
    understandings reached in Helsinki. Can you just briefly tell
    me what those understandings or agreements reached in Helsinki
    at the meeting are?
        Secretary Pompeo. Sure. I can certainly share with you the
    things that we have been tasked to follow up on by President
    Trump following that meeting. There is a handful.
        So there is an agreement to establish some business-to-
    business leadership exchanges as historically had been
    undertaken but have fallen away. These would be business
    leaders that would participate in this. I understand that this
    went on for years and years and was ceased a handful of years
    ago.
        Senator Cardin. If we could do it briefly. I understand you
    want to give a complete thing, and I appreciate that.
        Secretary Pompeo. It is what you asked for.
        Senator Cardin. I understand that. Business-to-business.
    Next issue?
        Secretary Pompeo. The President asked us to look at
    reestablishing a counterterrorism council that was held at the
    level of the Deputy Secretary of State for many years, but had
    also ceased to happen. I think at this point I think that makes
    sense----
        Senator Cardin. Counterterrorism cooperation.
        Secretary Pompeo. We are working to see in Syria what are
    the possibilities that can be achieved so that the now between
    6 million and 7 million externally displaced persons have the
    opportunity to return. We made clear this should happen through
    the political process in Geneva. But we are working to see if
    we cannot get Russia to be more cooperative in terms of driving
    towards a political resolution there that would take down the
    violence levels and create some opportunity to begin a
    political resolution of the process in Syria.
        Senator Cardin. Any discussions on sanctions? You said
    there was no easing of the sanctions.
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator, no easing of the sanctions.
        Senator Cardin. Was there any discussion about Magnitsky?
    Because certain names associated with Magnitsky came out in
    Helsinki. Was there any discussion with the President on the
    Magnitsky sanctions?
        Secretary Pompeo. No. There has been no change in U.S.
    policy with respect to Magnitsky.
        I think I know what you are referring to. Let me make
    clear. The United States will defend our team in the field and
    the team that has been in the field when it retires and leaves
    the field. We understand that Americans deserve the protection
    of the United States of America both during their time in
    service and thereafter.
        Senator Cardin. Was there any agreements reached in regards
    to Ukraine?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator. That is an agree to
    disagree. That is, the U.S. policy has not changed and you can
    see that. Right? $200 million since the Helsinki summit
    provided to the Ukrainians. I think there was lots of concern,
    and I saw it. I could find you all's quotes if you would like
    me to go drag them out--concerns that President Trump would
    make a change in position with respect to Ukraine.
        Senator Cardin. And you made that clear.
        Secretary Pompeo. And there is none. It is a policy that
    the previous administration refused to undertake. So I hear
    comparative--it is important, Senator. Comparison matters here
    because there is a narrative that has developed that somehow
    President Trump is weak on Russia, when in fact the converse is
    true.
        Senator Cardin. I heard you talk and brag about the number
    of sanctions----
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, these were just facts.
        Senator Cardin. The fact is that the Congress passed the
    CAATSA statute that required sanctions to be imposed, and there
    are sanctions that are to be imposed under CAATSA that have not
    been imposed. And the facts are the administration has sought a
    waiver in regards to CAATSA in regards to the National Defense
    Authorization Act. So I just really want to point out--and we
    have had this from previous administrations, but not as much as
    we are hearing today, that what Congress is requiring you to do
    all of a sudden you found religion and have taken credit for
    it. But in reality you have not implemented on time the
    sanctions that have been passed by Congress.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, first, well, that is not true.
    We have passed a number of sanctions under the CAATSA
    provisions and it is also true--at least my best recollection
    of the Constitution is the President signed that law as well .
    . .
        Senator Cardin. And he complained when he signed it.
        Secretary Pompeo. . . . So I thank you for presenting that
    law. We appreciate it. We think it makes good sense. The
    President signed it as well. We have passed sanctions under
    that very law, and we have passed sanctions previous
    administrations did not do.
        Senator Cardin. Please read the President's comment when he
    signed the law because it is very interesting--his comments.
        Let me move on to our policy in regards to nuclear
    proliferation in Iran and in North Korea because I am having a
    hard time understanding the comparison between these two
    countries.
        In North Korea, we have a country that has a nuclear
    weapon. The President has met with the leader of that country
    and has at least given a signal to some countries that in fact
    there may be relaxation of those. We are having problems with
    China today, as I understand.
        In Iran, we had a commitment for a short-term ending of
    their nuclear program. We were able to isolate Iran, getting
    the support of China, Russia, and Europe. And we were able to
    keep the temperature down in regards to their nuclear program.
    Now by pulling out, we are now seeing we do not have any
    commitments on the short term if Iran walks away from the
    agreement because there are already sanctions now under the
    United States. We have been isolated, not Iran. And of course,
    Iran today was not pursuing a nuclear program. I agree with you
    there may be long-term issues.
        So I am having a hard time understanding our strategy in
    regards to preventing nuclear proliferation.
        The last point I would make. We had a hearing in this
    committee as to what is necessary to move forward with North
    Korea on giving up nuclear weapons. And the first thing they
    talked about, you have to have a full declaration of its
    nuclear arsenal and a timeline for dismantling. And I am
    getting my information now from the South Koreans, not from the
    Americans. The South Koreans have been reported to say that you
    asked for that information and you have not been able to get
    that information from Kim Jong Un or his representatives.
        So what have we gotten in North Korea, and why are we
    allowing North Korea to continue to have a nuclear weapon when
    the strategy is that as long as Iran is doing any types of
    enrichment, we are going to impose sanctions against them?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, let me try--that was a long
    question. Let me try and unpack it a little bit.
        So let me give you the common theme. We want neither Iran
    nor North Korea to have the capacity to proliferate nuclear
    weapons, to enrich uranium, or build their own weapons program.
    That is the mission set. It draws them together. That sets the
    conditions for President Trump's understanding of how one
    achieves nonproliferation in the world, and that is the
    missions we are undertaking in each of those two countries.
    They are in different places, and we are working on an approach
    in each place that we think increases the likelihood that we
    are able to successfully achieve that, a mission I know you
    share.
        The Chairman. Before turning to Senator Rubio, a second
    interjection. I know mention was made of a waiver in the NDAA
    by Senator Mattis--I mean, Secretary Mattis. Yes, he would not
    want to be demoted to that level I know. But I support that.
    And the purpose of that waiver, was it not, was to allow
    countries that we are dealing with that we wish to buy American
    military equipment to be weaned off Russian equipment. They
    still had to buy parts to do so, so that we can more fully
    implement strategies with them, working with them to really
    push back against other countries? Is that correct?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator Corker, you captured it very
    well. Secretary Mattis and I both put forward this proposal, a
    request to the Senate for these waivers. These are countries
    that have historic Russian weapon systems. If we deny them to
    have the capacity to have spare parts or to round out that
    process, then we are likely to drive them into the hands of the
    Russians. I do not think that was the aim of the sanctions
    themselves, and so we are working to effectuate the intent of
    the statute by seeking this waiver. It is pretty narrow.
        The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
        Senator Cardin. Would the chairman yield so I could clarify
    that?
        The Chairman. Rubio may yield. Go ahead.
        Senator Cardin. My point is that this is an issue we talked
    about in the development of the CAATSA bill. There was
    absolutely no debate in this committee on the waiver request by
    the administration. I disagree with our distinguished chairman
    as to whether it was handled right. The countries had over a
    year to resolve that.
        The Chairman. Yes. It had become an acute issue, and it is
    a defense-related issue. And I am glad that we have been able
    to resolve it in a manner that will allow these countries to
    wean off Russian equipment and begin buying ours.
        Senator Rubio?
        Senator Rubio. Thank you. Just watching to see if they
    reset my clock. It is like an NBA game.
        The Chairman. Reset the clock.
        Senator Rubio. That is all right. We will figure it out. I
    will tell you when the time is up. Do not worry.
        When Vladimir Putin decided to interfere in our elections,
    you would agree he undertook a cost-benefit analysis. This is
    what the price would be for doing this. This is the benefit I
    think I would gain from it.
        And so where it leaves us is we have to do two things. We
    have to defend against potential interference, election systems
    and the like. But I think the other is we have to make sure
    that the price is higher than the benefit.
        And that actually points to one of the things you have
    already mentioned and that is what we have already done. If you
    start to line up some of the things that we have done in
    response to that and other things, it is a pretty extensive
    list, including things we have been asking for, for 4 years
    that have finally happened: the Javelin anti-tank missiles for
    Ukraine and Georgia, the support of NATO's new posture in
    Central and Eastern Europe, the variety of designations under
    both Ukraine and cyber-related executive orders that were from
    the Obama administration, sanctions under CAATSA and others
    more to come for cybersecurity, several rounds of designation
    of individuals for weapons proliferation, terror and
    transnational crime, export restrictions on entities that
    violated the INF Treaty. We closed consulates in San Francisco
    and in Seattle. We closed an annex in DC. We closed the trade
    office in New York after the poison nerve gas attack in the
    U.K. We have expelled 60 other diplomats. All of those things
    happened under this administration, and these are pretty
    substantial, including the sanctions.
        But, obviously, even that price is not high enough because
    the intelligence community continues to tell us that they are
    postured and are actively engaged in both attacking our
    democracy and posturing to do more of that in the future.
        So my question is along the lines of a piece of legislation
    that Senator Van Hollen and I and a group of other Senators
    have jumped on board on, and it aims to do three things. One is
    sort of define interference. It is not just five Russian guys
    on Twitter. I mean, define it in terms of its meaning to our
    republic. Require the Director of National Intelligence to
    issue a report within 30 days of the election about whether or
    not interference occurred. And then put in statute a menu of
    very crippling sanctions. And the purpose of that would be so
    that Vladimir Putin knows before he makes this decision going
    to 2018 or in the future this is the price I will pay if I do
    this again. That is why it is called the DETER Act to get on
    the front end of it.
        I do not ask you to opine on the bill because I know you do
    not have it before you, but on the concept of building in
    deterrence on the front end, is that not an approach that we
    can take to hopefully deter him from doing this in the future
    by making him clearly understand how high the price would be in
    comparison to the benefit?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I completely agree with you that
    there is a cost-benefit calculation that is undertaken before
    the Russians act. So it follows necessarily that putting on
    notice with essentially a failsafe, if you will, about things
    that will follow has the likelihood of being successful in
    raising the costs in terms of how he calculates risk associated
    with a wide range of actions.
        Senator Rubio. You will be asked plenty about Russia, so I
    do not want to undermine that. But I think the single biggest
    national security threat in the long term to the United States
    is China. I mean, for the first time since the end of the Cold
    War, we are in competition with a near peer adversary. And it
    is not just military. It is economic. It is technological. It
    is geopolitical and the like. We have seen their impressive and
    massive military buildup, the quantum leaps they are making in
    technology. We see that the work they are undertaking to sort
    of destroy the U.S. world order and rebuild it to one more of
    their liking. We have seen the gains they have made on 5G
    alone. I mean, China Mobile will be the only company in the
    world that can build standalone 5G networks by 2020. And what
    is really outrageous is many of these advances are not the
    result of hard work and ingenuity. They are also the result of
    intellectual property theft, forced transfers, and the like.
        This is part of a tactic that they have been using for a
    while. And I think the South China Sea is a great example of
    it. They do not make these big, sweeping changes. It is sort of
    a sustained sort of slow and incremental but more assertive
    demands each time creating new normals along the way. And what
    they have done in the South China Sea is evidence of that.
        And the only ways that seems to work in response to their
    aggression are two things. The first is committed and sustained
    escalation across the relationship, meaning you do not carve
    out pieces of it. They do it that way. We have to do it that
    way. Our whole relationship, sustained and committed pressure.
    And the other is invoking the help of our foreign partners.
        And what I am troubled by in regards to the administration
    posture on this is invoking the help of our foreign partners
    has become complicated because we are currently engaged with
    trade disputes with the EU and Japan, Mexico, and Canada, which
    we should have teamed up with to confront them. And I
    understand that trade is an issue that needs to be addressed,
    but I do not know why we did not address China first together
    and then dealt with our allies second.
        And the other is the sustained and committed escalation
    across the entire relationship. And on that front, I am puzzled
    by the decision the administration made on ZTE. And I know that
    was not a State Department decision. It was a Commerce one.
    Because I agree that if the ZTE issue was simply a sanctions
    violation, the penalties imposed have been devastating. But ZTE
    is more than a sanctions threat to the United States. It is
    part of a broader telecommunication threat that the Chinese
    industries pose to the United States. And to threaten to shut
    them down and then pull back from it is not the sort of
    committed and sustained escalation across the entire
    relationship. The carving out of one company sends them the
    message that they can pick away at different parts of that
    relationship and undermine our willingness to sustain pressure
    on them to get a better equilibrium.
        So I do not know what the State Department's role was in
    that decision, but moving forward, what is our broader
    strategic approach to the threat that China poses? Because they
    do not seek parity. They seek to overtake us.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you have laid out what I think
    is the principal challenge for the United States over the
    coming years, maybe a decade, the issue of China. They have got
    a lot of folks and a big economy. That puts them in the
    position to be a competitor of the United States in a way a
    country like Russia with an economy smaller than Italy's cannot
    maintain over some period of time. And so we do need a broad,
    comprehensive response.
        And I think all of the West, not just the United States,
    was too slow in seeing this. Your point about how they turned
    up the heat slowly over time. I think that recognition is
    there, but I do not believe that the structures are in place
    today to respond to that comprehensively.
        I was with Australian partners yesterday at a meeting with
    Secretary Mattis and myself and our Australian counterparts.
    They too--they just passed a set of non-interference rules on
    China. They are getting up to speed in the same way that as you
    all took a look at CFIUS and FIRRMA. We are getting up to
    speed. We are beginning to strike that comprehensive response
    versus China that I think will ultimately do what has
    historically happened, allow America to prevail.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
        Senator Shaheen?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, Assistant Secretary
    Mitchell, and our charge in Turkey, Phil Kosnett, for your hard
    work and coordination on the efforts to release Pastor Brunson.
    As you pointed out, his move from prison to house arrest is a
    positive development. Obviously, we have a lot more work to do
    in terms of getting him back to the United States and also
    pressing the Turkish Government to release the other Americans
    that they are holding. But it is a positive step, and thank you
    for that.
        I am concerned, Mr. Secretary, because it has been 1 week--
    a little over a week--since the Helsinki meeting between
    President Trump and Vladimir Putin, and yet other than the
    brief description you just gave us, we do not really know what
    was discussed in that meeting. We have heard DNI Coats, General
    Votel, and a number of State Department officials, including
    those who were present in last week's committee meeting on
    Iran, indicate that they still do not have a full understanding
    of what was discussed in that meeting. And we are seeing almost
    daily attempts by the Kremlin to take advantage of this
    opportunity as they release their own readouts of the
    conversation and broadcast news of various agreements that they
    say were reached in that meeting. So for me, that is why I am
    so concerned and why I want to know exactly what was agreed to
    in that meeting.
        On Syria, President Trump said at his joint news conference
    that the two leaders discussed Syria at length. The Russian
    Ministry of Defense has indicated that the two leaders agreed
    to military cooperation in Syria. Did they do that?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, the United States policy with
    respect to de-confliction with Russia has not changed. I will
    defer to the Department of Defense for details around that, but
    I can tell you that the policy that was in place with respect
    to their efforts to keep American pilots safe and keep American
    forces safe in Syria--that policy has not changed.
        Senator Shaheen. Do you know if they discussed that policy?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I do know that they discussed
    Syria. They absolutely discussed Syria. The focus of that
    discussion--I think President Trump assured this was an effort
    to find a political resolution there and to get the displaced
    persons the opportunity to return to Syria.
        And I think the President has talked about one more item.
    So as the President shared it, I feel like I can as well. I
    think he also talked about America's continued commitment to
    ensure that Israel was secure from threats in Syria as well,
    and that topic was discussed by them as well. I think the
    President has previously shared that.
        Senator Shaheen. Do you know if there was any sort of
    downgrading of our U.S. presence in Syria that was discussed?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, there has been no change in U.S.
    policy with respect to our activities in Syria.
        Senator Shaheen. I understand, but that is not exactly the
    question I am asking.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, it is what matters. It is what
    matters. What matters is what President Trump has directed us
    to do following his meeting with Vladimir Putin. It is that he
    has told his senior leadership team to do and how he wants us
    to deploy his foreign policy strategy.
        Senator Shaheen. And do you know if the frozen
    stabilization funds for Syria, the $200 million--was that ever
    discussed?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, we are still working to review
    that policy. That is a State Department policy. We are still
    working to review it. The policy was the same day before as it
    was the day after the President's meeting with Vladimir Putin.
        Senator Shaheen. And do you know if Iran was referenced in
    the context of Syria in their discussions?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, again, it is not for me to
    disclose the contents of those conversations. I can tell you
    that each time I have spoken with President Trump both before
    the Helsinki summit and after, Iran has been a central point
    that we have focused on with respect to U.S. policy in Syria.
    It, I am confident, will remain so.
        Senator Shaheen. So in an interview, General Votel was
    asked about whether a deal had been made on Syria between
    President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he said, as you
    indicated, that he had received no instructions to change what
    he is doing. And he went further on to say--and I quote--``I
    would want to make sure that this is not something that we
    stepped into lightly. I am not recommending that, and that
    would be a pretty big step at this point.''
        In response to his comments, the Russian Ministry of
    Defense put out a statement and also posted on social media--
    and again, I am quoting the Russian media. They say--ministry,
    I mean. With his statements, ``General Votel not only
    discredited the official position of his supreme commander-in-
    chief but also exacerbated the illegality under international
    law and U.S. law of the military presence of American service
    men in Syria.''
        Can you tell me what our response has been to the Russian
    Ministry of Defense with respect to this statement?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, my guess, the response would be
    most appropriately from the Department of Defense and not from
    the Department of State. But I will humbly suggest to you that
    you ought to have more confidence in statements from General
    Votel than the Russian Ministry of Defense.
        Senator Shaheen. I do have more confidence in General
    Votel's statement. That is why I am raising this question
    because it seems to me that our response to the Russian
    Ministry of Defense ought to be very strong to say they have
    nothing to say about what our generals are doing in Syria. That
    is not their business. That is our business. And I would hope
    that that is a point that we make very strongly.
        I had the opportunity to visit Syria a little over 2 weeks
    ago, and I was very impressed with the work that our military
    has been doing in northeast Syria along the Turkish border. I
    was very impressed with the work of the Syrian Democratic
    Forces. And what I heard over and over again, both from the men
    and women who were serving and from the Syrian civilians on the
    ground, was please do not leave us here to the fate of either
    Assad or the Russians or other forces that may come into that
    part of Syria. And please, just a little bit in help for
    reconstruction efforts would go a very long way.
        That part of Syria has stabilized. They are into
    reconstruction. They are sending back people who have been
    displaced to their homes, and it would be, I believe, a real
    terrible reversal of policy for us to leave those folks after
    what we have done and to turn them over to the Russians or to
    Assad's forces.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, if I might, just so the facts
    are clear, the previous administration is the one that enabled
    Russia to have the capacity that they have in Syria today.
        Senator Shaheen. I am not defending the previous
    administration, Mr. Secretary. I want this administration to
    continue doing what is working.
        Secretary Pompeo. It is policy, this administration's
    policy. You are advocating for the continuation of this
    administration's policy. I think that is important for everyone
    to understand.
        The Chairman. Senator Flake?
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary, for your testimony.
        I wanted to commend the State Department, you in
    particular, for quick statements with regard to the nature of
    the conversation, as it was between President Putin and
    President Trump, regarding certain individuals like Mr. McFaul
    and others traveling to Russia to be interrogated by the
    Russians. The State Department came out and said that was
    inappropriate despite the President's statement that it was an
    incredible offer. It took the White House a full 2 days or 3
    days to contradict that statement that President Putin had
    made. The State Department quickly said that that was
    inappropriate. So thank you for doing that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Thanks. But, Senator, you give me a
    little bit too much credit. I am doing my level best every day
    to implement the President's policies. And that statement was
    from the United States President's State Department.
        Senator Flake. Okay. But the United States President said
    that it was an incredible offer, and so that is why I am
    pointing out the difference and commending you. Please take it.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Flake. With regard to what else was said during
    that meeting, I know you have given some indication of what was
    discussed. Let me just give a sense of how Russia is
    characterizing that meeting. And this is the problem with a
    private meeting like this. Many of us voiced strong concerns
    about having a private meeting like this with no readout
    officially for what happened.
        And here is what happens when a private meeting like that
    is held. Vladimir Putin's meeting with Donald Trump was, quote,
    ``better than super'', Russia's top diplomat has said. The
    leaders' summit in Helsinki was fabulous. I think that was
    Lavrov who also said that. The remarks reported by Russian news
    agencies summed up the mood that Mr. Trump sided with the
    Kremlin over his own intelligence agencies. So they are
    reporting that as well. Here is how one paper in Russia
    characterized it. Trump has failed to dominate Putin. Another
    tabloid said, ``a quiet, modest Trump has paled in comparison
    with Vladimir Putin''. It is clear that Putin has outmaneuvered
    the U.S. President. That is the Russian media characterizing a
    meeting, and we have no readout to dispute any of it. All we
    have are the statements made by the President that they had
    made an incredible offer, for example, to have former U.S.
    diplomats shipped off to Russia to be interrogated.
        I am glad to hear that, one, a little more time will be had
    before a new meeting takes place between the two principals. By
    the way, I think that it is good that our President and the
    Russian president speak and meet together. That is a good
    thing. I do not think it is a good thing to meet in private
    with only an interpreter present with no readout so that
    whatever is characterized is only characterized by the Russian
    side.
        Do you have any response or thoughts on that?
        Secretary Pompeo. So I have a personal experience. I had a
    private conversation with the North Koreans. We did not issue a
    readout on the conversations, quite intentionally, and the
    North Korean press chose to characterize it. We thought it was
    in America's best interest not to respond tit for tat about the
    nature of that conversation. We knew the truth. We knew what
    had taken place there. And you know, it is the North Korean
    press. And so I assume that most reasonable people will
    discount it fairly significantly the same way that one might
    the Russian press.
        These are important decisions about how much to disclose
    about private conversations that were had because everyone
    knows that you may have an expectation that you will have
    another private conversation one day. And the absence of their
    belief that that private conversation has the capacity to
    remain in that space reduces the freedom to have those
    conversations.
        I know you have had this in your life too, Senator. I know
    you have had private conversations and you valued them. It was
    just you and someone else in that room, and it was important.
    And you did not give anyone a readout from it because you
    wanted to have the chance to do that again because you thought
    you could make real progress with that person.
        Senator Flake. Let us talk about North Korea. You brought
    it up. You mentioned that you traveled to North Korea to
    continue on, as you put it, I guess to follow up on commitments
    made in Singapore. Let us talk about those commitments for a
    minute. You mentioned that they have committed to
    denuclearization. They may have a different readout than we do
    on what that entails. But so far, they seem to be walking back
    any commitment, real commitment that was made there.
        What commitment, firm commitment, other than discussion of
    returning remains--I am not discounting that, but in terms of
    denuclearization, what real commitments were made?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am not going to get into the private
    commitments that have been shared.
        I do not think it is fair to characterize them walking back
    from commitments. Remember where we were. Right? So it all
    depends on what you draw as the projected line to say are we in
    a better place or a worse place then we would have been absent
    the Singapore summit. One can draw counter-factual--we will
    never know where we might have been.
        But I will concede there is an awful long way to go. I am
    not trying to oversell the accomplishments that we have had
    towards the path of denuclearization to date. There remains a
    great deal of work to do. It will be highly contested. That is,
    the modalities, the means, the timing of this will be things
    that I am confident we will be discussing for a period of time.
        There have been public reports. And I know the United
    States is tracking the disassembly of a missile engine test
    site, something that Chairman Kim committed orally. It was not
    in the written agreement itself, but Chairman Kim committed in
    his conversation with President Trump to do. They are beginning
    to dismantle that. It has to do with their missile program. It
    is a good thing. Steps forward.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Quickly before the time is out, something completely
    different. The country of Rwanda right now--and you may be
    familiar with this because of this week's focus on religious
    freedom--has indicated a move toward severe restrictions on
    religious freedom, particularly from outside groups. What are
    the plans of the State Department to let them know that that is
    not in their own interests nor ours?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I share your concerns. I will
    need to get back to you in terms of what actions we think we--I
    know we will call it out. I know we will label it for what it
    is. It is tragic. Anyway, I share your concern, Senator. It is
    a huge challenge for us.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, just a couple of thoughts. I was very
    discouraged at the Helsinki summit when the President basically
    was offered a choice in some of the questions, did he believe
    U.S. intel or did he believe Vladimir Putin's protestations
    that he had engaged in hacking of the election. And he
    basically said my own people have made a great case to me, and
    Vladimir Putin has made a great case to me. I do not see why
    Russia would have done this. He came back and corrected it the
    next day in the United States, but at the end, he said I
    believe my intel community but there are a lot of people out
    there. It could have been someone else. And then this dragged
    on for a couple of days.
        You know where I live. You know I have a lot of
    constituents who used to be your employees at the CIA. People
    come up to me all the time in Virginia and say I am with the
    IC. And they are very demoralized by this. They are very
    demoralized that when standing next to Vladimir Putin, the
    President's words were to suggest that he trusted Vladimir
    Putin over them.
        There was the suggestion when President Trump said it was
    an incredible offer about Ambassador McFaul, that he was also
    potentially willing to throw not just intel folks under the bus
    but State Department diplomats under the bus. They live in
    Virginia too. They feel the demoralization about your comments
    today that we are going to go to bat for a current reformer.
    That is very, very helpful.
        But what I want to ask you about is our military and our
    military leadership. There was an article yesterday in ``The
    Washington Post.'' General Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff--as of Monday, Dunford still had not been
    briefed on Helsinki even though it directly affects 1 million
    troops Dunford oversees.
        Do you know why there would have been no briefing of
    General Dunford about the discussions that took place at
    Helsinki?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you have to ask the Department
    of Defense or Chairman Dunford.
        Senator Kaine. But you do not dispute that that was--you
    have no knowledge that there was a briefing of General Dunford
    today about the Helsinki discussion. Do you?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you just read me a piece from
    ``The Washington Post.''
        Senator Kaine. Yes, but I am asking your knowledge. Do you
    have any knowledge that the administration has shared
    discussions about U.S.-Russia military issues with the head of
    the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff?
        Secretary Pompeo. I have actually spoken with Chairman
    Dunford about it. I was with him yesterday in a series of
    meetings, and we had a chance to have a conversation about it.
    Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Kaine. So yesterday may have been the first time he
    was briefed about it.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is possible, yes.
        Senator Kaine. I was going to ask about General Votel, the
    information that Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Shaheen, mentioned
    earlier. He expressed wariness about working with Russia and
    the Russian Defense Ministry. This is an interesting statement.
    They went after General Votel, the head of CENTCOM, who
    oversees, as you know, U.S. military operations in the Middle
    East, including Syria. Quote: With his statements, General
    Votel not only discredited the official position of his supreme
    commander-in-chief. Are you aware of what the official position
    is that is being referenced in that statement?
        Secretary Pompeo. You would have to speak with the Russian
    Ministry of Defense to know what it was he was referring to.
        Senator Kaine. But you can understand why we are concerned
    if it is being reported in the Russian press, as Senator Flake
    and Senator Shaheen said, that they are talking about official
    positions that the President has outlined. As far as you know,
    General Votel's statements did not violate any official
    position of the United States. Did they?
        Secretary Pompeo. You seem to be giving a great deal of
    credit to the Russian Ministry of Defense.
        Senator Kaine. Let me ask you about General Votel.
        Secretary Pompeo. They might not share that same----
        Senator Kaine. Let me ask you about General Votel.
        Secretary Pompeo. I have great belief in his truthfulness.
        Senator Kaine. So you do not believe that any of the
    statements that he has made, including those that I read,
    violate any official position of the United States. Do you?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, if you would, it is best to
    approach General Votel, the Department of Defense. I mean, we
    are now three orders removed.
        Senator Kaine. If I could introduce for the record--there
    is an interesting article in BuzzFeed News just recently,
    today, that just lists a whole series of headlines. And I think
    these are instructive, Mr. Chair. Trump's announcement that he
    will end U.S.-Korea drills catches Pentagon off guard. Pentagon
    and Seoul surprised by Trump pledge to halt military exercises.
    Pentagon caught off guard by Space Force announcement. Trump
    signals withdrawal of various U.S. troops from Syria surprising
    Pentagon and the State Department. Pentagon, caught by surprise
    by Trump's travel ban, pushes for some Iraqis to get special
    consideration. U.S. Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's
    transgender ban. NORTHCOM caught off guard as Trump orders
    troops to U.S.-Mexico border. If I could introduce this for the
    record, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

        [The information referred to is located at the end of the
    hearing]

        Senator Kaine. I worry about an administration that would
    take the Putin position over our intel community. I worry about
    the administration that would suggest it might be a great deal
    to consider handing over a former diplomat for questioning. I
    worry about an administration that is catching the Pentagon off
    guard, that is not consulting with General Dunford or briefing
    him for a week after a summit of this importance to our
    military.
        Mr. Secretary, you are aware of the NDAA prohibition, the
    current prohibition, on Russian and U.S. joint military
    operations. Are you not?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am aware of the existence of that
    provision. Yes.
        Senator Kaine. The provision prohibits any use of funds--it
    is in the NDAA--to support joint Russia and U.S. military
    operations, and it also gives the Secretary of Defense the
    ability to undertake a national security waiver if he thinks
    that that is the right idea.
        Does the administration accept the legality and binding
    nature of that provision of law?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I think the DOD General Counsel
    would be the right person to ask about the intricacies of an
    NDAA provision that had to do with complex issues that span the
    gap between--I think what you are getting--between
    deconfliction and coordination. It is a complex undertaking,
    not a waiver that the State Department has the authority.
        But broadly, yes, this administration follows the law.
        Senator Kaine. So sitting here today, you are not aware of
    a legal concern that the administration has about this NDAA
    provision. Are you?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am not aware of one.
        Senator Kaine. And you are not aware that the Secretary of
    Defense has issued any kind of a waiver to allow U.S.-Russia
    military joint operations. Are you?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator.
        Senator Kaine. With respect to North Korea, we were told by
    our expert witnesses--and I echo a little bit what Senator
    Cardin said that a first test of their seriousness is will they
    disclose what they have. In your discussions with North Korea,
    have they reached a point yet where there has been any
    agreement made about them discussing the extent of their
    nuclear infrastructure?
        Secretary Pompeo. I would prefer not to answer questions
    about the nature of our negotiations other than to say that
    your proposition that a good first step is the disclosure of
    the range of their nuclear infrastructure capabilities. An
    initial declaration, so to speak, is something that is at the
    very forefront of what it is--we think makes sense to get them
    to a point where we can verify their full denuclearization.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Chair, I would like to put one other additional
    item in for the record, which is an article just recently
    written by the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince
    Khalid bin Salman, why Iran's malign behavior must be
    confronted, not appeased. And the thing that I think is
    interesting for us is he basically makes this argument and says
    that Saudi Arabia stands very willing to help the United States
    undertake all the actions that he suggests should be taken. I
    am very concerned about this too, but my time would not allow
    further questions on it. But I would like to put it in the
    record.
        The Chairman. Without objection, it will be entered.

        [The information referred to is located at the end of the
    hearing]

        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso?
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you again.
        It seems every time we have a chance to visit, I bring up
    the issue of energy security, and I was very happy to see
    President Trump talking with our NATO allies and specifically
    with Germany about their ongoing dependence on Russia for
    energy and specifically the upcoming concern with the
    Nordstream 2 and increasing that dependence by Germany of
    Russian energy.
        I know the President met today with the European Commission
    president to talk about energy security issues.
        I would just ask your assessment of our NATO allies and if
    they understand the security threat and the leverage that they
    are giving Russia by this over-reliance on Russian energy
    resources because it does not seem to be acting in their own
    security best interests.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, it is a fair question. I think
    their willingness to acknowledge that risk varies. I think some
    European countries accept that risk or are prepared to act in a
    way that might cost them a little bit more money to prevent
    that risk. I think there is probably a continuum of European
    countries. This issue has been raised by this administration
    consistently in every forum, directly with the Germans as well.
    The Germans just do not see it that way.
        Senator Barrasso. Are our NATO allies and the European
    Union doing anything in their discussions with Germany in terms
    of ending this Nordstream 2 pipeline project?
        Secretary Pompeo. Again, mix within the European Union.
    There are some countries that share our position. There are
    some that do so publicly. There are others that do so
    privately, that is, they have concerns about speaking out
    against other European Union countries, so their conversations
    have been--or their sharing of their view on Nordstream 2 with
    us has been private, I suspect private with the other parties
    that they are opposing as well.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, I appreciate everything that you
    continue to do and am grateful for what the President is doing
    in terms of trying to lessen this influence of Russian energy
    on the European Union and certainly on Germany.
        Russian officials after the meeting with President Trump--
    and I know you made the point about not--the President not
    making additional statements on specific agreements. I guess
    the Russian Ambassador has talked about important verbal
    agreements on New START and INF at the Helsinki summit. So I
    just wanted to ask a little bit about that.
        Have specific agreements been made between President Putin
    and President Trump on arms control treaties?
        Secretary Pompeo. No. We are still working our way through.
    These issues were raised. I think the President said that. We
    are trying to get the Russians back inside the INF, trying to
    use every tool possible to get them to acknowledge that they
    are in noncompliance and get them moved back inside the box.
    And then we are--President Trump's administration is
    considering how best to respond to that, both on the INF Treaty
    and the New START. What are the best modalities to achieve what
    we are looking for to decrease the risk of proliferation or a
    potential nuclear conflict between our two countries?
        Senator Barrasso. I appreciate your efforts there. I think
    it did seem that President Trump is taking the right decisions
    in terms of--with these intermediate nuclear weapons in terms
    of providing for Poland the missile capacity there to defend.
    The previous administration pulled out of that capacity. And so
    I am happy to see that.
        With New START, I always felt that was a treaty that had
    significant concessions on our side and very little, if
    anything, from Russia in terms of the number of the missiles
    because they did not have to give up much, if anything, and we
    had to give up quite a bit. So I would be very concerned about
    what that next treaty may look like.
        Secretary Pompeo. The INF Treaty similarly restricts just a
    couple countries, and the world has changed dramatically since
    that treaty began. So we are conducting a full-on review so
    that we can respond and then work with Russia to get an outcome
    that is in America's interests with respect to the full scope
    of the proliferation agreements between the two countries--the
    nuclear proliferation agreements between the two countries.
        Senator Barrasso. The President yesterday was at the VFW
    convention in Nashville, convention of Veterans of Foreign
    Wars. I wanted to talk a little bit after the discussion in
    Singapore with the North Korean leader and the signing of a
    declaration committing to the return of remains of American
    soldiers to the United States. I know there were many U.S.
    troops lost in North Korea. I understand that our military has
    moved coffins to the Demilitarized Zone to prepare for North
    Korea's return of the remains. This is an issue that comes up
    when I talk to veterans in Wyoming, and I would not be
    surprised if it came up when the President was there with the
    VFW.
        Could you give us any update on North Korea's compliance
    with what they had agreed to do relating with the remains of
    our veterans?
        Secretary Pompeo. So they reaffirmed their commitment to
    return remains that they have in their possession, as well as
    to begin to work on--there is an agreement that had been in
    place previously about how we would conduct recovery operations
    inside of North Korea. And we will, in relatively short order,
    if the North fulfills its commitment, begin to put things back
    in place such that we can begin not only the return, the
    repatriation of existing remains, but the recovery of remains
    that have not yet been recovered. I understand that it is not
    directly on point with denuclearization. I get that. But, boy,
    for the families that are missing loved ones, it is a big deal,
    and I am very hopeful that the North Koreans will continue to
    move towards honoring the commitment that Chairman Kim made.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    I am very grateful for your continued commitment to all these
    efforts. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Markey?
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, President Trump is claiming that North Korea
    is, quote, no longer a nuclear threat. And we do know that is
    absolutely not true. We have yet to see any tangible progress
    towards denuclearization. And I know that it is clear to
    everyone that North Korea's dismantling of an outdated missile
    test facility, as well as a previously dismantled ICBM assembly
    building, which can be rebuilt within 3 days, are empty
    gestures and not indicative that North Korea has changed its
    tune. They are continuing to use the Kim family playbook going
    back to his grandfather where they frontload rewards to
    themselves while exploiting ambiguity and delaying real
    concessions to the United States and to the West.
        We do not have nuclear inspectors yet on the ground in
    North Korea. Is that correct, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Pompeo. That is correct.
        Senator Markey. North Korea continues to produce fissile
    material, nuclear bomb material. Is that correct?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am trying to make sure I stay
    on the correct--yes, that is correct. I am just trying to make
    sure I do not cross into classified information. I am not
    trying to hesitate. Yes, they continue to produce fissile
    material.
        Senator Markey. Yes. So North Korea is continuing on both
    of those fronts.
        Is North Korea continuing to pursue submarine-launched
    ballistic missiles?
        Secretary Pompeo. I cannot answer that for you here in
    this----
        Senator Markey. You cannot answer that?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator.
        Senator Markey. Well, I look forward to your providing that
    in a classified setting so that the members of this committee
    and ultimately the American people can know what is happening.
    I think it is pretty clear they are, but we will move on.
        Has North Korea committed to you that it will destroy its
    chemical weapons stockpiles?
        Secretary Pompeo. The North Koreans understand precisely
    our definition of denuclearization and have agreed to
    denuclearize.
        Senator Markey. Have they committed to destroying chemical
    weapons stockpiles?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have talked about CBW, their CBW
    programs, as being part of that denuclearization. And as I
    said, they have indicated that they fully understand the scope
    of what denuclearization entails.
        Senator Markey. Have they committed to destroying their
    biological weapons?
        Secretary Pompeo. In the same way I just described,
    Senator.
        Senator Markey. They have committed?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, what I said is as follows. We
    have made very clear that the entirety of the North Korean CBW
    program is contained in the U.S. understanding of
    denuclearization, and I am confident that the North Koreans
    understand clearly America's definition. And they have agreed
    to denuclearize.
        Senator Markey. Does the United States have an inventory of
    North Korea's warheads, materials, facilities, and other
    programs?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I cannot answer that here.
        Senator Markey. Has North Korea committed to halting its
    human rights abuses?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, their human rights abuses
    continue today.
        If I might say with respect to each of these questions,
    each of the activities that you have described was taking place
    on January 19th, 2017. And we are working to stop them in ways
    that were not being undertaken prior to the time the Trump
    administration took office. There were full-on trade with North
    Korea----
        Senator Markey. And I appreciate all that. I guess what I
    am saying is I appreciate that.
        Secretary Pompeo. I think it is important to understand the
    progress that we have made and the efforts and the modalities
    we are using to stop the activity that had gone on for decades.
        Senator Markey. I am just going back to the statement made
    by President Trump that North Korea is no longer a nuclear
    threat, and I am just trying to determine what that means.
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to help--I am happy to
    articulate what I think is----
        Senator Markey. Is there any verifiable evidence of
    progress towards denuclearization?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes, absolutely.
        Senator Markey. What is verifiable?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are sitting at the table having
    conversations. We have had lots of discussions that I am not
    going to get into here today.
        But I would tell you, you discounted the destruction of the
    missile engine test facility. That missile engine test facility
    was functional, viable, and operational and in use in January
    of 2017 before this administration took office.
        Senator Markey. I guess you and I----
        Secretary Pompeo. Just facts.
        Senator Markey. You and I interpret that gesture
    differently.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I have made no interpretation.
        Senator Markey. In terms of verifiable progress, I am
    talking about not trusting Kim Jong Un without verifying North
    Korea's actions. So that is really what the discussion is
    about. What has been verified? I understand that you are
    talking, but here is what I also understand, that the United
    States has unexpectedly suspended military exercises with South
    Korea, that North Korea has not started returning American war
    dead despite the President's announcement that the returns had
    already taken place. China and Russia continue to export oil to
    North Korea in violation of the U.N. resolutions and U.N.
    sanctions.
        Secretary Pompeo. Sanctions that did not exist before this
    regime took office.
        Senator Markey. And North Korea still has chemical and
    biological weapons and brutalizes its own people. And again,
    there is no verifiable evidence that North Korea is
    denuclearizing.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator----
        Senator Markey. So I am afraid that at this point the
    United States--the Trump administration is being taken for a
    ride.
        Secretary Pompeo. Fear not, Senator. Fear not.
        Senator Markey. There is no evidence to the contrary.
        Secretary Pompeo. Fear not, Senator.
        Senator Markey. There is no evidence.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, fear not. May I----
        Senator Markey. Please.
        Secretary Pompeo. I guess you did not ask a question. So I
    will----
        Senator Markey. No. That is all right.
        Secretary Pompeo. Fear not. This administration has taken
    enormously constructive actions that have put us in a place
    that is far better than in either of the two previous
    administrations, one Republican and one Democrat. We have put a
    sanctions regime in place that is unequaled. We are continuing
    to enforce that sanctions regime. We have made incredibly clear
    that we will continue to enforce that sanctions regime until
    such time as denuclearization, as we have defined it, is
    complete. Pressure on the regime is clearly being felt. We have
    lots of work to do.
        But unlike previous administrations, Senator, we have no
    intention of allowing the U.N. sanctions, the world's sanctions
    that we led the charge to have put in place, to allowing those
    sanctions to either be lifted or not enforced. And until such
    time as Chairman Kim fulfills the commitment he made, which I
    am incredibly hopeful that he will, those sanctions will
    remain.
        We have not been taken for a ride, Senator. I hope you can
    sleep a little bit better tonight.
        Senator Markey. One quick issue, which is something I know
    you are familiar with, is the State Department export controls
    that are designed to help ensure that weapons do not get into
    the wrong hands abroad. So I want to bring to your attention a
    special exemption from those export control rules that the
    State Department plans to use to issue this Friday. It will
    allow blueprints for downloadable guns to be published online
    and acceptable worldwide. I do not think that we really want to
    be in a world where Hamas in the Gaza has an ability download a
    capacity for an AR-15 that could endanger security in that
    region and the same thing could happen around the world. I ask
    the State Department to please reconsider this decision. I
    think it has long-term national security and domestic security
    considerations for our country.
        Secretary Pompeo. You have my commitment. I will take a
    look at it.
        The Chairman. Senator Paul?
        Senator Paul. Thank you for your testimony.
        There has been a great deal of gnashing of teeth and
    wringing of hands and dozens and dozens of Senators saying that
    the President should have met with President Putin. And I guess
    I wonder because if somehow we have become a little bit
    sidetracked by partisanship because in the past President Obama
    met with President Putin. President George Bush met with Putin.
    And I guess the question I have is whether or not we are
    entering into sort of a naive time where we think unless
    someone is a perfect Jeffersonian democrat, we are not going to
    meet with them.
        We also have people saying, well, he should have shook his
    fist at him and he should have called him a murderer and a
    thug.
        Do you think that there is a possibility that we can have a
    relationship where we criticize the human rights records of
    other countries but still also sit down and attempt to have
    diplomacy and at least channels so we do not escalate things?
    Do you think that it was a right idea for President Trump to
    meet with President Putin?
        Secretary Pompeo. I think you asked two questions, and it
    is yes to each of them. I think we can accomplish that. I think
    we can meet with less than perfect citizens of the world and
    hopefully move the ball in the right direction.
        Second, I think it was more than appropriate that President
    Trump meet with Vladimir Putin.
        Senator Paul. And my own personal opinion is I think we
    need to deescalate some of the partisan tensions in our country
    and try to look towards ways that we can have discussions with
    foreign leaders and not be so simplistic that somehow they have
    to have a perfect record or that we have to shout and scream. I
    mean, I think back to Reagan talking to Gorbachev. He said tear
    down that wall. He called him an evil empire. But I just do not
    imagine Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev and yelling and
    screaming and shaking his fist and saying murderer, thug, and
    reciting Stalin's human rights abuses. So I think there is a
    difference for anybody who has ever thought about this between
    sitting down and how diplomacy would occur between individuals
    and reciting a litany of human rights abuses.
        In that vein, I think there seems to be sort of a limitless
    appetite for more sanctions, but maybe insufficient interest in
    describing what actions are needed to remove sanctions.
        And so Senator Rubio mentioned this DETER Act. I guess my
    concern with some of this is that the definition of who might
    be meddling in an election in our country is not limited just
    to Russia. It could include even allies who spend money on
    social media somehow in our country. It does not seem to
    differentiate between social media and actually hacking into
    our electoral system and changing thousands of votes. It also
    takes the power away from the President and gives it to the
    Director of National Intelligence. This is the DETER Act we are
    talking about.
        And I know you indicated that, well, sanctions are probably
    a good idea to deter them. But do you think it is a good idea
    to take the sanction power, give it to the DNI, and then the
    sanctions have to remain in place for 8 hours with the
    President not having any ability to decide whether there has
    been some kind of change in behavior by the malefactors?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, without having seen the
    legislation, I do not think that is a good idea.
        Senator Paul. I liked in your statement where you said that
    President Trump believes that now is the time for direct
    communication in our relationship in order to make clear to
    President Putin that there is the possibility to reverse the
    negative course of our relationship. And I think that gets at
    the heart of why we have these discussions. So if you heap
    sanctions on and Congress puts them on and they have to stay on
    for 8 years and they could never could off, if there is no off
    ramp, if there is no discussion, that is sort of what diplomacy
    is supposed to be about.
        So I do commend you for talking to Kim. Are we here to
    extol Kim's record on human rights? Obviously not. But at the
    same time, for sanctions to have an effect, you have to have
    negotiation.
        So what I would say to my colleagues who have been all over
    TV saying there should not have been a meeting, think again. We
    just keep heaping these sanctions on and you do not want any
    ability to talk to the adversary about how we would actually
    remove the sanctions if behavior changed. You have got to have
    communications, not to mention the fact that we have planes
    flying within a mile or within 100 yards of each other in
    Syria. We have to have open lines of communication.
        So what I would ask is that we try to deescalate the
    partisanship in our country so we can once again be open to
    some kind of diplomacy.
        I have one question with regard to Iran. And you and I
    differ on the possibility of a further Iranian agreement. I
    think it is actually much more difficult. And I had my own
    criticisms of the nuclear agreement. I did not think it was
    perfect. And yet, I would have tried to have built upon it
    rather than destroy it.
        We had a lot of money at the time that was a carrot to try
    to bring Iran to the table, but now instead of a smaller group
    of issues, we have a bigger group of issues. The nuclear issues
    are back on the table if we have to renegotiate the nuclear
    agreement and the ballistic missile issue.
        And the point that I think that we need to think through in
    discussions with Iran is that I think Iran from their
    perspective would see getting rid of their ballistic missile
    program as basically unilateral surrender. It is not my
    viewpoint. I think it is what I believe their viewpoint.
        I think they also see Saudi Arabia as a great adversary,
    and I think they see Israel as a potential adversary. You know,
    it would be great if you got all three to come together and
    have a multilateral agreement on not developing nuclear weapons
    and not having ballistic missiles. I do not see the other two
    coming to the table, frankly, to do that.
        And so I think in moving forward, I think it is just
    important that you understand this is not going to be easy. The
    first Iran agreement also was a multilateral agreement. You had
    multilateral sanctions. You now have more unilateral sanctions,
    and you are going to have a unilateral agreement that is sort
    of your own agreement. So I just think we should not be so
    optimistic.
        And I guess I would like to hear from you what makes you
    believe that Iran will come to the table to discuss ballistic
    missiles.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am under no illusions about
    how important Iran views its ballistic missile program. I agree
    with you there.
        The question that President Trump faced was the JCPOA good
    enough. He concluded it was not remotely good enough. I think
    he said it was one of the worst deals in history. I do not want
    to get the language wrong. And so he concluded we would find
    ourselves in a better place with an opportunity to revisit all
    of these issues, the broad spectrum of issues, not just the
    nuclear portfolio but the missile program, their malign
    activity around the world, all of them in a package. It did
    accept the understanding that there would be those that would
    not come alongside of us.
        But you should know there is a coalition. It is not America
    and America alone. We have others who believe that this was the
    right decision too, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the
    Bahrainis, other smaller European governments, not the E-3
    themselves. But there are a number of folks who are beginning
    to coalesce around an understanding of how we can appropriately
    respond to Iran to take down the nuclear risk to the United
    States, as well as the risk from these other malign activities.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Udall?
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary Pompeo, for your service.
        Secretary Pompeo, we have quite the record of President
    Trump's business relations with Russia. Extensive reporting and
    public records show a large amount of money from former Soviet
    states and Russia into Trump projects. Trump International
    Tower and Hotel in Toronto, the Trump Hotel in Panama, the
    Trump project in SoHo in New York City are a few of the big
    examples where. And here is another one. A Russian oligarch
    bought a property from President Trump for--candidate Trump at
    the time or maybe a little before--for $95 million in 2008,
    less than 4 years after President Trump paid $41 million. So he
    more than doubled his money.
        Donald Trump, Jr. in 2008 stated at a real estate
    conference in New York--and I quote here--Russians make up a
    pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets.
    End quote.
        Donald Trump tried to build a Trump tower in Moscow for 30
    years. He even tweeted in 2013, Trump Tower Moscow is next.
    That is in quotes.
        In 2015, answering a question from indicted Russian
    operative and alleged spy Maria Butina, candidate Trump made
    clear his desires with Russia stating I would get along well
    with Putin and that I do not think we need the sanctions.
        Now the Russian Ambassador to United States has said the
    President made--and this is his quote--important verbal
    agreements with President Putin. And he seems to know more
    about Helsinki and what happened there than the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee.
        As we saw in Helsinki and throughout his presidency and the
    campaign, this President is extremely sympathetic to the very
    Russian Government that attacked and continues to attack our
    democracy and those of our allies. It is a fact of political
    life today that many Americans are concerned about the
    unthinkable, that a U.S. President could have a compromising
    relationship with a foreign power. The President could clear
    this all up in three simple ways: releasing his tax returns and
    those of the Trump organization and the taxes from the various
    family businesses, some of which we do not even know about.
        After Helsinki, do you think that the American people
    deserve to know what is in President Trump's tax returns and
    business interests that are intertwined with Russia?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am going to try to stay out of
    the same political circus that you and I ended up in last time
    I was sitting here and simply respond by saying this same
    President, with which you seem to express such deep concern, is
    engaged in a massive defense buildup which threatens Vladimir
    Putin's regime. He instructed us to put together a nuclear
    posture review that has set Vladimir Putin on his ear because
    of its robustness and the recapitalization of our nuclear
    program. He has kicked out 60 spies. We banned Kaspersky. He
    put $11 billion----
        Senator Udall. Mr. Secretary, you have already----
        Secretary Pompeo. No, Senator. Actually I have not even
    begun describing----
        Senator Udall. No, no, no. But you have not answered my
    question. So let me try it a little different way.
        Would you not want to know as Secretary of State--I mean, I
    am taking you and your sincerity here as Secretary of State--
    whether all these Russian financial interests, oligarchs, and
    others are part of the decision-making of the President? I
    mean, would you not want that out in the open and to understand
    what went on at Helsinki? It is an easy kind of yes or no
    question.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I do not need secondhand
    understandings of what President Trump is instructing his
    administration to do to push back against Russia. I have
    firsthand understandings.
        Senator Udall. Well, let me ask the question a little bit
    differently here.
        Secretary Pompeo. We have opposed Nordstream 2. We have got
    a four by 30 out of NATO that also is a big setback for Russia.
    I mean, I am happy to continue the list. I am happy to cease
    there. But I will submit the entirety of this administration's
    actions against Russia for the record, if I might.
        Senator Udall. Please do.
        Secretary Pompeo. We will back a truck up and get it on in
    here.

        [The information was not available at time of print]

        Senator Udall. Candidate Trump has failed to keep his
    promise to disclose his tax returns. Every presidential
    candidate since Richard Nixon has disclosed. Jimmy Carter even
    sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest. The
    situation with President Trump's potential foreign policy
    conflicts of interest is unprecedented and unacceptable. And
    under the Emoluments Clause, I think it is unconstitutional as
    well.
        But let me just ask a couple of questions about Helsinki.
    You talked about what you were tasked with. The Director of
    National Intelligence Coats stated at the Aspen Security Forum
    that he did not know what happened during the one-on-one
    meeting in Helsinki.
        Did the President personally debrief you on this
    conversation, and are you 100 percent confident that you know
    everything that President Trump discussed with President Putin?
    That is a very easy yes or no. If you do not want to answer it,
    I will move on to the next one. Is it a yes or a no?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am very confident that I received a
    comprehensive debriefing from President Trump.
        Senator Udall. Good. Okay.
        Now, do you know for a fact whether President Trump or
    President Putin discussed any investments in Trump properties
    or any Trump projects such as the previous attempt to build a
    Trump real estate project in Moscow?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, again, I am going to try and
    stay out of the political circus. That question gets to the
    political circus.
        Senator Udall. Sir, were you tasked with that? You gave us
    a list of what you were tasked ----
        Secretary Pompeo. I came here to talk about American
    foreign policy today. I have attempt to articulate President
    Trump's policy with respect to Russia.
        Senator Udall. All of these business interests are
    entwined, sir, with our foreign policy.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, a foreign policy that has led to a
    massive defense buildup, a nuclear posture review that has
    frightened Vladimir Putin, 60 spies, I mean, 213 sanctions.
        Senator Udall. Let me also ask you about an additional
    question on Helsinki.
        Secretary Pompeo. When I was a Member of Congress, I tried
    desperately to get President Obama to do one of those things
    and was unsuccessful.
        Senator Udall. When President Trump hosted top Russian
    officials at the White House last year, he bragged about how he
    had fired James Comey. At his press conference with Putin,
    President Trump called Special Counselor Mueller's
    investigation a disaster for the country.
        Can you tell us what President Trump discussed about the
    investigation during his private meeting with President Putin?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am not going to talk about private----
        Senator Udall. Well, were you tasked with anything in that
    respect?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, when I am tasked about something
    for American foreign policy, I promise you this committee will
    know.
        Senator Udall. Okay. And you were not tasked with anything
    there.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, when I am tasked with something
    by the President that relates to foreign policy, I assure you
    that this committee will be made aware of it.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Gardner?
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service to the
    country and your time with us today.
        When you were last here, I asked you a question about
    whether or not you agreed with Secretary Mattis that North
    Korea is the most urgent security threat the United States
    faces. In light of recent developments, do you still agree with
    that? At the time, you said that you did.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. It is still a real priority.
        Senator Gardner. Do you believe it is the most urgent
    national security threat?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do. But having said that, I do not
    recall the precise timing when I was here.
        Senator Gardner. I think it was in April perhaps.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. So it is. The fact that we are
    having conversations and we have not had additional missile
    tests and nuclear testing--maybe it is still a priority. I do
    not know how to think about it, but I am optimistic that we are
    headed on a path that is the right direction and we just got to
    get the rate of change right.
        Senator Gardner. The testimony--you used the term ``final,
    fully verified denuclearization.'' In previous testimony, you
    have used the word ``permanent,'' verifiable, irreversible
    denuclearization. U.S. law says complete, verifiable,
    irreversible denuclearization. U.N. resolutions call for
    complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.
        Are these the same terms? Do they mean the same thing?
        Secretary Pompeo. Precisely the same thing.
        Senator Gardner. Exactly. Full, complete, total
    denuclearization according to U.S. law and U.N. security
    resolutions.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Gardner. Why the different words?
        Secretary Pompeo. Sometimes one needs to just break away. I
    am happy to use the term ``complete, verifiable, irreversible
    denuclearization.'' Yes, they mean the same thing.
        Senator Gardner. Okay.
        The CVID declaration or determination--was that directly
    addressed at the Singapore summit with President Trump and
    Chairman Kim?
        Secretary Pompeo. It was.
        Senator Gardner. And it was brought up--the complete,
    verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. Why was it not in
    the communique following the Singapore summit?
        Secretary Pompeo. I would rather not talk about the course
    of the negotiations and how we arrived at the language that we
    did.
        Senator Gardner. Okay.
        Is North Korea still moving or making advancements,
    undertaking a nuclear program?
        Secretary Pompeo. May I answer that question in a different
    setting?
        Senator Gardner. You cannot answer that question here?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I would prefer not to.
        The Chairman. We would love to provide that setting for you
    soon.
        Secretary Pompeo. Happy to do it if we need to. I am happy
    to do that.
        Senator, I am not trying to be cute. We are engaged in a
    complex negotiation with a difficult adversary, and each of the
    activities that we undertake is not going to be fully apparent
    to the world at the moment it is undertaken. And there will be
    processes and discussions that will be had that are important
    that they not be real-time disclosed. And as I answer one
    question and then choose not to answer another, it becomes
    patently obvious why I chose not to answer one or the other.
    And therefore, it seems to me that a blanket prohibition on
    heading down that path is the only way to ensure that I have
    the opportunity to negotiate this thing in a way that is not
    being done in ``The Washington Post'' and ``The New York
    Times.''
        Senator Gardner. I understand. I think is a very important
    point of information that we get, though, to know whether or
    not North Korea is either overtly, covertly, however they are
    doing it, making advancements in their nuclear program or still
    continuing a measure of their nuclear program. I think it is
    very important for us----
        Secretary Pompeo. So I did answer one question that touches
    on that at least. I answered a question--I think it was from
    Senator Markey--about whether they are continuing to create
    fissile material. I answered that, indeed, that they are.
        Senator Gardner. The goal originally I think was complete,
    verifiable, irreversible denuclearization by the end of the
    President's first term. Is that correct?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. Does that remain the goal?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, more quickly, if possible.
        Senator Gardner. When will we know if North Korea is moving
    toward denuclearization, concrete, verifiable steps?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not know. I do not know the answer
    to that. I could not tell you what day.
        And by the way, I am guessing this group would disagree
    about when that moment took place. That is a process for sure.
    And some will find the first step along the way a demonstration
    of--I think you said--substantial progress. Others may want to
    wait until we are almost done to declare substantial progress.
    So I cannot answer that. It is definitely a process and will
    definitely take time.
        Senator Gardner. We have had a lot of discussions in this
    committee on strategic patience. The statement you used uses
    patient diplomacy. Is the U.S. doctrine toward North Korea
    still one of maximum pressure?
        Secretary Pompeo. It is. I will tell you that difference is
    a little bit subtle and perhaps--I do not want to overstate the
    difference in the language. Here is what is different.
    Strategic patience was in our judgment standing around hoping
    that something worked right. Here we have a strategic objective
    backed up with diplomatic and economic pressure, which we
    believe gives us a pathway to achieve the objective and also an
    off ramp in the event that we conclude that it does not work,
    to head another direction to achieve the denuclearization of
    North Korea.
        Senator Gardner. Maximum pressure utilizes section 102 of
    the North Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act, which
    requires the President to initiate investigations into possible
    designations of persons upon evidence that they are violating--
    proliferating activities, et cetera so that we can apply
    additional sanctions.
        How many investigations into new designations are taking
    place right now?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not know how many, Senator, but I
    may try and answer your question in another way and see if this
    meets the bill. It is the case that this administration is
    continuing to work on enforcement actions for the existing
    sanctions regime. That is, we are not going to let it wander
    off. We are not going to let it weaken. You cannot rename a
    ship and get out from underneath the sanctions regime. There is
    active enforcement work being done at the State Department and
    at the Department of the Treasury related to North Korea.
        Senator Gardner. So it is your view that there are
    additional North Korean or Chinese entities that could be
    identified for additional sanctions. Is that correct?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes, sir.
        Senator Gardner. And those designations are not being
    upheld or laid off. They will continue?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are going to use them in a way that we
    think increases the likelihood that Chairman Kim fulfills the
    commitment that he made to President Trump.
        Senator Gardner. And why have we not seen any designations
    recently?
        Secretary Pompeo. I cannot answer that question.
        Senator Gardner. I would like to get an answer for that, if
    we could.
        Has South Korea made additional requests to the United
    States for sanctions relief as it relates to additional
    activities with North Korea?
        Secretary Pompeo. So I think the requests that South Korea
    has made are public and have occurred through the committee up
    at the United Nations. So I think the list of things that the
    South Koreans are requesting in terms of either making sure
    that their activity is consistent with the sanctions regime--
    there are exceptions. There are humanitarian exceptions. And so
    there are----
        Senator Gardner. And is the U.S. considering any of those
    sanctions, granting any of those sanctions?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are reviewing each of the requests
    that the North Koreans made. We approved one----
        Senator Gardner. South Koreans.
        Secretary Pompeo. I am sorry. South Korea, yes. I am sorry.
    Thank you for the correction.
        We approved one that had to do with a military-to-military
    communications channel. The others are currently under review.
        Senator Gardner. If we could perhaps get an understanding
    of what some of those measures are, that would be great.
        You gave a speech, a very good speech, Sunday, July 22nd on
    Iran policy at the Reagan Library, as you mentioned. If you
    were to substitute the word ``Iran'' out and substitute in the
    word ``North Korea,'' would your speech still accurately
    describe the state of affairs in North Korea?
        Secretary Pompeo. Boy, it was a long speech, Senator.
        Senator Gardner. Basically----
        Secretary Pompeo. I think in large part it would be
    consistent. There is a difference in terms of their operational
    capacity for their nuclear program, but the nature of the two
    regimes is similar.
        Senator Gardner. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        The Chairman. Before turning to Senator Merkley, I am going
    to use a little bit of my time.
        You obviously acquit yourself very well, and those of us
    who know you and work with you have mostly--I know many of us--
    I will include me and I will say most of us actually. We have
    tremendous faith in your ability to make things happen, and we
    thank you for all the issues you are taking on. You are
    building a great culture in the State Department, bringing on
    people that are truly exemplary.
        We feel the same way about Secretary Mattis, the way he
    conducts himself and what he does. I think there is tremendous
    faith on both sides of the aisle in his abilities and what he
    does.
        Much of what you are hearing today has nothing whatsoever
    to do with you, and I would agree with you that the policies
    that we are putting in place in many cases are stronger than
    have ever been put in place. I agree with you.
        It is the President that causes people to have concerns.
    And I would love to have some insights into you as to--for
    instance, at the Helsinki conference to create an equivalence
    between our intelligence agency and what Putin is saying, that
    shocks people. I mean, you can imagine. You saw Dan Coats'
    response afterwards and yours today I think candidly was
    related to what he said at Helsinki.
        And then the notion of even thinking about exchanging
    diplomats, sending diplomats over to be interrogated by Putin,
    to even think about that, to let that be said as an official
    statement coming out of the White House to--this is my opinion,
    and I believe it is right.
        To purposely cause the American people to misunderstand
    about the NATO contributions and to cause them to doubt NATO
    and to really drive public opinion against NATO--that to me was
    purposeful, not unlike what happened right after
    Charlottesville.
        And then article 5. To go on television and say, you know,
    why would we honor--I am paraphrasing, but why would we honor
    article 5 in Montenegro? You know, we passed a law--I think
    only two people dissented--to ascend them into NATO. He signed
    it. I mean, it would be a dereliction of duty if he did cause
    that to be the case.
        So why does he do those things? I mean, is there some
    strategy behind creating doubt in U.S. Senators' minds on both
    sides of the aisle, doubt in the American people as to what his
    motivations are when we, in fact, have tremendous faith in you?
    I think you are a patriot. Tremendous faith in Mattis. But it
    is the President's actions that create tremendous distrust in
    our nation. Among our allies, it is palpable. We meet and talk
    with them. Is there a strategy to this, or what is it that
    causes the President to purposely--purposely--create distrust
    in these institutions and what we are doing?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I just disagree with most of
    what you just said there. You somehow disconnect the
    administration's activities from the President's actions. They
    are one and the same. Every sanction that was put in place was
    signed off by the President of the United States. Every spy
    that was removed was directed by the President----
        The Chairman. Go to the points I just made. Go to the
    points I just made. Talk to them. Talk to them. I know what we
    are doing. Talk to the points I just made.
        Secretary Pompeo. Here is what the world needs to know.
    With respect to Russia, this administration has been tougher
    than previous administrations, and I fully expect it will. The
    President's own words were he is happy to figure out if we can
    make improvements with respect to the relationship between he
    and Vladimir Putin and change the course. But if not, he will
    be their--I will get the words wrong. He will be their toughest
    enemy, most difficult enemy. I think I can prove that that is
    the case today. I think I have.
        And so somehow there is this idea that this administration
    is free floating. This is President Trump's administration.
    Make no mistake who is fully in charge of this and who was
    directing each of these activities that has caused Vladimir
    Putin to be in a very difficult place today.
        The Chairman. Well, look, you handle yourself in exactly
    the way you should in my opinion as it relates to comments. I
    notice that you are not responding to what I am saying.
        Secretary Pompeo. I think I responded to everything that
    you have said, Senator.
        The Chairman. No, you did not. And the fact is that--you
    just did not. Okay?
        Secretary Pompeo. We disagree, Senator.
        The Chairman. No. We do not disagree. Let us run the
    transcript again if you want to talk about it.
        But the fact is----
        Secretary Pompeo. All right. We will let the world decide.
        The Chairman.--it is the President's public statements that
    create concern amongst Senators on both sides of the aisle. And
    I was asking you if, in fact, there was some rhyme or reason
    that this type of distrust or discord will be created. I know
    you are not going to answer the question. I am trying to make a
    point as to why----
        Secretary Pompeo. I know you are.
        The Chairman. --why the opening comments and the questions
    and just the energy behind this hearing are what they are. It
    is not about you, and it is not about Mattis, and it is not
    what we are doing on the ground.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you went through a long litany
    of statements. First of all, I will tell you I talk to the same
    allies you do. I speak to their foreign ministers directly. It
    is the case that they are behaving differently today. There is
    no doubt about that. They are now scrambling to figure out how
    to make sure that they are fully part of NATO. Some of that is
    a result of the statements that you referred to, Senator. Some
    of that is identifying Nordstream 2----
        The Chairman. I actually agree with that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Right. Well, there you go. I will let the
    record reflect that Senator Corker agreed----
        The Chairman. I will say some of----
        Secretary Pompeo. --that some of these statements actually
    achieve important policy outcomes for the United States of
    America.
        The Chairman. Some of them do.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        The Chairman. And some of them are very damaging.
        Senator Merkley?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        So in response to Senator Barrasso's question on New START,
    I wanted to follow up a little bit. Both the United States and
    Russia came into compliance in February 2018, met the deadline
    on deployed nuclear warheads. But my impression from your
    dialogue was the U.S. does not yet have a position on whether
    to work to extend the New START agreement past 2021.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is correct. We are very hopeful that
    we can achieve--we view them--they are individual agreements as
    a legal matter, and they can be worked on independently. But
    the deterrence model, the underpinnings, the framework of these
    nuclear agreements--they are connected whether they be things
    covered by New START, things covered by the INF Treaty, other
    provisions. They are of a part, and it is the case that we
    are--as we begin to evaluate how to approach that, we are
    trying to do it in a holistic way.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        I think I can anticipate that this will be something that
    you and your team will be working on in the year ahead, setting
    the groundwork for understanding the options there. Thank you.
        So Russia oil tankers reportedly supplied fuel to North
    Korea via sea transfers several times in 2017. President Trump
    made a reference in which he talked about saying that what
    China is helping us with, Russia is denting. And then he says
    specifically also Russia is not helping us at all with North
    Korea.
        Did this issue of Russia bypassing the U.N. sanctions come
    up in the conversation between President Putin and President
    Trump?
        Secretary Pompeo. I think I can answer that question
    because I believe President Trump has talked about this. In
    fact, Russia's commitment to help us achieve denuclearization
    of North Korea did come up. The two of them did discuss it. And
    the centrality of continuing to enforce the U.N. Security
    Council resolutions, resolutions that the Russians voted for,
    were raised between the two of them. I heard in a subsequent
    meeting, at which I was present--I heard Vladimir Putin
    reiterate his commitment to doing each of those two things.
        Senator Merkley. And to follow up on your conversation with
    Tim Kaine about the communique from the Singapore summit and
    the details that need to be worked out in regard to having a
    survey to just the starting point, if you will, of a detailed
    nuclear agreement, when you have an agreement regarding the
    details of how such a survey of North Korean missiles, nuclear
    materials, and so forth--when you have that agreement, will you
    brief this committee on that?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am sure we will be able to
    share some elements of that with you. I am harkening back to
    the Iran agreement, the JCPOA, in which they provided a
    declaration which was knowingly false--that is, the
    administration knew did not reflect accurately the history of
    the Iranian weapons program. I promise you I will not do that.
    I promise you I will not lie about the contents of their
    declaration. If we disagree or if we think they are wrong, we
    will acknowledge that. I will have to think through precisely
    how, in the appropriate way, we would share that information
    with you. But you have my commitment not to allow a false
    declaration to form a fundamental pillar of a nuclear agreement
    in the way that it did with JCPOA.
        Senator Merkley. I will tell you we all had privy not just
    to a briefing on it but to the actual document and details. And
    so we had that standard. In fact, those were made public as
    well.
        Would you expect to meet those two standards eventually----
        Secretary Pompeo. When the agreement is complete, yes. I
    was thinking you were talking about sort of during the process.
    I believe those documents were made public at the time that the
    legislation was being considered and when the agreement was
    final. We hope to bring this agreement to Congress, and it is,
    of course, the case that you would need to see the
    underpinnings of that agreement. And part of that would be--
    there will probably be a series of declarations associated with
    it.
        Senator Merkley. I will tell you it did bother me some that
    because those details have not been worked out yet, that the
    President already conceded to setting aside the joint exercises
    with South Korea. Were the South Korean leaders briefed in
    advance of that announcement?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I am going to leave that to the
    Department of Defense to answer. It would have been conducted
    between--in military channels.
        Senator Merkley. President Trump blamed poor relations with
    Russia on U.S. foolishness. And I am surprised he blamed U.S.
    foolishness rather than Russia annexation of Crimea, of their
    occupation of eastern Ukraine, of their attacks on individuals
    in Britain, of their support of the Syrian Government when the
    Syrian Government is using barrel bombs and gas on its own
    people, and given Russia's significant cyber-attack on our
    elections. Do you believe that the poor relations with Russia
    is a result of U.S. foolishness?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I think there are countless
    reasons. You identified several. I could go on about the reason
    that we find ourselves in this place with Vladimir Putin and
    his regime today. Not a good place, to be sure, a place that
    the President is working to develop a relationship to try and
    reconfigure at least at the level of making sure these two
    leaders understand each other and know how each other are
    thinking about the problem set. I think that is important and
    appropriate, and hopefully he can be successful in that.
        Senator Merkley. It is a nice essay. It did not answer my
    question, but I will go on.
        The President has also said there is no longer a nuclear
    threat from North Korea and that we could all sleep well. Given
    that we do not yet have an agreement on even surveying the
    stockpile of what North Korea has or an agreement on
    eliminating their weapons or their missiles or an agreement on
    verification strategies, should we not more accurately approach
    this from the viewpoint that there is still a nuclear threat
    from North Korea? The President's team is working to eliminate
    it, but it is still a nuclear threat as of today.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I think the President would agree
    that the primary systems that have threatened America continue
    to exist. I think what his comment was, was that the tension
    had been greatly reduced. We are at a point where it is
    possible that there could be a miscalculation.
        Senator Merkley. I have got 20 seconds. So I wanted to ask
    you one last question on a completely different topic.
        Fortify Rights, a human rights group that traveled to Burma
    to document what happened with the Rohingya, came out with a
    report detailing devastating atrocities, which you have also
    seen from elsewhere. And we also have the report that Senator
    Brownback, our Ambassador on Religious Freedom, is making.
        Is it time for the Senate to act on the sanctions against
    the Burmese military that we passed out of the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee?
        Secretary Pompeo. I will leave it to Senators to decide if
    it is time for the Senate to act. I can only say that the
    underpinnings that you described, the atrocities you described
    are very real.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I would say this is the type of
    thing were executive leadership makes a difference in giving
    direction to this body. And so that is why I was seeking your
    and the President's opinion on whether it is time to really
    send a strong message against such ethnic cleansing and
    genocide.
        Can we expect such leadership from the President or
    yourself?
        Secretary Pompeo. I remember what Secretary Tillerson did
    before me on this issue. You can be sure that we will be
    serious and lead on this important issue.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Young?
        Senator Young. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I appreciate your
    stamina. You have been here for quite a while.
        I want to let you know how much I appreciate your
    leadership as you have filled this role during this tumultuous
    period in international relations. I have to say since you have
    taken this position, the interaction our office has had with
    members of the Department of State and with you individually
    has really markedly improved. And so I am appreciative of that.
        One of the axioms of diplomatic or military strategy is
    that you want to unite your allies and divide your enemies. And
    as I see it, this is one of the things that Vladimir Putin has
    been succeeding in doing. He seeks to divide and weaken NATO,
    for example. He wants to divide the American people. And the
    more we make Russia's meddling in our own elections a partisan
    issue, I think the more we play into Putin's hands.
        The intelligence community has been clear and consistent.
    Russia did, indeed, meddle in our elections. So I think we need
    to stand together as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats
    with respect to this issue. What are your thoughts on this
    matter, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I think it is the case that the
    Soviet Union and now Russia's efforts to undermine Western
    democracy are long and continuous. I think they occurred in
    2016. I am confident that the Russians are endeavoring to
    divide, to separate us from our allies to create space to find
    partners for themselves around the world in the same way that
    we will go out and work diligently with our allies. I always
    think that having a united United States, folks who come at
    these problems with seriousness and thoughtfulness towards a
    shared goal, increases the likelihood of America prevailing in
    these challenges--against these challenges.
        Senator Young. Well, I happen to agree with you. I hope
    that my colleagues and I will adopt a tone and approach to this
    very serious issue which impacts all Americans in recognition
    of everything you just said.
        Mr. Secretary, just about an hour ago, President Trump
    convened a joint press conference with the President of the
    European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. And in the press
    conference, both the presidents announced they were going to
    launch a bilateral U.S.-EU set of negotiations with the goal of
    reducing terrorists, increasing economic cooperation between
    the EU and the United States, and working together to counter
    the predatory economic practices that we have seen from
    countries like China.
        I cannot tell you how encouraged I am by this. I think with
    our collective leverage brought to bear, perhaps even
    ultimately pulling in other G7 countries like the Japanese, we
    have a real possibility of reducing the intellectual property
    theft, reducing the incidents of forced technology transfer, of
    state-owned enterprises dumping things into our economy,
    precisely the sorts of objectives I know the administration
    has.
        So do you agree that the United States, moving forward, has
    to prioritize a trade dialogue with the EU in order to
    eliminate current retaliatory tariffs on farmers and
    manufacturers in places like Indiana, as well as to effectively
    combat China's nefarious activities?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Do not forget Kansas farmers too.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Pompeo. So I do not have the benefit of having
    seen the press conference. I was sitting here. I did not see
    the announcement or what they said. I know this was one of the
    things that President Trump was trying to accomplish in his
    conversations with Mr. Juncker. It sounds like they made at
    least some progress in that regard.
        Look, the President has been clear with respect to trade
    policy. The Europeans will not accept our agriculture products.
    There are other markets that are closed to us. He is
    endeavoring to get them opened. He is trying to drive towards
    zero, zero, zero; zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and
    zero subsidies. That is the place he is trying to get the whole
    world, and he is confident that when we get there, Americans
    will out-compete the rest of the world. And whether it is
    manufacturers or innovators or farmers or all of the above,
    they will ultimately be very successful, and there will be
    enormous wealth creation not only in the states but elsewhere
    as well.
        Senator Young. Well, I will just add that I find this
    effort of working cooperatively with the EU and other major
    economies as coherent and workable, if we are trying to really
    address the greatest challenges, which is those seen by the
    state capitalist countries, China being the worst offender. I
    do not have as much clarity with respect to our trade strategy
    as I would like to. That is one of the reasons that I keep
    emphasizing I think we need to actually have a written one,
    just as we do a National Security Strategy. But I am very
    appreciative of President Trump's announcement today.
        Lastly, Mr. Secretary, I would like to call to your
    attention that my home State of Indiana is home to 23,000
    Burmese Americans. And as I travel the state and listen to so
    many of my constituents that are Burmese Americans, they
    reiterate to me three things. Number one, they express grave
    concern regarding the Burmese military's atrocities against the
    Rohingya, and they want to see those perpetrators brought to
    justice. Number two, they reiterate a desire to expand people-
    to-people ties between Burma and the United States. And
    thirdly, they express concern regarding the treatment of Chin
    Christians in Burma.
        Now, I note that you are hosting this week the Ministerial
    to Advance Religious Freedom focused on combating religious
    persecution and discrimination. And as we appropriately address
    within that forum the Rohingya crisis, I would just ask the
    Department to continue to also make clear to the Burmese
    Government that all religious minorities, including Christians,
    should be respected.
        So, Mr. Secretary, will the Department of State work with
    my office to not only continue our joint efforts related to the
    Rohingya, which I support, but also to encourage the Burmese
    Government to end any policies whatsoever that treat Christians
    as second-class citizens?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, Senator, we will.
        Senator Young. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Murphy?
        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
        I certainly associate myself with many of the comments by
    the chairman about the administration. The President is making
    up foreign policy on a day-by-day basis. I think you have got a
    tiger by the tail. You have a difficult and enviable job, and I
    appreciate you spending so much time with us here this morning.
        We focus on words from the President because our allies and
    our adversaries listen to those words, and they calibrate their
    actions based upon those words. While you are right that the
    President, about 20 to 30 hours later, did correct himself
    after the Helsinki summit to say that he did, indeed, agree
    with U.S. intelligence services and not with Putin, 5 days
    later he went back on Twitter and said this. So President Obama
    knew about Russia before the election. Why did he not do
    something about it? Why did he not tell our campaign? Because
    it is all a big hoax. That is why. That is the most recent
    statement from the President saying that Russia's interference
    in the election is all a big hoax.
        So I guess my question is why should we not accept this
    most recent statement from the President as U.S. policy rather
    than the statement that you referenced on July 17th?
        Secretary Pompeo. Well, Senator, I cannot go through the
    litany of all the statements you just gave. I have a list from
    January `17, June `17, July `17, again July in `17, November
    `17, March `17. I am happy to go through them, each of which
    the President confirmed that he understood that Russia had
    meddled in the election. And then I could give you--although I
    could not recount them, I could tell you numbers of times when
    I was personally with him where he told me directly he
    understood that and indeed, provided guidance to--at this time
    it was the intelligence community. But I think he gave similar
    guidance throughout the government that we needed to do all we
    could to push back on election interference. And I have a
    catalog of activities that this administration has undertaken
    to do just that.
        Senator Murphy. So then what do you make of his most recent
    statement----
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I will leave you--you can
    speculate. You can draw whatever inferences you want for
    whatever purposes you so choose. Here is what I can tell you. I
    can tell our allies----
        Senator Murphy. There is no inference. I mean, it is a
    statement from the President in which he says that the Russian
    interference in the U.S. election is a hoax from July 22nd.
    There is no inference that I need to draw from that. That is
    the President's statement.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you are certainly trying to draw
    inferences about American policy, and I am laying out for you
    American policy.
        And I am happy--let me talk to you about what we have done
    on election interference, if I might.
        Senator Murphy. I understand. I understand that you draw a
    distinction between the President's comments and U.S. policy.
    What I am trying to suggest to you is that what the President
    says is U.S. policy because our allies and our adversaries make
    decisions based upon those comments.
        And so let me try to drill down on a specific issue that
    Senator Corker raised, and that is the comments the President
    made regarding our potential defense or non-defense of
    Montenegro.
        Tucker Carlson asked him a question, suggesting that
    Montenegro is too small to be defended, and the President
    responded by saying, I understand what you are saying. I have
    asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very
    strong people.
        Now, I know you are going to tell me today that the
    official policy of the United States is to defend Montenegro
    and to defend our NATO allies. But can you understand why we
    would be concerned that the President would draw a question as
    to whether we would defend Montenegro? Because in the end, that
    is a communication of Vladimir Putin about whether the
    President is going to come to NATO's defense. As you know, an
    attack on NATO will not be a Russian army moving across the
    border. It will be a hybrid attack, a disguised attack. There
    will be some question as to whether the United States should
    respond or not.
        So can you at least understand why we are concerned about
    the President raising questions about the utility of the United
    States defending Montenegro?
        Secretary Pompeo. So I think the President has been
    unambiguously clear. And I can go read you his policies.
        Senator Murphy. And if you are going to his policies or the
    separate statements, I am asking you about this statement.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, because----
        Senator Murphy. Explain it to us. What did he mean?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, the policies are themselves
    statements as well. Indeed, they are the most important
    statements that the administration makes.
        Senator Murphy. Well, policies are statements and
    statements are policies. It goes both ways.
        Secretary Pompeo. No, that is not true. That is absolutely
    not true. I make lots of statements. They are not U.S. policy.
    The President says things. The President makes comments in
    certain places. We have a National Security Council. We meet.
    We lay out strategies. We develop policies. Right?
        Senator Murphy. So how do I know the difference?
        Secretary Pompeo. The President then sets the course.
        Senator Murphy. How do I know the difference between a
    presidential statement that is not a policy and a statement
    that is?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, here is what you should look at.
    Compare the following. Barack Obama speaking tough on Russia
    and doing nothing.
        Senator Murphy. I understand you want to rewrite the Obama
    policy on Russia, but that is simply not true. You organize----
        Secretary Pompeo. Okay. Let us go. Let us go, Senator. Let
    us go----
        Senator Murphy. --all over the world to put a
    comprehensive, unprecedented set of sanctions on Russia.
        Secretary Pompeo. The man said he would have more
    flexibility after the election.
        Senator Murphy. I am not--listen, my question was not
    about--is not about--I know you want to turn constantly back to
    President Obama.
        Secretary Pompeo. No. I just want to look at facts and
    policies, Senator. I am trying to get to U.S. policy. It is
    what I do. I am America's chief diplomat implementing U.S.
    policy.
        Senator Murphy. I think you have been dealt a tough hand
    and you do a credible job with it.
        Let me turn--let me ask a less adversarial question to end
    with.
        You said two very important things on North Korea. You said
    that they have agreed to denuclearize and that they understand
    our definition of denuclearization.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is correct.
        Senator Murphy. What is most important is that those two
    statements link, is that they have agreed to denuclearize
    according to our definition of denuclearization. Is that your
    testimony today?
        Secretary Pompeo. The definition was set forward, and
    denuclearization was agreed to. I do not know how else to----
        Senator Murphy. I am not trying to give you a hard time. I
    am just trying to understand.
        Secretary Pompeo. And I am trying to articulate what has
    been agreed to. We made clear what we viewed as the scope of
    denuclearization. It is not dissimilar to what the U.N.--how
    the U.N. has characterized it and how the South Koreans have
    characterized it. And when we did that, the North Koreans said,
    yes, we agree to denuclearize.
        Senator Murphy. So your understanding is their commitment
    is upon our definition.
        Secretary Pompeo. It is, Senator. Yes.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Before turning to Senator Isakson, so in
    essence the communique that we saw coming out of the Singapore
    meeting--that is the sum total of the agreement we have with
    them.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. We have also had conversations after
    that. It is also the case that that agreement incorporated the
    Panmunjeom Declaration which, in turn, incorporated previous
    inter-Korean agreements as well. So the Singapore summit is
    stacked on a series of agreements, each of which is encompassed
    within the agreement between President Trump and Chairman Kim.
    So you can look to the full breadth and scope of those
    agreements about things the North Koreans have committed to.
        The Chairman. And, look, I do not think any of us would
    expect that there would be a meeting in Singapore and all the
    issues would be worked out. I think we all understand it is
    going to take a long time to get this all worked out.
        Senator Isakson?
        Senator Isakson. I spent all week trying to come up with
    intuitive, brilliant, incisive questions to ask you,
    recognizing how intelligent and articulate you are, and I ran
    into everything except one thing. I had it written down here it
    would be the first question I would ask you, and then, by
    golly, the president of the EU had an agreement while we are
    sitting in here listening to this that answered my question.
    But I want to repeat it anyway.
        Are you seeing consequences of the trade proposals of the
    President's, particularly the 232 and the tariffs being
    applied, having any impact diplomatically on the United States
    of America?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Senator Isakson. I do too. And the reason I brought it up
    is this. Actions have consequences, and I hope the
    administration will look to the State Department for insight
    and advice on the effects of the tariffs on the diplomacy of
    the United States of America vis-a-vis the rest of the world
    because it has a significant impact because agriculture is the
    number one thing upon which we are going to get levied the
    punitive tariffs by the people we are trying to raise tariffs
    on now. We feed the world. We are the free world's bread
    basket. This committee has passed the Feed the Future
    legislation some time ago, but we are going to be in deep
    trouble if we do not have a policy that recognizes both our
    responsibility and the world's need and food's importance in
    peace and security.
        So not to lecture you because I would not do that. You have
    forgotten more than I know. But I do know that the President's
    proposals and the tariffs are serious business and he needs to
    consider the consequences on the diplomacy of the United States
    and hunger in the world.
        So I will let you respond to that.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I think the President
    appreciates that. I think he understands that the tariffs that
    have been imposed have a diplomatic effect. They are part of my
    broader effort, to be sure. Some of those things create
    difficulties. Some of those things create real opportunities.
    We have seen each from the sanctions that have been levied to
    date. And I know President Trump--it sounds like he made some
    progress today with the EU. I have watched Secretary Mnuchin,
    Bob Lighthizer, and the team try to use the effect of those
    tariffs to achieve good outcomes so that farmers can have
    access to markets, so that we get energy sold to countries that
    refused to take our energy. Each of those things are important
    parts of the President's agenda to try and create wealth for
    ordinary Americans.
        Senator Isakson. And I commend the administration's
    commitment to zero, zero, zero being the goal, as far as the
    trade policy is concerned. But getting to that goal is going to
    require good communication between all facets of our
    government, including yourself and the State Department.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
        Senator Isakson. And that was the point I was trying to
    make.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
        Senator Isakson. I also am sorry Senator Paul left because
    I was going to begin my remarks by saying I agreed with him on
    something, and I do not always do that. But you all want to
    need to tell him that I prefaced my remarks.
        But he is right about not being afraid of meeting with
    Vladimir Putin and the Russians. Meetings with these people in
    my judgment are not as bad as a lot of people have professed
    them to be. I have seen some people who have said we ought to
    back up from meeting with him. But I think the more open we can
    be in meeting with the leadership of countries we are having to
    deal with one way or another, the more it forces them to be
    open.
        What the President has done, when he went to North Korea,
    is all of a sudden Kim Jong Un, sitting on the other side of
    the table, said I am sitting across the table with the
    President of the United States. The world media is here and
    they are looking to me for answers. And all of a sudden, after
    it is all over and the pomp and circumstance is all over, North
    Korea has got to be accountable or it is going to have pressure
    to be accountable. So I think the President's engaging these
    leaders makes an awful lot of sense in terms of bringing them
    out to surface in the dealings that we have with them. And I
    just wanted to throw that in there because I think it is an
    important thing.
        Lastly, on bipartisanship, Senator Coons is here who, by
    the way, had a significant role in your getting confirmed, as
    you know, and you and I have talked about that. So I am proud
    of my friend Chris Coons and I am proud of you, and you are a
    great choice for Secretary of State.
        But he and I have worked together on State Department
    issues and trade issues and tariff issues on behalf of poultry
    in the United States of America and particularly with the South
    Africans. We cracked down the door here 2 years ago and now we
    are getting 19 million metric tons of chickens from Delaware
    and Georgia sold to the South Africans who love them and are
    eating them.
        And it pointed out to me, once again, to reinforce what I
    did in my first statement about agriculture. We have such a
    powerful force with our agricultural productivity and the level
    to which we have taken it in our technology in agriculture. We
    need to use that as a tool for our relationships around the
    world. And I know you want to do that and want to be a part of
    that. You can help us in doing that because every time we make
    a trade deal that sells Georgia chickens or Delaware chickens
    to the South Africans, is good for Georgia and Delaware, but it
    is good for America too.
        Secretary Pompeo. Amen. I agree, Senator.
        Senator Isakson. Thank you for your service to the country.
        Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I am not sure Senator Coons wanted
    you to advertise that again. I am sure his social media account
    will have a lot of incoming in explaining.
        But with that, Senator Coons. I am thankful for the role
    you play.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was grateful
    for an opportunity to just show a little courtesy to a dear
    friend, Senator Isakson, in that previous incident you are
    referring. And I will, at the risk of not being as gracious as
    I should be, just share that when Senator Isakson and I met
    with the South African minister, that meeting was to hear their
    concerns about the impact of the steel tariffs on a very
    important alliance. Chairman Corker and I recently were in
    Sweden and had a chance to hear from them about their concerns
    about the steel tariffs.
        I am encouraged by the announcement that has just come out
    an hour ago about the meeting with the EU leadership, but
    remain very concerned that some of our closest allies around
    the world are getting the wrong message. In a dinner last night
    with the Canadian Ambassador, a large bipartisan group of us
    were there to try and reassure them. I do think that we should
    be corralling our allies and partners in confronting China's
    aggressive, prolonged, and inappropriate trade actions and
    avoiding some of the needless harm we have caused to close
    alliances. The point of the South African meeting was that they
    are preparing countervailing tariffs that might well shut down
    our access to their market. But I am not here to talk about
    chickens, as much as I do love talking about chickens with my
    friend, Senator Isakson.
        Mr. Secretary, I just want to say first thank you for this
    very long hearing. I want to confirm. A number of Senators have
    asked you pointed questions about progress with North Korea,
    with Russia, issues around Syria and Iran, and you have said
    not in this setting. Will you return soon to brief us in a
    classified setting? Because there is a number of important and
    pressing things we really have not been able to address today.
    Will you come back and give us that classified briefing?
        Secretary Pompeo. Of course.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        And a number of Senators on both sides have recognized that
    you have got an important role in a very difficult time. I want
    to, up front, just say I was pleased to hear about the Crimea
    Declaration. I think it is important for the administration to
    be forceful and clear about our position with regard to
    Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea.
        I remember my whole childhood, there was a little box in
    every American map that said we refused to recognize the
    illegal annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in
    1940. And for decades, folks just thought that was just
    aspirational and would never happen. Today the Baltic States
    are free. They are NATO allies.
        And the chairman and I recently visited Latvia as well and
    heard from them about their determination to remain free and to
    take strong steps against Russia's interference.
        Finland and Latvia, the Baltic States, other allies of ours
    in that region are prepared to invest more in their own defense
    and to strengthen their defenses against Russian interference
    in their upcoming elections. There are elections in Latvia and
    Modolva and Sweden that are happening soon.
        What best practices are you seeing among our European
    allies? What tools do you think the State Department can and
    should be using? And how should we be doing, as you put it,
    everything we can to push back on likely election interference
    by Russia to our vital allies, as well as to our upcoming
    midterm elections?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. It is a good question.
        We, the United States Government, my previous organization
    in the intelligence world did a great deal of work with our
    European partners. We did it with the German election, French
    election, to try to help identify threats and vectors, good,
    solid intelligence sharing. I think that is an underpinning so
    that these governments can understand the threat. Sometimes
    America is better positioned to see them and observe them than
    some of these other countries would that are smaller with fewer
    resources.
        And then I think it is also important--and we have begun to
    do this--that countries begin to share the actions that they
    observed, that is, not only the precursors, the indications,
    but what actually took place to download so that we can begin
    to understand how to push back.
        I think it was Senator Paul who said earlier there are lots
    of variations on the theme. There are overt efforts. There
    are--call them----
        Senator Coons. Covert efforts.
        Secretary Pompeo. The covert efforts. There are influence
    operations. There are lots of methods by which adversaries, not
    just Russia, can attempt to undermine elections in democracies.
    We have an obligation to the Europeans, and it benefits America
    as well if we try and help them ensure that their democracies
    are protected as well.
        Senator Coons. And I do think we would benefit from hearing
    more and more regularly more clearly what we are doing with our
    close allies to convey that we get what is happening to them
    and that we are concerned about what is happening to us.
        Frankly, I want diplomacy to succeed. I prefer an
    environment of diplomacy to one of a perception of imminent
    conflict with either North Korea or Russia.
        And you have been very forceful, even aggressive today in
    advancing the administration's position. As the chairman said
    earlier, a lot of the tension here I think comes from the gaps
    between your forcefulness and clarity and what I perceive and
    many perceive to be the President's lack of forcefulness and
    clarity. In your written statement, you say that President
    Trump has stated, quote, I accept our intelligence community's
    conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took
    place. And then you go on to say, he has a complete and proper
    understanding of what happened.
        My concern, if I could just directly, is that our President
    has never made a clear and comprehensive speech outlining the
    threat posed by Russia, our strategy to respond to it, and
    criticizing directly President Putin for directing the attack
    on our election in 2016.
        Just a few days ago--now I guess more than a week ago--
    Robert Mueller delivered indictments against 12 Russian
    military intelligence officers, GRU officers, calls them out by
    name, gives enormous detail of how Russia attacked our 2016
    election. And one of the ways in which our President then
    undermines the clarity and credibility of that action by our
    Department of Justice is by calling the Mueller investigation a
    rigged witch hunt or by standing next to President Putin in
    Helsinki and suggesting he is uncertain whether our
    intelligence account of what happened in 2016 is the more
    credible or the Russian one.
        Could you please clarify for me? If there are clear
    indicators that Russia continues to interfere in our election
    planning up to this November, would you advise the President to
    rescind an invitation to Vladimir Putin to come and meet in the
    White House? Do you think it is unwise to extend the
    credibility and the prestige of a White House meeting without
    being clear about Putin's threat to our upcoming elections?
        Senator Paul said--and I agree with him--we should meet
    with our adversaries. But as President Reagan did, we need to
    be clear-eyed about who they are and call them out for being
    adversaries before sitting down with them.
        Can you commit to being clear with the President and
    helping us understand whether or not the President clearly
    understands the attack on our election?
        Secretary Pompeo. So I have tried to do that earlier today,
    Senator Coons. I think the President is very clear about that.
    I find it surprising that statements that are made, especially
    a statement like a statement for the record. I mean, you should
    all know the White House cleared that secret. I uttered the
    words. These are President Trump's statements in that sense as
    well. These are statements from the United States Government,
    of which President Trump is very clearly in charge. And somehow
    there is this effort to suggest that they are not that. The
    statements that I have made today are fully consistent with--
    unless I misspoke somewhere along the way, which is possible
    after a couple hours. These are, indeed, the administration--
    President Trump's policies that we are implementing.
        Senator Coons. My core point, Mr. Secretary, was that while
    your statements have been clear, our President's statements
    have confused our allies, encouraged our adversaries, and have
    failed to be comparably clear. And I am concerned that an
    invitation to President Putin to the White House, without
    clarity about his threats to our election, his threats to our
    allies, puts at risk clarity. I welcome the Crimea Declaration
    today. I think that is an important step forward, but I urge
    you, if President Putin attacks our next election, advise
    President Trump to withdraw any invitation to President Putin.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Portman?
        Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming back to testify again.
    You have had a long afternoon. I think you ought to do it more
    often. I mean, while you have been here, we managed to
    negotiate a successful preliminary agreement with the European
    Union. You managed to issue a declaration supporting what many
    of us have been hoping to see with regard to Crimea. And there
    was a third thing that happened, and I do not know if it is
    good or bad. But my understanding is the White House has
    decided to postpone the visit of President Putin until after
    the first of the year.
        Secretary Pompeo. When I left my business, it began to
    succeed as well.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Pompeo. So I will come down here.
        Senator Portman. I think they are waiting until you are
    gone before they make all these decisions. No.
        I want to comment briefly on what you responded to with
    Senator Coons on what tools could we use with regard to pushing
    back on some of the interference in other countries' elections.
    I had hoped that you would say the Global Engagement Center
    because it is a tool you have. And frankly, although Senator
    Murphy and I wrote legislation to give you the authority to do
    it, you have more aggressively used that tool both by providing
    funding for it and now hiring the right people than your
    predecessors.
        And it is precisely this sort of situation. I will give you
    the recent example--it is very important--which is what is
    going on with Macedonia. As they go for their referendum to be
    part of Europe, these European integration efforts tend to be
    the place where the Russians see an opportunity and engage in
    significant disinformation, a great opportunity for us to push
    back in the appropriate way through the Global Engagement
    Center.
        Would you confirm to me that you have thought about that
    and you will think about that in the future?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, of course. May I add one thing that
    I think you will find interesting? When I was with my Russian
    counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, he is very aware of the Global
    Engagement Center.
        Senator Portman. He should be.
        Secretary Pompeo. He raised the issue with me when I met
    him. I think it was when I met with him in person. It may have
    been in a conversation by phone. But in my last interaction
    with him, he raised the issue.
        Senator Portman. As compared to the resources the Russians
    put into their efforts, it is minuscule, as you know, but it is
    significant. And I think it will be done professionally thanks
    to some of the work you have done, and I applaud you for that.
        We discussed at your confirmation hearing in April the need
    for us to focus more on Central and Eastern Europe,
    specifically Ukraine--I had just come back from a trip to
    Ukraine. I had been out in the contact line in April--where
    there is a hot conflict going on, I mean, where there are
    people dying. And it is, when you go there, pretty moving
    because you see how the Ukrainians have had to defend
    themselves and their territorial integrity really for the last
    4 years against Russian aggression.
        And I believe, as I think you do, that a successful pro-
    Western Ukraine is not only critical to the region but I think
    it is the best antidote to Russian expansion in the region.
        Along those lines, I want to commend you for last week
    releasing the $200 million in military assistance. This goes
    for equipment training, other assistance. And I think we have
    not taken enough credit for what happened, which is we told the
    Ukrainians, you need to make reforms. And when I was there in
    April, I talked to President Poroshenko. I also talked to
    Speaker Parubiy then and again last month about this. In fact,
    I talked to him the day after they passed reforms, saying we
    need to see these reforms to your defense system by, frankly,
    getting away from the Russian influence system they had into
    one that is more consistent with European democracies having a
    civilian control of their military, among other things.
        They did that. You then were able to release the $200
    million. That is exactly how it should work. Right?
        So I commend you for that, and I think it is going to make
    a huge difference. The lethal weapons they now have to defend
    themselves makes a huge difference. And so the actions
    sometimes do speak louder than the words, and in those cases, I
    think it is very important.
        On the resolution which you issued today with regard to
    Crimea, I was really happy to read it. I know that many in our
    community in Ohio who follow this closely are pleased with it.
    They believe this puts the United States clearly in the
    position where we will not release sanctions until this issue
    is resolved.
        And I would ask you today, can you confirm that the
    Russians have a clear understanding that sanctions related to
    Crimea will not be able to be reduced or certainly eliminated
    so long as Crimea remains an issue?
        Secretary Pompeo. I think they did before the statement,
    and I am confident after the statement that the President
    released, that will reaffirm their understanding.
        Senator Portman. Do you believe the Russians have a clear
    understanding of the sanctions related to their actions in
    eastern Ukraine along the border cannot be altered without real
    implementation of the Minsk Agreement and the end to that
    aggression?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do.
        Senator Portman. There is a lot of talk about new
    sanctions, as you know, with regard to Russia. And I do support
    us having a better bilateral relationship with Russia. I think
    it is important. We are two major nuclear powers. We have got a
    lot of weapons pointed at us. I also support discussions that
    are prepared. I think it is very important that our statements
    both in private and in public are clear and consistent, and I
    think that needs to happen from the President all the way down
    to our diplomats such as yourself. And again, I think you have
    done that. I think that was the issue with Helsinki.
        In addition to what is going on in the eastern border of
    Ukraine and Crimea, I think there is a clear consensus in the
    national security community, not just the IC, but the national
    security community more broadly about the severity of the short
    and midterm threat that Russia poses. It is espionage. It is
    cyber. It is information capabilities, meddling in the 2016
    elections, and now in the 2018 elections, our intelligence
    communities seem to have a consensus around that, including you
    in your previous role.
        And we have sanctions in place, but they do not seem to be
    working. I mean, that long list that I just gave--they do not
    seem to be working.
        So let me ask you a question, and this is not an easy one
    to answer. But, one, why are they not working? Second, do you
    support new sanctions specifically related to the new
    information we have about 2016 and about 2018 interference in
    our democratic process? And if so, what kind of sanctions would
    be more effective?
        Secretary Pompeo. So your point is well taken. In spite of
    the work that has been done by this administration, there
    continues to be Russian malign activity. We have to use
    sanctions as a tool. You talked about the Global Engagement
    Center. I think there are many tools that we can use. In my
    role as a diplomat, we have a handful, and we are working to do
    what I think it was Senator Rubio at the beginning of this
    hearing described as raise the costs sufficiently and convince
    Vladimir Putin that it is not in his best interest to continue
    this behavior. That is going to be difficult. I know precisely
    who Vladimir Putin is. I know his history. But that is the
    task. The task is for us, the U.S. Government. That includes
    you and the executive branch to raise the costs on Russia
    sufficiently that they cease this malign activity that
    adversely impacts the United States.
        Senator Portman. Do you believe new sanctions are
    appropriate to raise the cost----
        Secretary Pompeo. I do.
        Senator Portman. --this new information we have received?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do, Senator. If we can find the right
    places and the right leverage point, the things that will
    actually make a difference to Russia, I think it would be
    constructive to head down that path.
        Senator Portman. And can you tell us what you think might
    more effective than the previous sanctions that have not been
    effective in accomplishing those means?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not know that I have a great answer
    for you.
        Senator Portman. Do you think it is focusing more on
    individuals, on oligarchs? Do you think it is focusing more on
    some of the economic chokepoints?
        Secretary Pompeo. It would be my judgment that each of
    those is necessary. The things that impact the Russian economy
    are the things that I hear the Russians most concerned about.
        Senator Portman. Secretary, thank you. I am glad you are
    there, and we appreciate your testimony today.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Booker?
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. I guess I am batting
    cleanup. I appreciate the endurance of our Secretary. I know he
    has hard days, long days, and I am grateful for this
    opportunity to question him.
        I really want to pick up on some of the line of questioning
    that Senator Portman asked.
        It is important what Presidents say, and you and I come
    from that school, I imagine, where you have Ronald Reagan's
    clear, unwavering commitment to standing strong against then
    the Soviet Union. You saw it in the next George Bush. You have
    seen it in Presidents.
        And so here is a clear statement of fact that the President
    tweeted out. I am concerned that Russia will be fighting very
    hard to have an impact on the upcoming election, which is
    consistent with intelligence communities that they are
    continuing to attack. Of course, he said based on the fact that
    no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be
    pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely do not
    want Trump. They do not want Trump. Now, that obviously was
    surprising to see, given that we just heard from Vladimir Putin
    that he prefers Trump.
        But I am concerned that the President does not understand
    that this ongoing threat is happening. When he came out of his
    secret meeting with Putin that was shrouded in secrecy, he said
    our relationship has never been worse until it is now because
    that has changed as of about 4 hours ago.
        Has anything changed in the Russian attacks or ongoing
    threats to our 2018 elections?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, what I believe the President was
    referring to there--and obviously, he speaks for himself in
    that sense. But what I understood him to say was that he had
    had--for the first time in his administration, he had had a
    chance to have an extensive, candid conversation with the
    leader of Russia, lay out and articulate America's interests to
    him so that he understood unambiguously what those interests
    were, and to, in turn, hear from Vladimir Putin about the
    things that he thought mattered most to Russia. So when I heard
    him say things have changed, I think that is what he was
    referring to. It was the first time--they had met before but--
    --
        Senator Booker. Mr. Secretary, I have got limited time. So
    I agree with Senator Rubio. There has got to be a cost to
    people when they attack the United States, not just attacking
    the United States. They have assassinated people on British
    soil. They are threatening our allies. They are intervening in
    Western democracies, annexing Crimea, ongoing hostilities in
    the Donbas region of Ukraine.
        And we passed legislation here, the CAATSA legislation,
    which you had an exchange with my colleague, Senator Cardin,
    about, and I think you said--this is the transcript that you
    said. You said, thank you for presenting the law. We really
    appreciate it. We think it makes good sense. The President
    signed it as well. We have passed sanctions under the law. But
    we have not used all of the sanctions.
        Now, I was excited to see Nikki Haley come out and say that
    we were about to put on new sanctions. In fact, the RNC got
    talking points from the White House telling their pundits to
    say exactly what Nikki Haley said before the United Nations,
    that we were going to put on additional sanctions. But we have
    not used those tools in our toolbox. They said that Nikki Haley
    was confused. She said, I am sorry, I was not confused. This
    was a step that the White House was going to take.
        And so I hope you understand that there are many of us in a
    bipartisan manner that feel like we have put tools in the
    toolbox, but the President has shrunk from taking them and
    using those tools to stand strong against people that are
    ongoing attacks on the United States of America.
        Nikki Haley said, absolutely, you will see that Russian
    sanctions will be coming down. Secretary Mnuchin will be
    announcing those. It has already said that they are going to go
    directly to any sort of companies that are dealing with
    equipment related to, in this case, Assad and chemical weapons
    use.
        So I am having trouble--and, again, I think I am one of
    those people who agrees with some of my Republican colleagues
    that Presidents should be allowed to meet with folks one-on-
    one. But this is, as far as my staff can find, the only meeting
    with anybody in the G-20 that has been a one-on-one meeting
    without staff the details of which have not been disclosed.
        And it is particularly troubling given, as Senator Udall
    said, we have a long history of this administration having ties
    to the Russians. He read a list. whether it is the Russian
    oligarch close to Putin who bought property from Trump at a
    significant profit, whether it was tweeting about his deals,
    whether it was Trump, Jr. talking about Russians make up a
    disproportionate cross section of our assets, whether it was
    Maria Butina who is asking a question with Trump responding, I
    do not think we need more sanctions. I do not think we need
    sanctions. But this goes on.
        As Senator Coons just said, we have a President that right
    now sees that we have an ongoing investigation into the very
    attacks that the Russians did to us that have resulted in over
    80 charges, over 30 people being charged, people in the
    administration, and people of the campaign. And this is a
    President that is having private meetings with the Russians.
        Now, this is actually not the first private meeting that he
    had. I am sure you remember that this President pulled aside at
    a G-20 meeting and had a one-on-one discussion, unbeknownst to
    his staff, and had a conversation that he then said, when asked
    what they discussed--and I quote--he said ``we discussed
    adoptions''. Now, ``adoptions'' is a code word, as we see, for
    sanctions. It is the same code word that was used to describe
    pre-election meetings between Kushner, Manafort, Don, Jr.,
    these ideas of adoptions.
        Now, I have listened very closely. I am the last person to
    ask questions, but you have refused to even say if relaxing
    sanctions, directly if relaxing sanctions was part of the
    meeting that the President had. And so I find it hard to
    believe that we are a nation that is under ongoing attack, and
    you cannot come forward and say--this is a president that you
    say you represent--that we are standing strong against the
    person. But we are not. The very President who actually invited
    some of this here when he said--and I quote--``Russia, if you
    are listening, if you are able to find the 30,000 emails that
    are missing''--he invited the very attacks that we are talking
    about.
        And so what I want and what I think my colleagues want on
    both sides of the aisle is to understand and believe that we
    are not having private discussions about relaxing sanctions,
    that we are showing the same kind of strength that past
    Presidents have shown when enemies attack the United States of
    America.
        And you just committed to Senator Portman that you believe
    more sanctions are needed. And so are we to expect in the
    coming days that we will be applying the sanctions that the
    Senate has provided this President in a bipartisan way to hold
    Russia accountable and show them that there will be a cost for
    their attacks on this nation?
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I think this administration's
    record, over 200 sanctions--200 sanctions, Senator--is
    reflective of this administration's steadfastness with respect
    to our willingness to push back against Russia. I think it is
    unquestioned. You just spoke for coming on 7 minutes about a
    whole litany of things political. Let me give you America's
    foreign policy. 200-plus sanctions----
        Senator Booker. Well, sir, clearly there have been
    divisions in the administration if Nikki Haley is talking about
    sanctions on one day and then you are not putting them on, on
    the next day.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, there is vigorous debate in this
    administration on lots of things. There is no doubt about that.
    The President did not hire a single shrinking violet, not one
    of us, and we often disagree about things. There is no doubt
    about that. And sometimes we prevail and sometimes we do not.
    The President calls the ball, and the President called the ball
    over 200 times to sanction Russian entities. That is pretty
    strong.
        Senator Booker. The President is not using the tools that
    the United States Senate----
        Secretary Pompeo. We have used CAATSA. We have complied
    with CAATSA. We will continue to comply with CAATSA. I put this
    administration's work on sanctions against Russia. Let us just
    rack and stack for the last 8 years.
        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude with
    entering into the record the President of the United States'
    statements on CAATSA. And I will read them and put the whole
    statement in the record. This is what he said on the day CAATSA
    was introduced.
        Since the bill was first introduced, I have expressed
    concerns to Congress about the many ways it improperly
    encroaches executive power, disadvantages our country, and
    hurts the interests of this nation. Still, the bill is
    seriously flawed, particularly because it encroaches on the
    executive branch's authority. Congress could not even negotiate
    a health care bill after 7 years. By limiting the executive
    ability's authority, this bill makes it harder for the United
    States to strike good deals.
        Secretary Pompeo. I actually agree with----
        Senator Booker. And hold on. The Framers of the
    Constitution--well, you did not agree with it when you were
    talking--I can read your words back about how great this CAATSA
    deal is.
        I put this in the record.

        [The information referred to is located at the end of the
    hearing]

        Senator Booker. And I finish my comments just simply by
    saying this is not a President who is using the tools. This is
    not a President who is strong against Russia. This is not a
    President that is standing up against people that are doing
    ongoing attacks on the United States of America that are
    continuing at this moment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
        Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
    Secretary for being here. But I must say that after nearly 3
    hours, here are my takeaways.
        This administration is increasingly not transparent. It is
    not transparent as to what takes place at the summits. It is
    not transparent in terms of their--I hear that there is an
    effort not to have readouts when the President has
    conversations with foreign leaders, which has historically been
    the case. There is an increasing less number of briefings. We
    have not still had a briefing on North Korea in a classified
    setting nearly 2 months afterwards.
        So what I took away is that as it relates to North Korea,
    we have no agreements on anything. The best I can glean is that
    they understand what we mean by denuclearization, but they have
    not agreed to that definition.
        I really do not believe, Mr. Secretary, you know what
    happened during the President's 2-plus hour conversation with
    President Putin. And I really do not know much more about the
    summit after sitting here for 3 hours than I did before.
        I want to say to you I want you to think about the
    suggestion that what the President says is not the policy of
    the United States. When the President speaks----
        Secretary Pompeo. Can I clean that up, Senator? You are
    right. I misspoke there.
        Senator Menendez. If you want to clean it up----
        Secretary Pompeo. I would love to. Thank you.
        Senator Menendez. --because when he speaks, that is the
    policy of the United States.
        Secretary Pompeo. I would love to, Senator. I would love
    the chance to do that.
        Senator Menendez. Yes. Go ahead.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I misspoke. It is the case. The
    President calls the ball. His statements are in fact policy.
    But it is the case that when all of us speak in informal
    settings in response to questions, we are not covering the full
    gamut of things that impact the world. That is what I intended
    to say. I saw the glee on your side walking away trying to make
    a political point from that. That is silliness. This President
    runs this government. His statements are in fact U.S. policy.
        Senator Menendez. All right. So now we understand that when
    the President speaks, it is the policy of the United States.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, you have seen his policies, 200-
    plus sanctions. You have seen them, Senator.
        Senator Menendez. I am asking you questions. I understand
    you are summarizing here.
        Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I have now been here 3 hours,
    and you have got a political soliloquy.
        Senator Menendez. No. You know what? I have listened to
    your political soliloquy as a Secretary of State sitting at
    that table demeaning some members here because you said that
    Senator Shaheen believes more the Russian Defense Ministry. She
    was quoting them only because we do not what our own government
    is saying. So please, do not talk to me about politics. If you
    want to talk about politics, if President Obama did what
    President Trump did in Helsinki, I would be peeling you off the
    Capitol ceiling. Please.
        So here is the point. When the President speaks, it is the
    policy of the United States. And so when he says in one
    respect--I applaud this declaration about Crimea, but then he
    goes and says that Russia should join the G7. Well, the reason
    Russia is not in the G7 is because they invaded Ukraine. So
    which is the policy? Because when the President speaks, it is
    the policy. And I must say, sir, when you speak around the
    world, people believe that what you say is a reflection of the
    policy of the United States.
        So I want to close by saying one thing I heard here today
    that I can agree with you is that we need more sanctions, and I
    look forward to working with the chairman and Senator Graham
    and others who are interested in this regard. Hopefully we can
    come together in common cause to push back on Russia on
    sanctions that we can pursue.
        And secondly, I want to reiterate I believe that it is
    rightful for the members of this committee, even if it is in a
    classified setting, to speak to the translator and/or to see
    her notes because that is the only way we will know what truly
    transpired.
        The Chairman. Would you like to give any response?
        Secretary Pompeo. Not a word.
        The Chairman. You had earlier tried to lay out the things
    the administration was doing relative to the election and were
    cut off. Would you like to do that in a public setting?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am just fine, Senator. I think I have
    had the opportunity to respond adequately. I appreciate you
    having been so gracious to have permitted me to do that.
        The Chairman. And we had some exchange relative to a
    classified briefing. Let me say this. I know you are busy.
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to try and find a time that
    works for everyone to do that, as I think I committed to
    another Senator.
        The Chairman. We will keep the record open until the close
    of business tomorrow for written questions. I know you have got
    a lot to do. To the extent your staff could help answer those
    questions as briefly as they could, that would be most helpful.
        Secretary Pompeo. We will do it.
        The Chairman. I appreciate you coming before us today.
        And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                        Submitted by Senator Bob Corker

        Question. What would a failed denuclearization process with North
    Korea look like? At what point should the United States be prepared to
    walk away from negotiations?

        Answer. Peace is worth the effort. The United States and its allies
    are committed to the same goal--the final, fully verified
    denuclearization of North Korea, as agreed to by Chairman Kim Jong Un.
    Our focus right now is to make these negotiations successful. We take
    Kim Jong Un at his word that he intends to denuclearize. If we find
    that is not the case, we will respond accordingly.
        Sanctions will remain in full effect until North Korea
    denuclearizes. The full implementation of U.N. Security Council
    resolutions by the international community brought us to this moment
    and are necessary for a successful outcome of this process.

        Question. What role do human rights play in our engagement strategy
    with North Korea? Does the administration intend to continue to speak
    out about human rights abuses in North Korea, including the upwards of
    2.6 million North Koreans enslaved by their own government?

        Answer. The President raised North Korea's human rights record in
    his summit meetings with Chairman Kim Jong Un, and the United States
    will continue to raise these issues at all levels going forward. We
    remain deeply concerned by the egregious human rights violations and
    abuses committed by the North Korean government and will continue to
    promote accountability for North Korean leaders responsible for these
    acts. The United States also remains deeply concerned about the well-
    being of the North Korean people.
        This administration has been very clear about defending human
    rights. We will continue to work with the international community to
    raise awareness, highlight abuses and violations, promote access to
    independent information, and keep pressure on the DPRK to respect human
    rights.

        Question. How does a peace treaty fit into the engagement process
    with North Korea? What, if any, sequencing on this issue has been
    agreed to with North Korea? What countries would be a party to such an
    agreement?

        Answer. Our objective is the final, fully verified denuclearization
    of the DPRK, as Chairman Kim Jong Un committed to during his summit
    with the President in Singapore. We have made clear to all parties
    involved that a final peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula,
    including a peace treaty to replace the armistice, will require the
    complete denuclearization of the DPRK.

        Question. What is the administration's message to South Korea on
    joint economic projects with the North? Is the administration prepared
    to provide sanctions exemptions?

        Answer. We have been clear with our South Korean ally that
    sanctions remain in effect and will be enforced. The international
    community cannot let up on pressure until the DPRK denuclearizes. We
    support the deepening of inter-Korean ties, but we will not get pulled
    into a cycle of providing economic benefits to the DPRK without action
    on the denuclearization issue. We are closely aligned with the Republic
    of Korea on this message.

        Given high degree of United States national security interest
    across the Horn of Africa from Somalia to Sudan, recent political and
    policy decisions in Ethiopia and Eritrea provide a significant moment
    for historical transformation that could stabilize and provide
    significant opportunity for economic and security reforms and
    development.

        Question. As China invests significant amounts in new and
    influential ways in the region, from a military base and personnel in
    Djibouti to a range of economic incentives that put national sovereign
    independence at risk, how is the United States ensuring its national
    security interests and influence remains dynamic in the face of such
    incipient influence?

        Answer. Africa offers real opportunities thanks to some of the
    world's fastest growing economies and an expanding labor force. The
    United States must do more to present our African partners with better
    alternatives so Africa can realize its full economic potential while
    advancing our national security interests. For example, the African
    Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Generalized System of
    Preferences trade preferences program, for which both Djibouti and
    Ethiopia are eligible in 2018, encourages continued progress in good
    governance and other areas including the rule of law, anti-corruption,
    poverty reduction, workers' rights, advancing a market-based economy,
    and cooperating in anti-terrorism activities to support U.S. national
    security.
        We are not seeking an adversarial relationship with China. We will
    not shy away, however, from speaking forthrightly about and contesting
    Chinese policies and actions that aim to undermine U.S. interests in
    Africa. We will continue to ensure our allies and partners are secure
    from military threat or coercion. We will also seek to expand and
    modernize U.S. development finance tools to send a clear message that
    we continue to lead the world in supporting sound, responsible, and
    fair economic growth, as well as sustainable and fair business
    practices.

        Question. Similarly, Russia is investing in direct ways intended to
    undercut and displace American bilateral influence in the Horn and
    beyond. How does the U.S. perceive recent increases and rhetoric by
    Russia and what efforts are being made to appropriately address our
    national interests as they pertain to these efforts?

        Answer. We will remain vigilant in our observation of Russian
    developments, such as arms deals and basing, to adequately address them
    if they encroach on our national interests. The United States will
    continue to pursue our compelling interests in advancing good
    governance and maintaining our security through security cooperation
    efforts in Africa.

        Turkey and Qatar are in a continuing and escalating battle with
    Saudi Arabia and the UAE that has had problematic and wide-ranging
    effect from South Africa to Egypt. The Red Sea and Sea of Aden are home
    to critical chokepoints that remain strategically important to
    international trade and our military's proper use of the maritime
    environment. Today, reports indicate that Saudi Arabia suspended its
    oil shipments through the region due to threats from Iranian backed
    Houthi in Yemen.

        Question. Given the high and strategic interest of the region to
    the United States, is there any strategy to address the creeping
    influence that puts our own at risk? Is there any consideration for a
    regional senior diplomatic official that can effectively identify and
    address the accelerating regional contest between the two jurisdictions
    of Africa and the Gulf?

        Answer. We are committed to countering Iran's malign regional
    influence through our comprehensive Iran strategy. This strategy
    includes efforts in Yemen, where our goals are: persuading parties to
    resolve the conflict under U.N. auspices, countering Iranian influence,
    addressing the dire humanitarian situation, preventing terrorists from
    exploiting Yemen's vulnerability, and protecting allies and partners in
    the region as well as freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. We are
    concerned about recent attacks on commercial vessels and other threats
    to freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and through the Bab al Mandeb.
    Senior Department officials encourage all sides of the Gulf rift to
    resolve their differences peacefully and with mutual respect. Working-
    level officials in the Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and African
    Affairs coordinate closely. We emphasize to all sides that the Gulf
    rift undermines our shared goal of building a unified front against
    Iranian influence in the region. It is important that states in the
    Horn of Africa should not feel the need to ``pick sides'' in the Gulf
    rift. New developments in the Ethiopia--Eritrea relationship show the
    welcome potential for peace in the region and present an important
    opportunity for U.S. engagement.

        Question. The Pakistan elections appear to have resulted in the
    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party of former cricketer, Imran Khan, in a
    lead coalition position. What would a Khan government likely mean for
    U.S. efforts to gain greater cooperation from the Pakistan government
    in counter terrorism and reconciliation in Afghanistan?

        Answer. I am reluctant to speculate on the specific policies of
    Pakistan's new leaders, particularly since coalition-building is
    ongoing, and a civilian government has not yet been formed. We will
    stress to Pakistan's new leadership that Pakistan is important to the
    success of the President's South Asia strategy, but we will not
    continue with business as usual as long as Pakistan does not address
    U.S. concerns about its destabilizing policies, including its failure
    to curtail the Taliban, Haqqani Network and other externally-focused
    militant and terrorist groups. Our requests to Pakistan have been
    specific and consistent, and we will continue our frank discussions
    with the new government.

        Question. The Pakistan elections appear to have resulted in the
    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party of former cricketer, Imran Khan, in a
    lead coalition position. He has made inflammatory comments about the
    United States during his long run to power. Is he considered
    independent of the Pakistan military or a product of its manipulations?

        Answer. While Imran Khan has made some concerning statements in the
    context of political campaigns, I am hopeful that we will be able to
    work with the new government towards a productive bilateral
    relationship. We have been consistent, however, that, for this to
    happen, Pakistan must take decisive action against all militant groups
    based in Pakistan and play a constructive role to facilitate the Afghan
    peace process. I would refer you to the State Department's July 27
    statement regarding concerns with the pre-voting electoral process and
    our belief in the importance of further strengthening legitimate
    democratic institutions. I will continue to look for opportunities to
    further these objectives with the new government.

        Question. The Pakistan elections appear to have resulted in the
    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party of former cricketer, Imran Khan, in a
    lead coalition position. Are extremist groups and terror groups more or
    less likely to gain influence with a Khan government?

        Answer. I am reluctant to speculate on the specific policies of
    Pakistan's new leaders, particularly since coalition-building is
    ongoing and a civilian government has not yet been formed. One positive
    outcome of Pakistan's July 25 elections is that candidates associated
    with the designated terrorist group Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT) lost in
    every race they contested. Our requests to Pakistan to curtail the
    Taliban, Haqqani Network and other externally-focused militant and
    terrorist groups have been specific and consistent, and we will
    continue our frank discussions with the new government.

        Question. The administration's recently completed inter-agency
    Stabilization Assistance Review was well informed by a wide range of
    experienced actors and drew both internally and externally from
    activities taking place today and historical experience to develop a
    comprehensive understanding, including a long-sought definition for
    stabilization efforts. The review provides a foundation from the inter-
    agency to better apply lessons learned and more efficiently manage and
    maintain personnel with the necessary skill sets to operate in
    challenging and hazardous environments, often alongside the military.
    What steps are being taken to institutionalize these findings so that
    we ensure lessons missed do not diminish our efficiency and
    effectiveness as the United States continues to respond to such complex
    crises?

        Answer. The Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) identified ways
    that the United States can more effectively leverage diplomatic
    engagements, defense, and foreign assistance to stabilize conflict-
    affected areas. Secretary Mattis, Administrator Green, and I support
    the results of this review and have directed our Departments and
    Agencies to work on implementing the SAR framework and mainstreaming
    the core principles into policy and practice. With the support of the
    National Security Council, we are developing an interagency approach
    outlining key tasks to advance the seven lines of effort in the SAR
    framework. We appreciate Congress' support for this effort to date and
    look forward to continued collaboration.

        Question. How are the findings and recommendations being employed
    to improve outcomes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the
    Sahel, and the Lake Chad basin?

        Answer. The Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) identified ways
    that the United States can more effectively leverage diplomatic
    engagements, defense, and foreign assistance to stabilize conflict-
    affected areas. Secretary Mattis, Administrator Green, and I support
    the results of this review and have directed our Departments and
    Agencies to work on implementing the SAR framework into policy and
    practice. Accordingly, we are working to ensure that the strategies and
    assistance plans for priority conflict-affected countries and regions
    reflect the SAR's principles. We are also working to ensure that our
    U.S. country teams and civilian teams deployed with the military in
    those places have the tools and support they need to apply the SAR
    framework. We look forward to continuing to update you about these
    efforts as they progress.

        Question. Secretary Pompeo, would you please let us know if this
    administration has raised or intends to raise with the Russian
    government the provision of information they may have regarding Korean
    War and Cold War era POW and MIAs? More specifically, will the
    administration raise with the Russian government the prospect of
    reviewing Soviet-era intelligence and military archives for records on
    interrogations of U.S. service members who were captured during the
    Korean War? More specifically still, will the administration raise with
    the Russian government the case of Major Sam Logan, a U.S. Air Force B-
    29 pilot who was shot down in North Korea in September 1950 and may
    have been interrogated by Soviet officials?

        Answer. The Department is working closely with other members of the
    U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
    (POW/MIA) (USRJC) as the United States engages with Russia on POW/MIA
    cases from the Korean Conflict and other U.S. conflicts and wars that
    remain unresolved. Major Sam Logan, a U.S. Air Force B-29 pilot who was
    shot down in North Korea in 1950, is one of these important cases that
    has been discussed within the context of the USRJC. The Defense POW/MIA
    Accounting Agency is aware of your request and can provide additional
    information.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                       Submitted by Senator Bob Menendez

                                  north korea
        In earlier testimony before this Committee and during the hearing
    yesterday I asked you a series of questions about necessary elements
    for any deal with North Korea. Again, I would like for you to provide
    an update and answer to the following questions regarding your
    negotiations with North Korea:

        Question. Did North Korea agree to permanently dismantle and
    disable its nuclear weapons infrastructure, including test sites, all
    nuclear weapons research and development facilities, particularly with
    respect to advanced centrifuges, and nuclear weapons enrichment and
    reprocessing facilities?

        Answer. Diplomatic talks with the DPRK are ongoing. In Singapore,
    Chairman Kim agreed to our goal of achieving the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. In Pyongyang, I had detailed and
    substantive discussions about next steps toward fully verified and
    complete denuclearization. During those discussions, North Korea
    reaffirmed the commitment it made in Singapore to destroy its missile
    engine test site, and its overall commitment to complete
    denuclearization.

        Question. Did North Korea agree to put forward a full, complete,
    and verifiable declaration of all its nuclear activities?

        Answer. Diplomatic talks with the DPRK are ongoing. In Singapore,
    Chairman Kim agreed to our goal of achieving the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. We want denuclearization that is fully
    verified and, importantly, final--the President wants to denuclearize
    North Korea once and for all and not have the nuclear issue resurface
    again.

        Question. Did North Korea agree to dismantle all ballistic missiles
    and a prohibition on all ballistic missile development?

        Answer. Diplomatic talks with the DPRK are ongoing. In Singapore,
    Chairman Kim agreed to our goal of achieving the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. We want denuclearization that is fully
    verified and, importantly, final--the President wants to denuclearize
    North Korea once and for all and not have the nuclear issue resurface
    again.

        Question. Did North agree to a robust compliance inspections
    including a verification regime for its nuclear and ballistic missile
    programs, including complete access to all nuclear related sites and
    facilities with real time verification including ``anywhere, anytime''
    inspections and snap-back sanctions if North Korea is not in full
    compliance?

        Answer. I've been very clear with my North Korean counterparts on
    what final, fully verified denuclearization means and they understand
    and acknowledge that denuclearization absent verification makes no
    sense. The U.S. government is committed to the robust verification
    protocols and mechanism that will be required to achieve complete
    denuclearization.

        Question. What have you actually achieved regarding denuclearizing
    the Korean peninsula?

        Answer. Progress on denuclearization includes building upon the
    commitments made by President Trump and Chairman Kim. In Pyongyang, I
    had detailed and substantive discussions about next steps toward fully-
    verified and complete denuclearization. During those discussions, North
    Korea reaffirmed the commitment it made in Singapore to destroy its
    missile engine test site, and its overall commitment to complete
    denuclearization.

        Question. Is North Korea making significant and meaningful steps
    towards denuclearization? Is the activity at Sohae (so-hey)
    significant, or reality TV? Are international inspectors verifying the
    significance of North Korea's actions? Are these steps irreversible?
    Are these steps ratified in a written agreement between the U.S. and
    North Korea, and part of a bigger plan to dismantle all nuclear and
    missile capabilities? Do these steps affect core North Korean
    capabilities, or are they measures North Korea can take--in the
    expectations of payment--that are in effect cost-free?

        Answer. The administration continues to work towards the full
    implementation of the commitments Chairman Kim made in Singapore, and
    to plan for the final denuclearization of North Korea, including the
    specific steps necessary to accomplish this.
        North Korea's destruction of the site at Sohae, if verified, would
    be a significant step by the DPRK towards meeting those commitments.
        The President remains committed to fully and finally resolving the
    issue of North Korea's illicit and threatening WMDs and their delivery
    systems.

        Question. Do you still maintain progress on sanctions relief should
    be dependent on dismantlement and removal of North Korea's nuclear
    weapons and ballistic missile programs?

        Answer. Our goal is clear--we must achieve the final, fully-
    verified denuclearization of the DPRK as agreed to by Chairman Kim.
    Should the DPRK follow through on its commitments to denuclearization,
    the U.S. looks forward to eventually helping North Korea obtain
    prosperity and earn the respect of the world. Sanctions remain in full
    effect until North Korea denuclearizes.

        Question. Given Chinese, South Korean and Russian defections and
    pressure to adjust or end sanctions, can ``maximum pressure'' still be
    said to credibly exist? If talks break down, and the U.S. is held
    equally (or more responsible) for failure, is it realistic to expect
    that maximum pressure can be maintained, imposed, or strengthened?

        Answer. All U.N. member states are required to implement the
    obligations contained in the United Nations Security Council sanctions
    resolutions in good faith, and we expect them all to do so. The United
    States continues to work with governments around the world to ensure
    all nations are fully implementing these obligations. The pressure
    campaign will continue until the DPRK denuclearizes.
                             2)3-d printing of guns
        The State Department is engaging countries around the world for
    action to pressure the DPRK and ensure global compliance with United
    Nations Security Council resolutions. We are cooperating with many
    countries, including China, to take decisive action against entities
    involved in DPRK sanctions evasion activity.
        We will not hesitate to take unilateral action against entities
    that continue to support the DPRK regime in contravention of U.N.
    sanctions.
        The State Department is about to allow the Internet posting of
    information to enable the production of plastic firearms on 3-D
    printers. Why on Earth would the Trump administration and the State
    Department make it easier for terrorists to produce undetectable
    plastic guns to hijack aircraft and endanger or kill Americans is
    beyond belief.

        Question. Can you explain the justification for the State
    Department's decision to allow the release of this information?

        Answer. As I committed in my testimony, I will review this issue
    and have my staff provide a briefing on the complexities of this
    matter.

        Question. Does the Department really want to enable ISIS and al-
    Qaeda to learn how to smuggle firearms past the TSA?

        Answer. No. As I committed in my testimony, I will review the
    Department's next steps on this issue and have my staff provide a
    briefing on the complexities of this matter.

        Question. You committed to review the Department's decision to
    allow the release of information on 3-D guns. Please describe that
    review process, the steps taken this far, and the status of that
    review.

        Answer. As I committed in my testimony, I will review the
    Department's next steps on this issue and have my staff provide a
    briefing on the complexities of this matter.

        Question. Why didn't the Department provide the Committee notice of
    its decision to release this information, in accordance with the Arms
    Export Control Act?

        Answer. Notification to Congress is not required for a temporary
    exemption under International Traffic in Arms Regulations  126.2. We
    will submit a 38(f) notification prior to any final rule that would
    revise the U.S. Munitions List (USML), remove listed items from the
    State Department's jurisdiction under the USML, and transfer them to
    Commerce's jurisdiction under the Commerce Control List.
                              daily press briefing
        Mr. Secretary, I sent you a letter on Monday regarding the lack of
    Daily Press Briefings during your tenure as Secretary and more broadly
    during this administration. Daily press briefings are critical to
    keeping the American people informed and promoting transparency and
    accountability. They also send an important signal to the rest of the
    world about the importance of a free press.

        Question. Do you commit to reinstating daily press briefings?

        Answer. The Department values media outreach and is committed to
    the principles of transparency and press freedom. The Spokesperson
    briefs journalists at televised press briefings frequently in
    Washington, DC and from abroad while supporting the Secretary's travel
    schedule. While on travel, Spokesperson Nauert has an acting deputy
    spokesperson who has gaggled with reporters in Washington. The
    Department's press officers rapidly respond to domestic and
    international journalist queries.
        The Department travels with a broad contingent of reporters. The
    Spokesperson and Secretary engage and brief them daily while traveling.
    Over the past year, we have dramatically increased journalist access by
    making available more seats on the plane. We also provide access to
    subject experts across the Department who can delve into policy issues
    in greater depth, via background briefings open to domestic and
    international reporters including on critical issues as Iran, North
    Korea, sanctions, and Russia in recent weeks.
        The Department is also emphasizing a range of venues and briefing
    opportunities to support a diverse media environment. The Department's
    regional spokespersons conduct interviews regularly on the most
    influential television channels in the Arabic, French, Hindi, Russian,
    Spanish, and Urdu media markets.

        Question. Do you agree that the free and open press is a critical
    element of democracy?

        Answer. The Department remains steadfastly committed to the
    principles of transparency and press freedom. We demonstrate that
    commitment every day in our engagement with journalists foreign and
    domestic, and this in turn serves as an example for other countries.
        We believe in the importance of a free and open press in all
    societies. I would point you to my statement this year commemorating
    the 25th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day, reaffirming our
    commitment to promoting and protecting a free press. A free press is an
    essential pillar of democracy and a key component of democratic
    governance.
        The Department Spokesperson and her team engage with individual
    American and international journalists daily to answer their inquiries
    and inform their reporting. I have sat for an increasing number of
    interviews, and have made available additional airplane seats for
    journalists on my official travel. The State Department's regional
    spokespersons conduct interviews regularly in the Arabic, French,
    Hindi, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu media markets. All these efforts
    underscore the importance the Department places on engaging with media
    and encouraging the work of a free and active press corps.

        Question. Do you agree that the State Department has a role to play
    in demonstrating to the rest of the world that the United States values
    and supports a free and open press? If so, how do you intend to
    demonstrate that?

        Answer. An independent and unfettered media is an essential element
    of any democratic, open society, and the Department remains steadfastly
    committed to the principles of transparency and press freedom. We
    demonstrate our commitment to those principles every day, and do our
    utmost to support the work of the journalists who cover the State
    Department.
        We have a robust and multi-faceted media engagement strategy,
    emphasizing a range of venues. While the Spokesperson briefs
    journalists at televised press briefings, this is only a fraction of
    the work that the Spokesperson undertakes to keep Americans, foreign
    governments and publics, and the foreign affairs community informed.
    Beyond televised press briefings, subject experts across the Department
    provide briefings on policy issues. The Spokesperson and her team also
    engage thousands of individual American and international media queries
    daily.
        Since becoming Secretary, I have made a point of reaching out to
    the press corps and supporting increased engagement. We have made
    available additional airplane seats dedicated to journalists on
    official travel, including on such critical events as the summit with
    the North Korean leadership in Pyongyang and the G7 and NATO summits as
    they unfold in real time.
                            american foreign policy
        At the end of the hearing on July 25, you stated that the words of
    the President are U.S. policy.
        Question. In a recent interview on Fox News, President Trump
    refused to use the word ``adversary'' to describe Russia because they
    ``really helped us'' during World War II. A few days earlier, the
    president referred to the European Union as a ``foe'' during a
    discussion of trade policy. This is despite the fact that members of
    the armed forces of our NATO allies have served side by side with us
    for decades--as of May 2017, over 1,000 NATO soldiers alone had given
    their lives fighting with us in Afghanistan alone. Yes or no--is the
    European Union a foe?

        Answer. The European Union (EU) is one of our closest, most capable
    partners on a host of international security, economic, diplomatic, and
    humanitarian efforts. While we may have our differences, the United
    States and the EU agree far more than we disagree, as evidenced in our
    continuing close cooperation on issues of mutual importance, including:
    addressing conflicts in the Middle East, confronting malign state
    actors, countering terrorism, and improving European security. The EU
    leverages the capacities of all 28 member states to address challenges
    around the world. It is able to lead and conduct missions to secure its
    borders and project stability outside of Europe. On trade policy, as
    the President announced July 25, the United States and the EU are
    working together toward zero tariff and non-tariff barriers, including
    subsidies on non-automotive goods, increasing U.S. exports of liquefied
    natural gas to the EU, reducing bureaucratic obstacles to trade, and
    reforming the WTO to better protect European and American companies
    from unfair trade practices.

        Question. On June 13, 2018 President Trump tweeted that ``There is
    no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' What steps has North
    Korean taken that provide us with confidence the North Korea nuclear
    threat has been eliminated to the United States and our Asia-Pacific
    allies?

        Answer. The President achieved his objectives at the Singapore
    Summit. He secured a DPRK commitment to complete denuclearization of
    the Korean peninsula and built a good working relationship with
    Chairman Kim. This is the beginning of the process for final, fully-
    verified, denuclearization of the DPRK as agreed to by Chairman Kim.
        Our alliances remain ironclad, and ensure peace and stability in
    the region.
        The security of South Korea and Japan are essential to America's
    security, and we will continue to meet all our alliance commitments.

        Question. In May 2018, President Trump described immigrants from
    Mexico and Central America by stating, ``You wouldn't believe how bad
    these people are. These aren't people. These are animals.'' Is it U.S.
    policy that immigrants from Mexico and Central America are animals?

        Answer. The Department of State protects U.S. citizens and their
    interests abroad, supports U.S. border security, and facilitates travel
    by visitors or immigrants to the United States. The Department is
    committed to treating every visa applicant with dignity and respect.
        We have strong partnerships with Mexico and the countries of
    Central America that enhance our shared goal of promoting a more
    competitive, prosperous, and secure region in order to reduce illegal
    migration and illicit drug flow in the region. Our countries are
    neighbors and allies, strengthened by common values and strong trade
    linkages. The Department will continue to work with Mexico and the
    countries of Central America to build strong relationships and to
    address a broad range of bilateral and national security issues.
        Maintaining robust screening standards for visa applicants is a
    dynamic practice that must adapt to emerging threats. We are constantly
    working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes, allowing
    travel and immigration to the United States while protecting U.S.
    citizens and excluding individuals who might pose a threat to the
    United States.
        In FY 2017, the Department issued 113,776 immigrant visas to
    citizens of Mexico or Central American countries.

        Question. In June 2018, President Trump described Canadian Prime
    Minister Justin Trudeau as ``very dishonest & weak.'' Is it U.S. policy
    that Prime Minister Trudeau--the head of government of a NATO ally--is
    very dishonest and weak?

        Answer. No. It remains U.S. policy to work closely with our
    Canadian allies and friends on the entire spectrum of security,
    economic, and other issues. Our 5,525 mile shared land border and our
    vast and shared economic, defense, cultural and family ties make our
    relationship with Canada unique in the world. The United States will
    continue to engage with Canada in ways that enable us to achieve our
    shared objectives.

        Question. In May 2018, President Trump, referring to his proposed
    border wall between the United States and Mexico, stated that ``in the
    end Mexico is going to pay for the wall.'' Is it the policy of the
    United States that Mexico will pay for President Trump's proposed
    border wall?

        Answer. Like the President, I am committed to securing our borders
    and protecting the homeland. Half a million people enter the United
    States from Mexico each day and too many of them do so illegally.
    Border infrastructure, to include walls, is a critical piece of
    strengthening control of the border. Securing our borders provides
    security for the American people and allows the United States to
    facilitate legitimate trade and travel, while preventing the movement
    of illicit goods and travelers. The President and Congress will
    ultimately make a decision about funding.
                 president trump's summit with president putin
        Question. Did he President hold any Cabinet meetings before the
    summit to strategize his one on one meeting with President Putin?

        Answer. The Department of State in coordination with the National
    Security Council prepared extensively for the meeting in Helsinki.

        Question. Has the President held an official cabinet meeting since
    the summit to read out his national security team?

        Answer. I refer you to the White House for specifics, but as I
    mentioned in my testimony, I have spoken with President Trump multiple
    times about the subject matter of the Helsinki meetings.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin discussed any changes to international security
    agreements?

        Answer. There were no ``agreements'' reached in Helsinki beyond
    agreement for our two sides to keep talking on the entire range of
    issues the Presidents discussed.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President called
    upon President Putin to uphold Russia's commitments, agreed to at the
    Presidential level last year in Da Nang, Vietnam, with respect to the
    de-escalation zone in southwest Syria, especially the presence of Iran
    and Iranian-aligned forces?

        Answer. The situation in Syria was one of the key issues discussed
    between President Trump and President Putin. Both agreed that the
    regular, ongoing de-confliction efforts through military channels on
    Syria are essential to avoiding miscalculations and unintended
    escalation during the Defeat ISIS Campaign.
        The United States is determined to see the removal of all Iranian
    forces from Syria and an end to Iran's continuing malign influence
    there.

        Question. What were the ``suggestions'' President Putin made to the
    President?

        Answer. The formation of two working groups was suggested to enable
    discussion on a range of issues. One is a business leadership working
    group made up of U.S. and Russian Chief Executive Officers of major
    private companies, which would present ideas to address economic
    relations between the two countries. The second proposed group is the
    political, or Track II, working group of academics and former U.S. and
    Russian officials to suggest possible solutions to issues affecting the
    bilateral relationship.
        The U.S. and Russian National Security Councils staff are
    developing a dialogue to explore these proposed working groups.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin talked about Paul Manafort, or his ongoing trial?

        Answer. I will not comment on every detail of private one-on-one
    conversations between President Trump and the leaders of other
    countries. As I noted during my testimony, the President was very clear
    about U.S. policy positions, and he spoke about them very firmly and
    clearly in his meeting with President Putin.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin talked about the Mueller investigation or about
    indictments of the President's former campaign staff?

        Answer. I will not comment on every detail of private one-on-one
    conversations between President Trump and the leaders of other
    countries. As I noted during my testimony, the President was very clear
    about U.S. policy positions, and he spoke about them very firmly and
    clearly in his meeting with President Putin.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin talked about Natalia Veselnitskaya--the Russian lawyer
    who met with Donald Jr.?

        Answer. I will not comment on every detail of private one-on-one
    conversations between President Trump and the leaders of other
    countries. As I noted during my testimony, the President was very clear
    about U.S. policy positions, and he spoke about them very firmly and
    clearly in his meeting with President Putin.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin talked about Yevgeny Prigozhin or the Internet Research
    Agency?

        Answer. As I noted during my testimony, the President was very
    clear about U.S. policy positions, and he spoke about them very firmly
    and clearly in his meeting with President Putin.
        In February, a grand jury returned an indictment presented by
    Special Counsel Mueller charging Mr. Prigozhin and the Internet
    Research Agency for committing federal crimes as part of an effort to
    interfere in the U.S. political system. Mr. Prigozhin and the Internet
    Research Agency are also subject to U.S. sanctions targeting malicious
    cyber actors, including those involved in interfering with election
    processes or institutions. The administration will continue to take
    action, including implementation of sanctions, to respond to Russian
    election interference in the United States.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin discussed former Ambassador Michael McFaul? Bill
    Browder?

        Answer. I will not comment on every detail of private one-on-one
    conversations between President Trump and the leaders of other
    countries. As for any current or former U.S. government employee, as I
    noted during my testimony, the United States will defend our government
    personnel, whether in the field, in Washington, or retired from
    service.

        Question. Do you know with certainty whether the President and
    President Putin discussed the issue of political prisoners with
    President Putin, including that of Oleg Sentsov, the Ukrainian
    filmmaker who has been detained for 4 years and is on hunger strike?

        Answer. During their discussions, the President raised a number of
    issues with President Putin, including Russia's election interference,
    Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea, DPRK, Syria, and arms control.
        We share your concerns about the continued wrongful imprisonment of
    Crimean film director Oleg Sentsov. The State Department continues to
    call on the Government of Russia, in both public statements and private
    discussions, to end its repressive occupation of Crimea and cease its
    campaign of pressure on opponents of the occupation, such as Mr.
    Sentsov.
        We have frequently called on Russia to release all victims of
    politically motivated prosecution, including Mr. Sentsov and the
    approximately 70 other Ukrainian citizens it has unjustly imprisoned.
    Department officials frequently meet with relatives of and advocates
    for these prisoners and we remain committed to pressing for their
    release.

        Question. Following the summit, President Putin held a press
    conference outlining the outcomes of the Helsinki meeting with
    President Trump. He also apparently had calls with the Belarusian
    President to describe the nuances of the Helsinki meeting. Why hasn't
    President Trump done the same with the American people or congress?

        Answer. President Trump and President Putin held a press conference
    outlining the details of the Helsinki meeting. For further comments,
    please refer to the White House.

        Question. Has the U.S. provided any briefings about the summit to
    our allies?

        Answer. Yes. On July 23, I sent a readout of the Helsinki
    discussions to our chiefs of mission overseas and instructed them to
    share the readout with their host country counterparts. I know that the
    National Security Council staff also held a readout session with DC-
    based embassies, and I would refer you to the NSC for details on that
    briefing.

        Question. Did you speak with the interpreter following the summit?

        Answer. As I said in my testimony, I have not spoken with the
    President's interpreter.

        Question. Did you, or did anyone from the State Department or the
    national security team, speak with the interpreter or review her notes?

        Answer. As I said in my testimony, I have not spoken with the
    President's interpreter or reviewed her notes. I cannot speak for the
    national security team; I would refer you to the White House.

        Question. Were any notes by the interpreter preserved, in line with
    a request I made on July 16?

        Answer. The Department is committed to maintaining records in
    accordance with the Federal Records Act and will ensure all relevant
    Department records pertaining to the meeting are appropriately
    safeguarded as required by law.

        Question. Have all relevant documents and memos related to the
    summit been preserved, in line with a request I made on July 16?

        Answer. The Department is committed to maintaining records in
    accordance with the Federal Records Act and will ensure all relevant
    Department records pertaining to the meeting are appropriately
    safeguarded as required by law.

        Question. Is the Israeli government asking the Trump administration
    to recognize Assad regime control over southern Syria?

        Answer. We continue to consult closely with Israel on regional
    security issues, including Syria. While I will not comment on the
    content of those discussions in this format, I can say that the removal
    of Iranian and Iranian proxy forces from the country, the enduring
    defeat of ISIS, and an end to the Syrian conflict through a political
    solution remain top foreign policy priorities for the Trump
    administration.

        Question. How are you ensuring Israel's security when you rely on
    Russia, who continues to cooperate with Iran?

        Answer. We strongly support Israel's right to self-defense and
    recognize the legitimate security concerns Iran's current force posture
    in Syria poses for Israel's security. We continue to work extensively
    with likeminded countries, including Israel, to deter and disrupt
    Iranian threats. As part of our commitment to bolstering Israel's
    defense capabilities, we will begin to implement the new 10-year
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in FY 2019. The MOU commits us to
    provide $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing funds per year as
    well as $500 million in Department of Defense funds for cooperative
    missile defense, and we completely support ensuring Israel receives all
    the assistance appropriated by Congress.

        Question. After attempts in the previous administration, and now
    this administration, to test Russian will and capability to uphold
    commitments in Syria . . . why are you now optimistic that Russia will
    successfully compel the Iranians to withdraw their forces and advisers?

        Answers. Each time I have spoken with President Trump about U.S.
    policy in Syria, both before the Helsinki meeting and after, Iran has
    been a central point of focus. The President discussed Syria with
    President Putin and talked about America's continued efforts to ensure
    that Israel was secure from threats from Syria. Despite Russia's
    complicity in the atrocities carried out by the Syrian regime, its
    considerable influence in Syria makes it an essential actor. Engagement
    with Russia by the United States and like-minded partners will continue
    to be a necessary component of any lasting solution in Syria.
        Russia and Iran lack the material resources to provide for the
    stabilization and eventual reconstruction of Syria. Russia has
    approached the United States and international partners about providing
    that assistance, but the United States and our allies will not provide
    international reconstruction assistance absent a credible political
    process in Geneva that leads unalterably to constitutional reform, U.N.
    supervised elections, and a political transition that reflects the will
    of the Syrian people.

        Question. How do you propose to address the Iranian presence in the
    rest of Syria?

        Answer. At the meeting between President Donald Trump and President
    Putin in Helsinki, key Iran-related issues were discussed. This
    included the removal of all Iranian and Iranian proxy forces from
    Syria. The United States remains committed to using every tool at its
    disposal to counter malign Iranian influence throughout the region.
    Iranian support to Assad, particularly the use of sectarian militias
    guilty of abuses against the civilian population, undermines the
    legitimate political process to resolve the conflict in Syria.
    Additionally, Russia and Iran lack the material resources to provide
    for the stabilization and eventual reconstruction of Syria. Russia has
    approached the United States and international partners about providing
    that assistance, but the United States and our allies will not provide
    international reconstruction assistance absent a credible political
    process in Geneva that leads unalterably to constitutional reform, U.N.
    supervised elections, and a political transition that reflects the will
    of the Syrian people.
                   u.s.-russian nuclear arms control matters
        Secretary Pompeo, in response to a question for the record
    following your nomination hearing on April 12, you stated your belief
    that ``the New START Treaty currently contributes to preserving
    strategic stability between the United States and Russia and is in the
    national security interest of the United States.'' You added that the
    administration ``will continue to fully implement New START and will
    consider next steps related to the New START Treaty at the appropriate
    time.'' The treaty, which expires in February 2021, can be extended by
    up to five years. Following the July 16 meeting with President Trump in
    Helsinki, President Putin expressed Russia's willingness to begin
    discussions about an extension and warned that the treaty will expire
    in a year and a half unless work on an extension begins soon. For his
    part, President Trump did not publicly comment on New START during his
    time in Europe but did say of his meeting with Putin that ``Perhaps the
    most important issue we discussed at our meeting . . . was the
    reduction of nuclear weapons throughout the world. Meanwhile, the
    administration is continuing to conduct a review of the pros and cons
    of extending the treaty.

        Question. Did Presidents Trump and Putin discuss New START and a
    possible extension during their private meeting and if so how did
    President Trump respond to President Putin's willingness to begin talks
    on doing so?

        Answer. There were no ``agreements'' reached in Helsinki--beyond
    agreement for our two sides to keep talking on the entire range of
    issues the Presidents discussed, including arms control. Both President
    Trump and President Putin publicly acknowledged the fact that the
    United States and Russia possess over 90 percent of the world's nuclear
    weapons, and as such share a special responsibility to maintain a
    stable, strategic relationship. Both leaders reiterated their
    commitment to discussing issues related to strategic stability and arms
    control, of which New START is one component. The United States is
    fully committed to implementing the New START Treaty, but has made no
    decision regarding a potential extension. This decision will be made at
    the appropriate time.

        Question. What is the administration's timeline for the completing
    its review of whether to extend New START?

        [No Response Received]

        Question. Last year General Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command,
    said that he supports the strategic nuclear limits put in place by the
    New START Treaty. What would be the consequences if there are no data
    exchanges, reciprocal inspections or verifiable limits on U.S. and
    Russian strategic nuclear forces, which would be the case if New START
    is allowed to expire with nothing to replace it?

        Answer. The New START Treaty constrains Russia's deployment of
    strategic nuclear forces, including intercontinental ballistic
    missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, heavy bombers, and
    deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The treaty further permits the
    United States to verify information about Russia's strategic nuclear
    arsenal and contributes to strategic stability. The verification regime
    under the existing Treaty includes 18 on-site inspections per year
    which are utilized to verify the thousands of notifications updating
    the status and location of nuclear forces that each side sends, a
    biannual comprehensive data exchange, and biannual meetings of the
    Treaty's Bilateral Consultative Commission to promote the
    implementation of the provisions of the Treaty. Should the New START
    Treaty expire without a replacement agreement, this information would
    no longer be provided, and U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces
    would be unconstrained for the first time since 1994 when the START I
    Treaty entered into force.

        The United States and Russia held a first round of strategic
    stability talks last September in Helsinki. The specific agenda was not
    disclosed. A second round of talks was slated to take place on March 7-
    8 in Vienna, but Russia announced that it would not participate in the
    talks, citing the U.S. cancellation of bilateral consultations on
    cybersecurity that had been scheduled to take place in late February in
    Geneva.

        Question. Did Presidents Trump and Putin discuss the resumption of
    strategic stability talks at their July 16 meeting? What are the
    administration's goals for strategic stability discussions with Russia?

        Answer. There were no ``agreements'' reached in Helsinki--beyond
    agreement for our two sides to keep talking on the entire range of
    issues the Presidents discussed. The leaders affirmed the importance of
    continuing discussion on arms control and strategic stability, as our
    two countries hold the preponderance of the world's nuclear weapons and
    have a duty to manage our relations responsibly. We expect another
    round of strategic stability talks in the future. There are no
    specifics regarding potential topics at this time.
                                malign influence
        The Kremlin's malign interference--including corrupt influence,
    cyberattacks, disinformation, and other tools--continues not just
    against the U.S. but against multiple countries in Europe.

        Question. Have you been personally tasked by President Trump to
    coordinate with other cabinet agencies on a whole-of-government
    response to Kremlin malign interference?

        Answer. Russia has shown through its aggressive actions that it
    rejects the post-Cold War order. Russia's efforts have extended beyond
    traditional military campaigns to encompass a suite of ``hybrid'' tools
    used to gain influence. Safeguarding the United States and our allies
    and partners from Russian malign influence campaigns is a core
    component of the administration's Russia strategy, our diplomatic
    engagement with partners and allies, and our foreign assistance.
        The Department works across the interagency, as well as closely
    with allies and partners, to deter and defend against Russian malign
    activity both at home and abroad. The Department's whole-of-government
    approach combines diplomatic, foreign assistance, intelligence, and law
    enforcement lines of effort to deter and defend against these
    activities.

        Question. Echoing Bush-era CIA Director George Tenet, DNI Coats
    recently said that the ``light was blinking red again'' regarding cyber
    attacks and foreign attempts to interfere in American elections. Has
    the President issued a directive to take specific actions to disrupt
    and deter Russian interference and cyberattacks into the midterm
    elections? If so, what are they?

        Answer. Russian efforts to undermine democratic processes and the
    sovereignty of its neighbors are unacceptable and require a whole-of-
    government response. The Department of State works closely with other
    departments and agencies, as well as closely with Allies and partners,
    to protect our nation against potential interference in our election
    processes.
        As the lead foreign policy agency, we communicate to the Russian
    government when its behavior is unacceptable, working with our
    interagency partners to impose costs in response, and building
    international coalitions to actively deter malign Russian activities--
    including those carried out through cyberspace--and to share best
    practices. The Department will continue to support the efforts of the
    Departments of Homeland Security and Justice and, as appropriate, state
    and local officials to secure our elections, leveraging all necessary
    and available Department resources to counter Russian interference
    efforts.
        In 2016, Montenegro uncovered a planned assassination against its
    pro-Western Prime Minister that aimed to prevent Montenegro's ascension
    to NATO. Investigations are ongoing to determine the source of the
    plot, but British intelligence has said it was a Russian-backed coup
    attempt.

        Question. Does the administration believe that Russia took measures
    to prevent Montenegro's ascension to NATO?

        Answer. The evidence presented by Montenegrin prosecutors
    overwhelmingly links Russian intelligence services to the attempted
    coup plot in October 2016. In particular, the Montenegrin authorities
    have connected Russian GRU officers Vladimir Popov and Eduard
    Shishmakov, who were previously expelled from Poland for espionage, to
    the plot. There are also records of financial transactions, spoken
    testimony, seized encrypted phones, and email addresses that link to
    Moscow.
        Russian coercion and interference in Montenegro is not new;
    following NATO's decision to admit Montenegro into the Alliance, Moscow
    funded anti-NATO political groups and protests and began a propaganda
    smear campaign to harm Montenegro's tourism industry. The Montenegrin
    government has stood strong and repeatedly asserted its sovereign right
    to choose its own alliances.

        Question. Why did President Trump single out Montenegrins--recent
    victims of Russian aggression--as `aggressive' while calling U.S.
    commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty into question?

        Answer. The United States is proud to have supported Montenegro's
    NATO accession in 2017. The President reiterated the ironclad American
    commitment to collective defense at the recent NATO Summit. Montenegro
    continues to play an active role through its contributions to NATO's
    mission in Afghanistan, and the United States welcomes Montenegro's
    recent announcement of its intent to strengthen its commitments to NATO
    in support of operations in Iraq and Latvia. I am proud to call
    Montenegro an Ally.
                                     russia
        The Kremlin's agenda of aggression and interference toward the
    United States and our allies and interests around the globe continues
    unabated. Meanwhile, seven mandatory sanctions provisions in CAATSA
    have yet to be implemented by the Trump administration, and the
    President's public waffling on the Russian threat call into question
    his willingness and capacity to prioritize and lead a whole-of-
    government effort to respond to Russian government actions. You have
    stated that you met with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Helsinki
    and have had conversations with him since then.

        Question. Please describe in detail the working groups that were
    agreed to between the United States and the Russian Federation during
    the meeting in Helsinki.

        Answer. The goal of the Helsinki meetings was to have a
    conversation about the state of U.S.-Russia relations, which are their
    lowest level since the end of the Cold War, and to explore Moscow's
    willingness to address the very real issues that have led us to this
    place. There were no agreements reached in Helsinki beyond agreement
    for our two sides to keep talking on an entire range of issues.
        The U.S. and Russian National Security Councils staff are
    developing a dialogue to assist in these discussions. Two new proposed
    working groups are the initial efforts in this dialogue. The business
    leadership working group would consist of U.S. and Russian Chief
    Executive Officers of major private companies, who will present ideas
    to address economic relations between the two countries. The political,
    or Track II, working group of academics and former U.S. and Russian
    officials would suggest possible solutions on issues facing the
    bilateral relationship.

        Question. In your July 25 hearing, you said FM Lavrov raised the
    Global Engagement Center--please summarize his comments on this issue
    and your response?

        Answer. I have been clear with Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russian
    attempts to undermine democratic processes, including through
    disinformation and propaganda, are unacceptable. The Global Engagement
    Center is an important part of Department efforts to deter and defend
    against Russian sponsored disinformation and propaganda.

        Question. Did you raise with FM Lavrov in Helsinki, or in other
    venues, the issues of Kremlin interference in our and others'
    democratic processes; its deployment of cyber-attacks, disinformation,
    and corruption; its illegal annexation of territory in Ukraine and its
    support to separatists in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova; and its support
    for the Syrian regime's brutality and its attacks on U.S. service
    members in Syria? How would you characterize his response, and how will
    you continue to address these issues with the Russian government?

        Answer. Russian efforts to undermine democratic processes, the
    sovereignty of its neighbors, and international stability are
    unacceptable and require a whole-of-government response. We are working
    across the U.S. government, as well as closely with allies and
    partners, to deter and defend against these activities both at home and
    abroad. I continue to raise concerns about Russia's destabilizing
    activity with FM Lavrov at every opportunity and our policy towards
    Russia will not change until Moscow takes demonstrable steps to disavow
    this activity.

        Question. Has President Trump convened any cabinet level meetings
    to design a strategy to stop the Russian government threats described
    above? Has the Trump administration developed any responses to punish
    and prevent the various forms of Kremlin aggression described above?
    Please describe any such responses that have been developed.

        Answer. Russia has shown through its aggressive actions that it
    rejects the post-Cold War order. Safeguarding the United States and our
    allies and partners from Russia's destabilizing activity is a core
    component of the administration's Russia strategy, our diplomatic
    engagement with partners and allies, and our foreign assistance. We've
    been clear with Russia that its malign activity has consequences.
    Moreover, this administration has sanctioned 213 individuals and
    entities in Russia for their destabilizing activity.
        The Department is part of an interagency, whole-of-government
    approach that combines diplomatic, foreign assistance, intelligence,
    and law enforcement lines of effort to deter and defend against these
    activities. As the lead foreign policy agency, we communicate to the
    Russian government when its behavior is unacceptable, work with our
    interagency partners to impose costs in response, and build
    international coalitions to actively deter malign Russian activities--
    including those carried out through cyberspace. The Department will
    continue to support the efforts of the Departments of Homeland Security
    and Justice and will leverage all necessary and available Department
    resources to counter Russian interference efforts.

        Question. Using the same logic applied to the North Korea case, has
    President Trump determined that Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism?
    Is the administration considering such a determination?

        Answer. As a matter of law, in order for any country to be
    designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must
    determine that the government of that country has repeatedly provided
    support for acts of international terrorism. State Sponsor of Terrorism
    designations are made after careful review of all available evidence to
    determine if a country meets the statutory criteria for designation.
    The U.S. government has already taken a number of significant and
    effective steps to indicate our concern about and respond to Russian
    aggression and destabilizing behavior. We will continue applying
    pressure until Russia chooses to become a responsible member of the
    international community.

        Question. Will you identify additional sanctions targets under
    existing sanctions authorities and what considerations are guiding your
    identification of such new targets? Per your statement in the July 25
    hearing about finding ``the right places and the right leverage points
    . . . that will actually make a difference to Russia,'' what new
    sanctions authorities do you believe would be useful in curbing Kremlin
    aggression?

        Answer. We remain fully committed to implementing CAATSA, just as
    we remain fully committed to imposing costs on Russia until it has
    changed its destabilizing activities. Nonetheless, we cannot comment on
    potential specific future sanctions actions.
        We have the necessary tools to impose costs on Russia for its
    destabilizing activities, and we are actively using them. The
    administration has already designated 213 individuals and entities for
    their involvement in Russian malign activities, including through use
    of CAATSA. We are committed to utilizing existing authorities to find
    the right places and the right leverage points that will actually make
    a difference to Russia.
        Rather than hurt Russia, additional mandatory sanctions could have
    significant negative consequences on U.S. and EU businesses. U.S.-EU
    transatlantic unity is critical to the effectiveness of our sanctions
    on Russia and we want to focus the sanctions costs on the Russian
    government and minimize unintended impact on our allies. After April 6,
    U.S. and allied businesses estimated lost revenue in the millions of
    dollars as a direct result of sanctions against Russia oligarchs and
    their companies.
                                    hungary
        As you know, since the Hungarian government's passage of a law last
    year curtailing academic freedom and foreign institutions in the
    country, the Central European University (CEU) sought the Hungarian
    government's agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding with the state
    of New York that would allow the university to remain in Budapest. But
    with no response from the Hungarian government side and its future in
    Budapest uncertain, CEU has been forced to develop contingency plans to
    relocate its campus to another country even as it aims to maintain
    normal operations in Budapest absent a resolution.

        Question. Have you personally raised this issue with Foreign
    Minister Szijjarto? Do you commit at the earliest available opportunity
    to raising this issue with him, and directing state officials to raise
    with their Hungarian counterparts, to encourage an agreeable resolution
    of this issue?

        Answer. I raised the issue of the Central European University (CEU)
    personally with FM Szijjarto. The State Department's Bureau of European
    and Eurasian Affairs and our embassy in Hungary also have been
    highlighting this issue with Hungarian officials for some time, and
    they have been in regular contact with CEU. Ambassador Cornstein has
    made successful resolution of this issue a priority, and we will
    continue to underscore the importance of CEU until its status is
    resolved.
                                northern ireland
        There are growing concerns that the Good Friday Agreement will be
    further jeopardized by the United Kingdom's departure from the European
    Union, and U.S. engagement to encourage full implementation of the
    agreement remains critical.

        Question. Since taking office, have you considered the appointment
    of a Special Envoy to Northern Ireland and what are the plans of the
    Trump administration to appoint someone to this position, as we
    understand it has expressed intent to do?

        Answer. The United States remains firmly committed to the Northern
    Ireland Peace Process including the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and
    subsequent agreements. We will continue to engage all parties and
    communities to work together to build a better, shared future. Through
    our Consulate in Belfast we promote reconciliation, two-way trade and
    investment, and cultural exchanges. We will work with the British and
    Irish governments, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, and
    the European Union to ensure twenty years of gains in the peace process
    are not sacrificed by the exit of the U.K. from the EU.
        We are looking into the possibility of naming an envoy to the
    region. No personnel decision has been made.

        Question. Are you working to appoint a U.S. ambassador to Ireland,
    vacant since the beginning of the Trump administration? How does the
    lack of an ambassador there affect U.S. interests with respect to the
    Good Friday Agreement and issues surrounding Brexit?

        Answer. The President is committed to nominating an ambassador to
    Ireland as soon as possible. In the meantime, we continue to engage all
    parties and communities to work together to build a better, shared
    future through our Consulate General in Belfast and Embassies in London
    and Dublin. We will continue to work with the British and Irish
    governments, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, and the
    European Union to ensure twenty years of gains in the peace process are
    not sacrificed by the exit of the U.K. from the EU.
                                     crimea
        There are concerns among many international observers about
    continuing human rights violations in Crimea under the Russian
    Federation's illegal occupation of the peninsula--and no doubt that
    Russia is responsible for any such violations in territories it
    illegally occupies. Recent hunger strikes by political prisoners held
    in Crimea or who have been transferred from Crimea to prison inside the
    Russian Federation demonstrate the acute risk to life from Russia's
    illegal occupation. There is also concern that resolving the situation
    in Crimea risks being overshadowed by the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

        Question. What are you doing to raise human rights concerns in
    Crimea with your counterparts in the Russian government, and to
    advocate specifically for the release of political prisoners from
    Crimea? Have you personally raised the case of hunger striker Oleg
    Sentsov with your Russian counterpart, and if you haven't, will you
    commit to doing so at the soonest opportunity?

        Answer. We share your concerns about the appalling human rights
    situation in Crimea and about the continued wrongful imprisonment of
    Crimean film director Oleg Sentsov. The State Department continues to
    call on the Government of Russia, in both public statements and private
    discussions, to end its repressive occupation of Crimea and cease its
    campaign of pressure on opponents of the occupation. Our missions at
    the U.N. and the OSCE, and embassies in Kyiv and Moscow, have
    prioritized engagement on human rights concerns in Crimea. We have
    frequently called on Russia to release all victims of politically-
    motivated prosecution, including Mr. Sentsov and the approximately 70
    other Ukrainian citizens it has unjustly imprisoned. Department
    officials frequently meet with relatives of and advocates for these
    prisoners and we remain committed to pressing for their release.
                                     mh-17
        According to a recent report, the Department of State drafted, but
    did not publish on its website, a statement on ``Remembering the Shoot
    Down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.'' While the Department did
    publish the Joint Statement from the G7 Foreign Minister on MH17, the
    State Department's message--which reportedly briefly appeared on the
    website of the U.S. Embassy Moscow before being taken down--reportedly
    contained more details from the work of the Joint Investigation Team
    connecting the missile to a Russian military unit, and also had a
    stronger condemnation of Vladimir Putin's disinformation campaign and
    efforts to impede the investigation.

        Question. Did the State Department draft its own statement on the
    MH17 shoot down, but not publish it? If so, who made the decision not
    to publish the statement and what was the reason for that decision? Did
    the State Department briefly publish the statement on the U.S. Embassy
    Moscow page and then take it down? If so, who made the decision to take
    the statement down and what was the reason for that decision? Why did
    the State Department not post the G7 statement on MH17 until Wednesday,
    when other G7 governments, like those of Canada and Britain, posted the
    statement on the Sunday it was released? Is it true that the State
    Department only posted the G7 statement after it was contacted by a
    reporter asking about the matter? How specifically is this
    administration working to support an accounting by Russia of its role
    in the MH15 incident and questions on potential breaches of
    international law, as well as efforts to support justice for victims
    and accountability for perpetrators?

        Answer. I have complete confidence in the findings of the Joint
    Investigation Team (JIT), and I call on Russia to account for its role
    in the July 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern
    Ukraine. I stand by the Department's May 24 and May 25 statements on
    the downing of MH17 and I reemphasized these points with my G7 foreign
    minister counterparts in our July 15 joint statement. Our policy is
    clear in these three statements.
        Per standard practice, multiple offices at the Department of State
    work together to draft and/or coordinate statements and then determine
    the appropriate time and mode for releasing them. Given the strength of
    the multilateral G7 statement, we deemed it unnecessary to release a
    separate unilateral message we had drafted as a contingency. Generally,
    multilateral statements are posted on the relevant organization's
    website, but when the lack of a unilateral statement was misconstrued
    as a change in policy, the Department posted the G7 Foreign Ministers
    Statement to reiterate the U.S. position. There was and is, no change
    in the U.S. position regarding the MH17 investigation. The Department
    continues to engage with relevant counterparts on ways we can continue
    to support the Dutch and Australian-led effort to hold Russia to
    account for its role and in the anticipated criminal cases in the Dutch
    judicial system.
                      turkey/greece/eastern mediterranean
        Question. Is the administration is considering a new approach
    towards Turkey, in light of statements by President Trump and Vice
    President Pence about possible new sanctions? How are Turkey's
    aggressive actions against its NATO ally Greece being considered when
    sanctions or the transfer of F35s are contemplated?

        [No Response Received]

        Question. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Orthodox Christianity
    who is headquartered in Istanbul, and the church that he leads, has had
    its properties in Turkey confiscated, its Halki Seminary closed down,
    and many religious freedoms curtailed. How are you approaching this
    situation and what priority does it take in your bilateral engagements
    with Turkey?

        Answer. The United States supports religious freedom for all,
    including the freedom for members of religious groups to govern their
    religion according to their beliefs and practice their faith freely,
    without government interference.
        The United States Charge d'Affaires in Ankara, visiting senior U.S.
    officials, and embassy and consulate officials continue to engage with
    Turkish government officials and emphasize the importance of respect
    for religious diversity and equal treatment under the law. Embassy and
    consulate representatives and visiting U.S. government officials
    continue to urge the government of Turkey to lift restrictions on
    religious groups and make progress on property restitution and specific
    cases of religious discrimination as well as to negotiate the reopening
    of Halki Seminary on terms acceptable to the Church. Embassy officials
    also meet with a wide range of religious community leaders, including
    those of the Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox
    Christian, Protestant, Alevi, and Syriac Orthodox communities, to
    underscore the importance of religious freedom and interfaith tolerance
    and to condemn discriminatory language against any faith.

        Question. What is your policy view on the joint efforts in the
    field of hydrocarbons among Israel, Greece and Cyprus? How is the Trump
    administration responding to Turkish threats against hydrocarbon
    exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean?

        Answer. Discoveries offshore Cyprus, Israel, and potentially Greece
    have already redefined regional relationships and I believe will
    continue to be a catalyst for increased economic and political
    cooperation through interconnection and integration. The successful
    exploration, production, and export of the hydrocarbon resources in the
    Eastern Mediterranean will require exactly the political cooperation
    and economic integration that the United States has long supported in
    the region. The United States recognizes the right of the Republic of
    Cyprus to develop resources in its exclusive economic zone. I believe
    the island's hydrocarbon resources, like all its resources, should be
    shared equitably between both communities in the context of an overall
    settlement.
        I discourage any actions or rhetoric that increase tensions in the
    region. Turkey's actions in February undermine its international
    reputation and economic interests. I am monitoring the progress of
    hydrocarbons exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean very closely.
                              russia human rights
        Putin's aggressive foreign policy to undermine democratic processes
    and values in Europe and the United States is a function of his
    domestic policy to eliminate dissent and shore up his brittle, corrupt
    regime. So part of our response to Russian aggression must be to
    support to those Russians pushing for reform, transparency, and human
    rights in their own country. As you know, many of your predecessors met
    with human rights activists in Russia as a matter of course during
    their visits to Moscow, though notably, Secretary Tillerson did not.

        Question. These issues have only grown in importance after Putin's
    re-election in April showed, according to international observers, ``a
    lack of genuine choice'' and ``continued pressure on critical voices.''
    What is the State Department specifically doing to engage the Russian
    people and support their human rights and their hope for transparent,
    accountable governance?

        Answer. The U.S. government's commitment to supporting democracy
    and civil society in Russia remains firm. The Russian people, like
    people everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open
    marketplace of ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal
    treatment under the law, and the ability to exercise their rights
    without fear of retribution.
        Although the space for civil society and free media in Russia has
    become increasingly restricted, independent Russian organizations and
    individuals continue to express a desire to engage with the United
    States. As long as this continues to be the case, the United States
    will support opportunities for direct interaction between Russians and
    Americans, including through peer-to-peer, educational, cultural, and
    other regional programs that provide exchanges of best practices and
    ideas on themes of mutual interest.
        The United States also continues to call on the Government of
    Russia to uphold its international obligations and commitments to
    promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to cease
    restrictions on the work of civil society organizations in Russia.
                                  north korea
        Secretary Pompeo, you visited the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio
    Guterres on Friday (July 20) to discuss preparations for the U.N.
    General Assembly in September.

        Question. What plans, if any, are being made to coordinate a second
    meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un?

        Answer. The Singapore summit, which occurred a little over a month
    ago, created great momentum for positive change and was the first step
    in this process. President Trump has expressed openness for a second
    meeting in connection with Kim Jong Un's commitment to denuclearize,
    but at this time, no second meeting is planned. We want
    denuclearization that is fully verified and, most importantly, final--
    the President wants to denuclearize North Korea once and for all and
    not have the nuclear issue resurface again.

        Question. Mr. Secretary you have visited Pyongyang three times now.
    Has the administration assembled a working-level team or teams to
    negotiate with the North Koreans? Does you intend to continue to lead
    this effort, or does you intend to appoint an official, such as a
    Special Representative for North Korea Policy? Could you provide the
    committee with the names of the experts and scientists and the names of
    the offices and agencies with whom you and your team are presumably
    consulting with to develop technically-sound proposals for
    denuclearization?

        Answer. I have established a post-Singapore Summit working group
    dedicated to directing my Department's planning, policy, implementation
    and verification of our efforts to achieve the denuclearization of
    North Korea consistent with the Singapore Summit's joint statement. The
    working group is led by Alex Wong, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East
    Asian and Pacific Affairs; Ben Purser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    International Security and Nonproliferation; Mark Lambert, Acting
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Korea and includes many other
    colleagues, drawing upon the expertise of the entire Department. The
    team supports Ambassador Sung Kim's ongoing negotiation efforts. We
    will continue to closely collaborate with the interagency.

        Question. Is the administration considering offering the North
    Koreans either a political statement ending the war or a final peace
    treaty in place of the current armistice agreement? Where in a
    diplomatic sequence should a peace statement or treaty come--before,
    during, or after denuclearization? If so, what prompted the
    administration to offer this during the negotiations? Does the
    administration believe the North Koreans will follow through with their
    end of any agreement that results in a peace treaty?

        Answer. We are considering multiple options; denuclearization is an
    indispensable condition for a secure and permanent peace on the Korean
    Peninsula. I do not want to get into hypotheticals regarding timing,
    but the President is confident Chairman Kim will honor the commitments
    made in Singapore.
                    north korea policy oversight act of 2018
        Senator Gardner and I have introduced the North Korea Policy
    Oversight Act of 2018 to provide congressional oversight of U.S.
    diplomacy with North Korea and any agreement that emerges from the
    administration's engagement with Kim Jong Un.

        Question. What are your views of the bill?

        Answer. As a former congressman, I believe congressional oversight
    is key, and I am committed to working with Congress on this issue.

        Question. Does the administration plan to submit a binding U.S.-
    DPRK agreement to the Senate as a treaty?

        Answer. I do not want to comment on hypotheticals of what form any
    outcome of our discussions with the DPRK may take, but as a former
    Congressman, I am committed to working with Congress and ensuring
    appropriate oversight of our engagement with the DPRK.
                          north korean nuclear threat
        You stated the words of the President are U.S. policy. On June 13,
    2018 President Trump tweeted that ``There is no longer a nuclear threat
    from North Korea.''

        Question. What steps has North Korean taken that provide us with
    confidence the North Korea nuclear threat has been eliminated to the
    United States and our Asia-Pacific allies?

        Answer. The President achieved his objectives at the Singapore
    Summit. He secured a DPRK commitment to complete denuclearization of
    the Korean Peninsula and built a good working relationship with
    Chairman Kim. This is the beginning of the process for final, fully-
    verified, denuclearization of the DPRK as agreed to by Chairman Kim.
        Our alliances remain ironclad, and ensure peace and stability in
    the region. The security of South Korea and Japan are essential to
    America's security, and we will continue to meet all our alliance
    commitments.
                                denuclearization
        Before the Singapore summit, President Trump said denuclearization
    should start ``without delay,'' and after the meeting, he spoke of the
    process beginning ``very quickly.'' National Security Advisor John
    Bolton said North Korea could dismantle all of its nuclear weapons,
    threatening missiles and biological weapons ``in a year.'' Now the
    President is saying ``we have no time limit. We have no speed limit on
    limit'' on the denuclearization process. This a remarkable shift. It
    appears to me the administration is satisfied with the current
    situation and is willing to allow it continue indefinitely.

        Question. What is the administrations' timeline for negotiations?

        Answer. The Singapore summit, which occurred a little over a month
    ago, created great momentum for positive change and was the first step
    in this process. We are moving together for further negotiations, and
    the United States seeks to move quickly. There is much work to be done,
    and my team looks forward to working with the DPRK to establish clear
    timelines and milestones. We want denuclearization that is fully
    verified and, most importantly, final--the President wants to
    denuclearize North Korea once and for all and not have the nuclear
    issue resurface again.

        Question. What immediate steps from North Korea are you looking for
    to determine whether North Korea will serious begin the
    denuclearization process?

        Answer. Diplomatic talks with the DPRK are ongoing. In Singapore,
    Chairman Kim agreed to our goal of achieving the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. In Pyongyang, I had detailed and
    substantive discussions about next steps toward fully verified and
    complete denuclearization. I look forward to continuing discussions,
    and we remain open to any number of immediate steps the DPRK might
    take.

        Question. What sort of reciprocal steps is the United States
    considering offering North Korea if it takes concrete actions to
    denuclearize?

        Answer. We are committed to continued engagement on implementing
    the agreement reached in Singapore. Diplomatic talks with the DPRK are
    ongoing. We want denuclearization that is fully verified and,
    importantly, final--the President wants to denuclearize North Korea
    once and for all and not have the nuclear issue resurface again.

        Question. What are the specific, verifiable steps toward
    denuclearization that the administration expects North Korea to take in
    the next 12 to 24 months and how will the administration reciprocate?

        Answer. The administration continues to work towards the full
    implementation of the commitments Chairman Kim made in Singapore, and
    to plan for the denuclearization of North Korea, including the specific
    steps necessary to accomplish this.

        Question. Short of complete denuclearization, what specific
    confidence building measures would the administration welcome from
    North Korea?

        Answer. Through my discussions with North Korean officials, I have
    made it clear what gestures or actions would signal their commitment to
    denuclearization. We anticipate receiving and repatriating our fallen
    heroes' remains soon as a tangible step toward the realization of
    President Trump's and Chairman Kim's commitments in Singapore. Though
    the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear test site and a missile engine
    test stand are encouraging signs, steps toward denuclearization require
    verification. We would welcome the DPRK allowing international
    inspectors to verify these actions, as well as further concrete and
    irreversible actions toward North Korean denuclearization.

        Question. North Korea has cited the United States' ``hostile
    policy'' as the rationale for its nuclear program. How does the
    administration intend to reassure the North that it has no hostile
    intent?

        Answer. During the Singapore Summit, President Trump committed to
    provide security guarantees to the DPRK, while Chairman Kim reaffirmed
    his commitment to complete denuclearization. President Trump's
    objective is the final and fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK.
    We seek to accomplish that objective through diplomatic means and have
    made this clear to the DPRK.

        Question. North Korea has not tested a nuclear weapon since
    September 2017, and has not tested a ballistic missile since November
    2017. Has the administration requested North Korea make the nuclear
    test moratorium legally-binding and verifiable by signing the 1996
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? What is the administration doing
    to make this test moratorium official? Did you raise concerns about on-
    going North Korean activities to continue to advance their nuclear
    programs? Did you raise concerns that we need to see meaningful and
    concrete steps to indicate North Korea's commitments, not just the made
    for TV steps North Korea has taken thus far?

        Answer. The President remains committed to fully and finally
    resolving the issue of DPRK's illicit and threatening WMDs and their
    delivery systems at the earliest opportunity. Verification is an
    essential part of complete denuclearization, and President Trump and
    Chairman Kim both committed to this in Singapore. The U.S. government
    is committed to robust monitoring and verification measures that will
    be required to achieve complete denuclearization and to not have the
    nuclear issue resurface again.

        Question. Without any interim agreement on fissile material
    production, North Korea will be free to expand its nuclear weapons
    program. Is the administration pursuing a verifiable freeze on
    production as a realistic near-term goal for denuclearization talks? If
    not, why?

        Answer. The administration is pursuing steps to denuclearize North
    Korea--which includes eliminating all of DPRK's illicit and threatening
    WMDs and their delivery systems--at the earliest opportunity. We remain
    committed to fully and finally resolving the issue of DPRK's illicit
    and threatening WMDs and delivery systems.

        Question. Given that South Korea appears interested in moving
    forward with North-South diplomacy, how do we keep the North-South
    tracks and the denuclearization tracks lashed together?

        Answer. We support the deepening of inter-Korean ties in hopes of
    establishing lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. However, as the
    President has said, ``sanctions will be enforced and remain in effect.
    The international community cannot let up on the pressure until the
    DPRK denuclearizes.'' We are closely aligned with the Republic of Korea
    on this message.
                               china's influence
        Question. What mechanism does the United States have to break this
    stalemate and put additional pressure on North Korea to engage
    seriously in these talks? Is China allowing more or less trade into
    North Korea since the summit? How can a policy of maximum pressure be
    effective if China reengages in economic interchange with North Korea,
    as now appears to be the case after the summit?

        Answer. The United States seeks a constructive and results-oriented
    relationship with China. China must continue to hold the North Korean
    regime accountable through applying economic and diplomatic pressure in
    order to bring about our shared objective of the final and fully
    verified denuclearization of North Korea. This includes the continued
    implementation of all relevant UNSCRs, which remain critical to
    ensuring progress on the commitments North Korea made at the Singapore
    summit. We continue to engage Chinese officials at all levels on this
    objective, to include taking decisive action against entities involved
    in DPRK sanctions evasion activity. We will not hesitate to take
    unilateral action against entities that continue to support the DPRK
    regime in contravention of U.N. sanctions

        Question. I believe China, will continue to play a critical role as
    North Korea moves to halt, dismantle, and remove its nuclear weapons.
    Will you maintain a tough approach to China to assure that it, in turn,
    delivers North Korean performance?

        Answer. As North Korea's largest traditional trading partner, China
    has a special responsibility to ensure the continued implementation of
    relevant UNSCRs and to maintain pressure on North Korea.
        After the June 12 summit in Singapore, the Chinese Ministry of
    Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a statement describing its approach to
    North Korea as ``committed to . . . tireless efforts toward
    denuclearization of the Peninsula, the maintenance of peace and
    stability on the Peninsula and resolution of issues through dialogue
    and consultations.'' We continue to engage Chinese officials to urge
    them to maintain economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea. We
    are cooperating with many countries, including China, to take decisive
    action against entities involved in DPRK sanctions evasion activity. We
    will not hesitate to take unilateral action against entities that
    continue to support the DPRK regime in contravention of U.N. sanctions.
                          chinese political prisoners
        On behalf of Senator Schumer, from the great state of New York, we
    wanted to ask you about Americans who have been detained in China. As
    of today, there are approximately 100 Americans detained or imprisoned
    in China. There are nearly 40 other Americans who are subject to ``exit
    bans'' and are therefore unable to leave China. Amongst those
    imprisoned is Li Kai, a New Yorker who was arrested by the Chinese
    authorities in September 2016 and was recently sentenced to 10 years in
    prison.

        Question. Will you commit to advocating for the release of Li Kai
    and all Americans imprisoned in China? What actions can you take going
    forward to advocate for the prompt release Li Kai and all other
    Americans imprisoned in China?

        Answer. One of the highest priorities of the Department of State is
    to protect the lives and serve the interests of U.S. citizens overseas.
    This includes providing all appropriate assistance when a U.S. citizen
    is detained abroad. While a U.S. embassy or consulate has no authority
    to intervene in a foreign country's legal process, U.S. consular
    officers may visit and provide support to detained U.S. citizens. In
    the case of Mr. Kai Li, we have closely monitored his case and visited
    him regularly since his detention.
        The U.S. Mission in China works closely with local officials to
    ensure that consular officers have regular access to detained U.S.
    citizens and that those citizens are being treated fairly, humanely,
    and in accordance with Chinese law to include access to a lawyer and a
    fair trial. The Department routinely presses the Chinese government on
    the treatment of detained U.S. citizens, as appropriate, and in certain
    exceptional cases, the U.S. government has called for a prisoner's
    release on humanitarian or human rights grounds, based on case-specific
    facts.
                     readouts of call with foreign leaders
        Question. The White House has recently ceased making readouts of
    the President's calls with foreign leaders public. Do you support that
    decision?

        Answer. The Department is committed to transparency and
    accountability to the American people. We have multiple ways to ensure
    the U.S. and foreign publics are informed about U.S. foreign policy.
    Readouts of my calls and meetings with foreign officials are one
    important way of doing so. Since I began my tenure as Secretary, I have
    authorized release of 72 readouts (as of July 30) of my call and
    meetings.
        As the Secretary of State, I meet regularly with the President on
    all matters related to foreign policy including his contacts with
    foreign leaders. When the President speaks to foreign leaders, I am
    briefed about his conversations and meetings.

        Question. Are you still receiving readouts when the President
    speaks with foreign leaders?

        Answer. As the Secretary of State, I meet regularly with the
    President on all matters related to foreign policy including his
    contacts with foreign leaders. When the President speaks to foreign
    leaders, I am briefed about his conversations and meetings.
                             reorganization of prm
        The Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration within the
    Department of State provides critical multi-functional leadership by
    being able to pair humanitarian assistance and refugee resettlement as
    part of U.S. foreign policy and national security negotiations
    overseas. Dismantling these functions would inhibit the Bureau's and
    the State Department's effectiveness in securing U.S. interests.

        Question. What is the current state of discussions in the
    administration, and your views, vis-a-vis transfer of any of PRM's
    functions to other agencies, including USAID?

        Answer. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration is an
    integral part of State's foreign policy efforts to prevent and respond
    to crises and conflict, and promote regional stability. In response to
    Executive Order 13781 and the Executive Branch reorganization report
    issued by the White House and OMB in June that included principles for
    a review of our humanitarian assistance structures, I initiated a
    process to develop recommendations for my consideration. That process
    is underway, but nothing has been finalized. The aim of the process is
    to optimize U.S. diplomacy and assistance to displaced people around
    the world, ensure our programs are effective and efficient, and are
    structured in a way that best adheres to our mission.
                                    refugees
        Violent conflict, political unrest, and uprisings have unleashed
    refugee crises of unparalleled magnitude around the world, forcing
    millions across borders and conflicts--many for years. Protecting and
    assisting refugees is inherently political.

        Question. Will you ensure that the State Department continues as
    the lead agency for high level/strategic engagement on refugees and
    humanitarian response and assistance to refugees?

        Answer. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration fulfills
    a critical role in providing humanitarian aid, durable solutions and
    other assistance for refugees, conflict victims, and stateless people.
    It is an integral part of State's efforts to prevent and respond to
    crises and conflict around the world. As part of the executive branch
    review of agencies' policies and structures in pursuit of increased
    efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, we will optimize U.S.
    diplomacy and assistance to displaced people around the world.
                               refugee admissions
        This week you hosted a Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom in
    Washington. However, refugee admissions of persecuted religious
    minorities, including religious minorities from Iran through the
    Lautenberg program, have plummeted.

        Question. How will you address this drastic decline in the refugee
    admissions during your Ministerial and beyond?

        Answer. The President authorized the admission of up to 45,000
    refugees in FY 2018. Over the last year and a half, U.S. government
    agencies have worked to strengthen the U.S. Refugee Admissions
    Program's security measures. While necessary to improve national
    security and public safety, these reviews and enhancements have
    lengthened processing times for some cases thus slowing the rate of
    admissions. In addition, the United States is focusing resources on the
    domestic asylum backlog, which is over 300,000 cases and growing.
    Nevertheless, the United States continues to prioritize the
    resettlement of the world's most vulnerable refugees. We work closely
    with U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and other partners to identify
    the refugees at greatest risk and in most need of resettlement in a
    third country.

        Refugee resettlement is an important American diplomacy and
    national security lever.

        Question. How do you convince countries with much smaller GDPs
    compared to the U.S. to continue to take on the financial burden of
    hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees - countries like Jordan,
    Lebanon, and Turkey - to continue doing so when we can't reach our own
    record low cap of 45,000 refugee arrivals?

        Answer. The United States is the largest single country provider of
    humanitarian assistance worldwide, providing more than $8 billion in
    humanitarian assistance worldwide in FY 2017, including to refugees.
    Our assistance reaches tens of millions of displaced and crisis-
    affected people, including those who will never be considered for
    resettlement. In addition, the United States continues to prioritize
    the admission of vulnerable refugees who have been persecuted because
    of race, political opinion, nationality, religion, or membership in a
    particular social group. In response to Executive Order 13780,
    Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United
    States, the U.S. government identified additional screening and vetting
    procedures to enable departments and agencies to more thoroughly review
    refugee applicants to identify potential threats to public safety and
    national security. These enhancements increased processing time for
    some cases.

        When the U.S. reduced refugee arrivals from nearly 85,000 in FY16
    to less than 55,000 in FY17, and now with the U.S. on pace to only
    resettle 21,000 refugees this year, other resettlement countries have
    also reduced their numbers.

        Question. How will you convince other countries to resettle more
    refugees when our own resettlement numbers are plummeting? How many
    refugees does the State Department support resettling next fiscal year?

        Answer. The United States is the largest single country provider of
    humanitarian assistance worldwide, providing more than $8 billion in
    humanitarian assistance, including to refugees. Our assistance reaches
    tens of millions of displaced and crisis-affected people worldwide,
    including those who will never be considered for resettlement. The
    United States continues to prioritize the admission of vulnerable
    refugees who have been persecuted because of race, political opinion,
    nationality, religion, or membership in a particular social group. The
    Presidential Determination will be made prior to the start of FY 2019,
    after consultations with Congress.
                                      lgbt
        Over the last year, in a number of places around the globe, LGBTQ
    people have been targeted, rounded up, tortured and even killed, just
    for being who they are. We've seen it in Chechnya, Egypt, Azerbaijan,
    Indonesia, Bangladesh and other places. I was therefore please to see
    your statement last month marking the International Day Against
    Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia that the U.S. ``opposes
    criminalization, violence and serious acts of discrimination'' against
    LGBTI persons.

        Question. Based on that, what specifically will you commit to do to
    help LGBTQ people in Chechnya, Egypt and elsewhere to ensure they are
    not targeted for abuse?

        Answer. As I confirmed in my statement on the International Day
    Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, ``the United States
    stands with people around the world in affirming the dignity and
    equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender
    identity or expression, or sex characteristics. Human rights are
    universal, and LGBTI people are entitled to the same respect, freedoms,
    and protections as everyone else.'' Under my leadership, the Department
    will continue to use a range of public and private actions to counter
    violence and severe discrimination against LGBTI persons by offering
    emergency assistance to LGBTI persons and organizations at risk and by
    imposing visa restrictions and economic sanctions, as appropriate,
    against those who violate their human rights.
                                 accountability
        The events in Chechnya have been particularly disturbing, with over
    100 men arrested on suspicion of being gay or bisexual and as many as
    20 killed. Nevertheless, in May, a Russian representative told the U.N.
    that his government found no evidence of the crimes that had taken
    place there and that they could even find gay people in Chechnya. And
    it does not appear that President Trump raised the issue in his meeting
    with President Putin last week.

        Question. What will you do to hold Russia and Chechnya accountable
    for these crimes? What will the U.S. do to ensure that these crimes are
    not forgotten, so that they cannot happen again, either in Chechnya,
    Russia, or elsewhere?

        Answer. The Department of State remains deeply concerned by the
    Russian Federation's failure to hold accountable those responsible for
    the brutal campaign of extrajudicial killings, torture, mass arbitrary
    detentions and other violations and abuses perpetrated against
    suspected gay men in Chechnya, and by attempts by local authorities to
    cover up what took place. We have been clear and consistent in
    condemning these abuses through bilateral channels in Washington and in
    Moscow, including a personal letter to Foreign Minister Lavrov. We have
    insisted at the United Nations, the Organization for Security and
    Cooperation in Europe, and other multilateral fora that the Russian
    Federation act to end impunity for these and other human rights
    violations and abuses that have taken place in Chechnya under Ramzan
    Kadyrov. Moreover, we sanctioned Kadyrov and police official Ayub
    Katayev under the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of
    2012 (Russia Magnitsky Act) in December 2017. With our allies and
    partners, we continue to shine a light on the human rights situation in
    Chechnya, and to evaluate additional diplomatic measures to ensure that
    these crimes are not forgotten and do not happen again.
              special envoy for the human rights of lgbti persons
        Question. For over a year, the State Department has not had a
    Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI persons. I was pleased that
    you also committed to appoint a Special Envoy in your answers on the
    record to the Senate during your confirmation process, but that has not
    happened yet. Do you have a timeline for making that appointment? When
    can we expect that to happen?

        Answer. Consistent with the administration's prior commitment, I
    intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of
    LGBTI Persons. The Department is working to fill the position. Filling
    vacant leadership positions is a top priority of mine, and I am working
    closely with the White House to do so.
                                    rohingya
        Since last summer, more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have been
    forced to flee a systematic military campaign by the Burmese military
    of killings, arson, rape and other mass atrocities amounting to
    genocide. For more than three decades, America stood with our allies to
    support democracy in Burma and to demand freedom for thousands of
    Burmese political prisoners. We need to show equal resolve now to end
    impunity in Burma and hold perpetrators of these most recent atrocities
    accountable.

        Question. What will the United States do next at the United Nations
    to advance accountability for the Rohingya crisis?

        Answer. On May 31, the U.N. Security Council issued a letter to the
    Burmese government calling for independent and transparent
    investigations into all allegations of human rights abuses. We are now
    working with likeminded countries and allies to determine the
    appropriate next steps at the United Nations to promote accountability
    for the Rohingya crisis. This discussion will continue to evolve as we
    discuss the findings of the State Department's upcoming report on these
    atrocities and as we review the findings and recommendations of the
    U.S.-supported U.N. Fact Finding Mission for Burma, which is due to
    release its report in September.

        Question. How can the United States use its role as P5 member to
    ensure those most responsible for atrocities are held to account? What
    steps can the United States take in the General Assembly to end
    impunity for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya?

        Answer. As a P5 member, the United States will continue to work
    with U.N. member states, in both the Security Council and the General
    Assembly, to look for ways to promote justice and accountability and
    encourage the Burmese government to end ongoing abuses, ensure they do
    not occur in the future, and take credible steps to redress the past
    abuses against the Rohingya and other ethnic populations. We coordinate
    closely with the United Kingdom and other like-minded partners in the
    Security Council. Further, we regularly consult with the other P5
    members and other member states to urge Burmese authorities to make
    progress toward meaningful accountability for atrocities. We also co-
    sponsored the U.N. General Assembly's Third Committee resolution on the
    human rights situation in Burma last year, and look forward to working
    with Member States this year on a resolution that addresses the human
    rights situation there.

        Question. Do you support action by the Treasury Department to make
    additional sanctions designations to hold to account Tatmadaw and other
    Burmese officials responsible for atrocities against Myanmar's ethnic
    and religious minorities?

        Answer. In December of 2017, the President sanctioned former
    Western Command Major General Maung Maung Soe for his role in the
    events related to the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya and
    administration officials have publicly discussed the possibility of
    further targeted sanctions, among other actions, against those
    responsible for or associated with serious human rights abuses.
            coordinating aid across state, usaid, and other agencies
        Question. How do you intend to partner with USAID Administrator
    Mark Green going forward to ensure that both U.S. foreign policy
    objectives and longer-term development objectives are not only
    achieved, but serve our national security interests? What can the U.S.
    Government do to improve coordination, oversight, and accountability of
    foreign aid administered by a multitude of aid agencies, including but
    not limited to State or USAID? How might creating a U.S. Global
    Development Strategy that guides policy for all U.S. development
    agencies help further clarify roles and responsibilities, while serving
    as a complement to our National Security Strategy?

        Answer. Administrator Green and I share a strong commitment to
    using foreign assistance dollars in support of our foreign policy goals
    to secure our national interests. At my direction, the Office of U.S.
    Foreign Assistance Resources works to promote strategic coordination of
    U.S. foreign assistance resources, working to align foreign assistance
    with the National Security Strategy, the State/USAID Joint Strategic
    Plan, as well as country and sector strategies. I am supportive of a
    strategy for all of foreign assistance, which encompasses much more
    than development assistance. Such a strategy would help ensure that all
    of the taxpayer dollars committed to our foreign policy goals, and the
    agencies that program them, are aligned. The administration, including
    the National Security Council, the Department of State, USAID, and the
    Office of Management and Budget, is currently discussing the framework
    for such a strategy.
                         build act/development finance
        Bicameral, bipartisan legislation called the Better Utilization of
    Investments Leading to Development Act or BUILD Act (S.2463/H.R.5105)
    would enhance U.S. development finance tools by creating a new
    Development Finance Corporation (DFC). The legislation's goals are
    supported by the White House, and the House version of the legislation
    was recently passed via voice vote.

        Question. Since the BUILD Act designates you as board chairman of
    the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), will you
    commit to making sure that the achievement of development outcomes is
    central to the DFC's mission and that the all projects the DFC supports
    demonstrate clear development goals?

        Answer. As board chair, I would commit to make our foreign policy
    priorities including national security, commercial and development
    objectives central to the mission of the USIDFC. The BUILD act provides
    for the establishment of strong institutional linkages to the United
    States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the USAID
    Administrator would serve as Vice Chair will help insure achievement of
    development goals.

        Question. Should the achievement of development outcomes be the
    central goal of our development finance institution's missions?

        Answer. Achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals, including
    development priorities, is the mission of the USIDFC. The reformed
    USIDFC would provide new, modern tools and enable enhanced government-
    wide coordination to achieve improved development outcomes.

        Question. How do you see U.S. development finance partnerships
    supporting U.S. national security?

        Answer. Building private sector partnerships, especially with U.S.
    companies will help promote the U.S. economic model globally by serving
    as an alternative to state-driven models. Catalyzing private
    investments in developing countries will drive economic growth in
    developing countries helping them graduate from foreign assistance and
    form strategic partnerships with the United States. This helps the
    United States maintain and expand our global influence. These
    partnerships will also promote market access and opportunities for U.S.
    commercial interests and benefit the U.S. economy.
                           foreign assistance review
        It has come to my attention that OMB has instructed USAID to
    undertake a significant review of all foreign assistance programs.
    Administrator Green has confirmed to the Foreign Relations Committee
    that this review is happening.

        Question. What role is the State Department playing in this review?
    When do you anticipate this review to be complete? Will the State
    Department, USAID and/or OMB brief the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee on the preliminary finding and results of the review prior to
    publication? What is motivating this review? If you do not know, and
    you feel that this question is more appropriately directed to OMB, why
    don't you and why are you not more engaged in this review process?
    Given that this is a directive from OMB, not from experts with the
    appropriate experience, what guarantees can you provide that this
    review will be a verifiably objective assessment of U.S. foreign
    assistance programs?

        Given the very public skepticism that some of the administration's
    political leadership have expressed towards the value of foreign
    assistance, including the very public threats to cancel foreign
    assistance to certain countries and withhold U.S. contributions to
    various multilateral funds . . . What assurances can you provide the
    committee that the final review of this project will be based on
    objective evaluations of foreign assistance programs? Do you have any
    assurances from OMB or the White House that they will publish or make
    publicly available USAID's raw and objective analysis? How do you
    anticipate this review will impact foreign assistance programs, or be
    used to justify future budget requests or programs allocations?

        Answer. The administration, including the National Security
    Council, the Department of State, USAID, and the Office of Management
    and Budget, is currently discussing the framework for continuing to
    ensure that U.S. foreign assistance aligns with our core national
    interests. At the same time, interagency policy reviews of foreign
    assistance for specific countries are ongoing. The details of the
    strategy effort are not yet determined, nor have the reviews been
    completed. Delivering foreign assistance is an important mission of the
    Department of State and USAID, and I am committed to working with
    Congress to ensure it serves our national security interests.
              transitioning over time away from foreign assistance
        For the last several years, Congress has approved appropriations
    bills with an important provision requiring all future country
    development strategies to include a plan for transitioning over time
    away from foreign assistance.

        Question. How are you working with both USAID Administrator Green
    and Congress to approach strategic transition planning?

        Answer. ``The Journey to Self-Reliance'' is a simple idea that the
    purpose of foreign assistance is to end its need to exist. We want to
    build the capacity and commitment of our partner countries so they no
    longer need our financial help to be strong economic, political, and
    national security partners for the United States. When that day comes
    that a country has surpassed the need for development assistance, the
    U.S. Government should move away from providing dollars, and
    strategically transition that country to a new relationship model built
    on private- sector trade and mutual benefit.
        The strategic transition planning that the U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID) is undertaking is a way for us to
    assess when and how the U.S. Government will transition its
    relationships with certain partner countries. Our strategic transitions
    effort will (1) identify USAID's most-self-sufficient partners through
    our new Self-Reliance Metrics that track countries' progress; (2)
    closely examine the nature of each partnership through heavy
    consultations with our Country Teams; (3) assess whether or not a new
    form of a partnership might be more appropriate, given a country's high
    level of self-reliance through a series of strategic and analytical
    lenses; and, (4) if so, determine how to move towards a new partnership
    model and over time. This assessment and planning will take place in
    close coordination with my Department and the rest of the interagency,
    as well as in broader consultation with both the host country and the
    Congress. We are currently working closely with Administrator Green on
    choosing two pilot countries to flesh out this approach, and I look
    forward to discussing them further with you in the coming months as we
    bring to life the proposed transitions.

        Question. What do you believe is the appropriate way for the U.S.
    Government to help countries move responsibly along a continuum of
    partnership with the United States?
        Answer. Administrator Green's vision of the Journey to Self-
    Reliance is about understanding each country's own ability to plan,
    finance, and implement solutions to solve its own development
    challenges. Insofar as we are talking about a continuum of partnerships
    with the United States in the development space, this vision is
    compelling--the Journey to Self-Reliance provides a common framework by
    which we can assess more precisely what a country needs to take on, in
    terms of responsibility for its own development journey, so that we, as
    the U.S. Government, can evolve the development-focused aspects of our
    partnerships accordingly over time. Ultimately, the goal is to end the
    need for foreign assistance in a country by building our partners'
    abilities to plan, finance, and implement solutions to solve their own
    development challenges--their self-reliance--and Administrator Green's
    framework provides a way to do just that.

        Question. Do you believe that supporting partner countries in their
    Journey to Self-Reliance supports the goals of the National Security
    Strategy?

        Answer. Absolutely. Specifically, the Journey to Self-Reliance is
    built upon assessing each country's commitment and capacity to plan,
    finance, and implement solutions to solve its own development
    challenges. In particular, we will assess areas like a country's
    commitment to open and accountable governance, inclusive development,
    fundamental freedoms, and sound- economic policy choices--including
    openness to direct foreign investment and U.S. trade. These are, of
    course, areas reflective of our own American values, and what we
    believe constitute the prerequisites for a robust development pathway.
    In addition, these areas map closely to the President's National
    Security Strategy (NSS)--in particular, the priority actions cited
    under the Champion American Values dimension of Pillar IV, Advancing
    American Influence. If we support countries to focus on these areas and
    build capacity therein, then the approach of the Journey to Self-
    Reliance will directly support the NSS through its alignment to the
    goals of Pillar IV.

        The transitions to deeper forms of strategic and economic
    partnership with the U.S. worked well in South Korea and Panama because
    the partner country was able to increasingly mobilize their own
    resources for development. The FY19 budget requests $75 million for
    domestic resource mobilization (DRM) assistance.

        Question. Please describe this approach to scaling up development
    finance in greater detail. Specifically, what agencies are contributing
    and what are the desired near and long-term outcomes?

        Answer. Domestic Resource-Mobilization (DRM) is an important
    component of the Agency's goal to end a country's need for foreign
    assistance, as it improves countries' abilities to raise and manage
    public revenues to pay for their own services. With the FY19 budget
    request, USAID intends to expand the reach of its DRM programming by
    including staff and resources from a suite of economic-growth areas.
    These include generating and managing public revenues and expenditures,
    improving border-management and promoting trade-facilitation,
    harnessing private-sector growth, deepening financial markets,
    empowering women, and improving entrepreneurial opportunities and the
    business environment.
        USAID, MCC, PEPFAR, and the Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) at
    the U.S. Department of the Treasury have intensified cooperation so our
    collective investments in DRM are complementary. USAID will capitalize
    on its ability to assist partner governments' capacity to simplify
    regulations, streamline and enhance procedures. OTA will leverage its
    peer-to-peer model to deliver expert advisory services where requested
    by partner-country governments. MCC will contribute to DRM improvements
    in countries where its constraints analysis methodology identifies DRM
    as a binding limitation on investment and economic growth.
              harmful impact of budget cuts on national interests
        Question. The President's budget request will leave the Department
    of Defense without strong U.S. diplomatic or development partners.
    Given the importance of cultivating institutional development expertise
    within our civilian workforce, I am deeply concerned about the proposed
    budget cuts to the State Department and USAID and the ongoing staffing
    vacancies. Now that the State Department-imposed hiring freeze has been
    lifted, are you confident that you will be able to put in place the
    21st-century workforce your agency needs and demands? Can you share
    with the committee your staffing plan?

        Answer. On May 15, I lifted the hiring freeze on Foreign Service
    (FS) and Civil Service (CS) employment in the Department. We are
    recruiting and hiring to ensure our highest priority mission-critical
    vacancies are filled with a diverse, well equipped workforce ready to
    meet 21st-century challenges.
        Our staffing plan complies with the direction provided by Congress
    in our 2018 Appropriation and accompanying statements. It calls for
    hiring levels well above attrition and when fully executed will bring
    the Department to staffing levels that are 454 above the December 31,
    2017 levels referenced in the Appropriations Act.

        Question. Congress recently enacted the Global Food Security Act,
    the Electrify Africa Act, the Water for the World Act, and the Foreign
    Aid Transparency and Accountability Act--each empowering USAID to
    deliver development results in a more sustainable, accountable way. How
    would severe budget cuts to development assistance impact these
    initiatives, our development objectives, our security, and our
    strategic partnerships around the world?

        Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019
    prioritizes foreign assistance in regions, and on programs, that most
    advance our national interest and support the administration's most
    critical priorities. These initiatives are prime examples of how we are
    delivering results in an efficient and effective way. While development
    needs will always exceed available resources, we are committed to
    partnering with nations on their journey to self-reliance, maximizing
    the impact of these initiatives for the American taxpayer, and
    encouraging other donors to do more.
                          nsc non-ooperation with gao
        Question. The National Security Council (NSC) has implemented a
    policy of non-cooperation with the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) and is refusing to respond to any GAO inquiries. As a former
    congressman, you are aware that these inquiries are meant to help
    Congress meet our constitutional oversight responsibilities, and are
    made as a part of the GAO's statutory authority under the Legislative
    Reorganization Act of 1970. The NSC has refused to respond to two GAO
    inquiries regarding nuclear security and nuclear proliferation, issues
    which also fall concern State Department equities and are especially
    critical developments in North Korea and Iran. This lack of cooperation
    from the NSC hampers the work of Congress and our ability to support
    the State Department in its efforts on these issues. Will you commit to
    raising this issue with National Security Advisor Bolton and encourage
    him to direct the NSC to resume cooperation with GAO?

        Answer. As you know, the Department and the GAO have maintained a
    strong and consistent working-relationship and we look forward to
    continuing this cooperation. I am happy to convey to the NSC our
    experience and the benefits of this relationship to the Department and
    the Congress.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                        Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio

        Question. The difficult political situation in Iraq, including the
    fallout from the last election, is being exacerbated by competition
    among Gulf Arab countries, making the formation of an Iraqi government
    more difficult and creating an opening for Iran to exploit divisions.
    This chaos could lead to an Iraqi government that is close to, if not
    beholden to, Iran. How can we encourage Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other
    Gulf partners to put aside their current differences and work together
    to move Sunni-dominated coalitions in Iraq to join the governing
    coalition?

        Answer. Our regional partners recognize that, absent U.S., Gulf,
    and broader international engagement, Iraq risks devolving into an
    unstable, more sectarian state that Iran and extremist groups like ISIS
    could exploit. Together with the United States, many Gulf countries are
    urging Iraqis to form a moderate, reformist government, with meaningful
    participation by all of Iraq's communities and a commitment to an
    enduring partnership with the United States, based on the Strategic
    Framework Agreement. The new government should be willing and able to
    protect Iraq's sovereignty, preserve its democratic processes, fight
    corruption, and deliver services to its citizens. This outcome would
    doubtless serve our partners' interest in regional stability and
    inhibit Iran's malign influence.

        Question. Haiti has become a more attractive transit point for
    contraband and narcotraffickers. What can the U.S. government do to
    assist the Government of Haiti to prevent contraband at its border with
    the Dominican Republic?

        Answer. I consider it important that the Haitian government be able
    to control its borders, and we have several programs in place to
    achieve that goal. USAID has an ongoing Customs Support Project, a $4
    million initiative helping to modernize Haiti's customs service
    processes for revenue collection, traveler processing, and contraband
    interdiction. This program is assisting the Haitian government to
    better manage its border and increase revenue collection. Additionally,
    the Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE), the Food Conservation
    and Energy Act of 2008 (HOPE II), and the Haiti Economic Lift Program
    of 2010 (HELP) legislation explicitly call for U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection to provide technical assistance to Haitian customs. The
    State Department, through the work of the Bureau of International
    Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), will continue its longstanding
    support for the Haitian National Police. INL's support includes
    training and equipping the Haitian border police and Haitian
    counternarcotics unit in order to strengthen Haiti's capacity to combat
    illicit trafficking and transnational organized crime at its land, sea,
    and air borders.

        Question. Anonymous shell companies are too often used for illicit
    purposes, including laundering money into the United States, human
    trafficking, financing terrorism, evasion of sanctions, healthcare
    fraud schemes, transnational corruption, and organized crime. Do you
    agree that the use of anonymous shell companies is a threat to national
    security? Does the Trump administration support increasing transparency
    to crack down on transnational criminal organizations and foreign
    governments using shell companies to operate unseen throughout the
    United States?

        Answer. I believe keeping our financial system secure is critical
    to U.S. national security and our efforts to combat corruption and
    transnational organized crime globally. The Department of the Treasury
    is the executive branch lead for addressing anonymous entities and
    their impact on our financial system. In May 2018, the Treasury began
    enforcing a new Customer Due Diligence Rule that clarifies and
    strengthens customer due diligence requirements for covered financial
    institutions and adds a new requirement for financial institutions to
    verify the identities of the actual people who own, control, and profit
    from companies - the beneficial owners. Earlier this year, my
    colleagues in the Department of Justice and the Department of the
    Treasury testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the
    House Committee on Financial Services, respectively, that the
    collection of this information will generate better law enforcement
    leads and speed up investigations by improving financial institutions'
    ability to monitor and report suspicious activity. This will help law
    enforcement identify assets and accounts of criminals and national
    security threats. This will also facilitate compliance with sanctions
    programs and other measures to cut off assets to corrupt actors,
    terrorists, and criminal networks.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                    Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

                                      iran
        On July 22 at 8:24pm, President Trump tweeted: ``TO IRANIAN
    PRESIDENT ROUHANI: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU
    WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE
    EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR
    YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!''

        Question. Did the President's all caps tweet signal that the use of
    force against Iran is imminent?

        Answer. No. Our Iran strategy involves placing unprecedented
    economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran to force it back to the
    negotiating table to achieve a better, comprehensive deal.

        Question. Has the State Department worked with the Department of
    Defense and the inter-agency to determine casualty estimates in the
    event of a U.S.-initiated war with Iran?

        Answer. No, and I refer you to the Department of Defense on this
    matter.

        Question. [If yes] Walk me through the potential scenarios for war
    with Iran being contemplated by the administration.

        Answer. I refer you to the Department of Defense on this matter.
    The President's strategy seeks to avoid conflict with Iran.

        Question. [If he talks about classification] Why do you believe the
    American people do not have a right to know the potential ways in which
    the United States might get entangled in a conflict with Iran? Will you
    provide an unclassified assessment of potential war scenarios to this
    committee?

        Answer. I refer you to the Department of Defense on matters
    involving any such scenarios. Our Iran strategy involves placing
    unprecedented economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran to force it back
    to the negotiating table to achieve a better, comprehensive deal. The
    strategy does not envision military conflict with Iran; rather, it
    seeks to avoid conflict.

        Question. Will you pledge to appear again before this committee in
    a classified setting to discuss these scenarios?

        Answer. I intend to continue my close cooperation with Congress.
                                  north korea
        Last month, before the Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and
    International Cybersecurity Policy, Joseph Yun, Senior Advisor at the
    United States Institute of Peace discussed next steps in U.S. policy
    towards North Korea. In his testimony, Yun emphasized that a
    negotiation with North Korea ``must produce a clear timeline for the
    ultimate goal: the disablement and dismantlement of all nuclear and
    North Korean ICBM facilities, material, and devices,'' and that only a
    swift timeline would silence skeptics in DC, Seoul, Tokyo and beyond.

        Question. Given North Korea's continued production of material that
    can be used to make nuclear bombs, do you agree with President Trump's
    assertion that there is ``no rush'' to the negotiating process?

        Answer. It may take some time to get where we need to go, but all
    of this will be taking place against the backdrop of continued full
    implementation of existing sanctions. We want denuclearization that is
    fully verified and, importantly, final--the President wants to
    denuclearize North Korea once and for all and not have the nuclear
    issue resurface again.

        Question. Have you and your North Korean counterparts agreed on any
    working level teams for the follow-up negotiations on key issues? If
    so, what issues are each of those teams assigned to address? Who is in
    the lead of each of these working level teams for the U.S. side?

        Answer. I have established a post-Singapore Summit working group
    dedicated to directing my Department's planning, policy, implementation
    and verification of our efforts to achieve the denuclearization of
    North Korea consistent with the Singapore Summit's joint statement. The
    working group is led by Alex Wong, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East
    Asian and Pacific Affairs; Ben Purser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    International Security and Nonproliferation; Mark Lambert, Acting
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Korea and includes many other
    colleagues, drawing upon the expertise of the entire Department. The
    team supports Ambassador Sung Kim's ongoing negotiation efforts. We
    will continue to closely collaborate with the interagency.

        Question. In the course of your discussions with your NK
    counterparts, have you reached an agreed understanding of what
    ``denuclearization of the Korean peninsula'' entails, and, whether
    there is agreement or not, please describe your understanding of what
    denuclearization should cover?

        Answer. In my engagements with Chairman Kim and other North Korean
    officials I have made the U.S. position towards denuclearization
    abundantly clear. Our goal is to achieve the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. This goal was agreed to by Chairman Kim
    in Singapore.

        Question. What are the specific, verifiable steps toward
    denuclearization that the administration expects North Korea to take in
    the next 12 to 24 months and how will the administration reciprocate?

        Answer. The administration continues to work towards the full
    implementation of the commitments Chairman Kim made in Singapore, and
    to plan for the denuclearization of North Korea, including the specific
    steps necessary to accomplish this.
                                   nicaragua
        More than 300 people have died in protests across Nicaragua in the
    past few months. The conflict shows no sign of abating at this time.

        Question. What is the United States doing to reduce violence and
    increase dialogue in Nicaragua?

        Answer. We are urging the Nicaraguan government to immediately
    cease all government-sponsored violence. We are calling for early,
    free, and fair elections with credible domestic and international
    electoral observation. We continue to help expose and hold accountable
    those responsible for the violence and intimidation campaign.
        The Department has imposed visa restrictions on Nicaraguans
    responsible for or complicit in human rights abuses or undermining
    democracy in Nicaragua. On July 5, we placed financial sanctions under
    the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Act on three Nicaraguan officials who
    have been involved in serious human rights abuses or engaged in
    corruption. The Department is considering a variety of additional
    options. We worked closely with our regional partners in the
    Organization of American States to pass a resolution on July 18
    condemning ongoing ``violence, repression, and human rights violations
    committed by police, para-police groups, and others'' in Nicaragua, and
    continue to engage with allies at the OAS to ensure effective follow up
    mechanisms are in place to support OAS engagement regarding Nicaragua.
    This also includes support for the monitoring and investigative efforts
    of the independent Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

        Question. Are you concerned that an increasingly unstable Nicaragua
    will destabilize its neighbors and cause national security issues for
    the United States?

        Answer. Yes. We are very concerned with the ongoing political
    crisis in Nicaragua. We see a secure, stable, and prosperous Nicaragua
    as essential to promoting a prosperous and secure Central America,
    which is key to U.S. national security and broader U.S. interests.
        We continue to press the Ortega regime to immediately cease all
    government-supported violence. We support the proposal of many sectors
    of Nicaragua society for early, free, and fair elections with credible
    domestic and international electoral observation. And we continue to
    expose and hold accountable those responsible for the violence and
    intimidation campaign currently being perpetrated by the Ortega
    government.
        We are working closely with partners and international
    organizations, including the Organization of American States, to
    condemn human rights violations and abuses by the Nicaraguan government
    and its supporters, press for democracy, and urge the government to
    hold accountable individuals who have committed human rights violations
    and abuses.

        Question. Do you still believe that sending back the thousands of
    Nicaraguan TPS holders living in the United States makes sense at this
    time, both from national security and moral perspective?

        Answer. The authority to make decisions regarding TPS resides with
    DHS, after consultation with appropriate agencies, including the
    Department of State. On November 6, 2017, DHS announced the decision to
    terminate TPS for Nicaragua, with a delayed effective date of 12 months
    to allow for an orderly transition. Nicaraguan TPS beneficiaries are
    authorized to remain in the United States through January 5, 2019, at
    which time they will revert to the immigration status they had before
    being granted TPS or any other status they subsequently acquired,
    unless that status has otherwise expired.

        Question. Will this administration commit to reconsidering the
    Nicaragua TPS decision, and other TPS decisions, as factors on the
    ground change?

        Answer. The authority to make decisions regarding TPS resides with
    DHS, after consultation with appropriate agencies, including the
    Department of State. The Department of State is prepared to provide
    relevant country conditions information on Nicaragua to Secretary
    Nielsen should she initiate a review of conditions in Nicaragua.
                             nationalism in europe
        Nationalism is on the rise in Europe as evidenced by historic gains
    by Italy's League party and Germany's AfD party in recent elections.
    The rise of these parties has accompanied an increase in anti-immigrant
    and anti-Semitic sentiments across the continent. This administration
    has engaged in outreach to specific far-right political parties, as
    evidenced by U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell's intention to ``empower
    the right'' in Germany.

        Question. What is the Trump administration's strategy behind its
    outreach to far right political parties?

        Answer. It is not the policy of the United States to endorse
    political candidates or parties in other countries. We meet with
    parties across the political spectrum in the course of our regular
    diplomatic engagement.

        Question. Do you agree with Ambassador Grenell and the President's
    comments in support of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe?

        Answer. Ambassador Grenell has clarified his comments were taken
    out of context, made clear he is not endorsing any particular
    candidates or political parties, and further confirmed it is not the
    policy of the United States to endorse political candidates or parties
    in other countries.
                            anti-immigrant policies
        Question. In his recent visit to the United Kingdom, President
    Trump stated that Europeans are ``losing'' their culture, and
    ``allowing millions of people to come into Europe is very, very
    sad.''Do you think supporting such anti-immigrant rhetoric furthers our
    standing in the world, or reflects the values of the United States?

        Answer. Our global humanitarian leadership and robust humanitarian
    assistance programs reflect the deeply-held values and generosity of
    the American people. The United States is the largest single-country
    provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide--more than $8 billion in
    humanitarian assistance in FY 2017. Our assistance provides urgent,
    life-saving services, including child protection programs, women's
    protection and empowerment activities, food, shelter, healthcare
    services, and access to clean water for tens of millions of displaced
    and crisis-affected people worldwide. This commitment to the world's
    most vulnerable individuals remains a critical component of U.S.
    national security policy.
                            anti-immigrant policies
        Question. Is the United States better off with New START, and the
    on-site verification of Russia's nuclear forces that comes with that
    treaty, or better off without it?

        Answer. Through the Treaty's verification regime, which includes
    short-notice, on-site inspections at New START Treaty-related bases and
    facilities, the United States is able to verify information about the
    strategic nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation. The verification
    regime provides both countries insight into each other's strategic
    nuclear delivery systems, warheads, and facilities. Since the Treaty's
    entry into force, the United States and Russia have exchanged more than
    15,800 notifications regarding the location, movement, and status of
    their strategic nuclear forces, performed 15 data exchanges with a full
    accounting of exactly where weapons systems are located, and conducted
    over 260 on-site inspections of strategic nuclear weapons-related
    facilities. Each side has conducted their full complement of up to 18
    such inspections annually. The Treaty's consultative body, the
    Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), has met 15 times since entry
    into force of the Treaty. The two BCC delegations maintain a pragmatic
    relationship, working to solve New START Treaty implementation issues
    to mutual benefit. The Treaty's implementation is also facilitated by
    the Department of State's Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, which for
    decades has maintained dedicated resources and infrastructure to
    support this mission.
        Russia is in compliance with the Treaty, and both sides
    successfully met the Treaty's central limits on February 5, 2018. As
    noted in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will
    continue to implement the New START Treaty, and remains committed to
    arms control efforts which advanced U.S., allied, and partner security;
    are verifiable and enforceable; and include partners that comply
    responsibly with their obligations.

        Question. Is there a process in place for deciding whether the
    United States will support extending the treaty?

        Answer. Any decision regarding a potential extension of the New
    START Treaty will be made at the appropriate time, and will consider
    whether extending the Treaty is in the national security interest of
    the United States, as well as our allies and partners. The United
    States remains committed to fully implementing the Treaty. There has
    been no decision on extension, and we are in the process of weighing
    next steps.
                             haiti border security
        Question. Is there more that we could be doing to strengthen
    Haiti's border security, and should the State Department continue and
    expand its support to programs that address revenue collection?

        Answer. I consider it important that the Haitian government be able
    to control its borders, and we have several programs in place to
    achieve that goal. USAID has an ongoing Customs Support Project, a $4
    million initiative helping to modernize Haiti's customs service
    processes for revenue collection, traveler processing, and contraband
    interdiction. This program is assisting the Haitian government to
    better manage its border and increase revenue collection. Additionally,
    the Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE), the Food Conservation
    and Energy Act of 2008 (HOPE II), and the Haiti Economic Lift Program
    of 2010 (HELP) legislation explicitly call for U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection to provide technical assistance to Haitian customs. The
    State Department continues its longstanding support for the Haitian
    National Police to strengthen Haiti's readiness to address border
    security issues. I will pursue additional efforts to improve Haiti's
    cooperation with the border authorities of the Dominican Republic.

        Question. What will the administration do moving forward to
    encourage and support enhanced border control measures and a crackdown
    on contraband trade?

        Answer. I consider it important that the Haitian government be able
    to control its borders in order to combat illicit trafficking and
    transnational organized crime, and we have several programs in place to
    achieve that goal. USAID has an ongoing Customs Support Project, a $4
    million initiative helping to modernize Haiti's customs service
    processes for revenue collection, traveler processing, and contraband
    interdiction. This program is assisting the Haitian government to
    better manage its border and increase revenue collection. The State
    Department through the work of the Bureau of International Narcotics
    and Law Enforcement (INL) will continue its longstanding support for
    the Haitian National Police. INL's support includes training and
    equipping the Haitian border police and Haitian counternarcotics unit
    in order to strengthen Haiti's capacity to combat illicit trafficking
    and transnational organized crime at its land, sea, and air borders.
    Moving forward, I would support a study proposed by the Center for
    Strategic and International Studies engaging both the Haitian and
    Dominican governments and private sectors in designing a comprehensive
    and lasting solution to these complicated border challenges.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                      Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen

        Question. Are you concerned about reports of Russian ties to
    extremist groups in the United States? We are seeing increased reports
    of Russian-funded proxies such as the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM)
    and the far-right political party Rodina supporting extremist groups in
    the United States. How is the U.S. monitoring the influence of these
    entities on groups in our own country? What can the U.S. do to track
    the activities of individuals known to be connected to Russian groups
    with a history of supporting extremism in Western democracies? Do these
    Russian organizations pose a threat to Americans' safety and security?

        Answer. As the lead foreign policy agency, the Department of State
    does not monitor activity within the United States. I have made it
    clear at the highest levels of the Russian government that any efforts
    to interfere in domestic affairs or undermine stability are
    unacceptable and will be met with swift and significant consequences.

        Question. Secretary Pompeo, when you testified before the
    Appropriations Committee on June 27th, we discussed your efforts to
    repatriate the remains of American service members missing in action
    from the Korean War, which are currently under the control of the North
    Korean government. What is the status of these transfers and is there a
    set timeline for these transfers?

        Answer. On July 20, the United States provided 55 transfer cases to
    the DPRK for the return of U.S. service members' remains. We anticipate
    receiving and repatriating our fallen heroes' remains soon as a
    tangible step toward the realization of President Trump's and Chairman
    Kim's commitments in Singapore.

        Question. Compared to North Korea's denuclearization, the return of
    these remains would seem to be a relatively straightforward matter if
    Kim Jong Un wishes to resolve it. Given that President Trump personally
    discussed this matter with Kim Jong Un in Singapore on June 12th, how
    do you interpret North Korea's foot dragging on this issue in the wider
    context of your negotiations on denuclearization?

        Answer. At his meeting with President Trump, Chairman Kim made a
    commitment to repatriate the remains of American service member
    remains. I am pleased he is following through on that commitment. This
    humanitarian gesture should not be conflated with our goal of achieving
    the final, fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK. I look forward
    to continued progress on that front.

        Question. Secretary Pompeo, I think you will agree that in order to
    negotiate in good faith with North Korea and ultimately achieve an
    agreement that is complete and verifiable, we first need to know the
    scope of their nuclear weapons program, which means declaration of all
    of their warheads, nuclear material, facilities and so forth. Have the
    North Koreans agreed to take this step, and if so, who will be the
    arbiter of that declaration process? When will it begin?

        Answer. A full, verified declaration of all of North Korea's WMDs,
    delivery systems, and related sites will be an integral part of and
    critical initial step in our overall denuclearization effort. We will
    remain focused on securing such a declaration at the earliest possible
    time.

        Question. Secretary Pompeo, does the President have the appropriate
    constitutional and legislative authority to withdraw from treaties
    without the expressed consent of Congress?

        Answer. The President has the constitutional authority to terminate
    or withdraw from treaties without need for separate action by the
    Congress. Previous presidents have exercised this well-established
    authority on dozens of occasions in the past century. Questions of
    legal authority aside, the Department welcomes engagement with the
    Senate on questions related to our treaty relationships.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                         Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine

                                 russian threat
        Question. At the recent Aspen Summit, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff, General Dunford, reaffirmed his assessment that because of
    its nuclear capability, cyber capabilities, actions in Georgia, Crimea
    and Ukraine, Russia is the greatest threat America faces from a state
    actor. Do you agree with General Dunford's assessment that Russia is
    the greatest threat the U.S. faces from a state actor? Why or why not?

        Answer. President Trump and I are well aware of the challenges that
    Russia poses to the United States and our partners and allies. Russia
    has shown through its aggressive actions that it rejects the post-Cold
    War order and seeks to undermine stability, democracy, and core Western
    institutions. Russia's ongoing military modernization program, nuclear
    and cyber capabilities, invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, and
    willingness to use hybrid threats and tools against the United States
    and its allies and partners are clear threats to our national security.
        To counter, expose, and respond to Russia's destabilizing and
    malign influence activities, the National Defense Strategy and the
    Russia Integrated Strategy outline an approach to steadily raise the
    costs of Russia's aggression until President Putin chooses a less
    confrontational foreign policy. We must be clear-eyed about Russia's
    transgressions, frank in our dialogue with Russia, and resolute in
    raising the costs of their behavior, including the use of military,
    diplomatic, and law-enforcement tools. We must also continue to build
    the resilience of the countries on Russia's periphery with a whole-of-
    government approach that includes working with Allies, partners, and
    institutions such as NATO and the EU.
        We remain deeply concerned about Russia's failure to fulfill its
    arms control and other international commitments.
                             russia in afghanistan
        Question. Senior U.S. military officials have accused Russia of
    trying to destabilize Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban, to include
    smuggling Russia weapons across the Tajik border to arm the group.
    There are also indications that in addition to supporting the Taliban's
    military efforts, Russia has begun providing financial backing to anti-
    American politicians in Afghanistan. What do you assess to be Russia's
    current level of support to the Taliban and what are Russia's goals in
    increasing this support despite being historic foes? How about to other
    anti-American groups or factions in Afghanistan? Does the Department
    believe Russia is trying to undermine a continued U.S. troop presence?

        Answer. We are aware of reports that the Russians continue to
    provide weapons and other support to the Taliban. Russia has shown an
    increased willingness to publicly acknowledge its diplomatic engagement
    with the Taliban.
        Regional states like Russia should instead take steps to
    significantly increase their contributions to support the Afghan
    government and an Afghan peace process that includes direct
    negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. These
    formal negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government are
    the only way to end the conflict, and the Taliban's leaders are
    standing in the way of progress. The Taliban must understand that they
    have no viable alternative but to enter into direct talks with the
    Afghan government.
        At this time, we do not assess that Russia is supporting other
    anti-American groups in Afghanistan.
                      state department officials in syria
        Question. In your testimony on the substance of the President's
    one-on-one meeting with President Putin, you said there has been no
    policy change on ``deconfliction with Russia'' regarding the U.S. troop
    presence and activities in Syria. With regards to State Department
    personnel serving in Syria, whether traveling to Syria for temporary
    duty or permanently stationed there, have there been any instances in
    which State Department personnel have been in harm's way due to Russian
    military activity, and what was the impact of existing deconfliction
    mechanisms? What mechanisms are in place to ensure their safety going
    forward?

        Answer. There have been no incidents between Russian personnel and
    USAID and State Department personnel on the ground in Syria. The United
    States and Russia continue to utilize the de-confliction channel, which
    has been effective in enabling stakeholders to safely conduct
    operations in Syria against ISIS. Syria Transition and Response Team
    (START) Forward personnel are co-located with DoD assets on the ground
    and are protected by the Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic
    Security as well as DoD. This relationship has enabled State and USAID
    to continue to invest in communities across the region to remove
    explosive remnants of war; get electricity and water turned back on;
    and repair and refurbish medical facilities, schools, and basic
    infrastructure in order to enable families to safely and voluntarily
    return home and strengthen community resilience.
                        u.s.-israel cooperation on iran
        Question. Press has alleged that the U.S. and Israel have formed a
    joint working group to support internal efforts to encourage protests
    within Iran and put pressure on the Iranian government, saying this was
    part of a U.S.-Israeli framework document on countering Iran. Is the
    U.S. collaborating with Israel on such an initiative? If so, please
    provide us with specific details or a copy of this agreement.

        Answer. The United States, our allies, and our partners around the
    world recognize the threat Iran's malign activity poses to nations in
    the region and particularly to Israel. We are committed to working with
    Israel to help maintain its security and continue close collaboration
    on a range of issues, including Iran.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                     Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey

                                     lgbti
        Question. Over the last year, in a number of places around the
    globe, LGBTQ people have been targeted, rounded up, tortured and even
    killed, just for being who they are. I was therefore pleased to see
    your statement last month marking the International Day Against
    Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia that the U.S. ``opposes
    criminalization, violence and serious acts of discrimination'' against
    LGBTI persons. What will you specifically commit to do to help LGBTQ
    people in Chechnya, Egypt and other places to ensure they are not
    targeted for abuse? What will you do to hold Russia and Chechnya
    accountable for these crimes?

        Answer. As I confirmed in my statement on the International Day
    Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, ``the United States
    stands with people around the world in affirming the dignity and
    equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender
    identity or expression, or sex characteristics. Human rights are
    universal, and LGBTI people are entitled to the same respect, freedoms,
    and protections as everyone else.'' The Department uses public and
    private actions to counter violence and severe discrimination by
    offering emergency assistance to LGBTI persons and organizations at
    risk and by imposing visa restrictions and economic sanctions, as
    appropriate, against those who violate their human rights.
        In relation to Chechnya, we have been consistent in condemning
    abuses targeting the LGBTI community through bilateral channels,
    including a personal letter to Foreign Minister Lavrov. We have
    insisted at the United Nations and the Organization for Security and
    Cooperation in Europe that the Russian Federation end impunity for
    human rights violations in Chechnya. In addition, we sanctioned Ramzan
    Kadyrov and police official Ayub Katayev under the Sergei Magnitsky
    Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (Russia Magnitsky Act) in
    December 2017 for their role in perpetrating abuses.

        Question. For over a year, the State Department has not had a
    Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI persons. I was pleased
    that, in your answers on the record to the Senate during your
    confirmation process, you also committed to appoint a Special Envoy,
    but that has not happened yet. Do you have a timeline for making that
    appointment? When we can we expect that to happen?

        Answers. Consistent with the administration's prior commitment, I
    intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of
    LGBTI Persons. The Department is working to fill the position. Filling
    vacant leadership positions is a top priority of mine, and I am working
    closely with the White House to do so.

        Question. I am pleased to see that you have begun to name senior
    level staff to fill key positions, vacancies that had been backlogged
    under your predecessor. However, I am concerned about a number of these
    nominees' records on women's rights, refugees, and LGBTQ human rights.
    What are you doing to ensure that all nominees understand the broad
    range of human rights issues in their portfolios and that they must
    take into account the very real persecution that women, LGBTQ people
    and other groups face around the globe?

        Answer. Nominees for positions across the Department of State are
    extensively briefed on the foreign policy priorities of the
    administration, including the promotion of human rights and fundamental
    freedoms. Promoting human rights and defending the dignity of all
    persons is in the best interests of the United States.
                             singapore/north korea
        Question. The statement issued by President Trump and Chairman Kim
    says the United States and North Korea ``join their efforts to build a
    lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula . . . and the
    DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean
    Peninsula.'' Have the North Koreans agreed to a common understanding of
    what ``denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula'' covers?

        Answer. I have been very clear with my North Korean counterparts on
    what final, fully-verified denuclearization means, and they understand
    and acknowledge that it will require verification.

        Question. Has North Korea agreed to suspend the production of
    fissile material and suspend the production of ballistic missiles? Is
    there any verifiable evidence of significant progress toward
    denuclearization?

        Answer. The administration is pursuing steps to fully denuclearize
    North Korea--which would include eliminating all of the DPRK's illicit
    and threatening WMDs as well as its delivery systems--at the earliest
    opportunity.
        In Pyongyang, North Korea reaffirmed the commitment it made in
    Singapore to destroy its missile engine test site, which, if completed
    and verified, will constitute positive movement. We continue to work to
    secure the necessary action on the part of the DPRK to accomplish the
    final, fully-verified denuclearization of North Korea.

        Question. What is preventing the United States from agreeing to
    Japan's request to compel North Korea to sign the 1996 Comprehensive
    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and make its nuclear test moratorium legally-
    binding and verifiable?

        Answer. Verification is an essential part of complete
    denuclearization, and President Trump and Chairman Kim both committed
    to this in Singapore. The U.S. government is committed to the robust
    monitoring and verification measures that will be required to achieve
    complete denuclearization and to not have the nuclear issue resurface
    again.

        Question. Secretary Pompeo, have you and your North Korean
    counterparts agreed on any working level teams for the follow-up
    negotiations on key issues? If so, what issues are each of those teams
    assigned to address?

        Answer. I have established a post-Singapore Summit working group
    dedicated to directing my Department's planning, policy, implementation
    and verification of our efforts to achieve the denuclearization of
    North Korea consistent with the Singapore Summit's joint statement. The
    working group is led by Alex Wong, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East
    Asian and Pacific Affairs; Ben Purser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    International Security and Nonproliferation; Mark Lambert, Acting
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Korea and includes many other
    colleagues, drawing upon the expertise of the entire Department. The
    team supports Ambassador Sung Kim's ongoing negotiation efforts. We
    will continue to closely collaborate with the interagency.
        We are moving together for further negotiations, and the United
    States seeks to move quickly. There is much work to be done, and my
    team looks forward to working with the DPRK to develop a clear, shared
    timeline to accomplish the final, fully-verified denuclearization of
    North Korea, as agreed to by Chairman Kim.

        Question. South Korean President Moon has recently reiterated that,
    by the end of 2018, he would like the United States, the DPRK, and the
    RoK to make a political declaration on the end of the Korean War. This
    is a concept that President Trump has said might be helpful and that
    North Korea would presumably see as a step in the direction of building
    a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Could such a
    political declaration, in your view, contribute to that goal? And could
    it potentially help move North Korea toward more meaningful and
    irreversible steps on denuclearization?

        Answer. We are committed to building a peace mechanism with the
    goal of replacing the Armistice agreement when North Korea has
    denuclearized. The administration firmly believes any warming in
    relations between Pyongyang and Seoul must happen in tandem with the
    denuclearization of the DPRK. Right now, our primary focus is the
    final, fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK.
               helsinki/u.s.-russian nuclear arms control matters
        Question. Following the July 16 meeting with President Trump in
    Helsinki, President Putin expressed Russia's willingness to begin
    discussions about an extension of the New START Treaty and warned that
    the treaty will expire in a year and a half unless work on an extension
    begins soon. Did Presidents Trump and Putin discuss New START and a
    possible extension during their private meeting and if so how did
    President Trump respond to President Putin's willingness to begin talks
    on doing so? What is the administration's timeline for the completing
    its review of whether to extend New START?

        Answer. The administration does not have a specific timeline for
    reviewing a potential extension of the new START treaty. The United
    States remains committed to fully implementing the treaty. The
    interagency has made no decision on extension, and we will weigh next
    steps at the appropriate time. This decision will be taken in the
    context of the international security environment, and will
    holistically weigh whether extending the treaty benefits the national
    security of the United States, our allies, and our partners.
                      export controls for 3-d-printed guns
        In 2015, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation
    sued the State Department, challenging the State Department's
    determination that Defense Distributed violated federal export controls
    and its demand that Defense Distributed remove from the internet its
    blueprints for 3-D printable firearms. Throughout the course of the
    lawsuit, the government maintained that its position was well-supported
    under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms
    Regulations (ITAR).

        Despite the court's twice siding with the government's position, in
    a stunning reversal of course last month, DOJ settled the suit and
    agreed to allow for the public release of Defense Distributed's 3-D
    firearm printing blueprints in any form. Specifically, the State
    Department has agreed to allow Defense Distributed to publish its
    blueprints by July 27, 2018--by making a ``temporary modification'' of
    the United States Munitions List (USML) and granting Defense
    Distributed an ``exemption'' from ITAR regulations.

        Anyone--including criminals and terrorists--will now have access to
    blueprints for making deadly weapons, including semi-automatic firearms
    like the AR-15 used in the Parkland, Florida shooting.

        Question. In your testimony before our committee, you committed to
    reviewing the decision to allow Defense Distributed to publish its
    blueprints online. Would you please confirm for this committee that you
    will not allow the publication of blueprints online while you undertake
    this review?

        Answer. As I committed in my testimony, I will review the
    Department's next steps on this issue and have my staff provide a
    briefing on the complexities of this matter.
                                 taiwan/taipei
        Question. Bloomberg news reported July 26 that U.S. airlines are
    altering their website displays for Taiwan, meeting a deadline set by
    the Chinese government for such references to reflect China's claim on
    the island. I understand that that the U.S. government has expressed
    concern on behalf of U.S. air carriers to the Chinese government and
    consulted with the airlines. What messages have you delivered to the
    Chinese? Now that U.S. air carriers have elected to conform to the
    Chinese government request, what other steps is the State Department
    contemplating to advocate on behalf of U.S. companies, given the
    likelihood of further economic coercion in the future?

        Answer. I am very concerned by Beijing's coercive actions. We have
    consistently told China that the United States strongly objects to the
    Chinese government's attempts to compel private firms, including
    airlines, to publicly employ specific language of a political nature.
        We will continue to call on China to stop threatening and coercing
    American companies and citizens. I will work with partner governments
    and authorities to promote market-based economics; support good
    governance and liberty; and insulate them from external pressure.
                                   __________

                  Responses of Hon. Mike Pompeo to Questions
                      Submitted by Senator Cory A. Booker

                                  afghanistan
        I had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan in May and met with
    General Nicholson and Ambassador Bass. We have been in Afghanistan for
    nearly two decades and I heard the word ``stalemate'' again and again
    to describe the state of play there.

        Question. Do you believe there is a military solution to this
    conflict?

        Answer. There is no military solution this to this conflict. As
    President Trump said last August, ``Military power alone will not bring
    peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that
    country.'' The administration's overall goal for Afghanistan is to
    support a negotiated political settlement between the government and
    the Taliban. To this end, we are using all tools, including military
    and diplomatic tools, in concert, to support Afghan efforts to secure
    peace.

        Question. I was glad to see reports last week that stated the U.S.
    will seek to directly engage the Taliban in negotiations. Do you
    support directly negotiating with the Taliban?

        Answer. There is no military solution this to this conflict. As
    President Trump said last August, ``Military power alone will not bring
    peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that
    country.'' The administration's overall goal for Afghanistan is to
    support a negotiated political settlement between the government and
    the Taliban. To this end, we are using all tools, including military
    and diplomatic tools, in concert, to support Afghan efforts to secure
    peace.

        Question. If no, why not? Do you support the indefinite deployment
    of U.S. and NATO troops in the country?

        Answer. I do not support the indefinite deployment of U.S. and NATO
    troops in Afghanistan. When President Trump described our strategy last
    August, he noted that the United States would have a conditions-based
    approach to our presence in Afghanistan, focused on enabling a peaceful
    Afghanistan that can prevent the resurgence of terrorist safe havens
    that threaten America. We will not allow the Taliban a military victory
    in Afghanistan and are prepared to stay until the conditions are met
    that secure our core national security interest. The Taliban will not
    be able to wait out the United States and its allies.

        Question. What is the United States' strategy to leverage direct
    negotiations with the Taliban to jumpstart an inclusive Afghan peace
    process?

        Answer. The core goal of the United States in Afghanistan is a
    peace agreement that brings stability to Afghanistan and prevents the
    resurgence of terrorist safe-havens that threaten the United States.
    The only way to reach this goal is through an inclusive political
    settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The United
    States cannot be a substitute for the Afghan government in negotiations
    with the Taliban. However, as I said in June, the United States is
    ready to support, facilitate, and participate in negotiations between
    the Taliban and the Afghan government. The United States is using all
    tools, including military and diplomatic ones, to press the Taliban to
    begin formal negotiations with the Afghan government.

        Question. Would you support appointing and fully supporting a
    senior official mandated to focus on negotiating a settlement of the
    conflict at the Embassy?

        Answer. As the Senior Bureau Official of the South Asia Bureau,
    Ambassador Alice Wells is focused on pursuing a negotiated settlement
    to the conflict in Afghanistan. She has a dedicated team that focuses
    exclusively on initiating and supporting a peace process and
    coordinates with other regional and functional experts across the
    Department. Because of her broader responsibilities relating to other
    countries in the region, she is well positioned to ensure that U.S.
    engagement in South and Central Asia is both coherent and synchronized
    among decision-makers in Washington. Ambassador Wells works closely
    with Ambassador Bass and General Nicholson, who have established an
    interagency Peace and Reconciliation Action Group (PRAG) to ensure
    unity of effort in the field and with Washington.
                                     syria
        Senators Cardin, Kaine and I sent a letter to President Trump
    sharing our concerns about the halt in stabilization funding to Syria.
    The answer that I received from Assistant Secretary Waters was
    incomplete and frankly an insult to our ability to conduct oversight.

        The letter we received did not answer our questions or concerns
    about when this funding would be restored, the effect of the funding
    freeze on Iranian and Russian influence, or the input that was provided
    from the State Department, USAID, and Defense Department before
    stabilization funding was frozen.

        Question. When will the stabilization funding for Syria be
    restored?

        Answer. In line with President Trump's request to review all
    foreign assistance, the administration is evaluating all bilateral
    foreign assistance for Syria to identify appropriate assistance levels
    and determine how those funds might best be utilized. Approximately
    $6.6 million has been released to fulfill U.S. funding commitments to
    the White Helmets and the International Impartial Investigative
    Mechanism. While the stabilization review is ongoing, we are
    encouraging the Global Coalition and our regional partners to
    contribute more of their resources and take a greater role in
    stabilizing liberated areas of Syria. To that end, the Department has
    raised approximately $300 million in Coalition funds for stabilization
    efforts in northeastern Syria. While details are being finalized, we
    expect some of these funds will support stabilization assistance
    programs implemented by the U.S. Government through the Department and
    USAID.

        Question. Were you, Administrator Green, and Secretary Mattis
    consulted before the stabilization funding was halted and were you part
    of the decision to halt the funding?

        Answer. I fully support the administration's decision to evaluate
    Syria stabilization assistance levels and how best these funds might be
    used. Moreover, in line with the President's call for international
    partners to assume more of a share in Syria stabilization efforts, we
    have secured approximately $300 million in Coalition contributions for
    stabilization programming in northeastern Syria and will continue to
    engage our partners to support our ongoing stabilization efforts.

        Question. What do you believe will be the effect on Iranian and
    Russian influence in Syria if the U.S. is not part of the stabilization
    of Syria?

        Answer. Russia and Iran lack sufficient material resources to
    stabilize and eventually reconstruct Syria. Russia has approached the
    United States and international partners about providing that
    assistance, but the United States and our allies and partners will not
    provide international reconstruction assistance absent a credible
    political process in Geneva that leads unalterably to constitutional
    reform, U.N. supervised elections, and a political transition that
    reflects the will of the Syrian people. In the meantime, the United
    States will continue to work with our partners in the Global Coalition
    to Defeat ISIS to support immediate stabilization and early recovery
    efforts in areas liberated from ISIS control, including Explosive
    Remnants of War removal, the restoration of essential services, and
    building local capacity to support longer-term sustainability. Both
    Iran and Russia provide military and diplomatic support to the Syrian
    regime and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The
    United States is actively using all available tools to counter malign
    Iranian influence in Syria and throughout the region.

        Question. Do you believe we risk losing gains we have made in Syria
    by withdrawing stabilization efforts?

        Answer. The administration has repeatedly emphasized that we are
    committed to completing the fight against ISIS, rooting out its
    remaining havens, and ensuring ISIS cannot return. The United States
    works with our partners in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to
    support immediate stabilization and early recovery efforts in areas
    liberated from ISIS control, including Explosive Remnants of War
    removal, the restoration of essential services, and building local
    capacity to support longer-term sustainability. To this end, the
    members of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS have pledged
    approximately $300 million since April to support the continuation of
    stabilization and early recovery efforts in northeast Syria implemented
    by the USG through the Department and USAID.

        Question. Were you briefed on the entirety of what the President
    and Putin discussed during their two-hour one on one conversation in
    Helsinki?

        Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, I have spoken with President
    Trump multiple times about the subject matter of the Helsinki meetings,
    and I was present when Presidents Trump and Putin gave us a sense of
    what they discussed immediately afterwards.

        Question. Were General Dunford, General Votel, Secretary Mattis, or
    Director Coats briefed on the conversation?

        Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, I had multiple discussions
    with the President about the subject matter of the Helsinki meetings,
    and I was present when Presidents Trump and Putin gave us a sense
    immediately afterwards of what they discussed.
        I refer you to the Department of Defense and the Office of the
    Director of National Intelligence for specifics on any briefings by the
    White House with General Dunford, General Votel, Secretary Mattis, or
    Director Coats.

        Question. What discussion if any was there about increased U.S.-
    Russian cooperation in Syria during the discussion between President
    Trump and President Putin?

        Answer. There were no agreements made in Helsinki between the
    United States and Russia. We continue to speak to the Russians about
    the range of issues, including those the Presidents discussed.
    Continued U.S. engagement with like-minded partners and with Russia
    will be a necessary component of any lasting solution in Syria. The
    U.S. policy in Syria continues to prioritize the enduring defeat of
    ISIS, as well as the removal of all Iranian forces from the country and
    deescalating the violence to create the conditions for an U.N.-led
    political solution that reflects the will of the Syrian people and
    brings the conflict to an end.

        Question. Was there a discussion of a joint U.S.-Russian military
    effort to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees during the
    discussion between President Trump and President Putin? Do you agree
    that you would have to come back to Congress to get the necessary
    authorities before doing so?

        Answer. There were no agreements made in Helsinki between the
    United States and Russia--beyond agreement for our two sides to
    continue talking about the entire range of issues the Presidents
    discussed. Contrary to press reports, and to Russian officials' public
    statements, the United States has not agreed to any proposal related to
    refugee returns to Syria. The United States strongly supports the
    position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the
    situation in Syria is not yet conducive to large-scale facilitated or
    assisted returns, and that any refugee returns should be voluntary,
    safe, and dignified. In addition, it is our policy that there will be
    no U.S. reconstruction assistance to regime-held areas in Syria absent
    a credible political process in Geneva that leads unalterably to
    constitutional reform, U.N. supervised elections, and a political
    transition that reflects the will of the Syrian people. The
    administration values input from Congress and will continue to consult
    with the committee.

        Question. Has your Russian counterpart, Sergie Lavrov, come to you
    about implementing any agreements coming out of the discussion between
    President Trump and President Putin?

        Answer. There were no ``agreements'' reached in Helsinki--beyond
    agreement for our two sides to keep talking on the entire range of
    issues the Presidents discussed and we continue to do so.
                                  north korea
        Question. Did President Trump consult with President Moon or
    Secretary Mattis about canceling military exercises with South Korea?
    Why not why not?

        Answer. As the Pentagon stated in a June 18 press statement, the
    suspension of select combined military exercises with the Republic of
    Korea was coordinated with our Republic of Korea ally and additional
    decisions will depend upon the DPRK continuing to have productive
    negotiations in good faith. This decision is consistent with President
    Trump's commitment to make every effort to create space for diplomatic
    engagement with the DPRK. There is absolutely no change to our ironclad
    commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea.

        Question. Has there been any effort to tie suspension in exercises
    to missile testing moratorium?

        Answer. The Alliance decision to pause our combined military
    exercises was made independent of any missile testing moratorium. This
    is a good faith gesture on the part of the United States and Republic
    of Korea to further productive discussions aimed at the final, fully
    verified denuclearization of the DPRK.

        Question. If not, what have we actually gotten in return for the
    suspension of military exercises?

        Answer. We did not seek any quid pro quo for our pause in combined
    military exercises with the Republic of Korea. This decision was made
    in good faith to provide space for diplomatic engagement as we move
    towards our ultimate goal of final, fully verified denuclearization of
    the DPRK.

        Question. In the course of your talks with North Korean officials,
    have you reached an agreed and detailed understanding of what
    ``denuclearization of the Korean peninsula'' entails?

        Answer. In my engagements with Chairman Kim and other North Korean
    officials I have made the U.S. position on denuclearization abundantly
    clear. Our goal is to achieve the final, fully-verified
    denuclearization of the DPRK. This goal was agreed to by Chairman Kim
    in Singapore.
        North and South Korea concluded a denuclearization agreement in
    January 1992 by which they declared: 1. The South and the North shall
    not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use
    nuclear weapons. 2. The South and the North shall use nuclear energy
    solely for peaceful purposes. 3. The South and the North shall not
    possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.

        Question. Would you say that declaration provides a good working
    definition of the ``denuclearization'' of the Korean peninsula? Yes, or
    no?

        Answer. Denuclearization includes the elimination of all of North
    Korea's threatening WMDs, their delivery systems, and all associated
    facilities and infrastructure. North Korea's implementation of its 1992
    agreement with South Korea would be a welcome development.

        On July 1, National Security Advisor Bolton said experts have
    devised a program for North Korea to dismantle all of their WMD and
    ballistic missile programs in a year.

        Question. Given that, as Bolton admitted in that same interview,
    North Korea has yet to fully disclose the details of its program, do
    you think the one year timeline is feasible? When would that one year
    go into effect?

        Answer. We continue to work towards the implementation of Chairman
    Kim's commitments to President Trump in Singapore at the earliest
    possible time. Given the opportunity, we are prepared to help North
    Korea denuclearize as soon as possible.

        Question. Is there a meeting scheduled between North Korean and
    American technical experts to begin the process of documenting all the
    elements and facilities of the North Korean nuclear program? If not,
    why not?

        Answer. U.S. experts are fully prepared to begin discussions with
    DPRK counterparts on steps to accomplish the final, fully verified
    denuclearization of North Korea, pursuant to Chairman Kim's commitments
    in Singapore.

        Question. Given that you said at the hearing that North Korea
    continues producing fissile material, how can we say we are making
    progress on denuclearization?

        Answer. North Korea has taken some steps that indicate it intends
    to move towards the implementation of Chairman Kim's commitments at
    Singapore. We continue to work to secure the action necessary on the
    part of the DPRK to accomplish the final, fully verified
    denuclearization of North Korea.
                               russia/north korea
        In the Helsinki press conference on July 16, President Trump said:
    ``I am very sure that President Putin and Russia want very much to end
    that problem'' regarding North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile
    programs.

        Russian oil tankers reportedly supplied fuel to North Korea via sea
    transfers on several occasions in 2017, which, if accurate, would be in
    violation of U.N. sanctions. President Trump himself said in January
    that ``Russia is not helping us at all with North Korea. What China is
    helping us with, Russia is denting.'' Russia's envoy to the U.N.
    recently said we should raise the question of easing sanctions on the
    North Korea.

        Question. Does the administration consider Russia to be a reliable
    partner in challenging North Korea?

        Answer. U.S. policy remains to maintain economic and diplomatic
    pressure on North Korea to support our objective of achieving the
    final, fully-verified denuclearization of North Korea, as agreed to by
    Chairman Kim. As I stated in my testimony, Russia's commitment to help
    us achieve denuclearization of North Korea did come up in Helsinki. We
    will continue to press Russia to comply fully with all required U.N.
    Security Council Resolutions, maintain economic pressure on North
    Korea, avoid expanding any economic ties with the country, and
    repatriate the DPRK laborers now working in Russia. The President and I
    raised the topic of North Korea with President Putin in Helsinki, and
    our discussions on these and other key international issues will
    continue as we engage with Russia in the future.

        Question. If so, what concrete changes have occurred to provoke a
    change in assessing that Russia is helping, rather than hurting, on
    North Korea?

        Answer. On July 17, President Trump stated his firm conviction that
    ``diplomacy and engagement are preferable to conflict and hostility.''
    These principles have guided our actions on North Korea. President
    Trump's diplomacy de-escalated a situation in which the prospect for
    conflict was rising daily. Americans are safer because of his actions.
        Until North Korea eliminates its weapons of mass destruction, our
    sanctions, and those at the United Nations will remain in effect.
    Multiple resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, which includes
    Russia, require North Korea to eliminate all of its weapons of mass
    destruction and ballistic missile programs. Those resolutions were
    passed unanimously and they remain binding. We urge every single
    nation, including Russia, to maintain the enforcement of those
    sanctions. The path ahead is not easy, but our hopes for a safer world
    and a brighter future for North Korea endure.
                                  north korea
        In your testimony, you said ``our objective remains the final,
    fully-verifiable denuclearization of North Korea.'' At a speech on May
    2 at the State Department, you said, ``We are committed to the
    permanent, verifiable, irreversible dismantling of North Korea's
    weapons of mass destruction program, and to do so without delay.'' And
    yet, your testimony doesn't include the words ``permanent'' or
    ``irreversible.''

        Furthermore, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, you said
    the following: ``We're going to require those steps--we use the word
    irreversible with great intention. We're going to require those steps
    that demonstrate that denuclearization is going to be achieved.''

        Question. Have your expectations of what denuclearization means
    changed over the past couple months?

        Answer. No. The President remains committed to fully and finally
    resolving the issue of DPRK's illicit and threatening WMDs and their
    delivery systems.

        Question. Was it now your intention to remove ``irreversible'' from
    your definition of denuclearization?

        Answer. The President remains committed to fully and finally
    resolving the issue of DPRK's illicit and threatening WMDs and their
    delivery systems.
                                     russia
        Question. President Trump met one-on-one with Russian President
    Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg in July last year.
    Were staff, advisors, or a note taker present during that one-on-one
    meeting between President Trump and President Putin?

        Answer. No notetaker, staff, or advisers participated in the one-
    on-one meeting between President Trump and President Putin.

        Question. Were you or other members of President Trump's national
    security staff briefed on the discussions of that conversation after
    the meeting?

        Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, I have spoken with President
    Trump multiple times about the subject matter of the Helsinki meetings,
    and I was present when Presidents Trump and Putin gave us a sense of
    what they discussed immediately afterwards.
                    u.s. ambassador to israel david friedman
        Last month, at a conference on the news media, U.S. Ambassador to
    Israel David Friedman accused the press--expressly including American
    news outlets--of major bias against Israel in its coverage of violence
    at the Gaza fence-line, telling reporters to ``keep your mouths shut
    until you figure it out.''

        More than an inappropriate degradation of the free press by a
    sitting U.S. ambassador, Ambassador Friedman's egregious attack
    dangerously echoes efforts to discredit and intimidate the press in the
    United States, Israel and around the world.

        Question. Do you think these were appropriate comments for a U.S.
    Ambassador to make?

        Answer. Ambassador Friedman's remarks were taken out of context.
    Speaking by invitation at an event on media coverage of Israel,
    Ambassador Friedman emphasized the importance of a free press to a
    functioning democracy. He noted that he expects and appreciates
    criticism of the U.S. government. Ambassador Friedman stated that facts
    matter and called for objectivity in reporting on Israel. He noted many
    press critiques of Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) rules of engagement
    during recent demonstrations on the Gaza fence-line failed to cite
    military or security experts on the challenges IDF faced in deterring
    arson and other violent attacks from Gaza into Israel. He called for
    reporters to eschew political bias in favor of objective analysis.

        Question. What steps did you take to address these comments with
    him?

        Answer. The Department Spokesperson clarified from the podium that
    Ambassador Friedman's remarks were taken out of context. The
    Ambassador's speech to an event on media coverage of Israel focused on
    the importance of a free press to a functioning democracy. He also
    cited certain press critiques of Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) rules of
    engagement during recent demonstrations on the Gaza fence-line as an
    example of the need for reporters to consult with subject-matter
    experts and eschew political bias in favor of objective analysis.
                                     niger
        In response to terrorist threats in the broader Sahel-Maghreb, the
    United States military has deployed more than 800 U.S. troops to
    conduct train and equip missions, and to construct an airfield in
    Agadez to provide additional Intelligence Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance coverage. However, this deep security cooperation has
    coincided with significantly eroded progress toward democratic
    governance. An example of this disturbing trend involves the arrest of
    several dozen civil society leaders between March and April of this
    year, in connection with demonstrations against the country's new
    finance law.

        Question. How is the State Department communicating to Niger's
    leaders that they should not interpret our counterterrorism cooperation
    as license for shirking their responsibilities for good governance?

        Answer. The United States is committed to promoting the peace and
    prosperity of Niger. We work towards this outcome by supporting Niger's
    democratic institutions and civil society organizations; promoting
    human rights, fundamental freedoms, and good governance; strengthening
    country-led development; and training and equipping Niger's security
    forces. For example, Niger is an exemplary partner in the Security
    Governance Initiative, a program designed to improve the governance of
    security and justice sector institutions. As part of the initiative,
    the Nigerien Ministry of Defense has made meaningful improvements in
    how it manages human and financial resources, as well as how it
    communicates with the Nigerien public.
        In light of recent concerning events suggesting the deterioration
    of the freedoms of expression and assembly as well as the rule of law,
    our Ambassador and his team have repeatedly delivered messages
    stressing the importance of protecting the freedoms of expression and
    assembly to high-level members of the government and to the people of
    Niger. Our messages underscore the importance that the U.S. government
    attaches to the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights,
    support for effective and accountable government, and the maintenance
    of open political space with freedom to peacefully express dissent,
    including views critical of the government.

        Question. Will the State Department to speak out in support of
    Nigerien civil society leaders jailed for exercising their freedom of
    expression, association, and assembly, which are protected under the
    Nigerien constitution and international human rights norms?

        Answer. Although a verdict in the case of several activists
    arrested for organizing a banned protest was rendered on July 24,
    providing for the immediate release of the majority of those charged,
    we continue to express our concerns to the Government of Niger, and
    will continue to do so as long as merited. Our conversations with the
    Government of Niger included concerns about the more than four months
    these individuals spent in pre-trial detention, harsh sentences for
    some of those charged, and a number of due process violations raised by
    lawyers for the defense. We continue to monitor the cases of those who
    still await trial as well as actions taken by the Government of Niger
    that signal the further restriction of the fundamental freedoms of
    assembly, association, and expression.
        Our messaging has not fallen on deaf ears: the Government of Niger
    has made it clear that it values its partnership with the United States
    and takes U.S. criticism very seriously.
                                     russia
        News reports indicate Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and
    Israel have sought out Trump administration officials at various points
    aimed at improving the U.S.-Russia relationship as a way to gain
    leverage over Iran. One reportedly proposed deal would have the United
    States lift sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Crimea in exchange
    for Russia pushing Iran out of Syria.

        Question. Is the State Department reviewing any U.S.-Russia deals
    being proposed/brokered by the Saudis, Emiratis, or Israelis, or any
    combination thereof?

        Answer. The Department continues to consult closely on issues
    related to Syria with key regional allies, including Israel. While we
    cannot comment on the content of those discussions in this format, we
    remain strongly committed to the Defeat ISIS Campaign, the removal of
    Iranian and proxy forces from Syria, and an end to the Syrian conflict
    through a political solution.
                                      iran
        Question. The Iranians have indicated that they will restart
    elements of their nuclear program that were frozen under the JCPOA if
    Europe can't ensure European business will continue to flow into Iran
    amid renewed American sanctions. What is the Trump administration's
    plan should Iran take this course of action?

        Answer. President Trump has been clear about the serious
    consequences if Iran continues its nuclear aspirations. Our strategy is
    intended to impose maximum pressure on Iran to address the totality of
    its malign behavior, including nonproliferation issues and other
    concerns.
                                   __________

              Buzzfeed News Article Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Arab News Article Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Statement of President Donald J. Trump
                      Submitted by Senator Cory A. Booker

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]