[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2019
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee On Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (Chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Lankford, Daines, Hyde-Smith,
Leahy, Durbin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, and Van Hollen.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. The subcommittee will come to order. We are
pleased to have the Secretary of State, Mr. Pompeo, with us.
You've got to leave at 4:30. I know you've got a hard stop.
We're going to accommodate that. We're going to run the train
on time and have 6-minute rounds, and I'll give a very short
opening statement.
Number one, I'm pleased that you were chosen by the
President, and I think you're the right person at the right
time. You understand the world for what it is, a complicated
place, and being a former CIA director, you understand the
threats. You have the President's confidence. You certainly
have my confidence, and I appreciate that you and your family
are willing to do this. We will not pay you by the mile,
because I don't think we could afford it.
So let's talk a little bit about this account. Then we'll
get into the questioning. Senator Leahy and I have been doing
this for quite a while, and foreign assistance is sometimes
difficult to sell domestically, but if you don't want to be in
endless wars, if you want to have more tools than just dropping
bombs, it's essential we have a robust foreign assistance
account. It's essential that our diplomats under your command
serve safely.
And to the public: I often talk about the military, because
they deserve it. I don't talk enough about the State Department
and USAID members, who serve in very dangerous locations
without the security footprint sometimes that we would like.
They take risks on behalf of this Nation every day, and they're
very much heroes. I think you will be a good voice for their
needs.
Now, as to the President's budget request, it is 20-
something percent below what we wind up doing, and, because we
have time constraints, these are the threats we face, non-state
actor challenges and state actor challenges really since 2011,
when we implemented sequestration. Everything on that chart is
in your purview, North Korea being one of the easier challenges
you face. So North Korea, Iran, and ISIS is a pretty good
challenge. Then you just keep going to Syria, Yemen, and
Russia--on and on and on. And here's what we're trying to
prevent: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. You're
an essential part of all this.
I just don't see how it makes sense to cut the budget over
20 percent, given your portfolio, and I'll ask you one quick
question in a minute: If we give you more money, do you think
you can wisely spend it? And you will say yes, and if you
don't, we're going to have a problem.
So having said that, I want to turn it over to Senator
Leahy.
I really appreciate you coming today, Mike, because you're
in demand. But this subcommittee needs to tell you what's on
our mind, and you need to tell us what we can do to help you
better do your job.
Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Pompeo, thank you for being here. Welcome.
You are no stranger to the Congress, and I am sure you know
this subcommittee has had long bipartisan support for the State
Department, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats have
been in charge of the Senate, or whether it has been a
Republican administration or a Democrat administration. Senator
Graham and I have swapped seats on this subcommittee over the
years, and we've always worked together.
Last week, the committee unanimously reported the fiscal
year 2019 State, Foreign Operations bill. We rejected the cuts
proposed by OMB. Our goal was to enable the United States to
remain the global leader that so many Americans and people
around the world want us to be. That means we have to lead by
example. We have to stand up for our values and our principles.
We have to pay our fair share to support international
organizations and alliances that protect our interests, and
support policies and programs that enhance our reputation and
our credibility.
I am going to put my whole statement in the record, but
I'll close with this. I think we have two choices. One is to
cut the budget for the State Department and USAID by 25
percent, slash our contributions to the United Nations,
withdraw from international agreements and treaties, embrace
corrupt despots who trample the rights of citizens, close our
borders to people fleeing violence and war, bully our
neighbors, and ignore the fact that our strongest competitors
are methodically expanding their influence as we pull back.
The other approach is to be a leader, one that is still the
world's only superpower, thanks to the sacrifice of generations
of Americans who came before us. That is the approach this
subcommittee has taken, and the lion's share of the credit goes
to Chairman Graham, because he committed at the beginning, and
we did it together. We agreed to make the bill bipartisan, and
we tried to have an unanimous vote, and we did.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
We live in a rapidly changing, dangerous world. I doubt there are
any among us who would have predicted, when the Berlin Wall came down
30 years ago, that the world would look the way it does today:
--Two seemingly unending American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
--Religious and ethnic violent extremism that has grown steadily
worse since
9/11;
--Global pandemics that have infected and caused the deaths of tens
of millions of people;
--Rising temperatures and water scarcity threatening whole regions;
--The proliferation of ever more powerful nuclear weapons;
--Increasing authoritarianism and the dismantling of democratic
institutions; and
--Humanitarian crises and people fleeing their homes on a scale not
seen since World War II.
You are here to defend the President's budget, and we understand
that. So it could be said that we are here to try to save you from your
own administration, and to protect the funding for diplomacy and
development. We want the people at the State Department and USAID to
have the resources they need to do their jobs.
This budget amounts to a tiny fraction of the Federal budget, and
it compliments the role of our military by building more stable
societies to prevent conflict, and by rebuilding after conflicts and
other disasters when they occur. We want other countries do contribute
more, but we cannot protect our interests by doing less.
I expect most of the discussion today will focus on topics in the
news, like North Korea, Iran, China, Iraq and Syria. There's nothing
wrong with that. But let's remember that we can have the best trained
people and the best policies and the best programs, but without the
funds to implement them there won't be much to show for it.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. We like ourselves if nobody else does.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. So the floor is yours, Mr. Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Leahy. I appreciate you having me here today. I look
forward to our conversation.
Distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk today about the President's budget and the
issues that are on your mind. The list that you show there,
Senator Graham, is long, and I could probably add a couple of
others. I'm sure you could add a couple of more as well.
I want you to know, too, how much I appreciate the fact
that you all have operated in a bipartisan manner. I've had a
chance to talk to many of you on the phone. We've had
productive conversations over a wide range of topics. Know that
I'm always available to listen and make sure I understand your
priorities and the way you are thinking about the world. It is
helpful to me. It's not just something I do as a courtesy, but
something that I value extraordinarily. You all were very short
with your opening statements. I will do the same.
You should see that the overall proposed budget reflects an
effort to manage dollars wisely. We've already made substantial
progress in working on next year's budget. I look forward to
each of us and our teams continuing to work to achieve
America's foreign policy objectives.
With that, I have a written statement, and I've submitted
it. I'm happy to close there and take questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Pompeo
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the administration's fiscal
year 2019 budget request for the State Department and USAID,
recognizing that the Committee has already done great work to advance
an fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill for our organizations. I look
forward to continuing a dialogue with the Committee as the
appropriations process moves forward. And I call your attention to the
administration's communications on the bill and the need to exercise
fiscal responsibility, as is called for in the President's fiscal year
2019 budget.
Last December the Trump administration released the National
Security Strategy. The four pillars of the strategy are protecting the
American people, the homeland, and our way of life; promoting American
prosperity; preserving peace through strength; and advancing American
influence.
In order to achieve these national security objectives, the
administration has submitted our fiscal year 2019 budget request of
$39.3 billion for the State Department and USAID. The proposed request
reflects our obligation to use taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively.
Our request also makes clear the United States' financial
commitment to the pursuit of shared goals must be met proportionally by
the international community. It is time for other nations--especially
those with high GDP--to assume greater responsibilities and devote
greater resources toward common objectives, whether it's crushing
terrorists, stopping Iran's malign behavior, strengthening the NATO
alliance, eradicating infectious diseases, and so much more. We expect
greater burden sharing for our allies and partners.
The President is committed to diplomacy as the primary means of
achieving the United States' foreign policy objectives, which are
further detailed in our State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan. We will use
every dollar to deliver on our duty to serve the American people and
the enduring foreign policy victories that are within sight.
On North Korea, the maximum pressure campaign of diplomatic
pressure and economic sanctions undertaken at the beginning of 2017 has
produced results in the form of the historic Summit which took place on
June 12. Our goals for the Summit were to establish a relationship
between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un and obtain a public
commitment from North Korea to denuclearization. Those objectives were
achieved. We expect to have follow-up meetings with North Korea soon to
identify specific ways to achieve the goals outlined in the Joint
Statement. Sanctions will remain in place until the final, fully-
verified denuclearization of North Korea as agreed to by Chairman Kim
occurs. We know this will not be an easy or quick process, but we
believe we can write a new chapter in our relationship with North Korea
if Kim Jong Un takes the right steps.
Last month I unveiled a new direction for the President's Iran
strategy. We will apply financial pressure, coordinate with our DoD
colleagues on deterrence efforts, support the Iranian people who seek a
brighter future, and hold out the prospect of a new deal for Iran--if
it changes its behavior. We seek to work with as many partners,
friends, and allies as possible to achieve the common objective of
stopping all of Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear threats.
We've made outstanding progress against ISIS, but the job isn't
done yet. The progress against ISIS has been predominantly accomplished
through military action. But there is a very important role for
diplomacy and assistance in ensuring the permanent defeat of ISIS. We
must continue robust stabilization activities with our Coalition
partners in order to prevent ISIS from resurfacing. We are also
countering ISIS's attempts to gain safe havens in areas such as
Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Africa. In addition to providing
targeted security sector assistance funding, we are working with our
allies and partners to stop foreign fighter travel, cut off sources of
revenue, combat ISIS online, share intelligence, and prosecute those
who come off the battlefield.
We know Russia poses a challenge to our strategic interests and the
security of ourselves and our allies. This is evident from the chemical
weapons attack in the UK, for which we imposed consequences in concert
with several partners and allies. We've been clear with Russia that it
must honor its commitments under the Minsk agreements and end its
occupation of Crimea if peace is to prevail in Ukraine. As a guarantor
of the Assad regime, Russia has a responsibility to be a constructive
actor for stability and peace in Syria, which includes stopping the
regime's use of chemical weapons. We are holding Russia accountable to
its commitment to the Geneva process.
China is a rising strategic competitor. We must work constructively
with a nation of China's importance on issues such as North Korea and
opioids, but we cannot sacrifice the interests of the American people
and our economic competitiveness, tolerate aggression in the South
China Sea and elsewhere, or passively watch as American intellectual
property is stolen. We are making clear to China that the protection of
human rights is integral to any country that wishes to be regarded as a
great nation. Elsewhere in Asia, we are re-affirming and expanding
partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region with nations that share our
commitment to security, economic freedom, sovereignty, and liberty.
Turkey is a key NATO Ally and critical partner in the Coalition to
Defeat ISIS. It is in our interest to maintain Turkey's Western
orientation. We have made clear to Turkey the very real and very
negative consequences of acquiring the Russian S-400 system, including
its potential impact on Turkey's participation in the F-35 program. I
appreciate Congress's strong interest in this issue, and I look forward
to consulting with you as we pursue these issues with the Government of
Turkey.
Finally, in our own hemisphere, we are embracing the ``Year of the
Americas,'' by re-affirming our commitment to longstanding partnerships
grounded in shared interests and values. On Venezuela, we have imposed
new economic and diplomatic pressure on the Maduro regime to help steer
that country back toward democracy, and we are rallying like-minded
regional partners to do the same.
Across the world, we have encouraged nations to assume greater
responsibilities for maintaining their own and our shared security and
stability. In the face of a resurgent Russia, and in response to our
urging, many NATO members are newly meeting their commitments to
funding deterrence and defense initiatives. President Trump's call to
the leaders of Middle East countries in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, rallied
leaders of those nations to more aggressively combat terrorism inside
their own borders and to counter violent extremism abroad.
And as part of the new South Asia strategy, we have been clear with
Pakistan that ensuring reconciliation, peace, and security in
Afghanistan in large part depends on Pakistan's willingness to crack
down on terrorist safe havens and instigators of terrorist activity in
its own country.
Our highest priority is keeping the American people safe. The
fiscal year 2019 budget request for $7.3 billion in security assistance
will help protect Americans at home and overseas. The State Department
will continue to lead international efforts to denuclearize North
Korea, and to prevent Iran and other actors from unlawfully acquiring
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, while
strengthening the capacity of partner nations to support our efforts as
well.
This budget request calls for $5.7 billion in support for Coalition
efforts to defeat ISIS and counter other transnational terrorist and
criminal groups that threaten the American homeland. The State
Department and USAID will sustain programs that address the conditions
that give rise to these threats, including poor governance, weak
institutions, lack of economic opportunity, corruption, and persistent
human rights abuses, and attract additional donor nations' support for
these efforts.
Last week in Detroit, I reaffirmed that America's prosperity and
national security depend on a strong and growing American economy.
Economic diplomacy will remain an essential mission of the State
Department. This budget request seeks $2.2 billion for economic growth
activities like attracting investment in the United States, expanding
markets for U.S. exports, and ensuring a level playing field
internationally for American businesses and American workers.
This budget request includes an important proposal for a new
standalone development finance institution (DFI) broadly consistent
with S. 2463, the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to
Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act of 2018), being considered by the
Foreign Relations Committee. Like the BUILD Act, the administration
proposal consolidates existing functions now spread across various
agencies to improve efficiencies and better mobilize private sector
resources.
If authorized by Congress, a DFI with strong linkages to State and
USAID will advance U.S. national security and development objectives by
deploying reformed and modernized development finance tools that
support, not displace, the private sector. The administration shares
the goals of the cosponsors to foster sustainable development in
developing countries and provide strong alternatives to state-directed
initiatives.
With the consolidation of these functions in the DFI we would have
both the opportunity for greater impact and the responsibility to work
together as a government to advance development outcomes, promote self-
reliance among partner countries, and advance U.S. interests and
values. To this end, the budget requests $56 million to collaborate and
coordinate programming with the DFI and leverage its tools.
Americans benefit from sustained engagement with the rest of the
world that serves our interests and those of our allies. This budget
upholds our commitments to our allies, including $3.3 billion in
support of the recent, 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the
United States and Israel regarding U.S. military assistance, a 6.5
percent increase from last year's request. In recognition of our
critical strategic partnership and new 5-year Memorandum of
Understanding with Jordan, the budget also strengthens our high level
of support by requesting $1.275 billion for Jordan in fiscal year 2019.
In light of continuing significant humanitarian needs, largely
driven by ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere, the fiscal
year 2019 request includes $6.4 billion for humanitarian assistance, an
increase of $1.1 billion, or 21 percent, from the fiscal year 2018
request. We will use these resources strategically as part of a new
approach to relief in the near term to boost burden sharing by other
donors, improve U.S. Government internal humanitarian assistance
coordination, and catalyze reforms and efficiencies at the U.N. and
with other partners. Additionally, the administration is developing a
proposal to reorganize how humanitarian assistance is provided across
State and USAID to maximize our capacity to drive strong U.N.
humanitarian system reform, increase global burden-sharing, minimize
duplication of effort in our programming and policy, and maximize
efficiency in meeting humanitarian needs and resolving underlying
crises. The ultimate objective is to maximize the impact of hard-earned
U.S. tax dollars and deliver the best outcome for those dollars.
The President's budget continues global health funding at a level
that will support our work and our leadership in this area, including
through flagship programs like PEPFAR and the President's Malaria
Initiative.
We continue our support for these assistance programs because we
know they are a projection of American leadership and they contribute
to economic growth, and social and political stability. They are not
only measures of the values of the American people, but they contribute
to our interests.
As we have seen with outbreaks of Ebola and other diseases in the
past few years, these health programs have provided a foundation to
prevent, detect, and respond to infectious diseases of epidemic
potential, which helps protect the American people.
American values must be communicated to the world at all times. The
fiscal year 2019 budget request further defends and advances America's
values by devoting $565 million to public diplomacy programs. These
programs are essential to informing public opinion abroad and
communicating American values like respect for human rights and the
rule of law. The people of the world must know not only the policies,
but also the principles for which the United States stands. Even as our
public diplomacy budget calls for greater burden-sharing of long-
standing programs, the $55.4 million requested for the Global
Engagement Center covers both its original counter-extremist mission,
plus an increase of $20 million to counter state-sponsored
disinformation campaigns. We will not tolerate Russian interference in
the 2018 elections, and we will continue to take action to prevent it.
Finally, I would like to update you on what is happening inside the
Department. The Department's workforce is our most valuable asset.
Since becoming Secretary, one of my highest priorities has been
ensuring that the finest foreign affairs professionals in the world are
fully prepared and empowered to achieve our mission. I am unleashing
our teams to do what they do best on behalf of the American people.
In my first 2 months, I've held a town hall for all staff and
regular ``Meetings with Mike'' to listen to their expertise and answer
their questions. I am committed to working as one team with all our
personnel.
With so many challenges before us, the State Department needs a
full team on the field, from locally employed staff around the world to
senior leaders in Washington. That's why I lifted the Eligible Family
Member hiring freeze as one of my first acts as Secretary, and also
lifted the hiring freeze for all Foreign Service and Civil Service
personnel. All Foreign Service and Civil Service hiring will be
consistent with the funding levels that Congress recently enacted.
Additionally, I know that our career professionals work best when
the goals are clear and the leadership team is at full strength. I have
devoted a great deal of time to filling vacancies at the Under
Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Ambassador levels.
We need our men and women on the ground, executing American
diplomacy with great vigor and energy, and representing our great
nation. We need the best tools as well: this budget would also invest
$150 million for IT modernization. We need to work at the speed of 21st
century diplomacy.
As I have said many times, my great goal is to restore the
trademark State Department swagger that has been instrumental in
advancing American security, prosperity, and liberty for centuries. I
define swagger this way: we must be everywhere with the best ideas and
solutions. We must create value during the policy formation process. We
must outwork and out-hustle others. We must be aggressive in working
with our allies and ferocious in defending American values against our
adversaries.
Today I ask for your support to ensure that our diplomatic,
development and organizational initiatives are successful for the State
Department and USAID, and, most importantly, for the American people.
Thank you for your time. I will be glad to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We'll do 6-
minute rounds and just get on with it.
AFGHANISTAN
Let's start with Afghanistan. Do you know General Miller?
Secretary Pompeo. I do know General Miller.
Senator Graham. I asked him point blank what would happen
if we withdrew in the next 6 months in Afghanistan. He said he
thinks it would lead to a lot of disorder and chaos. Then I
asked him, ``Do you think it would be any different than Iraq
when we left too soon?'' ``Senator, from my point of view, I
think it would be similar.'' ``What are the concerns?'' ``I
would be concerned about ISIS and Al Qaeda's ability to merge
and project external operations because I know they want to,
and I know they're consistently looking for that opportunity.''
Do you agree with that assessment of Afghanistan?
Secretary Pompeo. I do.
Senator Graham. Do you agree with me that if we left
without conditions-based withdrawal that you could not do much
without security in terms of the State Department and USAID?
Your people would be sitting ducks.
Secretary Pompeo. I do.
Secretary Graham. So I just want you to convey that to the
President, that we will keep the aid coming to Afghanistan,
make sure it's metrics-based, make sure we don't waste our
money. But I just don't see how the State Department can
operate if the security environment doesn't exist, and if we
withdraw too soon, it will fall apart, and that's just the way
the world is.
NORTH KOREA
In terms of North Korea, if we're able to achieve an
agreement with North Korea, do you believe it would be wise to
send it to the Congress?
Secretary Pompeo. I do.
Senator Graham. Senator Schumer and Leahy and several other
Democratic colleagues sent you a letter about what a good deal
would look like with North Korea: First, any agreement with
North Korea must be built on the current nuclear test
suspension and ultimately include the dismantlement and removal
of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North
Korea. Second, our goal must be the full, complete, and
verifiable denuclearization of North Korea. Third, North Korea
must continue its current ballistic missile test suspension,
including any space launch, ultimately dismantling their
program, and North Korea must submit to anytime, anywhere
inspections, and any agreement with North Korea must be
permanent in nature.
Is that an outline of a pretty good deal?
Secretary Pompeo. I said ``I do'' three times. It's
starting to sound like my wedding. Yes. That's an outline of
the kind of deal that would achieve what President Trump is
intending to do in our discussions with North Korea.
Senator Graham. So I am encouraged to find that there's
bipartisan support for what a good deal should look like. How
we get it is--we'll do our best, and I think you're the right
guy to try, and I hope we succeed, because if we fail, it will
be very bad.
SYRIA
Syria--we have about 2,200 troops in Syria. Is that
correct?
Secretary Pompeo. That's correct, yes, sir.
Senator Graham. And the State Department's plan for Syria--
can it be accomplished without some military presence on our
part any time soon?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, we're not at a place yet. We're
taking the lead to achieve the political resolution that has
proven elusive since the uprising in Syria. We are not yet in a
position where we have sufficient leverage to achieve the
political outcome that is in the best interest of the United
States and the world.
Senator Graham. If we withdrew from the north without sound
thinking, do you worry about the Turkey-Kurdish conflict
arising anew?
Secretary Pompeo. So there are a number of things that I
worry about in the north. You certainly described one of them.
In Idlib Province, Al Qaeda Nusra front a host of terrorists as
well that I'm very concerned about.
TURKEY
Senator Graham. President Erdogan just was reelected. I
think he has a 5-year term. Can you outline for this
subcommittee where you think we're at with Turkey, and what
could we do to help the administration to make Turkey a better
partner?
Secretary Pompeo. So in my time in this administration,
it's been difficult with the Turks. It was difficult before
that as well. Our decision to work closely with the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) was something that they were not happy
about. We've made progress now 3 weeks ago in and around
Manbij. We came to an understanding about our forces would work
together to resolve a very complicated issue between Kurds and
Arabs and a real mix. So progress, and we are hopeful we can
build on that. They will ultimately be part of a political
resolution there and an important part, and we need to
recognize that and do our best to work alongside them. Now that
the election is over, I'm hopeful we can begin an even more
productive conversation with them.
IRAQ
Senator Graham. Iraq--could you give us an assessment of
the political progress in Iraq, some of the challenges, and, if
you could, answer this question: If the Iraqis would accept a
residual force made up of NATO and U.S. forces, do you think
it's in our interest to leave that force behind?
Secretary Pompeo. So that's the current administration's
plan. There is some work that will be advanced, I hope, at the
NATO summit here in a few days to develop that NATO force.
We've watched closely--our ambassador there and our team on the
ground--as the election took place, and now government
formation efforts have begun to achieve a government in Iraq
that was an Iraqi national unity government with as little
Iranian influence as we can possibly achieve. We're doing our
best to facilitate that where it's appropriate.
But, ultimately, the Iraqi people will decide the formation
of their government. I hope it's one where we can reduce the
influence of Iran. I think most of the Iraqi people want that
as well.
YEMEN
Senator Graham. Speaking of Iran, Yemen, do you think it's
important that Iran not be allowed to dominate Yemen through
the Houthis or any other group?
Secretary Pompeo. I do, and we can see even as recently as
today enormous Iranian influence impacting how the Houthis are
responding to the current actions taking place in Yemen.
IRAN
Senator Graham. Do you trust the Russians to drive the
Iranians out of Syria?
Secretary Pompeo. That's a specific question. I could
probably generalize the answer. With respect to the Russian
capacity to do that is an open-ended question, and if they
could achieve that, if the Russians could get the Iranians out
of there, I would applaud it.
Senator Graham. Yes, well, I trust them about as much to do
that as I do to police chemical weapons.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
Finally, your counterpart, Secretary Mattis, and the
Department of Defense--you all have been a great team, by the
way--when he was CENTCOM commander, he said the following,
paraphrasing: If you cut the State Department's budget, you'd
better buy me more ammunition. Do you agree with that general
concept?
Secretary Pompeo. Conceptually, diplomacy is and ought to
be at the very center of dispute resolution around the world
and can keep our young men and women in uniform out of harm's
way.
Senator Graham. Well, this subcommittee and full committee
is open to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to help you. We
may have our differences, but I really am pleased with the
leadership you've shown early on, and we want to help you be
successful.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST
Secretary Pompeo, in earlier testimony, you highlighted
four areas of the budget--security assistance, funding to
counter ISIS, humanitarian aid, and global health--as
priorities of the administration that are sustained or
increased compared to the fiscal year 2018 request. The fiscal
year 2018 request, of course, was a slash in funding for each
of those programs, and was rejected by Republicans and
Democrats alike in the Congress.
Now, the President's fiscal year 2019 request compared to
the fiscal year 2018 enacted level is global health would be
cut by 23 percent, humanitarian aid would be cut by 17 percent,
and security assistance would be cut by 19 percent. Is there
anything you would change about the fiscal year 2019 budget
request?
Secretary Pompeo. It did happen before my time. I'll get my
swing in fiscal year 2020. But suffice it to say I know when
the budget was put together--the President has lots of things
to consider, not just State Department's budget--it was an
effort to try and balance. You all were gracious and we got an
increase at State Department and at DoD, things that impact
national security. We're looking forward to our conversation
with you.
Senator Leahy. Would you be horribly upset if we did as we
did in the last budget to restore the cuts?
You don't have to answer that.
Secretary Pompeo. The answer is I'm looking forward to the
conversation so that we can get it right. We can make sure that
we don't have resources we don't need and we have the ones that
we do.
Senator Leahy. My question is as much rhetorical as
anything, because the Congress intends to restore the cuts.
NORTH KOREA
I am told there are a number of requests for a briefing
about North Korea, and that it has been rescheduled a couple of
times at your request. The President has said that North Korea
no longer poses a nuclear threat. We're concerned about that. I
am going to want to ask you what, if anything, North Korea has
done to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. I realize these are
questions you cannot answer in open session. Will you commit to
an all Senators briefing--we can have it in a classified
setting--to discuss exactly where we are with North Korea?
Secretary Pompeo. I will, or I do, yes. I'm happy to
provide that briefing.
IRAN
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Before the Iran nuclear agreement
was signed, Prime Minister Netanyahu and others said that Iran
was only weeks or months away from building an atomic bomb.
That is why many supported the agreement. You recently gave a
speech on Iran policy. You listed 12 conditions Iran must meet
in order for the Trump administration to agree to a new deal.
Iran immediately rejected the 12 conditions. The European
Union's foreign policy chief stated there was no alternative to
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). So if in the
next month, or in 3 to 6 months, Iran resumes full speed ahead
to build a nuclear weapon, what do we do?
Secretary Pompeo. So I'll describe to you the path forward
as we see it. You referred to the 12 structural changes we hope
that the Iranian leadership will undertake. I think a fair
reading of any of those would come to nothing more than asking
Iran to be a normal country, the same kind of thing we ask of
Belgium and others.
Senator Leahy. I don't dispute that, Mr. Secretary, but the
Iranians have rejected the conditions. So what do we do?
Secretary Pompeo. We put pressure on them in the same way
we do other countries that present proliferation risks. We
execute diplomacy. We do our best to gain allies. We've made
progress on that. We've got allies all across the Gulf states.
We've got allies in other parts of the world. We'll be meeting
at the political ministry level a week from today. I'll be
meeting with my foreign minister counterparts in Brussels here
before long to develop a path forward.
Senator Leahy. Well, is Mr. Netanyahu right that Iran is
only weeks away from building a nuclear weapon?
Secretary Pompeo. I don't want to get into the details of
the intelligence, but I think we have publicly said before that
they have a breakout capacity that is in a number of months, 12
months to be more precise.
CUBA AND CHINA HEALTH INCIDENTS
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. I want to ask about the
health incidents involving U.S. personnel in Cuba and China. In
Cuba, the administration has repeatedly, from the beginning,
referred to them as attacks. In China, when the same thing
seemed to have happened, they were called incidents. In Cuba, a
Level 3 Travel Advisory was triggered by the ordered departure
of Embassy personnel. In China, the Department issued a health
alert, and no ordered departure.
You said China has responded in a way that is exactly the
right response. In Cuba, we were told that they failed to take
appropriate steps to protect our diplomats. Why the difference?
Was it not the same event in both China and Cuba?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, that's a very good question. I
don't know if they were the same events. It is the case that
the medical condition, the single medical condition to date in
China is, as the medical folks would say, consistent with what
happened in Cuba. We're now up to two dozen plus in Cuba. We do
not know the source of either of these. We are continuing to
investigate in both places. We have received better initial
responses from the Chinese Government than we did from the
Cuban Government on how to deal with them. But neither of those
has led to a satisfactory outcome so we can determine how to
keep foreign service officers and State Department officials
and Foreign Commercial Service Office officials serving in
embassies in those two places safe.
Senator Leahy. And we have not thrown Chinese foreign
diplomats out of the United States as we did Cubans for
virtually the same kind of attack.
Secretary Pompeo. At this point, the magnitude, scope,
consistency, time period are different. But, Senator, I am
deeply aware that if we determine that we face a similar
situation there, you can expect that the response that our
Government would take would be commensurate with the rest of
our officers.
Senator Leahy. My time is up. I will speak further about
this at some point.
Senator Graham. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I, too, am very
glad you're here and appreciate that you recognize the
seriousness of everything that we're facing. I have a lot of
confidence there. So thank you for serving.
HEZBOLLAH
Mr. Secretary, as you're well aware, Israel is our closest
ally in the Middle East. It's a democracy surrounded by many
enemies whose stated policy is its destruction. One of those
enemies is Hezbollah. How would you describe the relationship
between Iran and Hezbollah?
Secretary Pompeo. So Hezbollah is a fully funded client
terrorist organization of the Iranian regime, active along
multiple dimensions, certainly kinetic, that is, small arms and
rockets, a very capable intelligence force, active not only in
the region in the West around the Israeli-Lebanon border, but
now also active in supporting Iran and Assad in Syria as well.
And I should add Hezbollah also has active efforts for external
plotting, including in places like the United States.
ISRAEL SECURITY
Senator Hyde-Smith. Do you have the appropriate amount of
resources to carry out a policy, which supports Israel's
defense and stability?
Secretary Pompeo. I believe that we do, yes, ma'am.
Senator Hyde-Smith. And, lastly, what are the areas of
cooperation the United States needs next with Israel?
Secretary Pompeo. My experience, I guess, just 8 weeks
here, but in my previous role, is we have no better partner
along many dimensions than the Israelis, not only in the work
that we do to help keep Israel safe and secure, but the work
that they do to help us push back against terror threats
against the United States as well. There may be other
opportunities to do more and do better, but we have a really
solid working relationship across diplomat, military, and
intelligence agencies in each of our two governments.
Senator Hyde-Smith. I know you've been very busy. You and I
both have been on the job about the same amount of time, about
2 months. Thank you very much.
Senator Graham. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NORTH KOREA
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here this afternoon. I
know that the administration is committed to an agreement with
North Korea on their nuclear weapons that I think has been
described as complete and verifiable. Is that the term that you
use in talking about that agreement?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. In order to get that kind of an agreement,
I think we need to know--and, hopefully, you will agree with
this--that we need to know the scope of their nuclear weapons
program. So we need to know how many weapons they have, how
much nuclear material, facilities, that sort of thing.
Can you tell me--have we requested that kind of a list from
North Korea, and what is their response to that request?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. I'm confident I'll get a
handful of questions like this today. I'm going to answer them
each the same way. I'm not prepared to talk about the details
of the discussions that are taking place. I think it would be
inappropriate and, frankly, counterproductive to achieving the
end state that we're hoping to achieve. They're watching this
hearing.
Know that it is unmistakable the things that we know that
the North Koreans know we need, not only from the President's
summit but from the previous encounters that I've had. There
were a significant number of working level meetings that took
place in multiple places, including in Panmunjom, in the run-up
to the Singapore summit, that North Koreans understand the
scope of the requests that we're making with respect to
denuclearization and the elements that would be required.
One of those elements, obviously, would be a thorough
understanding of each of the elements you laid out, their
fissile material on hand, their capacity to continue to develop
that material, weaponization efforts, engineering, physics
efforts, as well as the weapons and missiles that would deliver
them. So we've been pretty unambiguous in our conversations
about what we mean when we say complete denuclearization.
Senator Shaheen. My understanding in the past negotiations
is that North Korea has been unwilling to provide that kind of
an inventory of what they have. Can you at least tell us who is
leading the continuing negotiations with North Korea? Is there
an interagency group that's doing that? Are those negotiations
ongoing? Where are they taking place?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. With respect to your first
point, it is the case that previous efforts have not been able
to achieve that complete declaration of the North Korean
systems. Some small pieces, some pockets they were able to
achieve. It's not been done. I now think I've spoken to most
all of the folks who have gone at this problem previously. I
spoke to Chris Hill just again this past week.
With respect to ongoing negotiations, it's me. I'm leading
the effort. It's an interagency effort. We have significant
teams that stretch from our organization, multiple pieces of
our organization, our proliferation experts, our Korea-Asia
experts, because this is not just a U.S.-North Korea issue at
the end of the day. So a broad range of State Department
excellence, DOE, DoD--I'm going to forget somebody and they're
going to come after me. There are NSA officials serving,
helping us as well. But the effort, the negotiations at the
working level, are being led by my team.
Senator Shaheen. And those negotiations are ongoing?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. I believe the fourth tenet of the
agreement that was signed in Singapore had to do with returning
the remains of Americans who are still missing in action from
the Korean war. One of my constituents in New Hampshire runs a
nonprofit that seeks to locate and repatriate the remains of
Americans who are still missing. I know that the President has
made some statements--most recently said that they've already
sent back or are in the process of sending back the remains of
our great heroes. It's my understanding that, in fact, we have
not yet received any remains from North Korea and that in the
past, the efforts to repatriate those people who died in the
Korean war have been fraught with difficult challenges. Let's
put it that way.
So can you tell me what the status is of those transfers,
and are we expecting any remains to be repatriated any time in
the foreseeable future?
Secretary Pompeo. I am optimistic that we will begin to
have two opportunities. One is to receive some remains in the
not too distant future. But then there's a great deal of work
with companies like the one you described, nonprofits and the
like, who have been at this previously. We will need to gain
access for that process to begin.
We are intent on denuclearization. Make no mistake about
it. But we are also, for all the obvious reasons, intent on
doing our best to get back as many remains for America. There
are other foreigners there as well. We've had other countries
ask to participate in this, too. We are dogged in trying to
facilitate this as quickly as we possibly can.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that. And just to
be clear, we have not yet received any----
Secretary Pompeo. That's correct, Senator. We have not yet
physically received them.
SYRIA
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I know that Syria has come up
in the hearing this afternoon already, and I think maybe it was
Senator Graham who mentioned Manbij and the situation there.
Are you aware of any plans to withdraw our forces from around
Manbij?
Secretary Pompeo. No, ma'am. Let me back up and say this
more clearly.
Senator Shaheen. In the near immediate future.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, that's correct, and conditions-based
as agreed to with the Turks. There's an outline for how we're
going to execute this, what the objectives are, and how that
would be undertaken jointly by each of our two countries.
Senator Shaheen. So I said immediate future. How do we
define that? Are we talking weeks, months, end of the year,
next year?
Secretary Pompeo. There's no timeline. It is truly
conditions-based. It's when we believe we have set up political
processes that can sustain the conditions on the ground in
Manbij in a way that's satisfactory to each of the two sides.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it's great to see you again. Every time I
flick on the news, you're on another continent, and you're
taking care of another big issue. From a grateful nation that
sees a lot of the issues that are happening around the world
and realize that there are many, many issues around the world,
thanks for taking those on, because you have become the tip of
the spear in diplomacy for taking a lot of very, very difficult
issues on. So I appreciate you doing that very much.
CENTRAL AMERICA
Let me bounce around several different comments with you
and be able to talk through some things. Central America has
been very near and dear to my heart, and I've engaged multiple
times with the folks in the Northern Triangle, Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador. I think they're exceptionally
important, not only to the Western hemisphere. In immigration
issues, they'll be exceptionally important. This Congress has
committed over and over again dollars to that area. Vice
President Biden--this was a major effort that he had, the
Alliance for Prosperity. We followed through at the end of the
Obama administration with funding, and we've done it two more
times for that--have another $500 million-plus going to the
region again.
My question is: Are we doing this well? Can you track some
of the metrics there? Are there things that we're doing well
that you see impact? Are there things that we need to do better
in what we're doing that would have a greater impact and
engagement with that region?
Secretary Pompeo. That's a great question, Senator
Lankford. I don't know the answer to that. I will say we have
devoted a great deal of U.S. resources to this, not only the
money that you speak of, but time. The Vice President is there
today, having conversations that aren't too different than the
ones Vice President Biden had. That would suggest that it would
be worse absent us having done that, or that we haven't made
sufficient progress.
It's something I've asked my team to come back and describe
to me, what we've done, which programs work and don't. We have
several. We have some that fall into our Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration (PRM), others that go through USAID,
others that are facilitated through DoD. We need to figure out
which ones work and a path forward so that we can stabilize
that region and improve their chances for democracy there and
reduce the immigration issues that bedevil us today.
Senator Lankford. The requirements that we put on that
money, the metrics that we require, the method of how we
distribute it--any issues or concerns you have?
Secretary Pompeo. I'm sorry?
Senator Lankford. With how we're distributing the money and
any requirements we're putting on them to receive it, because,
for instance, Honduras is receiving a greater amount than
Guatemala is based on certification. Is that working, not
working? Is that--what would your suspicion be?
Secretary Pompeo. I suspect that the conditions that are in
place reduce our flexibility in a way that sometimes reduces
our ability to be effective. I can't answer that any more
specifically today.
MEXICO
Senator Lankford. I appreciate that. The Mexican elections
has moved north a little bit here. They are coming up this
weekend. Obviously, there's a lot riding on our southern
partner and what happens in those elections. What engagement do
we have right now? Are we in a wait and see mode to see what
happens and how we're going to engage?
Secretary Pompeo. We're not in a wait and see mode. There's
too much going on. We deal with them across a broad range of
issues, not the least of which are people, immigration issues,
narcotics, transiting issues, as well as goods, stuff coming
across, and you see that in our trade negotiations as well.
Those are ongoing.
I've met with Mr. Videgaray a number of times in the course
of my first 8 weeks. I expect that I will head that way before
too long, after the election, to meet with both the current
government and perhaps whoever is elected. They are an
important southern nation. They present lots of opportunity and
lots of challenges for our country.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
Senator Lankford. Yes, I agree. Let me switch gears a
little bit. There is a tool that--the BBG and Voice of America.
I'm interested to know in our cooperation with them--because
they are the forward face around the world for the United
States. What kind of cooperation do we see with the messaging
that you would see as valuable to be able to put out as a face
for America and a messaging for the American message? Much of
the world gets their view of America from Voice of America and
the BBG. Where is that integration right now? What needs to be
better?
Secretary Pompeo. I haven't had a chance to visit with them
yet. My counselor who I brought in has had a chance to go out
there. His report back was that there are pieces of it that are
working well. They sync with what we're trying to do at the
State Department, because we have a public diplomacy function
operation as well--places it's working really well and others
where I think he described it as broken, disconnected, not well
functioning.
There's been leadership challenges at the BBG. I think
that's a polite description of what's taking place there. I'm
hopeful that we have turned the corner and can begin to use
what is an incredibly invaluable tool for American diplomacy.
Senator Lankford. I agree it's a very, very valuable tool,
but we seem to have three different forward communicating tools
that are out there without real coordination and occasionally
without good leadership in areas. That's an area that I think
we need to do greater oversight here on this subcommittee and
we would like your participation in to be able to help that
out.
Secretary Pompeo. The only thing I would add to that is I'm
good--I agree. It is not an absence of resources. I actually
believe we have ample resources to conduct that mission. It's
on me and our team to execute them.
SYRIA
Senator Lankford. So let me ask you a hard question, not
that any of these are simple, I guess. Can we move forward in
Syria long-term with Iran present and with Assad present?
Secretary Pompeo. No.
Senator Lankford. Strategically, is that where we're going
as a country? As we are negotiating with the Russians, as we're
negotiating with the Turks and the Jordanians that are so
exceptionally important to us in the region, do we have a
consistent cooperation with them on that?
Secretary Pompeo. So I've spent a fair amount of time
working this issue. I'm hopeful we can get back to the
political process that was stalled out before I took office, a
couple of months prior to that. We have lots of regional
allies. The Gulf states are all very helpful. The Jordanians
are very helpful. The Europeans here, too, share a common
understanding. The Israelis, most certainly. It is the case
that the Assad regime has been enormously successful over what
amounts to now, coming up on 7 years, I guess, since the
beginning. From America's perspective, it seems to me Iran
presents the greatest threat to the United States and the place
we ought to focus our efforts, at least at the beginning, with
respect to the political resolution.
Senator Lankford. Great.
UNITED NATIONAL RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY (UNRWA)
Mr. Chairman, I want to submit just a question for the
record as well dealing with the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency (UNRWA). The administration has requested to remove
funding from the UNRWA. But I'd be very interested to know
what's the strategy on what to do with that, because we're not
going to walk away from the Palestinian people. But, clearly,
the UNRWA model is not working and hasn't worked for decades
and decades and decades. So I understand why we're reducing the
funding, but I'd like to know the strategy of where we go now.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Following an extensive review, the administration determined that
the United States will no longer provide financial contributions to
UNRWA. UNRWA's fundamental business model is simply unsustainable and
has been in crisis mode for many years. We are very mindful of and
deeply concerned regarding the impact upon innocent Palestinians,
especially school children, of the failure of UNRWA and key members of
the regional and international donor community to reform and reset the
UNRWA way of doing business. Palestinians, wherever they live, deserve
better than an endlessly crisis-driven service provision model. They
deserve to be able to plan for the future. We have offered to begin a
dialogue with key stakeholders about how some UNRWA services might be
provided by others, as appropriate, in order to provide Palestinians,
including children, with a more durable and dependable path towards a
brighter tomorrow.
Senator Graham. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
ATLANTIC ALLIANCE
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Since charts are
fair game, I will just briefly begin with one of my own. Mr.
Secretary, this is a very short inventory of President Trump's
insults towards our allies and partners. I know you can't read
it. I can't even read it. The typeface has to be so small
because we couldn't even include all of the deleterious things
that the President has said about our historic allies over the
course of the last year and a half.
I think this treatment concerns both Democrats and
Republicans, not because we don't think that our allies
sometimes should be subject to criticism, but because we think
that the pace and the vitriol of this criticism is harming in
real time U.S. national security interests. The latest was a
tweet that seemed to cheer on the political opponents and
political opposition to the German chancellor. Especially in
Europe, this difficult and hard treatment of our allies in very
personal tones elevates the right and the nationalists, the
very people who are trying to destroy NATO and the EU.
So I guess it wasn't surprising to many of us that the
Germans, in particular, have been so far a very hard case in
the effort of this administration to try to reapply sanctions
against Iran. They are not looking to us to reapply a sanctions
regime. They're doing the opposite. They passed legislation
that gives their companies attempted safe harbor or a hold-
harmless harbor from U.S. secondary sanctions.
It's hard to imagine how we will put together a sanctions
regime against Iran that, in your words, will be the strongest
ever if we are creating this space between the United States
and our allies in Europe. We should all remember that the U.S.
does $300 million in trade, historically, with Iran. Germany
does $2.5 billion. China does $23 billion.
So maybe I'm just asking for an update on discussions with
the Europeans and our partners with respect to progress being
made or not being made to reapply sanctions. That's the
foundation of the administration's plan, and it seems that this
particularly rough treatment of our European allies is pushing
us further away from that new sanctions regime against Iran
rather than closer to it.
Secretary Pompeo. Senator Murphy, it is the case there have
been difficult discussions since the U.S. decision to withdraw.
There's no doubt about that. The Europeans had consistently
talked about a different view, a different path forward, a plan
that they'd preferred we chose differently. But I will say over
the last handful of weeks, there's an increasing recognition
that we need to find a way forward together. So when I talked
about building the toughest sanctions in history, I am still
intent and optimistic that I can do it.
Remember, it's not just about three European countries.
There are many European countries that are prepared to assist
us in this. There are countries throughout Asia. We have our
Gulf state partners as well. This is a broad coalition.
Sometimes the focus just ends up being on France and Britain
and Germany, not to underestimate their importance. They're
critical partners. I want them alongside of us for sure.
But to get a global sanctions regime requires an effort all
around the world. We have teams that have fanned out across the
world in the weeks after announcement of the withdrawal to
begin to work on shaping what that would look like. My
recollection is that when the previous administration talked
about their ability to build this up, they talked about it in
terms of years. I'm hoping to beat that substantially.
SYRIA
Senator Murphy. I wanted to return to an answer you gave to
Senator Lankford. He asked you if there was a way forward in
Syria with Iran present, and your answer was pretty definitive.
It was no. Iran was present in Syria, had influence there, well
before the civil war started. I think most everyone that's
watched that country over time doesn't foresee a circumstance
in which at the end of this civil conflict, Iran won't still
have a significant presence or influence.
So your answer to Senator Lankford's question--is it a
suggestion that the U.S. policy is to take a series of actions
to pursue a course that rids Iranian presence or influence in
Syria? Because that certainly seems to require a heavier lift
of American involvement both on the military and diplomatic
sides than this administration is willing to put in.
Secretary Pompeo. Perhaps I was too definitive. Your
factual observation about the fact that there was Iranian
influence in Syria before the revolution is absolutely
accurate. It would be my guess that there will be Iranian
influence there when we all pass.
But when I'm thinking of Iran, I'm talking about units and
formations and command structure and Quds Force officers freely
passing through the country, fomenting and underwriting,
importantly, with financial assistance terror operations and
forces in support of the Syrian regime. When I say Iran, I'm
talking about their military capacity in a way that is very
different today than it was, I think, when you're referring to
10 or 15 years ago.
RUSSIA AND THE GROUP OF SEVEN
Senator Murphy. That's fair. Lastly, we were all very
surprised, our allies were surprised, when the President
announced his interest in bringing Russia back into the G-7
without pre-conditions. At the very least, he certainly didn't
enunciate any conditions upon the invitation that he made
getting ready for the G-7 conference.
Has the position changed? Do we have an invitation open
to--or are we willing to allow Russia to rejoin the G-7 if they
have not fully implemented the Minsk Agreement?
Secretary Pompeo. I think the President's comments speak
for themselves in a sense of--and you saw Ambassador Bolton's
announcement of the last hour or so. The President deeply
believes that having Russia be part of these important
geostrategic conversations is inevitable, and that there's a
long history of that.
We have about as poor a relationship with Russia as I can
recall in my adult lifetime. We have been harder on Russia in
this administration than has been the case in many previous
administrations. The President is looking forward to an
opportunity to find those handful of places where we can have
productive conversations that lead to improvements for each of
our two countries. I think, eyes wide open, that that field
space is pretty small. They don't share our values in the same
way that the European countries do, but I think the President
is hopeful that we can reduce the temperature, reduce the risk
for America and find a handful of places where we can perhaps
get a good outcome in Ukraine.
Senator Murphy. It sounds like the President, then, is open
to allowing them to come back in if the Minsk Agreement isn't
fulfilled if he were to get concessions somewhere else.
Secretary Pompeo. I couldn't tell you how the President and
I will make tradeoffs. It'll ultimately be his decision. I
couldn't tell you which set of tradeoffs would ultimately be--
I'm confident that I could identify a set of tradeoffs for you
for you to agree that that was the right outcome as well.
Senator Murphy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member
Leahy.
Thank you, Secretary Pompeo. It's great to be with you
again. As you reference in your written testimony, there is an
important opportunity for us together to build a development
finance institution through something called the BUILD Act, the
Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act,
which actually passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee yesterday by a 20 to 1 vote. It has strong bipartisan
support in both the House and the Senate and has been welcomed
by the administration, and in a late revision, the Secretary of
State will be the chairman of the board of the new institution.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
So please tell me, if you would, how this new international
development finance corporation will be a tool in the toolkit
for the State Department, for USAID, for our Government overall
to pursue development in the world and how you see it as a
component part of advancing our interests and values in the
developing world.
Secretary Pompeo. Thanks, Senator Coons. Thanks for the
question. So it doesn't replace any of the other things. It's
not intended to eliminate other actions, other humanitarian
assistance, other development assistance that we're providing.
But it does fundamentally reshape how we think about it and how
our organization thinks about it. It means we have to rise to
the occasion, too.
It won't be the first time, but it'll be the first time, I
think, in a strategic and coherent way we work to bring private
sources of capital to bear alongside the government
assistance--certainly, U.S. resources, but resources from other
countries as well, where we strategically identify targeted
needs for development. We identify the kinds of capital that
they need. It's not always the case that they need a grant.
It's not always the case that a loan will work. There are lots
of different structures that can be achieved, and what I think
the BUILD Act accomplishes is it gives us the flexibility to
identify a development need, bring to bear the right resources
over the right time period, and manage it in a way that
effectively delivers the outcome and measures it all along the
way.
Senator Coons. I look forward to working with you, should
it be enacted, as we implement this new tool.
CENTRAL AMERICA
When President Trump signed the Executive order ending the
separation of children and families at the border, it didn't
end the ongoing crisis in Central America that's one of the
real drivers of families fleeing the chaos of three countries
in Central America.
Chairman Graham, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that an
editorial from my friend and predecessor, Vice President Biden,
be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
The Border Won't Be Secure Until Central America Is
Central American migrants at the San Ysidro border crossing in Tijuana,
Mexico, in April. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)
By Joseph R. Biden Jr., June 25
Joseph R. Biden Jr. was Vice President of the United States from 2009
to 2017.
When President Trump signed an executive order ending the
separation of children from their families at the border, it did not
end the crisis in Central America. Nor should it relieve our moral
anguish at seeing the poorest and most vulnerable treated in ways that
are fundamentally at odds with our nation's values.
The moment also calls for a renewed focus on the so-called Northern
Triangle of Central America--the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala
and Honduras, which together represent the overwhelming source of
migrants crossing our southern border. Unless we address the root
causes driving migration from this region, any solutions focused solely
on border protection and immigration enforcement will be insufficient.
This is terrain I know all too well. In 2014, President Barack
Obama asked me to lead the international response to the surge of
migrants that ultimately resulted in 68,000 unaccompanied children from
Central America crossing into the United States. That summer, I met
with Central American leaders in Guatemala to chart a plan to reduce
migration, as well as to make it clear that undocumented migration was
risky, dangerous and offered scant hope of legal status or citizenship.
It soon became evident that migration from Central America could
not be resolved merely by stronger enforcement at the U.S. border, let
alone by building a wall. Instead, we needed to tackle the drivers of
migration: crime, violence, corruption and lack of opportunity. We knew
the cost of investing in a secure and prosperous Central America was
modest compared with the cost of allowing violence and poverty to
fester.
Following intensive negotiations between the Obama administration
and the Northern Triangle presidents, Congress provided $750 million in
2016 to fund a whole-of-government effort to effect deep and lasting
change in Central America. Because Central American governments had
long been perceived--with good reason--as corrupt, inept and incapable
of delivering basic services to their citizens, I supported Congress in
tying the aid package to concrete commitments by regional governments
to clean up their police, increase tax collection, fight corruption and
create the opportunities necessary to convince would-be migrants to
remain in their countries. In turn, the countries pledged billions of
dollars in their own money to deliver on the promise of prosperity,
security and governance. We also implemented new programs to help those
in immediate danger by allowing them to apply for asylum without the
dangerous journey to the United States.
By the end of the Obama administration, we began to see results.
The murder rate in Honduras dropped by a third since its peak in 2011.
Guatemala improved its tax collection and made inroads against
corruption, renewing a vital U.N.-backed anticorruption commission
until 2019. El Salvador was aggressively targeting the financial
networks of transnational criminal organizations. Meanwhile, energy
cooperation in the region extended access to electricity in countries
such as Honduras, where as much as 12 percent of the population is
still unconnected. But this progress required face-to-face diplomacy to
convince leaders of these nations to act against their own political
instincts and to establish clear benchmarks that demonstrated a real
will to change. We knew that sustained, bipartisan U.S. engagement--
and, yes, pressure--were necessary for progress.
The Trump administration came into office determined to slash aid
to Central America, and only partially succeeded because of the
pushback from engaged members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Still, U.S. assistance has fallen by nearly 20 percent, from $750
million in 2016 to $615 million this year.
After a promising early conference in Miami on security and
prosperity in Central America in June 2017, attended by Vice President
Pence and several Cabinet secretaries, the three Northern Triangle
presidents have not met jointly with a senior U.S. official in well
over a year. By contrast, I met with them three times during my final
year in office. Occasional bilateral visits such as the one earlier
this month between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Honduran
President Juan Orlando Hernandez cannot replace a comprehensive
regional approach to reduce the drivers of migration.
Fortunately, there is still time to build on the policy that
emerged from the last major migration crisis in 2014--a policy modeled
in part on the successful, bipartisan approach to Plan Colombia. When
the Vice President travels this week to Guatemala, the president should
send him with a mandate to revive the intense diplomatic and aid
efforts that gave rise to the Alliance for Prosperity, and opened a
window of hope for the most besieged countries in our hemisphere.
We can both strengthen U.S. border security and treat migrants
arriving from Central America with dignity and decency instead of
cruelty and callousness. But their overwhelming desire to flee their
countries and risk everything to enter the United States shows that
their governments are still failing them. This migration will only
continue unless we keep up the pressure and provide the support to make
the Northern Triangle of Central America a prosperous and secure place
to call home.
Senator Coons. As the former Vice President lays out,
unless we address the root causes of migration from Central
America, any solutions focused solely on border protection and
immigration enforcement will most likely be insufficient, and,
repeatedly, the administration has proposed slashing aid to
Central America. It has fallen nearly 20 percent from $750
million in 2016 to just over $600 million this year.
Do you agree, Mr. Secretary, that a renewed focus on the
Northern Triangle countries of Central America, which together
represent the overwhelming number of migrants seeking to cross
our southern border, is necessary to address this problem, and
will next year's budget reflect that increased priority? And
when the Vice President travels to Guatemala this week, does he
plan to revive diplomatic and aid efforts to support the U.S.
strategy for engagement in Central America?
Secretary Pompeo. The answer to your second question is
yes. The answer to your first question--and I think Senator
Lankford asked a similar question--I don't think the region has
been lacking for American financial support. I think we've
provided an awful lot of financial support to them over the
past years, well intended, and I'm sure some of it effective.
So I'm not certain what the right number is to ask for
financial assistance.
What I think is more important is that we ensure that
there's an outcome that we can deliver. I am not convinced
today, if you said, ``Mr. Secretary, you've got two times or
three times as much money and you can spend it next year,''
that we could effectively deliver an outcome that would achieve
what you're describing. I agree with your--the hypothesis of
your question is right. If we don't resolve those issues in
those three countries, we're going to have challenges along our
southern border for years and years to come.
Senator Coons. And I think it's important that we continue
to meet our legal and treaty obligations and, if possible, by
having better access to opportunities to apply for asylum for
refuge at our embassies in these three countries rather than
having families risk this very long and dangerous trek. I hope
we can make progress on that.
RUSSIA
Let me ask a last series of questions. I know Senator
Murphy was also asking about recent press statements by
Ambassador Bolton and reporting that strongly suggests
President Trump is planning to meet with Russian president
Vladimir Putin.
You know, on June 8, the Director of National Intelligence
(DNI) Coats warned Russia is attempting to influence our 2018
midterm elections this coming November and to divide the
Transatlantic Alliance. He pointed out Russia has meddled in
elections in France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Ukraine, and has
otherwise overtly or covertly tried to divide the NATO Alliance
and to interfere with our allies. Will Russian election
interference in the United States and in a way that has harmed
our key NATO allies be a focus of this summit with President
Putin and a focus of the upcoming NATO summit?
Secretary Pompeo. Here's what I can say. As far as the NATO
summit, I've seen the agenda. That absolutely will be there. I
know that. Every conversation that I'm aware of between the
United States Government and our counterparts--certainly mine
with Foreign Minister Lavrov now two or three times--I've
raised the issue in each and every conversation. I am confident
that when the President meets with Vladimir Putin, he will make
clear that meddling in our elections is completely
unacceptable.
SYRIA
Senator Coons. I hope our President will hold Putin and
Russia accountable for their aggression against Ukraine, for
their support for the murderous regime of Bashar Al Assad, for
their interference in our election, and others. I am concerned
by reports that in southwest Syria, the Assad regime is on the
march and is taking aggressive action, and I wonder, if I
could, in closing just ask--I agree with the proposition
advanced by the Chairman at the beginning that we need to
remain on the ground, we need to remain engaged in Syria in
order to have the opportunity to shape any negotiations that
might resolve this horrible conflict. Is it your understanding
that we've sent some signal to Assad and to Russia that we
won't block advances in southwestern Syria that might create
now an opportunity for Iranian influence to advance closer to
our vital allies, Jordan and Israel?
Secretary Pompeo. The U.S. forces that are present there
don't have the ability to reach to the region that you're
describing. The Russians have flown missions in southwest Syria
over the past several days as well.
Senator Coons. Isn't that in violation of an agreement we
had reached with the Russians?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir, it is, and we have both spoken
to them about it and issued public statements indicating
exactly that.
Senator Coons. That would seem to me an important agenda
item for an upcoming summit both with our vital NATO allies
and, if there were to be one, with the president of Russia.
Thank you.
Senator Graham. Just to briefly follow up, are they
listening to what we say and do they care?
Secretary Pompeo. I'll answer the first. I can't speak to
the latter. They're certainly listening. It's not just our
voice. It's the voice of the Israelis and the Jordanians as
well, who have made clear that we find moving in a way that is
inconsistent with the agreement that was signed off on by
Vladimir Putin himself is unacceptable.
Senator Graham. Well, this is a defining moment, I think,
for our presence in the Mideast. Russia is trying to take
advantage of a vacuum that's been created by both
administrations, and I hope that not only they listen to what
we say, but they take seriously what we say, and, clearly,
they're not.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Chairman Graham, thank you for holding this
hearing, and I want to thank Secretary Pompeo for your service
and coming before this subcommittee today.
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY
Secretary Pompeo, I spent more than half a decade in China
in the private sector. I've led multiple congressional
delegations (CODELS) to visit China since coming to Congress as
well as its neighbors. In fact, I've been over there twice in
the last 90 days. China's growing regional and global influence
is readily apparent. I believe it's critically important that
we, as a nation founded on freedom and the rule of law, avoid
complacency and that we are clear-eyed about the challenges as
well as the opportunities that China brings, especially in its
relationship with the United States, a relationship I see as
perhaps the most consequential relationship between any two
countries in the 21st century. We cannot just view these
ongoing negotiations as a standard trade dispute. But it's
imperative that we keep in mind China's very strategic approach
and long-term goal of becoming the world's superpower, both
economically and militarily.
Secretary Pompeo, in my view, there's only so much that can
be done to counter China unilaterally. I strongly believe that
it's critical we work with our allies, China's neighbors in the
region to mitigate China's malign actions, whether it be in the
South China Sea, their outright theft of IP, human rights
abuses, or ongoing unfair trade practices. This is especially
important as China is engaging with many of our allies now in
the region via the regional comprehensive economic partnership.
Secretary Pompeo, what are some of your strategic goals in
engaging with our allies in the Indo-Pacific region to
proactively counter Chinese efforts to expand its influence?
Secretary Pompeo. Thanks for the question. Secretary
Mattis, Secretary Mnuchin, and I have each spent substantial
time working on exactly this problem set. You defined it pretty
well. Our toolsets are relatively new in the sense of it is the
case that I think this challenge that you identified that the
world has been very complacent over the last--pick a time
horizon--5, 10, 15 years, for sure. We are working through the
multilateral organizations, such as the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC), all of those to develop strategies in each
of the domains that you described. We're working diligently to
figure out how we can develop trade relationships in a way that
are fair and reciprocal for the United States but that don't
benefit China at the same time. You see what the President is
doing with respect to China.
Second, with respect to diplomacy, we will come next year
and ask for increased resources connected to this region. I
know that they did 2 years ago as well. That is, we need to be
in each of those countries making clear the case that you are
far better off with the United States as your partner and ally
than you are with China. I think many of those countries didn't
see the negative ramifications for moving closer to China over
the last 5 and 10 years as well.
And then Secretary Mattis himself has truly reconfigured
the way that the Department of Defense is thinking about the
challenge, not only in the South China Sea, but more broadly as
Chinese expansion in and around, even through the Indian Ocean,
has efforted to improve its capacity to do harm to U.S.
interests and, frankly, to global trading interests as well.
TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
Senator Daines. Secretary Pompeo, thank you, and I'm
grateful to see this being elevated to more of a strategic
level versus being somewhat, I would argue, tactical in the
past. Along those strategic lines, I do believe the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP) presents an opportunity to strengthen
our ties with our allies, improve market access for U.S.
farmers, ranchers, businesses, and substantially increase
pressure on China, because a U.S. vacuum creates China to come
in and fill it.
Would you support efforts to re-engage with TPP nations in
an effort to improve the agreement?
Secretary Pompeo. I would. The President strongly prefers
doing these things bilaterally as between us and each of those
nations. But I do believe having improved trade relationships
with each of the countries, both in Northeast Asia, Southeast
Asia, and Asia more broadly, is not only good for the United
States economy, but important for American national security as
well.
Senator Daines. I share that view as well, Mr. Secretary.
RUSSIA
I want to pivot over and talk about Russia for a moment.
It's another adversary to U.S. interests, clearly. From their
illegitimate annexation of Crimea to their efforts to interfere
in U.S. elections, as determined by the U.S. Intelligence
Committee, something you know a lot about, their behavior has
been completely unacceptable.
In particular, I'm very concerned about the continuing
development of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that has the
potential to allow Russia to monopolize much of Europe's energy
supply and undermine our European allies' ability to counter
Russian influence. Will you use every tool available, whether
via sanctions and authorities provided by the Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act or otherwise, to
impede the development of this pipeline?
Secretary Pompeo. We are actively engaged in an all-of-
U.S.-Government approach to convincing European governments and
European businesses alike that increased energy dependence on
Russia is inconsistent with what it is we're all trying to do
in pushing back against Russia. Nord Stream 2 is one of several
examples that we have made clear we think goes in completely
the wrong direction in terms of allowing the Russians to have
the capacity to exert political influence, not only in Germany,
but all around Europe.
NORTH KOREA
Senator Daines. Thank you. I want to shift back quickly as
I close to Asia-Pacific and North Korea. Should North Korea not
commit to a complete, verifiable, and irreversible
denuclearization process, would you commit to walking away from
the negotiating table?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. The President has made that very
clear.
Senator Daines. And, lastly, in your assessment, what risk
is there of China utilizing a nuclear or unstable North Korea
as leverage in other negotiations, whether it be trade related
or otherwise?
Secretary Pompeo. I'm sorry. Is the question what evidence?
Senator Daines. What assessment--is there a risk of China
utilizing that?
Secretary Pompeo. I met with President Xi shortly after the
Singapore summit. He assured me that they would work side by
side along with us to denuclearize North Korea. At this point,
I'm going to count on the fact that he has that shared
objective with us. We are certainly watching to make sure that
every country that's committed to helping us achieve that is
actually doing it.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Graham. Very briefly, do you see any backsliding on
China's part when it comes to sanctions against North Korea?
Secretary Pompeo. A modest amount, yes.
Senator Graham. Senator Durbin.
THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, do
you believe NATO is obsolete?
Secretary Pompeo. No, sir. I do not.
Senator Durbin. When you go to the NATO summit in Brussels
in a few weeks and you meet some of your counterparts from
other countries, how will you explain that our President has
said repeatedly that NATO is obsolete?
Secretary Pompeo. I've had lots of conversations--I don't
have to wait until I get to Brussels. I've had lots of
conversations with them about NATO. The President has been
completely unambiguous about his view. When he spoke in Warsaw,
he made very clear his expectations for how we would achieve a
strong united Atlantic unity.
Having said that, it would have been very clear to them as
well. It is time for them to care as much about pushing back
against Russia as we do. So we have pushed them to increase
their willingness to support NATO forces as well. Progress has
been made, but to date, they've not even lived up to their own
promises.
RUSSIA
Senator Durbin. It's my understanding in the next few
months, the European Union will have a meeting and will vote
again on whether to continue Russian sanctions. It's also my
understanding that the new Italian Government has made it part
of the platform of their government that they oppose Russian
sanctions, and one nation can veto the sanctions regime of the
European Union. It suggests, unless something we can't predict
happens, that the European Union will lift its sanctions on
Russia in a short time. Is that your understanding?
Secretary Pompeo. I'm more optimistic than you are. I am
very hopeful that as we continue to engage with the Europeans
and the Italians, in particular, we can convince them that this
sanction regime is important to achieving outcomes that are in
the best interest of Europe and Italy, in particular.
Senator Durbin. Well, I hope you can.
Secretary Pompeo. We're hard at that effort already.
Senator Durbin. I sincerely hope you can. But I would have
to say that when you look at our foreign policy today, is it
true or not true that we reject the Russian occupation--
invasion and occupation of Crimea?
Secretary Pompeo. I want to make sure I answer and don't
answer, a double negative. We reject that occupation.
Senator Durbin. And we reject the Russian invasion,
occupation of Eastern Ukraine?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, of course, sir.
Senator Durbin. And Georgia.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. And we believe that there's enough threat
to our NATO allies and friends in the Baltics and Poland to
have spent--to be spending additional sums of money for
enhanced forward presence.
Secretary Pompeo. Indeed, this administration has increased
the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF), the advanced forces there in
Europe.
Senator Durbin. Do you think the suggestion of the
President of rewarding Russia with membership in the G-7 is
consistent with what you've just said?
Secretary Pompeo. I think this administration has been
unambiguously tough on Russia. I think it is indisputable.
CENTRAL AMERICA
Senator Durbin. I might raise that question about the G-7
conference. But let me ask you about another topical interest,
immigration at our border. Would you agree with me that it's no
coincidence that we're having border challenges at the same
time we're facing the worst drug epidemic in the history of our
country?
Secretary Pompeo. I'm not sure I'm prepared to opine as to
the correlation between those two precisely.
Senator Durbin. Stick with me for a second. The drug gangs
in Central America, the drug cartels in Mexico, have made many
parts of those countries virtually lawless.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. And the gangs are threatening innocent
individuals who in desperation risk their lives to come to our
border. The reason the drug gangs are prospering is because of
the appetite for narcotics in the United States and the fact
that we launder millions of dollars back into those cartels and
gangs from our country. Do you see that connection?
Secretary Pompeo. I do. I believe the number now exceeds
$100 billion back to Mexico as a result of the drug trade.
Senator Durbin. Do you believe we're doing enough when it
comes to dealing with the laundering of money back into these
drug gangs and cartels from sales in the United States?
Secretary Pompeo. I believe that for many years, we have
been ineffective with respect to the movement of monies back
and forth in between the two that have supported those cartels
and that drug trade. On the demand side here in the United
States, we also have an awful lot of work left to do, and our
efforts to support the defeat of the narco-terrorists in Mexico
have also fallen short. I think in all three dimensions, there
remains a great deal of work to do.
OPIOID CRISIS AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Senator Durbin. Could you address one insidious new
narcotic, fentanyl and carfentanyl, which is now coming into
the United States and taking many lives and threatens, as a
synthetic opioid, to be a nightmare we can't even imagine in
our future. What role is China playing in shipping fentanyl to
the United States?
Secretary Pompeo. A significant role over the past years in
doing that. They have agreed to work with us. I think we're in
a better place now than we were even just 6 months ago.
Congress has been fantastic in providing resources to the
executive branch to push back against this new truly grave
threat.
VENEZUELA
Senator Durbin. I visited Venezuela a few months ago, met
with President Maduro, told him if he had a sham election, it
wouldn't be recognized by any country in the world, and that he
would continue a regime which has created a state of collapse
in the Venezuelan economy and incredible negative outcomes in
public health. Now that he's gone through with the election,
what's our next step to put pressure on him to change?
Secretary Pompeo. We will put additional sanctions in place
against the regime. We will continue our diplomatic efforts.
The State Department is--we had folks being--we returned the
favor to them as well. But we are continuing our diplomatic
outreach to try and create conditions where that country has
some hope of returning to something that looks more like a
democracy that the world--I'm hesitant only because it's an
enormous challenge that our tools and capacity to have an
impact on have proven insufficient to date.
Senator Durbin. There's one tool we haven't used, and you
know what it is. We are major purchasers of oil to Venezuela.
It is critical to what remains of their weakened and failing
economy. Would you consider imposing sanctions to stop that
trade of oil between the United States and Venezuela?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, the administration has looked at
this a number of times. We continue to review it. There are
second and third order ramifications of doing that that make it
a little more complicated, and I know you're aware of those,
too. I know you get that, too.
Yes, we are certainly reviewing whether there comes a point
where we have to suffer the negative ramifications doing that
in a way to achieve an outcome that gets the Venezuelan people
a chance to avoid the humanitarian crisis that faces them. You
have also most 3 million refugees leaving Venezuela. That's, I
think, 30 million people--we're talking about almost 10 percent
of the Venezuelan population.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for your service.
I'm in favor of summit meetings between the President of
the United States and foreign adversaries when it advances our
interests. I'm opposed to the summit meetings when it simply
provides a propaganda windfall to our adversaries. I have to
say I think the jury is still out on what happened in the
summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un.
NORTH KOREA
What I do know is that there's a report in the Wall Street
Journal today. The headline is ``North Korea Is Rapidly
Upgrading Nuclear Site Despite Summit Vow.'' I understand we'd
probably have to deal with that in a classified setting. But
that's a very troubling report. You would agree, would you not,
Mr. Secretary, that North Korea poses a nuclear threat to the
United States?
Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. I just think it's important that the
President not engage in, sort of, puffery on this, because
after the summit meeting, as you well know, he sent out a tweet
saying just the opposite. He said there's no longer a nuclear
threat from North Korea. I just think we need to be very clear-
eyed as to the past history of negotiations with North Korea.
Would you agree?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, absolutely, and to be clear-
eyed, what the President intended there, I'm confident what he
intended there was we did reduce the threat. I don't think
there's any doubt about that. We took the tension level down.
If I'd have been having this hearing several months ago, you
all would have been demanding that we reduce the threat. How do
I know? Well, I watched them from----
Senator Van Hollen. I understand your interpretation of the
President's----
Secretary Pompeo. So his point was--I think his point was a
fair one. For the moment, we have reduced risk, and we're
endeavoring to do that over a much----
Senator Van Hollen. I understand your interpretation of
what he said. What he tweeted was, quote, ``There is no longer
a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' That was his statement. He
didn't say we've reduced the temperature, we've reduced
tensions. I would point out that he reduced tensions from the
point where he took them to a boiling point and brought them
down. But I don't want to engage in that. I just wanted to get
a clear statement from you that you did agree that North Korea
poses a nuclear threat to the United States.
I want to follow up on a point that was raised and what the
Chairman mentioned about President Xi and the Chinese and
sanctions on North Korea, because in a press conference right
after the summit, President Trump said that China was weakening
its enforcement of the sanctions and then said, quote, ``But
that's okay,'' unquote, and went on to say, quote, ``I think
over the last 2 months, the border is more open than it was
when we first started, but that is what it is.''
Are we still pursuing a policy of maximum pressure on North
Korea until we achieve our goals?
Secretary Pompeo. I'll try and answer this with two points.
I think one of them--I responded to a question from Senator
Graham. It is the case that we have observed China not
enforcing control over their cross-border areas as vigorously
as they were 6 or 12 months ago. It's important to note that
comes from an all-time high, that is, they had been enforcing
sanctions in a way that we had never seen them enforce them
before, in spite of previous administrations' efforts to get
them to do so. We were singularly effective in getting them to
reach that level of enforcement. Their violations today--the
things they're doing today don't violate U.N. Security Council
resolutions, so they are still on-sides.
And then to your second point, it is the case that
enforcement of existing sanctions remains an enormous priority
of this administration. I say it a dozen times a day. No matter
who walks into my office, from what country they are from, I've
reminded them of the importance of doing that.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that
placing maximum economic pressure on North Korea remains in
place, and I agree, and I think on a bipartisan basis we
supported that. In fact, Senator Toomey and I have a piece of
legislation that would further increase those sanctions and
reduce flexibility even further. We think that's an important
message to send. But I do think it's very troubling that at
that summit, it was discovered that China was reducing the
level of sanctions they had in place before.
TURKEY
Let me ask you about Turkey. And, first, I know you agree
that the Syrian Kurds have been a very important ally in our
fight against ISIS, right?
Secretary Pompeo. They have. Yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. And just give me your assurance that
you're not going to be bullied by Turkey or President Erdogan
into throwing the Syrian Kurds under the bus.
Secretary Pompeo. There's no administration intention to
hurl any large yellow objects whatsoever.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Let me ask you about the F-
35s, because we've had a lot of testimony before the Congress
from Defense officials, from the administration, and otherwise,
that Turkey's acquisition of the Russian S-400s in combination
with the F-35s would allow Russia to detect and expose
potential vulnerabilities with the F-35, and that would present
a national security threat.
I know you testified over in the House that you were,
quote, ``imploring,'' unquote, the Turks not to go forward. I
think we want a more definitive statement. This subcommittee
just passed last week legislation saying that it's one or the
other. We want the Turks to get the F-35. But can you tell us
today, Mr. Secretary, that we will not deliver the F-35s to
Turkey until they pledge they won't acquire the S-400?
Secretary Pompeo. We've been very clear with the Turks
about the risks associated with their acquisition of the S-400.
Senator Van Hollen. I don't know what you mean by risks. I
think that they will only understand a very definitive
statement. We sent them one. We sent them one, and I think it's
important that the U.S. Government be on the same page. So I'm
asking you to make a definitive statement, if not right now,
which I think would be helpful, very quickly, because, as you
know, there was the ceremony in Texas the same day the
committee took the action here, and I think the more Turkey
thinks that it can proceed down this path without a very firm
absolute statement from the United States, the more this will
drag out.
We just should end it and make it clear: ``You have to
choose. You're a NATO ally. You shouldn't be doing something
that puts your fellow NATO allies at risk.''
Secretary Pompeo. It's a very complex situation, Senator.
We're certainly reviewing it. We've spoken with the Turks at
great length. I spoke to my counterpart within the last handful
of days. It's not just the F-35 and the S-400. The list is
long. Pastor Brunson's return is paramount for us as well. I
could go on with the challenges that we face. We are hopeful
that the result of this election will put us in a place where
we can have a set of conversations that lead us to an outcome
that I think would please everyone on this subcommittee.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate
the fact that there's a long list. There is. What's happening
in Syria with the Syrian Kurds is one. Pastor Brunson is
another. But let's be really clear. Turkey has just unlawfully
taken Pastor Brunson, and so I also would like your commitment
that Pastor Brunson is not going to be used as a bargaining
chip with Turkey for cooperation with the Turks, you know, in
throwing the Syrian Kurds under the bus, or somehow we'll say,
``Okay, you can go ahead and get the F-35s and the S-400s.''
What they've done with Pastor Brunson is outrageous, and
with the foreign nationals, by the way----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, they----
Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Who have worked for our
Embassy for years.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir. You have my commitment. These
issues are separate.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. That's the best description. We are not
linking those issues in any way.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We're just about
done. You've done a marvelous job. Just a quick wrap-up here
and I'll let Senator Leahy ask anything he would like.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE STAFFING
In terms of staffing, are you making progress?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, but not as rapidly as America needs
us to.
Senator Graham. Well, if there's anything we can do to help
you, let us know.
NORTH KOREA
If North Korea is watching the hearing, and I hope you are,
take the deal. It would be good for you. It would be good for
everybody.
If diplomacy fails this time around--if you agree with me--
we're running out of peaceful options.
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I do, and I think at this
point--I think the North Koreans appreciate that we are also
serious about accomplishing the things that they've put on the
table, the things that we've said we will do. The President
made a commitment with respect to the senior level joint
exercises. We now have paused one of the two annual major ones,
Ulchi Freedom Guardian. We are following through on their
commitments. It is our expectation that the North Koreans will
begin to do that relatively quickly.
Senator Graham. I'm okay with suspending exercises. You can
always start them back. We train in other forms. I would not be
okay with withdrawing our troops from South Korea, because I
think they're a stabilizing force for the region, and I don't
want China to take the wrong queue here. Do you agree with the
idea that our troops in South Korea are stabilizing to the
region?
Secretary Pompeo. I do. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. We will talk to you about an initiative I'm
working on with Senators Coons and Leahy and others about the
Sahel. It's a region in Africa that's falling apart. We're
going to spend now or we're going to spend later, and I think
there's an opportunity to get ahead of the problem. We're
trying to do something with Gaza, because you just can't ignore
that.
I thank you very much for what you're doing for our
country.
Senator Leahy.
UNRWA
Senator Leahy. We spoke briefly about this before, Mr.
Secretary, and a number of us, Republicans and Democrats alike,
met with King Abdullah of Jordan earlier today. He was
concerned about the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Senator Graham was there, too.
Our normal annual contribution to UNRWA is between $350
million and $400 million. So far this year the administration
has provided only $60 million. UNRWA runs schools and health
clinics and provides other basic services for Palestinians in
Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. I know King Abdullah
feels strongly that the alternative to UNRWA schools are
schools run by Hamas, and if UNRWA closes down their schools,
instead of seeing a blue flag flying, we'll probably see black
or green flags.
What do we do about education for these kids? If we don't
support UNRWA, what do we do?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, when the king was here, I was
present when he spoke with the President on this very issue as
well. There were a couple of ideas about how the United States
might, along with others, provide funding so that those schools
open at the--I think it's the end of August--so those kids
aren't doing something that we don't want them to do or we
don't have the wrong folks underwriting it.
You know the challenges with UNRWA that have been, frankly,
mismanaged and poorly led and corruption for quite some time.
We are trying to find a mechanism by which we can achieve the
two objectives you described, one, avoiding that challenge with
UNRWA, and, second, making sure that those refugees that Jordan
has agreed to take, those Palestinian children in Jordan, get a
chance to go to school. I think we're getting closer. We're
reviewing it. I think we're getting closer to a solution.
Senator Leahy. Well, I have concerns there, and, of course,
I have concerns in Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza, and so on. But in
Jordan--if you look at the percentage of refugees they have--it
dwarfs anything that the United States has done, with far less
resources than we have. I hate to think what happens if these
refugees have to go somewhere else, if the schools and medical
facilities are provided somewhere else. We'd just light the
fuse under a lot of them. You will find strong support on this
subcommittee for the funding to do what is necessary. But the
time is limited.
Finally, you have said you support the Leahy Law, and you
will enforce it, and that you will pursue the necessary
resources for that purpose. It's a law that the State
Department uses to vet foreign individuals and units to
determine if they are eligible for U.S. aid. This is one case
where American taxpayers are rightly concerned about aid going
to a military unit or individuals in another country that,
among other things, are raping young boys. It's not where we
want to spend money. I appreciate you saying you will support
it. Have all of our ambassadors been told they have to fully
enforce the Leahy Law?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir. They are. It's part of their
formal onboarding training processing.
Senator Leahy. One U.S. ambassador said that the Leahy Law
does not apply in the country where he is posted, so he doesn't
have to look at if there are any violations. He would know we
spent a great deal of money to help the police and military
forces in that country. Is he correct?
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I'm not familiar with the
situation. If you'll identify it for me, I will look into it.
That does not sound remotely consistent with what I described
to you.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate that, and as we leave here,
I'll tell you exactly who the ambassador is.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Very briefly.
WEST BANK AND GAZA
Senator Van Hollen. Senator Leahy mentioned the UNRWA
money. There's also the issue of some of the aid funding that
had been previously allocated to the West Bank and Gaza, which,
as I understand it, is being held up at the White House. I
would appreciate it if you could maybe have a member of your
team get back to us very quickly as to what the plan is on
that.
Secretary Pompeo. I'd be happy to. You can clearly tell
from the expression on my face I need to go find out exactly
what the status is of that.
[The information follows:]
In 2018, the President directed a review of U.S. assistance to the
Palestinian Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure these
funds were being spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and
were providing value to the U.S. taxpayer. As a result of that review,
we redirected to other high-priority projects more than $200 million in
fiscal year 2017 Economic Support Funds originally planned for programs
in the West Bank and Gaza.
Senator Van Hollen. I mean, it's making--you know, it's a
very complicated situation, but it's making a very desperate
situation even worse.
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS
The last thing I would just ask you to do, Mr. Secretary,
regarding Russian interference in the elections--you've been
very clear in previous testimony not only about the past
interference, but what you project to be interference in the
midterm elections. In the meeting they just had, or in the
press conference they just had after National Security Advisor
Bolton's meeting there, the Russian advisor at the Kremlin
essentially said they had never interfered and they never will.
What I'd like to do is--I've introduced a piece of
legislation, a bipartisan bill, with Senator Rubio called the
Deter Act, and the idea is not just to try to deal with it
after the fact, but put in place some very clear disincentives
that would automatically be triggered if we have a finding of
interference in the 2018--your team has looked at it, and they
think it's a little harsh in terms of the potential
consequences. We'd really like your feedback as to what you
think would be workable and achieve the deterrent impact,
because it's easier to try to prevent the Russians from
interfering in the first place than having to spend an awful--
we have to defend ourselves no matter what, but we should also
have a first line of defense, and that's deterrence.
Secretary Pompeo. Senator, I agree. I'll take a look at it.
I'll take a personal--I haven't had a chance to see it. But we
will provide you the feedback to that legislation substantively
as detailed as we can provide. We'll give you our real
thoughts.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The sanctions proposed under the DETER Act would pose challenges to
implement, and could have broad unintended consequences to U.S.
business interests, European and Asian allies, as well as other
partners. The administration is available to further discuss the
implication of this legislation with the Appropriations Subcommittee.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Graham. I would ask the subcommittee members to
submit any questions for the record no later than this Friday,
June 29, by 2:00 p.m.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael Pompeo
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. I have heard from a number of constituents concerned
about the recent changes to the intercountry adoption accreditation fee
schedule. Will you please share how the Department of State intends to
assist U.S. adoptive families and adoption service providers with
questions related to the implementation of the new accreditation fee
schedule?
Answer. The Department approved the fee schedule proposed by
Intercountry Adoption Accreditation Monitoring Entity (IAAME) because
it complies with relevant regulations to facilitate an equitable fee
distribution across all adoption service providers, according to size
and number of cases, and reflects the need for increased focus in the
area of monitoring and oversight.
The Department has made a concerted effort to inform, anticipate,
and explain the fees, their purpose, and structure to the public,
including: having one-on-one interactions with all adoption service
providers and advocacy groups; holding a series of conference calls in
which providers could address their concerns directly to the
accrediting entity; and providing comprehensive written materials about
the new fees, their purpose, and benefits for families.
Question. How does the Department of State intend to implement
these changes and improve intercountry adoption monitoring and
oversight while helping ensure intercountry adoption remains as
affordable as possible for American families?
Answer. The Department is sensitive to any increase in fees paid by
prospective adoptive parents and expects efforts focused on monitoring
and oversight will provide greater stability and financial protection
to families. Such efforts include reviews of Adoption Service Provider
(ASP) financial solvency, monitoring their use of fees, and enforcement
of the requirement that ASPs refund fees for services not rendered.
This ensures that, after having paid substantial fees to an ASP,
prospective parents and prospective adoptees are not left stranded in
the middle of an adoption by an ASP that goes out of business.
Question. In April, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a hearing
on International Parental Child Abduction, and the U.S. Senate passed a
resolution recognizing April 2018 as International Parental Child
Abduction Month to bring awareness to the harm caused by this issue.
Will you please provide an update on the Department of State's efforts
to help prevent International Parental Child Abduction and actions the
Department has taken to assist families experiencing this issue?
Answer. The Office of Children's Issues Prevention Team works hard
to prevent International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) and protect
children from its harmful effects. Through our Children's Passport
Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP), concerned parents or custodians can
work with the State Department to ensure that parental consent
requirements are met when a passport application is received for an
enrolled child. The Department also coordinates with CBP and other
Federal agencies on CBP's Prevent Abduction Program, which aims to
prevent a child's removal from the United States in violation of court-
ordered travel restrictions. Since the April hearing, CBP has taken
steps to provide more robust information about the Prevent Abduction
program on its website, and the Department's Prevention website now
links to this information. Going forward, we will continue to work
across the U.S. Government to identify additional ways to prevent IPCA
from occurring in the first place and assist families when it does
happen.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Egypt's President el Sisi has labeled anyone affiliated
with the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist and has locked them up for
years without trial, he has cracked down on civil society, and he has
pursued a strategy in the Sinai that has made the situation worse.
Arbitrary arrests, torture, and indefinite detention are common in
Egypt. When there are trials, they make a mockery of international
standards of fairness. We have repeatedly raised these concerns with
Egyptian officials, to no avail. The administration has withheld a
portion of the $1.3 billion in military aid, and I support that
decision. After years of discussions, we have finally seen progress on
the cases involving the arrests of employees of U.S. NGOs. Have you
discussed these other concerns with President el Sisi, and if so what
was his response?
Answer. Though I have yet to meet personally with President al-Sisi
in my role as Secretary of State, the administration has worked to
advance our strategic partnership while emphasizing respect for and
protection of basic rights and freedoms. We remain concerned by Egypt's
repression of nonviolent opposition, the limited space for civil
society, and restrictions on the peaceful expression of dissent. The
Department of State has raised and will continue to raise our serious
concerns about these issues with senior Egyptian Government officials
and has stressed the fundamental importance of the respect for human
rights and a robust civil society for Egyptian stability and
prosperity.
Question. How is the decision to drastically reduce the number of
refugees we admit into this country a reflection of our values? What
values were you referring to?
Answer. The President authorized the admission of up to 45,000
refugees in fiscal year 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 initially 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 the 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.
Question. Like it or not, and regardless of what the White House
may think causes it, the Earth's climate is changing. However, the
President walked away from the Paris Agreement. During your
confirmation hearing you testified that you would ``make sure that the
United States demonstrates leadership on climate issues
internationally.'' How do you plan to do that? b. Has the
administration proposed an alternative to the Paris Agreement, and if
so what does it consist of and what funds are being devoted to it?
Answer. As I noted at my confirmation hearing, I will make sure
that the United States demonstrates leadership on climate change issues
internationally to protect and advance the interests of the United
States, including by promoting innovation and market-friendly solutions
that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance resilience. I
will make sure that we do so in a manner that is fair to the United
States and that does not burden the U.S. economy. I will also ensure
that the United States is actively engaged in multilateral bodies, as
well as directly through our diplomatic and development activities with
other countries. As the President has stated, the United States intends
to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unless we can identify terms for
reengagement that are more favorable to the American people. The United
States is continuing to participate in international climate change
negotiations--including those related to implementation guidance for
the Paris Agreement--to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future
policy options remain open to the President. I look forward to working
with the President and with foreign counterparts on a way forward on
this issue that is consistent with U.S. interests and available
resources.
Question. Do you support helping countries adapt to, or mitigate
the effects of, climate change--like rising sea levels, warming
temperatures, water shortages, the dependence on fossil fuels? If so,
how much is in the fiscal year 2019 budget request for that support?
Answer. I support helping countries promote access to affordable,
sustainable energy that also promotes a clean and healthy environment
through continued bilateral engagement and cooperation, including by
promoting innovation and market-friendly solutions that help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and enhance resilience.
While the United States will continue to engage internationally on
climate change issues to protect U.S. energy security and economic
interests and to achieve a level playing field, the fiscal year 2019
budget proposes to wind down existing State Department and USAID
bilateral programs intended primarily to help other countries mitigate
the impacts of climate change. The budget continues support for
developing countries' efforts to improve affordable and reliable energy
access, agricultural and economic resilience, and natural resource use
and management, where mutually beneficial to our broader foreign
policy, economic development, and national security objectives.
Question. This Friday, the International Organization for
Migration, comprised of 169 member governments, is scheduled to elect
its new director general. Bill Swing, the outgoing director general, is
a good friend and one of our most experienced and respected diplomats.
The Trump administration has nominated Ken Isaacs, who has a long
record of anti-Muslim statements. He has repeatedly posted statements
online reflecting the view that Islam is a religion that is inherently
violent and inextricably linked to terrorism. For example, in a June
2017 tweet, he commented on a CNN International report quoting the
bishop of Southwark Cathedral in London after terrorists killed eight
people in that city. According to CNN, the bishop stated that the
attack and the killings were ``not what the Muslim faith asks people to
do.'' Isaacs responded, ``Bishop, if you read the Quran you will know
`this' is exactly what the Muslim faith instructs the faithful to do.''
In Twitter replies to expressions of sorrow about the 2016 Orlando
nightclub terrorist attack, he simply tweeted the hashtag #Islam. This
may be in line with comments President Trump has made about Muslims,
but if Mr. Isaacs were saying these things about Christians, Jews, or
other religions I seriously doubt that he would have been nominated for
this position. Do you support his candidacy?
Answer. As I shared in a letter with every International
Organization for Migration (IOM) member state in early June, I believe
Ken Isaacs had the vision and experience to advance IOM's mission to
serve people with human dignity and member states as they work to
strengthen safe, orderly, and legal migration systems. Mr. Isaacs has
over 34 years of proven leadership and operational experience serving
the world's most vulnerable people no matter their race or religion.
Mr. Isaacs demonstrated an ability to collaborate effectively with
governments and leaders around the world to address some of the world's
pressing challenges in migration.
Question. A few weeks ago, Saudi authorities accused seven recently
imprisoned women's activists and others associated with the women's
rights movement of serious crimes. Pro-government newspapers and social
media called the activists ``traitors.'' At least four other women's
rights defenders have been arrested since May 15, bringing the total
number of detainees to at least 11. When the Crown Prince was here, the
State Department announced a $1 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Have
you urged the Crown Prince to release these women's rights activists,
and if so what was his response?
Answer. The Department has maintained a complex, multi-faceted
relationship with Saudi Arabia as a key regional partner in advancing
and protecting the interests of the United States in the Middle East.
We follow very closely the detention of these activists, many of whom
have campaigned for the reforms the Saudi Government is now initiating.
Human rights are part of the Department's conversations with the
Saudis, and the arrests of activists are raised at all levels. We
continue to raise concerns on limitations to freedom of expression,
association, and assembly and continue to urge Saudi Arabia to protect
fair trial guarantees and transparency and to emphasize the importance
of allowing space for civil society.
Question. President Trump has repeatedly said that he was presented
with a proposal to spend $1 billion for the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem,
which he rejected, and by doing so he saved the taxpayers more than
$999 million because it will only cost $200,000 or $300,000. The
administration has already notified the Committee that it intends to
spend $55 million over the next few years and has requested hundreds of
millions more for a new Embassy in Jerusalem, while it finalizes plans
for its location and construction. Knowing how much an Embassy like
that, with all the security requirements, is likely to cost, was the
President being straight with the taxpayers? Would it be more honest to
say that the new Embassy is going to cost a lot more than $200,000? In
fact a lot more than $200 million?
Answer. The President's statement was clear that the $250,000 was
for an interim Embassy facility, which was inaugurated on May 14. The
next phase of the construction is an expansion of the interim facility,
estimated at $55 million. The final stage will be a permanent facility.
At this time, the Department is exploring all options and locations for
a final facility and the requirements therein. Without the location and
requirements, it is premature to estimate a cost.
Question. U.S. Ambassador David Friedman has said: ``I don't
believe the settlements are illegal.'' Do you agree with him? What is
this administration's position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
Answer. The administration has stated that while the existence of
settlements is not in itself an impediment to peace, further
unrestrained settlement activity does not help advance peace. The
Israeli Government has made clear that, going forward, its intent is to
adopt a policy regarding settlement activity that takes the President's
concerns into consideration. We welcome this. We remain committed to
facilitating an enduring and comprehensive peace between Israel and the
Palestinians. We remain hard at work on a peace plan that will benefit
both parties. That plan will be unveiled when the time is right.
Question. In earlier testimony, you said that other countries need
to devote greater resources toward common objectives, and you have said
that our funding should be proportional. Yet you have also said, when
questioned about funding cuts, that it is not about dollars, it is
about ``outcomes''. So, which is it? We agree that dollars are not the
only measure of success, but there are costs associated with buying
vaccines, supporting foreign police forces, protecting our diplomats,
and investing in development overseas, and those costs are increasing.
How do you measure proportionality when it involves protecting U.S.
interests overseas?
Answer. The fiscal year 2019 budget request for the State
Department and USAID of $39.3 billion supports the administration's
priorities and goals as set forth in the National Security Strategy and
the State Department/USAID Joint Strategic Plan. We are working hard to
achieve these goals and desired foreign policy outcomes. At the same
time, other donor countries must do more to contribute their fair share
toward meeting global challenges and our shared goals. The United
States can no longer bear the majority of this burden.
Question. On Syria, it seems that the administration's strategy has
been whittled down to defeating ISIS and getting out. Is there more to
it than that, and what is the status of the review of aid to help
stabilize Syria that has held up $200 million and left our partners in
the country wondering if they can count on us?
Answer. Our priorities in Syria are defeating ISIS and other
terrorist groups, ensuring the end of chemical weapons use in Syria,
protecting Syria's neighbors, diminishing Iran's influence, de-
escalating the Syrian conflict, and lessening civilian suffering
resulting from the humanitarian crisis to create the necessary space
for a political settlement to the conflict. In line with the
President's request to review all bilateral foreign assistance for
Syria, we continually reevaluate stabilization assistance levels and
how best they might be used. The United States continues to work with
the international community, members of the Global Coalition to Defeat
ISIS, and our partners on the ground to provide stabilization support.
Question. There was talk when Rex Tillerson had your job of moving
part of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration to USAID.
Others suggested that part of it should be moved to the Department of
Homeland Security. Both proposals concerned a lot of people, including
on this Committee. Can we assume that is not going to happen--that the
personnel, functions, and budget of PRM will stay where they are?
Answer. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which
manages U.S. refugee policy, assistance, and resettlement, is an
integral part of State's foreign policy efforts to prevent and respond
to crises and conflict and promote regional stability. As part of
Executive Order 13781, the administration is in the process of
reviewing agencies throughout the executive branch in pursuit of
increased efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. In response to
Executive Order 13781, the Department of State is working with USAID to
optimize our overall humanitarian assistance efforts.
Question. During your confirmation, when asked if you believe that
a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape should have the right to
obtain a safe abortion, you said you ``will support the
administration's efforts to combat gender-based violence and support
the maternal health and family planning needs of women around the
world.'' Since that did not answer the question, let me be more
specific: we know that rape is often used as a weapon of war. If a girl
is raped by a member of ISIS, or the Taliban, or the Burmese army,
would the administration's policy force her to give birth, or would it
support her right to a safe abortion in a country where abortion is
legal--as it is in this country?
Answer. The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA)
policy aims to ensure that U.S. taxpayer funding does not support
foreign non-governmental organizations that provide or actively promote
abortion as a method of family planning. The policy does not apply with
respect to cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the
mother.
Question. Every year, the Department of Defense gets more into the
business of foreign aid. Officials at DoD say that since the State
Department does not have enough money, DoD needs to do it: police
training, counternarcotics, building schools, you name it. The results
have often fallen short, as the Inspectors General and GAO have
documented, because this is not what DoD does best. Secretary Mattis
has called for a bigger budget for diplomacy and development. How do
you reconcile this, when the President wants to cut the budget for
diplomacy and development by more 23 percent?
Answer. Development and diplomacy play an indispensable role in
securing peace and security, promoting prosperity, expanding American
influence, and addressing global crises. The State Department and
USAID's efforts in these areas contribute to a more secure and
prosperous world by helping to enhance the stability and resilience of
our partners around the world, which in turn promotes their economic
development.
The State Department and USAID's fiscal year 2019 budget request is
designed with the goal of maximizing the efficiency of our foreign
assistance operations consistent with furthering U.S. national
interests. By focusing our efforts, we will be able to quickly and
effectively target and address the most pressing challenges and threats
to our national security. The State Department will continue to
coordinate with the Department of Defense, including through the
Security Sector Assistance Steering Committee, and provide direction
through legislation calling for State Department concurrence in the use
of the Department of Defense's assistance authorities to ensure an
integrated and comprehensive approach in all U.S. foreign assistance
and in order to best leverage resources and authorities to advance
national security priorities and partnerships.
Question. United States support for Central America is episodic. It
ebbs and flows. Usually it ebbs. The Alliance for Prosperity is the
latest initiative. Over the past 3 years we have provided more than $2
billion, and we are starting year four. We know these countries are
struggling with complex and very difficult problems that will take many
years to solve. But despite the positive rhetoric by officials in these
countries we do not see the necessary commitment to combat corruption,
end impunity, and stop the attacks against civil society and the
manipulation of the judiciary and the electoral process by those in
power. In other words, what we see for the most part is more of the
same. How do you see the current situation, and if things continue the
way they are what results should we expect in 3 to 5 years?
Answer. Our diplomatic engagement, close partnership with Central
America, and the political will of government leaders in the region
allow us to advance our security, governance, and economic prosperity
objectives. Overcoming the challenges in the region will take years of
sustained effort, though we are beginning to see progress in the
professional capability of institutions, reduced homicide rates, and
improved coordinated approaches in communities from which we see out-
bound migration. Over the next three to 5 years, our programming will
support broader, long-term efforts to increase transparency, stimulate
economic growth, reduce and prevent violence, and combat trafficking
and its destabilizing impacts on the region.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Is a secure, stable, and improving Central America in our
national interests? Do you support robust foreign assistance funding
for Central America, both now and over the long-term, to help reduce in
the region the various incentives for northward migration?
Answer. The security and prosperity of Central America is a key to
regional stability and to the security of the United States. U.S.
assistance under our Strategy for Central America aims to secure U.S.
borders and protect American citizens by addressing the economic,
security, and governance drivers of illegal immigration and illicit
trafficking through Central America to the United States. Funding
supports short-, mid-, and long-term efforts to address systemic
challenges in Central America. Short-term efforts seek to address
immediate security challenges. Long-term programming seeks to
discourage illegal migration by addressing the need for improved rule
of law and economic growth in Central America, coupled with sustainable
security and border security enhancement. Addressing these challenges
requires robust diplomatic engagement and funding from the United
States, sustained progress from the Central American governments, and
continued support by international partners and institutions, civil
society, and the private sector.
Question. What is the State Department currently doing to help
Central American nations to secure and stabilize their situation?
Answer. Our engagement in all Central American countries aims to
dismantle transnational criminal organizations, combat drug
trafficking, halt illegal immigration, and promote sustainable economic
growth by improving security, combatting impunity, and increasing
economic opportunity. The Department is providing more than $2.6
billion in foreign assistance to Central America in fiscal years 2015-
2018. Overcoming the challenges in Central America will take years of
sustained assistance and diplomatic effort, but we are seeing progress.
Question. How would you judge the effectiveness of the U.S.
Strategy for Central America? What metrics is the State Department
using for the U.S. Strategy for Central America?
Answer. I am committed to ensuring that the U.S. taxpayer sees the
results of our international aid. The Department measures and evaluates
performance of all foreign assistance programs it oversees, employing a
comprehensive, interagency results architecture for all seven Central
American countries and all three pillars of the U.S. Strategy for
Central America. USAID and other interagency partners actively
participate in collecting the data required for evaluation, measuring
progress in security, prosperity, and governance programs. Our
evaluation includes strategic objectives for each pillar of the
Strategy as well as common baseline indicators and targets against
which we measure progress over time.
In accordance with requirements accompanying the fiscal year 2018
appropriation for Central America, the Department submitted a progress
report based on this plan for monitoring and evaluation on May 16. It
is available on USAID and Department public websites. This initial
report shows that, in general, we are meeting our programmatic targets,
but that after only one fiscal year of tracking the results data, we
have yet to see significant, national-level success across all seven
countries.
Question. What does success look like?
Answer. The goals of the U.S. Strategy for Central America are to
reduce insecurity and violence, enhance economic opportunity, and fight
impunity and corruption in Central America to address the drivers of
illegal immigration and disrupt transnational criminal organizations.
In the short-term, we are scaling up programs that have an immediate
impact on conditions driving illegal immigration to the United States,
as well as efforts to build the capacity of Central American
governments. In the medium-term, we will support programs designed for
broader impact to increase transparency, stimulate economic growth,
reduce and prevent violence, and combat trafficking.
Question. What is the administration doing to promote democracy and
human rights in Nicaragua? Does the administration need more resources
or legislative action to prevent Nicaragua from sliding deeper into
tyranny, like Cuba and Venezuela?
Answer. Congress directed $10 million of fiscal year 2018 and $9.5
million of fiscal year 2017 Development Assistance funds to Nicaragua
for democracy and governance programs. Since the onset of Nicaraguan
government-instigated violence and repression in April, USAID and
Department programs have focused on responding to needs on the ground,
such as ongoing support for human rights and democracy activists as
well as independent journalists. I look forward to working with
Congress to continue providing assistance that supports U.S. goals and
interests in Nicaragua consistent with any applicable restrictions. We
are also actively revoking visas of those who are committing the human
rights abuses, pursuing additional sanctions, and will take additional
steps as warranted by events on the ground.
Question. Do you believe the current negotiations will lead to
early elections?
Answer. The Nicaraguan government-instigated attacks and threats
against peaceful protestors and the general population are unacceptable
and must cease. An end to violence is foremost among the conditions
necessary to resume good faith negotiations for a democratic and
peaceful path forward for all Nicaraguans. I support the Nicaraguan
Catholic Bishops' Conference commitment to advance the National
Dialogue, which includes a proposal for early elections, to further
negotiations to resolve the ongoing crisis. I encourage all parties to
work together to resolve the current crisis in a way that respects
human rights and the rule of law and provides for early, free, and fair
elections.
Question. Are Chinese telecoms like ZTE and Huawei--including the
role that they and other Chinese state-directed telecommunications
companies play in advancing China's espionage and intellectual property
theft--a national security issue? Does the operation of Chinese state-
directed telecommunications firms in the United States constitute a
direct threat to our national security?
Answer. Although state ownership or control does not, standing
alone, necessarily pose a threat to U.S. national security and law
enforcement interests, some foreign-government controlled companies'
activities may pose unacceptable risks to U.S. national security and
law enforcement. The State Department--along with interagency
partners--is working to strengthen the U.S. telecommunication
infrastructure to ensure that it is secure and that our intellectual
property is protected. There is an interagency process to advise the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on foreign companies' requests
to access the U.S. telecommunications market. For example, the State
Department participated in the interagency process that recommended to
the FCC on July 2 to deny a China Mobile license application to provide
international voice traffic between the United States and foreign
countries as a common carrier due to substantial and unacceptable
national security and law enforcement risks. We will continue to work
with Congress and interagency partners to safeguard our
telecommunications infrastructure.
Question. Does the State Department or USAID use any
telecommunications equipment from Huawei or ZTE, including `white-
labeled' equipment that was produced by Chinese telecoms but has a
different company's name on it?
Answer. Huawei and ZTE devices are not authorized for use in the
State Department's mobile program.
Question. How many U.S Government employees in China has the State
Department confirmed as suffering symptoms consistent with the so-
called ``Havana Syndrome'' attacks suffered by U.S. Government
employees in Cuba? How many non-U.S. Government employees, if any, have
suffered such symptoms in China?
Answer. To date, there is one U.S. Government employee stationed in
China who has been medically confirmed to have symptoms consistent with
those seen in patients from Embassy Havana. The Department is not aware
of any medically confirmed non-U.S. Government employee cases.
Question. How is the State Department investigating the incident(s)
in China? Is what's happening in China connected in any way to the
attacks in Cuba?
Answer. On May 23, I asked Deputy Secretary Sullivan to establish
and lead an interagency task force to look into these incidents. Deputy
Secretary Sullivan continues to lead the task force, which focuses on
identifying and treating affected personnel and family members,
investigating the incidents, and messaging, including diplomatic
outreach. While the medically confirmed symptoms of our patient in
Guangzhou are medically similar to those experienced by our staff in
Havana, we do not know the cause of the symptoms in Havana or China. We
are continuing to investigate in both places.
Question. How does the Chinese Government's response compare to the
Cuban Government's response? Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. At this point, the magnitude, scope, consistency, and time
period of incidents reported in China and Cuba are different. The
Chinese Government has repeatedly assured senior Department officials
in Washington and in Beijing that they are investigating the
circumstances surrounding the one medically confirmed case and taking
appropriate measures to protect our personnel and their family members.
Question. After the State Department recently informed Congress
about the 26th injured U.S. Government employee from U.S. Embassy
Havana, what is the status of the Embassy? And what is the Cuban
Government telling you about the most recent attack?
Answer. Embassy Havana remains on unaccompanied status. The Cuban
Government continues to state that it will abide by its
responsibilities under the Vienna Convention to take adequate steps to
protect our personnel. The Cuban Government informs us that it
continues its investigation; however, to date it has not yielded any
substantive results.
Question. As the United States seeks full snapback of suspending
sanctions against Iran, do you support efforts to persuade the Society
for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) once again
to disconnect the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and other designated
Iranian banks from SWIFT's financial messaging services?
Answer. Yes. The re-imposition of sanctions on Iran has one primary
goal: to place maximum economic pressure on the Iranian regime to
encourage them to return to the negotiating table. Eliminating Iran's
access to the international financial system will not only increase
this economic pressure but also deprive the regime of funds used to
support its malign activities throughout the region. We intend to work
with our allies and partners to end Iran's use of SWIFT and any other
specialized financial messaging systems in an effort to isolate Iran
economically.
Question. How are you emphasizing to foreign governments our
Nation's expectation that all governments should comply with sanctions
against Iran, including secondary sanctions on the Central Bank of
Iran, the significant oil reduction requirement, and de-SWIFTing CBI
and other designated Iranian banks?
Answer. The Department of State is working diligently to counter
the totality of Iran's malign activity. We have an aggressive
diplomatic engagement strategy in support of our Iran policy, and we
are pursuing a campaign of maximum economic pressure on Iran. Our teams
of diplomats and specialists are meeting with partners around the globe
to discuss specific concerns with the plan for re-imposition of U.S.
nuclear-related sanctions and next steps in Iran policy. Teams have
already traveled to multiple stops in Europe and Asia to garner support
for our global effort to pressure Iran and to explain our sanctions
policy. We are fully engaged at all levels, and our diplomatic outreach
will expand in the coming weeks.
Question. Have you pressed the Saudi Government to allow greater
reforms on human rights, including the release of political prisoners
who are wrongly detained in Saudi Arabia, and the reversal of practices
aimed at stifling dissent and criticism? If not, would you be willing
to do so?
Answer. The Department of State continues to engage with Saudi
Arabian Government officials at all levels on human rights in the
Kingdom. We continue to emphasize the importance of allowing space for
civil society and free expression. We are following very closely the
detention of civil society actors. Human rights issues are part of the
Department of State's conversation with the Saudi Government, and the
arrests are raised in these discussions. I will continue to raise this
issue on a regular basis.
Question. Have you, in specific, raised with the Saudi Government
the case of jailed activist and blogger Raif Badawi? If not, would you
be willing to do so?
Answer. The Department of State has frequently engaged with the
Saudi Arabian Government on the case of the detained activist and
blogger Raif Badawi. We continue to call on Saudi authorities to review
Mr. Badawi's case and his sentence. The Department of State regularly
raises concerns about restrictions on the rights to freedom of
expression and peaceful assembly, fair trial guarantees, and other
human rights issues with Saudi authorities at all levels. I will
continue to urge the Saudi Arabian Government to ensure transparency in
the investigation and trial process and to allow space for civil
society.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
Question. The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus provided $5,000,000 for
programs to promote accountability in Iraq and Syria for genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Can you give an update on the
spend plan for this account?
Answer. The Department is in the process of finalizing funding
allocations, which will include the $5 million to promote
accountability in Iraq and Syria for genocide, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes. Once funding allocations have been finalized, these
funds will be approved and pre-obligation requirements--such as
Congressional notifications--met before the funds are implemented for
the purposes directed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Secretary Pompeo, I was very glad when you announced that
you would lift the freeze on hiring and promotions at the State
Department that was instituted by your predecessor. And yet, we
continue to hear from within the Department that the freeze has not
been fully lifted, while at the same time political appointees are
reportedly vetting career Foreign Service and civil service employees
based on their perceived political leanings. Can you clarify for the
Committee as to whether or not you have lifted the personnel freeze
that was previously in place, as well as whether you intend to fill the
openings left by this misguided personnel policy?
Answer. I lifted the hiring freeze on Foreign Service and Civil
Service employment on May 15. This ended the 8 percent workforce
reduction plan previously in place and authorized hiring to December
31, 2017 staffing levels as provided by Congress in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018--Statement of Managers.
The Department's current hiring plans, once fully executed, will
provide for growth in both the Foreign and Civil Service workforces
beyond that which existed on December 31, 2017. The congressionally-
directed hiring for the Foreign Service allows the Department to hire
at ``pre-fiscal year 2017 levels,'' and we have already planned entry
classes for the remainder of the year to reach these targets. Bureaus
have been authorized Civil Service employment ceilings based on the
same hiring logic as the Foreign Service. In total, our plan brings us
454 employees above the December 31, 2017 level.
Committee staff have been and will continue to be briefed by
Department officials on the detailed plans that the Department has
developed to meet the Congressional goals.
Question. This Committee has advanced legislation that would
require you to hire personnel to fill the ranks of the State Department
to 2016 levels. Do you disagree with that personnel target?
Answer. At my direction, the Department has developed, and is in
the process of executing, Foreign and Civil Service hiring plans that
are based on the Congressional guidance and funding levels in the
Consolidated Appropriation, 2018. For the Foreign Service, intake
classes have been structured to coincide with ``the pre-fiscal year
2017 rate'' as included in the Appropriation's Statement of Managers.
Similarly, Civil Service hiring targets have been established for each
Bureau based on similar targets as specified in the Act for the Foreign
Service. Committee staff have been briefed by the Department on the
detailed plans to meet the Congressional intent of the Act.
Question. What is your response to allegations, which seem to have
been substantiated by leaked emails sent by political appointees at the
State Department, that career State Department employees are being
vetted based on their perceived political leanings?
Answer. The Department has referred allegations of political
reprisal against its career employees to the Department's Office of the
Inspector General and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The
Department is fully cooperating with those investigations and will take
the appropriate action following the conclusions of those
investigations.
Question. Secretary Pompeo, as you know well, the State Department
is withholding $200 million in stabilization funding for areas of Syria
previously controlled by ISIS. This funding is for stabilization
projects, which includes clearing mines and other explosives, removing
rubble, repairing basic infrastructure and doing other things necessary
to allow for the return of Syrian civilians displaced by fighting. I am
struggling to see the logic in withholding this money after the U.S.
has invested so much time and effort into pushing ISIS out of Syrian
cities and towns. Why do you think it is prudent to withhold this
funding at this time?
Answer. The President has asked that all bilateral foreign
assistance for Syria stabilization efforts be reviewed in order to
determine appropriate assistance needs and then encourage our partners
in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to share the burden of
consolidating the Coalition's military gains and preventing the
resurgence of ISIS. The Department of State and USAID continue to work
with the international community, members of the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIS, and our partners on the ground to provide much-needed
stabilization support to communities liberated from ISIS in Syria.
Question. Up to now, the administration has said that it is opposed
to any actions that might further exacerbate the humanitarian
catastrophe that is Yemen. Realistically, can we really expect the
Saudi-coalition to undertake a massive urban assault to take Hodeidah
without killing civilians and damaging critical infrastructure?
Answer. The administration is monitoring the situation in Hudaydah
closely. We continue to stress to our foreign partners the need to
avoid any action that damages infrastructure, exacerbates Yemen's
humanitarian crisis, or disrupts the flow of humanitarian assistance
and commercial goods through Hudaydah port. I have spoken to Emirati
leaders and made clear this administration's desire to address their
security concerns while preserving the free flow of humanitarian aid
and commercial goods to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need
it. The administration continues to stress that all parties must
prioritize the U.N. Special Envoy's efforts to revive political
negotiations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. How is the administration's decision to freeze funding
for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and Economic Support Funds
to the West Bank and Gaza supporting American interests and values in
the Middle East?
Answer. The administration routinely conducts reviews of foreign
assistance in order to ensure it is meeting our national security
interests, achieving our policy objectives, and providing value to U.S.
taxpayers. The Department of State will brief Congress on the
conclusions of the review once decisions are made. We have long voiced
the need for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to seek
out new voluntary funding streams and increase burden-sharing among its
donors. We have also consistently called on UNRWA to undertake more
fundamental reforms that will put it on more sustainable financial
footing. It is essential that we create a fairer, more equitable, and
more predictable funding mechanism for UNRWA.
Question. While UNRWA is not without faults, how does the
administration intend to support programs aimed at Palestinians facing
humanitarian crises and other legitimate needs?
Answer. U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, including the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA), remains under review; no decision has yet been reached. On
March 13, the White House hosted a conference on Gaza with
representatives from 20 countries, including Israel and many Arab
states. Participants discussed a series of concrete proposals and
projects that would address the urgent challenges faced by Palestinians
in Gaza, including chronic shortages of electricity and water. The
United States will continue to work with our partners to find ways to
improve the lives of the people of Gaza.
Question. Do government leaders in Jordan and Lebanon support this
decision to freeze UNRWA funding?
Answer. Government leaders in Jordan and Lebanon have publicly
expressed the need for the international community to continue funding
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in
the Near East (UNRWA). The administration is in regular consultation
with our regional partners, including Jordan and Lebanon, and will
continue to seek their views as we review our assistance to UNRWA and
the Palestinians. The Department of State will brief Congress on the
conclusions of the review, once decisions are reached.
Question. When does the administration plan to release this
funding?
Answer. U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, including the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA), remains under review; no decision has yet been reached. The
administration routinely conducts reviews of foreign assistance in
order to ensure it is meeting our national security interests,
achieving our policy objectives, and providing value to U.S. taxpayers.
The Department of State will brief Congress on the conclusions of the
review, once decisions are reached.
Question. Will you commit to keeping this committee up to date on
administration decisions regarding funding for humanitarian programs,
people-to-people programing, and other programs permitted under U.S.
law before the end of the fiscal year?
Answer. The Department of State will brief Congress on the
conclusions of the review once decisions are reached.
Question. Does the United States plan to revive the former
resettlement agreement between UNHCR and the Government of Israel to
resettle 16,000 Eritrean and Sudanese refugees currently in Israel?
Answer. According to a public statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu
on April 3, the Government of Israel cancelled a bilateral agreement
with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that had
established a Framework for Cooperation between Israel and UNHCR to
promote durable solutions for approximately 39,000 Eritreans and
Sudanese migrants currently living in Israel. We are not aware of any
current agreement between UNHCR and the Israeli government related to
African migrants in Israel.
Question. If so, what is the administration's position on whether
or not the United States will support Israel by resettling some of the
refugees?
Answer. The United States resettled 175 refugees via Israel in
fiscal year 2017, primarily Eritreans. The fiscal year 2018
Presidential Determination on refugee resettlement set a ceiling on
admission of 45,000 refugees. In fiscal year 2018, the United States
has resettled 89 individuals coming from Israel as of July 3. We
continue to accept referrals from UNHCR and anticipate doing so in the
future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question. Do you believe a political appointee who reassigns,
categorizes or otherwise vets civil servants, based on perceived
political affiliation, should work at the State Department?
Answer. Career Civil Service and Foreign Service employees are
protected under law from being treated differently due to their real or
perceived political affiliation. The Department is committed to
adhering to the merit systems principles in its recruitment and
employment practices. Such prohibited personnel actions are not
tolerated at the State Department.
Question. Will you remove political appointees from the State
Department found to have reassigned, categorized or vetted civil
servants based on perceived political affiliation?
Answer. The Department has referred allegations of political
reprisal against its career employees to the Department's Office of the
Inspector General and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The
Department is fully cooperating with those investigations and will take
the appropriate action following the conclusions of those
investigations.
Question. Please provide an explanation of the decisions to
reassign Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, Lawrence Bartlett, and Ian Moss.
Answer. In general, the Department does not comment on personnel
matters involving individual employees. With regard to Mr. Bartlett, we
shared information about his current assignment in a letter dated June
22, 2018.
Question. Please provide all documents and communications regarding
proposed or actual personnel actions for Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, Lawrence
Bartlett, and Ian Moss.
Answer. In general, the Department does not comment on personnel
matters involving individual employees.
Question. Does the Chinese Government exercise significant control
over its telecommunications firms, and do Zhongxing Telecommunication
Equipment Corporation (ZTE) and Huawei both have longstanding ties to
the Chinese Government?
Answer. Media and other reporting suggests that the Chinese
Government has ties to Chinese telecommunications firms, including the
firms you have noted.
Question. You recently said that China is, ``the most predatory
economic government that operates against the rest of the world
today.'' Has the Chinese Government substantially reduced intellectual
property theft or other predatory Chinese behavior in the past year?
Answer. At the direction of the President, the Department is
working with interagency partners to rebalance the U.S.-China trade
relationship and achieve more fair and reciprocal trade between our two
countries. This effort includes protecting U.S. technology and
intellectual property from China's discriminatory and burdensome trade
practices. Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the United
States will take responsive actions. These include pursuing WTO dispute
settlement to address discriminatory intellectual property licensing
processes adopted by China and imposing tariffs on goods imported from
China containing industrially significant technology, including those
related to the ``Made in China 2025'' program. U.S. stakeholders
continue to express concerns to us regarding China's intellectual
property practices and unfair economic policies. The appropriate
response from China should be to change its behavior, which China has
pledged to do many times but has not done to date.
Question. This January, in your capacity as CIA director, you said
you had ``every expectation'' that Russia would interfere in future US
elections, and that you had not ``seen a significant decrease in their
activity.'' In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in
May, you said that the administration ``will not tolerate'' Russian
interference in U.S. elections,'' but also that the United States has
not been able to achieve ``effective deterrence'' against the Russians
and has ``more work to do.'' Do you maintain that Russia will interfere
in future U.S. elections, including midterms in November?
Answer. The evidence clearly shows Russia sought to interfere in
our 2016 elections. Their objective was to erode faith in U.S.
democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral
process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S.
Government. There will be serious consequences should Russia attempt to
interfere in our electoral processes again.
The Department of State works closely with other departments and
agencies to protect our Nation against potential interference in our
election processes. We warn 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 and share best practices. While the Department's
mandate is to lead on foreign policy, we also 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
attempts to interfere.
Question. Has the administration developed punitive actions,
including sanctions that would go into effect immediately if Russia
interfered in a future election?
Answer. The Department of State has made clear to the Russian
Government at the highest levels that any efforts to interfere in the
2018 midterm elections will not be tolerated and will be met with
significant consequences. We are working on a whole-of-government basis
to not only safeguard our electoral systems and processes, but also to
prepare responses should Russia attempt to interfere again. The
Department will use appropriate diplomatic, economic, and political
tools to respond should there be evidence of interference.
Question. If Russia interferes in the upcoming midterms, what
actions will you recommend to the President as the appropriate
response?
Answer. The Department of State has made clear to the Russian
Government at the highest levels that any efforts to interfere in the
2018 midterm elections will not be tolerated and will be met with
severe consequences. We are working on a whole-of-government basis to
not only safeguard our electoral systems and processes, but also to
prepare responses should Russia attempt to interfere. I will recommend
the President consider the full suite of diplomatic, economic, and
political tools to respond should there be evidence of interference.
Question. How are Turkey and Russia coordinating operations in
northern Syria, and how are U.S. arrangements with Turkey in northern
Syria impacting Turkish-Russian cooperation?
Answer. On June 4, Secretary Pompeo and Turkish Foreign Minister
Cavusoglu considered the recommendations of the Turkey-U.S. Working
Group on Syria pertaining to the future of our bilateral cooperation in
Syria on issues of mutual interest, to include taking steps to ensure
the security and stability in Manbij. They endorsed a Road Map to this
end and underlined their mutual commitment to its implementation,
reflecting agreement to closely follow developments on the ground. This
agreement represents a way forward to maintain stability, sustain
Defeat ISIS gains, and facilitate ongoing Global Coalition to Defeat
ISIS operations in northern Syria.
Turkey continues to engage Russia and other actors in Syria through
diplomatic and military channels and continues to update us on these
discussions. Turkey shares our goals of a unified, stable Syria, and
supports the United Nations-led Geneva process. Turkey also permits
Coalition aircraft to use Turkish bases and hosts over 3 million Syrian
refugees. We are clear with Turkey about our concerns regarding Russian
actions and influence in the region.
Question. What is the future of the U.S. relationship with the
Syrian Kurdish forces that have supported U.S. operations against the
Islamic State? Will the U.S. phase out support for Syrian Kurdish
forces?
Answer. The United States is committed to the defeat of ISIS in
Syria and to ensuring that it cannot return to liberated areas. Since
2015, the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS has worked with the
Syrian Democratic Forces to defeat ISIS. This cooperation has
facilitated the liberation of more than 3.2 million people and over 95
percent of the terrain that ISIS held at its height in Syria in the
summer of 2014. The Syrian Democratic Forces is a multi-ethnic and
multi-sectarian alliance comprising Syrian Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen of
various faiths united in their desire and motivation to rid Syria of
ISIS.
While ISIS has lost nearly all the territory it once controlled,
ISIS retains a small presence in eastern Syria. We will continue our
partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces to complete the military
defeat of ISIS, stabilize liberated territory, set the conditions
conducive to voluntary returns of displaced Syrians, and ensure ISIS
does not return as an insurgency. We will also work to ensure that all
the people of northeast Syria have an appropriate say in defining the
future of Syria pursuant to the political process set forth in the U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2254.
Question. What role will the Syrian Kurds play in governing the
areas of northern Syria where they have significant representation? How
will the United States facilitate that governance role?
Answer. The United States will continue to support the inclusion of
all Syrians in the political process set forth in U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2254. This includes Syrian Kurds. State and USAID
stabilization assistance in northern Syria includes support for the
development of local governance entities that are representative,
civilian-led, transparent, and legitimate in the eyes of the
communities they serve.
Question. Does the administration plan to restart foreign
assistance to USAID projects in the West Bank and Gaza?
Answer. No decision has yet been reached on U.S. assistance to the
Palestinians, which is under review.
Question. Have you established the conditions under which foreign
assistance would be resumed? What are those conditions? Who is in
charge of the policy process and when will it be completed?
Answer. No decision has yet been reached on U.S. assistance to the
Palestinians, which is under review. The administration routinely
conducts reviews of our foreign assistance in order to ensure it is
meeting our national security interests, achieving our policy
objectives, and providing value to U.S taxpayers. The Department of
State will brief Congress on the conclusions of the review, once
decisions are reached.
Question. For over a year, the State Department has not had a
Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI persons. Will you appoint a
Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI persons, and, if so, when?
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.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Well done, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your time and your
patience and your candid answers.
The subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of
the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, June 27, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]