    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                              EVALUATING THE TRUMP
                         ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES ON
                         IRAN, IRAQ AND THE USE OF FORCE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 28, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-121

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-194 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

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

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    KAREN BASS, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TED S. YOHO, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California	             LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
    DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		     FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota		     JOHN CURTIS, Utah
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     KEN BUCK, Colorado
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas    		     RON WRIGHT, Texas
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     GREG PENCE, Indiana
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    DAVID TRONE, Maryland		     MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
    JIM COSTA, California
    JUAN VARGAS, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                    WITNESS

    Pompeo, Honorable Michael R., Secretary, United States Department
      of State.......................................................     5

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    48
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    49
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    50

                      ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD

    Letter Iranian people must forge a path to constitutional
      democracy......................................................    51

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    54

     EVALUATING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES ON IRAN, IRAQ AND THE
                                  USE OF FORCE

                           Friday, February 28, 2020

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:34 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot L. Engel
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Engel. The committee will come to order.
        Without objection, all members will have 5 days to submit
    statements, extraneous material, and questions for the record,
    subject to the length limitation in the rules.
        We will begin.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for meeting with us this morning.
    Weeks ago we invited you to testify about American policy
    toward Iran, Iraq, and the use of force. No one doubts that
    Qasem Soleimani was a dangerous terrorist, but it is important
    that we look at foreign policy in terms of whether it makes
    Americans safer and advances our interests.
        Weeks later, we have seen attacks that have injured more
    than a hundred servicemembers, the need to move thousands more
    personnel back to the region, a derailment of our relationship
    with Iraq, and a setback in the fight against ISIS, and Iran
    again pushing headlong toward nuclear weapon.
        You promised the American people that they would be safer
    and Iran would be deterred. So by your own metrics, this policy
    has been a failure.
        Mr. Secretary, it should not have been so difficult to get
    you here and your appearance here today is far too short. And
    while we have had to wait for you, the world does not wait for
    anyone, and now we are facing another potential crisis,
    coronavirus, and I imagine you will hear some questions about
    that this morning as well. And there are dozens of other issues
    we would like to ask you about, including the lawful subpoena
    that this committee issued in September that you have ignored.
        So we expect to see you here again soon for our annual
    budget hearing, and I would appreciate if you renewed your
    commitment to appear for that hearing when I recognize you for
    an opening statement.
        I am going to forego any additional opening in the hopes of
    getting to as many members as possible this morning. And I will
    yield to Mr. McCaul, our ranking member, for any remarks he
    might have.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here--thank you for your
    service--to talk about Iran and Iraq, as we agreed to as a
    committee. More importantly, thank you and the President for
    taking decisive action to protect Americans overseas.
        If President Trump had not made the bold decision to strike
    Qasem Soleimani, Iran's mastermind of terror, we might be
    having a different hearing on why he did not stop the deaths of
    more Americans.
        Striking Soleimani was the right decision, and the world is
    safer for it. He organized an escalating series of attacks
    against our forces in Iraq which killed an American. He also
    directed an attack on the embassy in Baghdad. Further, Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley said the
    administration would have been culpably negligent had they not
    acted to take out Soleimani who had the blood of hundreds of
    Americans and American soldiers on his hands.
        I fully agree with you and the general that this strike was
    necessary and well within the President's authorities under
    Article II. The President acted with tremendous restraint over
    the past year, as we saw in the White House, continually making
    the choice to deescalate, even as Iran launched attacks on
    international commerce, Saudi oil assets, and a United States
    drone. But some people cannot grasp that this strike was
    justified, legal, and our troops are indeed safer because of
    it.
        And now the Senate passed a preemptive War Powers
    resolution that the House will vote on in the coming weeks to
    direct the United States to cease hostilities against Iran. I
    believe this is based on a false premise.
        So, Mr. Secretary, my questions will be to ask you this.
    Are we engaged in active hostilities against Iran? And, second,
    as you know better than anyone, we need to show unity, not
    division, in the Congress and as Americans, overseas and
    especially in the Middle East. So what can Congress do to
    support your efforts to curb Iran's destabilizing activities?
        I look forward to your answers and your testimony.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman yielded back.
        Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
        Our witness this morning is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
    who served in this body for many years.
        Mr. Secretary, without objection, your complete testimony
    will be included in the record. I will ask you to please
    summarize your statement in 5 minutes. And because we are so
    tight on time, I am going to have to be very quick with the
    gavel. So I now recognize you for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. POMPEO, SECRETARY, UNITED
                       STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Secretary Pompeo. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
    Thank you, Ranking Member McCaul. I will do this in less than 5
    minutes. I do have a statement that I will submit for the
    record.
        I am just back from a trip where I traveled to Saudi Arabia
    and Oman. The central topic of each of those discussions was
    what we are talking about here today, the threat posed by the
    Islamic Republic of Iran.
        Some basic facts. Iran is the world's No. 1 State sponsor
    of terror and the world's largest State sponsor of anti-
    Semitism, wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. You
    just have to listen to them.
        Iran and its proxies are responsible for the death of
    hundreds of Americans in Iraq, including an American contractor
    who was killed on December 27 of 2019.
        Its forces, Iran's forces and the militias it supports,
    prop up Bashar al-Assad, undermine democracy in Lebanon and
    Iraq, and steal humanitarian aid in Yemen.
        Speaking of Yemen, the Iran-backed Houthis have launched
    hundreds of missiles and armed drones at civilian targets in
    Saudi Arabia, where 80,000 Americans live, since the start of
    the conflict. Indeed, hours after I visited our troops at
    Prince Sultan Air Base on February 20, Iran-backed Houthi
    forces launched an attack at the port city of Yanbu.
        Iran, too, is responsible for the downing of a civilian
    airliner in January, 176 people killed. The regime lied about
    the tragedy. The regime has still not turned over the black
    box.
        The Iranian regime slaughtered at least several hundred of
    its own people, with reports of as many as 1,500, during the
    protests last November. Many millions more have suffered since
    the revolution began more than 40 years ago.
        Iranians and those impacted by the regime are thankful that
    the United States is finally holding their oppressors
    accountable. The Trump administration will neither appease nor
    tolerate the enormous national security threat that Iran poses
    to the United States, our friends, and our allies. Our pressure
    campaign is aimed at reducing these threats and convincing Iran
    to change its behavior.
        I want to spend 1 minute specifically addressing the strike
    on the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. He was the
    regime's top terrorist and the mastermind of the killing of
    innocent Americans, Syrians, Iraqis, and others. Removing him
    from the battlefield was a deescalatory measure. His death
    reduced the risk to our personnel overseas.
        Both my diplomats and our military have made clear that we
    are able and willing to impose costs on our adversaries if they
    threaten or attack us.
        I know that, sadly, some American troops were injured
    during Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile attack on al-Asad
    Air Force Base. The limited nature of Iran's counterattack,
    however, indicates that Iran's leadership is not eager to
    escalate a military confrontation. They know if we fight, they
    will lose. That is deterrence. It is our policy.
        It is not just military deterrence. The JCPOA had
    bankrolled the regime's murderous campaigns of terror and
    destabilization. We have reversed that appeasement and imposed
    the most aggressive economic sanctions campaign in history to
    deprive the regime of at least $50 billion in revenue.
        And diplomatically we have rallied allies and partners to
    ban Mahan Air, a courier of regime weaponry and personnel
    around the Middle East. And in part due to our efforts,
    Colombia, Honduras, Kosovo, Paraguay, and the United Kingdom
    have declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization in all
    aspects.
        That is real American leadership to confront Iran. We will
    sustain our pressure. We will continue to protect the American
    people and American interests by any means necessary, and we
    will continue to impose costs on the regime for its campaigns
    of carnage. And we will work with our allies and partners for a
    more stable and secure Middle East.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Pompeo:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Engel. I thank you.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I yield to Mr.
    Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pompeo, I am concerned that the so-called maximum
    pressure campaign against Iran has not achieved what you
    promised it would. After all, since January 2 there have been
    four Iranians attacks on American personnel, we have had to
    deploy 6,000 additional troops to the region, and Iran is once
    again on the path toward a nuclear weapon.
        The American people have heard conflicting information from
    you and other members of the administration about the reasons
    for the Soleimani strike and about the detail of its impacts.
    Because of the dishonesty from this administration on this and
    many other issues, Americans have lost trust in their
    government.
        Now we are facing a serious global health crisis in the
    form of the coronavirus, and trust is more important than ever.
    Unfortunately, we have also heard conflicting information when
    it comes to the administration's response on this as well. We
    know that this is a threat that does not respect borders, that
    impacts its victims indiscriminately, and that is starting to
    show up in our own communities.
        We have now heard different explanations of who in the
    administration is responsible for managing the American
    response to the potential spread of this virus.
        Successfully managing the global aspect of this crisis will
    require American leadership. So can you tell us exactly what
    your role is in this response?
        Secretary Pompeo. The coronavirus? Is that the question?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes. What precisely falls under your set of
    responsibilities as Secretary of State?
        Secretary Pompeo. Sure. So, Mr. Chairman, just so you know,
    we agreed that I would come here today to talk about Iran, and
    the first question today is not about Iran.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, make it about Iran. Let me make it
    easier.
        Secretary Pompeo. No. I am happy to answer----
        Mr. Cicilline. We have learned there has been an outbreak
    in Iran of 245 cases----
        Secretary Pompeo. Right.
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Is the latest number. Have you
    or any other senior-level American official been in touch with
    anyone inside the Iranian Government to coordinate on this
    response to the virus and to mitigate the further spread of the
    virus?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have made offers to the Islamic
    Republic of Iran to help, and we have made clear to others
    around the world, in the region, that assistance, humanitarian
    assistance to push back against the coronavirus in Iran is
    something that the United States of America fully supports. We
    will continue to support. That is true for every nation. We
    will bring to bear our diplomatic power and our capacity to
    deliver technical and medical assistance wherever we can.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, sir, I am worried that, because of
    this administration's 3-year history of blatant disregard for
    facts, that the American people do not know who to trust.
    Because of the policies you have championed, we have isolated
    ourselves within the global community. We have ignored or
    defunded key government offices or international entities that
    deal with global health and pandemics. And the aggressive
    military-focused foreign policy of this administration has not
    achieved any articulated goals or made the American people
    safer.
        American leadership around the world is paramount in
    keeping Americans safe, and I am concerned today about this
    administration's ability to do so.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. All right. I now yield to Mr. Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I am a doctor, and on Wednesday we found out
    that my former colleagues at the University of California,
    Davis are treating the first possible case of community
    transmission of coronavirus in the United States. My home
    county of Sacramento has been reminded that disease has no
    borders.
        So following my colleague, Mr. Cicilline, I am deeply
    alarmed by our approach to Iran in terms of impacting the fight
    against coronavirus.
        Mr. Secretary, do you believe that sharing data about new
    diseases like coronavirus makes America and the world safer?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Bera. Yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Bera. And, Mr. Secretary, do you believe that Iran is
    up to the fight against coronavirus, yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. Their healthcare infrastructure is not
    robust, and to date their willingness to share information
    about what is really going on inside of the Islamic of Iran has
    not been robust. And I am very concerned that it is--it is that
    Iran that is not sharing information----
        Mr. Bera. Exactly. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. To help the Iranian people.
        Mr. Bera. I agree with some of that assessment that they do
    not have that infrastructure, and I am worried about that. As a
    doctor, I know that when we are fighting a new disease, time is
    of the essence. That means people and medical supplies at the
    epicenter, because that will help limit the spread before it
    reaches other countries.
        It took over a week after the disease was first diagnosed
    for the administration just to clarify that sending
    humanitarian assistance would not trigger sanctions. Will the
    administration be issuing new licenses for Iran sanctions to
    address issues connected to coronavirus?
        Secretary Pompeo. The predicate of your question is not
    accurate. There has been continuously an avenue for the
    movement of medical and humanitarian goods inside the Islamic
    Republic of Iran.
        Mr. Bera. Great.
        Secretary Pompeo. They have not been sanctioned at any
    time, before the advent of the coronavirus and concurrently.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Reclaiming my time.
        Let's just make sure we do everything we can to stop and
    assist Iran. Iran's isolation has made it less open, less
    transparent, and as a result coronavirus is flourishing in that
    country. It is not making America safer.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. The time of the gentleman has
    expired.
        Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, the Senate, as I mentioned, passed a
    preemptive War Powers resolution that the House will vote on in
    the coming weeks directing the United States to cease
    hostilities against Iran. Again, I believe this is based on a
    false premise.
        So my question is very simple. Let me ask you this. Are we
    engaged in active hostilities against and in Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are not. Our posture to push back
    against the behaviors of the Islamic Republic of Iran is
    designed to deter and to defend America's interests.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
        What signal does this division in the Congress send to the
    largest State sponsor of terror, Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. So, as a former Member, I always have a
    high tolerance for people expressing their views, the views of
    their constituents. And so, you know, Members of Congress have
    a responsibility to do that.
        Having said that, it is the case that around the world
    leaders observe when there is not a consistent view across all
    of the U.S. Government, and America's policies are best
    effectuated when there is a consensus that emerges around
    American foreign policy.
        And I would encourage everyone to take on board what the
    administration is doing and urge them to come to the consensus
    and assist us in delivering the change in the regime's behavior
    that I think everyone this room today understands is both
    necessary and in America's best interests.
        Mr. McCaul. I am all for Article I constitutional
    authorities, but I do believe the President had authorities
    under Article II in self-defense. In addition, he is a
    designated foreign terrorist under the Obama Administration.
        Let me ask you this, though. The Washington Post recently
    reported the Quds Force has been significantly deterred from
    retaliating against--further against the United States since
    the death of Soleimani. Can you tell us how Iran's activities
    have changed since the United States took out Mr. Soleimani?
        Secretary Pompeo. So that is probably best for a classified
    setting. But I can say in an unclassified setting they
    recognize the seriousness with which America acted to take the
    strike against Qasem Soleimani and I think they appreciate the
    seriousness with which President Trump and the administration
    are taking our obligation to defend America and our partners.
    And it clearly demonstrated our preparedness to continue to
    deter Iran's behavior, and I think they have taken that
    seriously.
        Mr. McCaul. And last question. Do you believe that in terms
    of a threat in the future, depending, not saying on what type
    of time scale, that Mr. Soleimani was planning to kill more
    Americans, possibly in Iraq?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, a hundred percent.
        Mr. McCaul. And that would be best based on----
        Secretary Pompeo. And on a very short timeframe. He was in
    the region, actively plotting to kill Americans in the region.
        Mr. McCaul. So we are--in a way, had the President done
    nothing and more Americans had been killed or we had a 1979
    hostage situation, the President would be blamed for that,
    would not he, if he did nothing?
        Secretary Pompeo. It was my judgment that this reduced risk
    to America to take the strike. I think the team all presented
    that to the President. He made a final decision that that was
    right, that we would reduce risk, both in the short term, in
    the medium term, and in the long term, to American interests.
        Mr. McCaul. And so the American people, but most
    importantly our diplomats and soldiers in the region, are
    certainly safer because of that decision. Wouldn't you agree
    with that?
        Secretary Pompeo. Undoubtedly.
        Mr. McCaul. I would just like to close with, you know, I
    have been in the White House with some of these discussions.
    The President was very clear: I do not want to go to war with
    Iran. And he said that repeatedly, and I still think he
    believes that. I saw tremendous restraint when we were looking
    at how to respond to the U.S. drone that was shot down by the
    Iranians, a U.S. military asset, when 50 percent of the Saudis'
    refining capability taken out, you know.
        And then, finally, when they attacked our American Embassy,
    it was not some brush fire. It was bombed out. I had the
    picture on the House floor. A serious attack on our American
    Embassy. That cannot go without a response.
        And I think the President was very restrained time and time
    again. But they, I think, crossed a red line when they attacked
    our embassy, killed a contractor and wounded three soldiers, in
    addition to the hundreds of American soldiers that Soleimani
    killed and maimed.
        One of whom is right in front of me, does not have his legs
    anymore, Mr. Mast, because of Soleimani, the biggest terrorist
    in the Middle East since bin Laden.
        And I think the world, Mr. Secretary, is much safer without
    him.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Sir, every time you testify, I cannot help but think of
    those days when you were on this side of the dais. I can
    remember vividly you thundering away at Secretary Clinton
    during the Benghazi hearing.
        You know what? She showed up voluntarily, sat there for 11
    hours. But with you, sir, we had to move heaven and earth to
    get you here today for just 2 hours. To me, that shows
    disregard for the oversight responsibilities of the U.S.
    Congress.
        It is clear that the Trump administration's decisions in
    Iran are reckless and impulsive. Even after Iran emerged as a
    hotspot of the coronavirus outbreak that is on the verge of
    being a pandemic, you can only commit today to 2 hours.
        After the Soleimani strike, the Iraqi Council of
    Representatives passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to
    be kicked out of Iraq, which is exactly what Soleimani wanted
    to do for 20 years.
        Pushing the U.S.-Iraq relationship to the brink and
    plunging the Middle East into chaos and uncertainty does not
    benefit the United States of America.
        The list of actions that are legally and strategically
    questionable continue to pile up in this administration, and
    yet the administration refuses to provide clear and honest
    answers. These include pulling out of the JCPOA--no strategy.
    Abandoning the Kurds--no strategy. Strategic benefit of
    assassinating Soleimani--no strategy. Suggesting that the U.S.
    will destroy cultural sites in Iran--no strategy. Denying
    Iran's foreign minister a visa to go to the U.N.--no strategy.
    Suggesting that we will punish Iraq if itthrough on expelling
    our military--no strategy.
        Sir, nobody here mourns the death of Soleimani, but it
    backfired in completely foreseeable ways. Killing him
    undermined all of the objectives and did not do anything to
    make America safer.
        Now, I had many other things I would have loved to have
    asked you, but I have to give up some of my time because you
    are only here for 2 hours. I cannot use my whole 5 minutes
    because my colleagues would like to have something to say.
        So I now yield to Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Secretary, it has taken you 2-1/2 months
    to come here before this committee to explain the actions of
    January 3. Today, the world faces a worldwide pandemic, the
    coronavirus. Will you come here next week and explain our
    international efforts to deal with the coronavirus or will it
    take us 2-1/2 months to have you back here?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have----
        Mr. Sherman. Yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have briefed Congress over 70 times on
    Iran--70 times.
        Mr. Sherman. My question is about the coronavirus----
        Secretary Pompeo. I understand.
        Mr. Sherman [continuing]. And whether you will come here
    next week or whether you think we should focus on the
    coronavirus.
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to work with you to find a
    time that works with everyone's schedule to talk about this.
        Mr. Sherman. Well, let's hope it does not take----
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to. But, Mr. Sherman----
        Mr. Sherman. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. I cannot let go----
        Mr. Sherman. Reclaiming my time.
        Sir, you limit us to 2 hours. Secretary Clinton spent 11
    hours.
        Secretary Pompeo. We have briefed----
        Mr. Sherman. You must adhere to the rules of this
    committee, just as you enforced them when you were sitting in
    this room.
        Voice. Come on, order.
        Mr. Sherman. I am reclaiming my time.
        Voice. Order. Let him speak.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, my time has been interrupted. I
    would like order in the committee.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman from California will
    continue.
        Mr. Sherman. Now, 110 of our servicemembers suffered
    traumatic brain injuries. The Pentagon had thought it would be
    even worse. But the day after 110 of our servicemembers were
    hurt, the President said ``no Americans were harmed in last
    night's attack by the Iranian regime.'' Nineteen days after
    that, those injuries, the President said, ``I heard they had
    headaches. I can report it is not very serious.''
        Thirty of them are still in the hospital. All of them will
    be suffering their whole lives or be studied their whole lives
    for their traumatic brain injury.
        Mr. Secretary, do you want to take the opportunity--this is
    a yes-or-no question--do you want to take the opportunity here
    today to apologize to those servicemembers for trivializing
    their injuries?
        Secretary Pompeo. Mr. Congressman, I have never trivialized
    the injuries----
        Mr. Sherman. But do you want to apologize on behalf of the
    administration for trivializing their injuries?
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir, I have never trivialized any injury
    to any----
        Mr. Sherman. You are part of an administration. You speak
    for that administration. Do you want to apologize for the
    administration's trivializing those injuries?
        Secretary Pompeo. Are you looking for me to answer the
    question?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes.
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to answer the question if you
    would cease speaking over me. I have to--just give me a second.
        We take seriously every American servicemember's life. It
    is why we have taken the very policies in Iran that we have.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very deeply disappointed in several of my colleagues
    and their disrespect that they are showing you, the Secretary
    of State, who I think has done an extraordinary job.
        The world is a caldron. You have been everywhere, leading
    this Nation and leading the world, of course with the President
    at the helm. And I want to thank you for that service. And know
    that I and my colleagues, and so many most Americans, deeply
    respect your integrity, your honesty. And, again, I think some
    of this has already gotten very much out of hand and I am
    deeply disappointed in my colleagues.
        As I know--as you know, I should say--the Iraq and Syria
    Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018, which I
    authored--it was a bipartisan bill--was designed to provide
    humanitarian aid relief to victims of ISIS genocide, religious
    minorities such as the Chaldean Christians and Yazidis first
    and foremost. Ideally, they would have returned to their homes
    in the Nineveh Plain or on Mount Sinjar, something that was
    contemplated by Vice President's directive of 2018.
        Now, however, it has become apparent that the Iranian-
    backed--again, just like you spoke early in Yemen--the Iranian-
    backed Shia Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMFs, do not intend
    to leave the Nineveh Plain area, particularly given the
    acquiescence of the government in Baghdad to Tehran.
        I wonder if you could give us your assessment of the
    permanency of this violent organization and organizations in
    Nineveh. And is it our policy to try to change that? What steps
    are we taking? And would you support, if they do not leave, a
    modified aid directive that would support the displaced
    minorities in Erbil and elsewhere in the Kurdistan region.
        I will just say very briefly, I chaired 10 congressional
    hearings when Barack Obama would not help the Chaldean
    Christians in Erbil, 70,000 strong, who made their way, fleeing
    ISIS genocide. I went there, and there was an IDP camp 10
    minutes away from our consulate in Erbil, and when they learned
    that I wanted to go there, they finally visited there, but we
    were not providing that aid.
        Working with colleagues across the aisle, it was a
    bipartisan bill, we said enough is enough, and we did a bill to
    direct that that aid would get there.
        And you have delivered and USAID has delivered mightily,
    and I want to thank you for that and the Vice President and the
    President.
        But if you could speak to the----
        Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. These groups.
        Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
        So there were three questions in there. The last one was,
    would we work on a modified policy? Yes. The continued problem
    and presence of the PMF, the Shia militias in the Nineveh
    region, is something that we have worked hard on, our
    Ambassador, now second Ambassador to Iraq, Ambassador Jeffrey,
    have all worked very diligently on, but we have not succeeded.
        We have had repeated promises from now repeated Iraqi
    Governments that they would work that problem set, move them
    back, allow security forces that would permit this aid to get
    to the Christians, the Yazidis, all the people in that region,
    and we have had some success at getting this in. But we need--
    we need the PMF out. We need the Shia militias out.
        If we are going effectively deliver and create space for
    religious freedom in the north of Iraq in that Nineveh region,
    in the Nineveh Plain, we have got to convince the Iraqi
    Government, and we need an Iraqi Government that is prepared to
    defend its own sovereignty and pull back those Shia militias
    that are controlling that region.
        Mr. Smith. Again, I just want to say, again, Mr. Secretary
    of State, please do not take from this meeting. Some of those
    comments I think were almost to the point where their words
    should have been taken down.
        You have been honest, straightforward. And as my good
    friend Michael McCaul said, the taking out of Soleimani, who
    was not in Iran when he was killed, he was a combatant if ever
    there was one, and directing what we all know, 600-plus
    Americans have died and thousands through his use of the IEDs
    and other methods of destruction were wounded, including our
    dear colleague.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, fair enough to say you talk a lot with the
    President? That is not a tough one.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Keating. That was the best question you had this
    morning, right?
        Secretary Pompeo. It is true.
        Mr. Keating. You ever hear him say----
        Secretary Pompeo. I welcome that.
        Mr. Keating. You ever hear him say the phrase, ``Eh, we
    will see what happens''? You ever hear him say that?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I think I have said that many times
    myself as well.
        Mr. Keating. Really? Okay.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Keating. We know you are on the team.
        Secretary Pompeo. I said it to my son all the time.
        Mr. Keating. We know you are on the team. But you said
    consistency----
        Secretary Pompeo. Absolutely. We will see what happens.
        Mr. Keating [continuing]. In your opening statement,
    please. You said consistency in your opening statement. And
    what I got to tell you time and time again is what we are
    getting back when we have people is this attitude that people
    have of America, our allies, of we will see what happens.
        I mean, just last night, you know, after the President
    pulled out and took us away from the Syrian issue, just last
    night we found out that it is escalating. Now Turkey is looking
    for NATO Article 4 discussions, maybe leading to Article 5,
    pulling us in with our allies again. And I remember the
    President saying, when he did that, he said: Eh, we will see
    what happens.
        I remember with the discussions in North Korea, when he was
    having his discussions, oh, we will have the discussions, we
    will talk, we will have love letters, but we will see what
    happens.
        Well, we know what has happened. There is new escalation of
    their missile system, their nuclear system. We have seen by
    pulling out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, JCPOA, we have
    seen that, well, we will pull out, well, we will see, we will
    see what happens, we will see what they do. And now they are
    enriching to a greater extent and moving forward in their
    program.
        So this idea of consistency. I just came back--you were
    there--at the Munich Security Conference. I have got to tell
    you, in discussions we had with our closest allies they are
    telling us that: We are not as sure about your commitment as a
    country.
        And it is all this--if I had to give a watchword for the
    policy right now, it is, well, we are going do something and we
    will see how it happens.
        Well, I am concerned about the lack of consistency. And,
    you know, with the coronavirus, when that issue came forward,
    the President said it again. He said: Well, it is going to get
    warm and we have got a vaccine in the corner. It looks pretty
    good. We will see what happens.
        ``We will see what happens'' isn't being consistent.
        And now, after last night's activities, we are going to be
    moving forward again because of what is happening in Syria. We
    are going to be calling on the United Nations. We are going to
    be calling on NATO again. We are going to be calling on our
    allies again.
        And, you know, we left them on the ground in Syria when the
    President made that decision. Even your own administration told
    us that was a mistake, not notifying our allies.
        So I am just going to say the policy has to change because
    ``we will see what happens'' isn't happening.
        And I yield back.
        I yield to Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
        First, I want to not miss this opportunity to implore to
    you do everything that you can to bring home my constituent,
    Bob Levinson, to his family.
        And I do not have a lot of time left. So I would like to
    just share with you something I think a lot of us are feeling,
    Mr. Secretary.
        The American people are becoming increasingly worried about
    coronavirus. We get phone calls every minute of every day.
    People are really concerned. And when they hear conflicting
    messages, they do not know what to make of it.
        So, Mr. Pompeo, any misinformation, any misinformation is
    bad. A pattern of misinformation undermines our entire system.
        When the President lied about the size of his inaugural
    crowd, it was embarrassing. It was hard to believe when he
    falsified a hurricane weather map. It was disgraceful when he
    told the American people that Iranian bombs injured no one when
    110 soldiers were seriously injured, and traumatic brain
    injuries are not just headaches.
        But now, now we face coronavirus, and the President tells
    us that a vaccine is almost ready, and it is not. And then he
    tells us that warm weather will miraculously take care of this,
    take care of everything, and it will not.
        This does not just impact the President's supporters at his
    rallies, and it does not just impact Democrats voting in the
    Presidential primaries. This impacts everyone in America. And
    it is more important than politics, Mr. Secretary. The
    administration must do better.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay.
        Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. We very much
    appreciate it.
        The humanitarian situation in Idlib province, Syria, is
    alarming. Innocent civilians and women and children have been
    slaughtered.
        Could you tell us what Iran or its proxies, what their
    involvement has been there relative to this ongoing assault on
    those civilians?
        Secretary Pompeo. So consistently since the previous
    administration's decision to allow the Russians to come into
    Syria, that combined with the long history of Iranian influence
    in parts of Syria, has led us to where we are today. You can
    see with the Israeli strikes that are taking place against
    Iranians in Syria. You can see the work that the United States
    is doing in the north and east. We have an enormous Iranian
    problem inside of Syria.
        These attacks that are Syrian regime led, Iranian
    supported, Hezbollah supported, underwritten by Iran, along
    with the Russians, are now causing a humanitarian calamity in
    Syria that once again re-ups what we saw several years back.
    The numbers rage from three-quarters of a million to 1.1
    million people in that upper northwest part of Idlib province,
    many of whom will be displaced, too many of whom will be
    killed.
        And our mission set has been diplomatic, to urge the
    parties to a cease-fire, both bilaterally, with each of the
    participant. We have U.N. Security Council resolution that,
    sadly, the regime will not adhere to, that the Iranians will
    not adhere to, which was designed to find the political
    resolution to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254. We have
    not been able to make progress there.
        So in light of that, we have done what we can with American
    assistance, stabilization assistance throughout the region to
    try to lend both food and assistance and medical through USAID
    and to try and build back some of the institutions so that they
    will be capable of pushing back against what the Russians and
    the Iranians and the Syrians are doing in this hellish place of
    Idlib.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        The U.N. arms embargo on Iran expires next year. Are our
    European partners committed to extending the embargo? What can
    we do to put pressure on China and Russia to cooperate as well?
        Secretary Pompeo. So, yes, one of the central flaws of the
    JCPOA was that you had very short duration for many of the most
    important provisions.
        The first really significant provision expires in October
    of this year, so now just a handful of months away, where the
    very missiles that rained down on our American forces will be
    permissibly sold, lawfully sold to the Iranians come October of
    this year. That is a big flaw in the deal.
        And so we are working diplomatically. We are hopeful that
    the Europeans will take seriously this risk that there will be
    Chinese weapon systems, Russian weapon systems sold into Iran.
    I am confident that they are gearing up already to deliver
    those weapons come October with the full authority, with no
    U.N. Security Council resolution prohibiting it.
        We will work at the United Nations, we will try to convince
    the Russians and the Chinese not to veto that resolution, and
    we will urge our European colleagues to use the tools that they
    have at hand to prevent conventional weapon sales from once
    again being lawfully sold to the world's largest State sponsor
    of terror.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        And finally, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, of course, is
    Hezbollah. How has the administration's, this administration's
    maximum pressure campaign impacted Iran's ability to support
    Hezbollah in Lebanon?
        Secretary Pompeo. So we have had impact but not enough. We
    have had a material change in their capacity to do harm. That
    is, they no longer have access to all of the capital that they
    had. Under the JCPOA we have restricted Hezbollah's money,
    their resources.
        There is more work to do there. We have also used our
    diplomatic efforts to build out a coalition to support the
    Lebanese Government, to do the reforms that you can see.
        You can see the protests in the streets in Beirut and
    outside of Beirut and Lebanon as well. You could see. The
    Lebanese people are exhausted from Iran. They are exhausted
    from Hezbollah. And you see the same thing in Iraq. You see
    protests in Tahrir Square.
        These are not protests against the United States of America
    seeking our departure. They are protests for the people of Iraq
    and Lebanon who want a sovereign, nonsectarian, non-Iranian-
    dominated government.
        Our diplomatic mission is to do all that we can to assist
    those governments, to make this transition from Hezbollah
    backed or Iranian controlled in Iraq to governments that are
    sovereign, independent, and deliver on what their people, the
    people of their countries really want and desperately need.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. I am going to call on Mr. Phillips.
    But before I do, I just want to quickly express the fact that
    what is going on in Idlib province in Syria breaks my heart.
    And the world, and particularly our country, cannot just stand
    by while Putin and Erdogan are killing people. It just breaks
    my heart. It is not fair to the Syrian people. It is just
    terrible, terrible atrocities. I wish we had more time to talk
    about it.
        Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your service.
        My constituents in Minnesota know that American diplomacy
    is integral to keeping all of us safe in the United States. But
    they are afraid, as can you imagine, afraid about the potential
    for a far more significant response from Iran, and they are,
    frankly, terrified, as my colleague Mr. Deutch just referred
    to, about coronavirus. And, sadly, they are increasingly
    lacking faith in the administration's ability to address it.
        So can you tell them that you have done everything humanly
    possible, both around the globe and even here, to keep us safe
    from coronavirus?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am confident that this administration
    has taken actions that have significantly reduced risk and will
    continue to do so.
        It is a very complex problem. The State Department has a
    piece of it. The work that your State Department did to get
    Americans out of Wuhan, not only our diplomats, the people that
    work for the U.S. Government, but civilians who were there as
    well, is in the finest tradition of the American diplomatic
    corps. It was done with excellence and with vigor and brought
    Americans home safely. I am incredibly proud of the work that
    my team did there. We will continue to do that.
        We have diplomats in China today and we are working to make
    sure we keep them safe, but keep them in place so that we can
    continue to perform all of the missions we need to help China
    deal with this virus where it began.
        Mr. Phillips. OK. I appreciate that. But how do you
    reconcile what you just said with the budget you just submitted
    to us, which cuts State Department funding for the WHO by more
    than 50 percent? How does that--how can you reconcile that
    budget request with your set investment in global health?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, there we will have plenty of money.
        Mr. Phillips. We will have plenty of money?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes. Yes, sir. I am very confident we
    will.
        Mr. Phillips. So we have enough resources. You are doing
    everything possible----
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir----
        Mr. Phillips [continuing]. and 50 percent reductions in
    thise----
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir----
        Mr. Phillips [continuing]. Budget is enough to address the
    potential for a global pandemic that seems to be emerging in
    front of our eyes.
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir, I commit to you, as we need
    resources, if we find out that there are not sufficient
    resources to address a problem where we can create value and
    reduce risk, we will come to you, we will execute that, and we
    will deliver for the American people.
        Mr. Phillips. Do you understand why it might be suspect to
    submit a budget like that in light of what we are facing----
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not.
        Mr. Phillips [continuing]. _that cuts State's budget for
    who by 50 percent?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not understand. I have great
    confidence that we will have the resources as well.
        Mr. Phillips. Okay. Well, I do not understand either.
        With that, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Pompeo. Good to see you again, sir.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you an
    organizational question, because in addition to the budget-
    recommended cuts which seem ill-timed at the very least, given
    what is happening with coronavirus, I am worried about the fact
    that we do not have a permanent structure for dealing with
    pandemics.
        You know, we set up a structure in the previous
    administration on Ebola and then we dismantled it. On May 18,
    this administrative dismantled the Global Health Security
    Directorate at the National Security Council.
        In light of what is happening today and in light of what
    could happen year in and year out, we do not know, in
    retrospect was that perhaps an unwise decision, Mr. Secretary,
    to abolish a coordinator in the NSC, a coordinator I think we
    need today?
        Secretary Pompeo. I have watched this process move forward
    since the very first days that we became aware of the
    coronavirus. I have watched the part that the State Department
    has responsibility for, the part that Secretary Azar and his--
    have his team working. I have seen CDC officers when I traveled
    to Ethiopia and to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. We ought to focus
    on actions, activities, and not org charts.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary, let's stipulate that every
    decision made by the President and this administration is
    beyond reproach, including questionable budgets.
        Chairman Engel. So stipulated.
        Mr. Connolly. So stipulated. Okay. So we get that out of
    the way.
        So I want to engage here. As we look at the reality today,
    it is more than an org chart. It is about coordination. It is
    about having a focal point in the Federal Government that is
    specifically mandated with this mission, and that person and
    those persons are networking with WHO and the international
    health community. They are at the front lines, monitoring
    situations.
        We felt we had to do it in the previous pandemic or on the
    brink of pandemic Ebola. This seems more serious in terms of
    its spread. And I just wonder whether from your point of view,
    because, after all, you oversee an org chart, would not it be
    helpful to have somebody at the NSC charged specifically with
    this mission?
        Secretary Pompeo. Well, I have watched the coordination
    through the task force that Secretary Azar was leading. The
    Vice President now has his mission set. We now have a woman
    named Deborah Birx, who has been running a significant global
    health program for me, for the United States Department of
    State, who will begin to work for the Vice President to deliver
    on this.
        I am very confident that we will coordinate among our
    agencies and, importantly from my perspective, coordinate with
    our partner agencies around the world to help those countries
    as well.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Mrs. Wagner.
        Mrs. Wagner. Over here, Secretary.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. Good to see you.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Secretary Pompeo, I thank you for your time here this
    morning.
        On January 3, President Trump ended Qasem Soleimani's
    brutal, brutal reign of terror that killed and maimed countless
    Americans and coalition forces and threatened many more to
    come, as we have heard today and many times over. For too long,
    Tehran has been permitted to act with impunity against U.S.
    allies, U.S. interests and personnel.
        I was proud when the administration acted decisively to
    restore deterrence in the Middle East, just as I was proud when
    former President Obama succeeded in his decision to kill Osama
    bin Laden in Pakistan.
        This was a defensive move to strike one of the world's most
    powerful terrorists who was organizing against--attacks against
    Americans in Iraq in defiance of U.N. Security Council
    Resolution 2231.
        I applaud the President for making our red lines clear to
    the Iranian regime. Attacking Americans is never acceptable,
    and when American lives hang in the balance, Iran will be held
    to account for its actions. The Middle East is a safer place
    when the United States is, as you said, clear and consistent in
    its intentions.
        Soleimani's successor, Mr. Secretary, as head of the Quds
    Force, Esmail Ghaani, was Soleimani's counterpart in countries
    east of Iran--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Central Asian
    Republic--while Soleimani headed operations in the west.
        Mr. Secretary, are you concerned that Ghaani will seek to
    expand Iran's malign activities in Afghanistan? And how is the
    administration mitigating the risk to U.S. interests?
        Secretary Pompeo. So I can say more about Iranian activity
    in Afghanistan in a classified setting. But I will say in this
    forum they share a long border. There is a history of Iran
    engaging in activity inside of Afghanistan to act as a spoiler.
        We have seen just these last 6 days a significant reduction
    in violence in Afghanistan, and we are watching closely to see
    if the Islamic Republic of Iran begins to take even more active
    measures, active measures that undermine our efforts at peace
    and reconciliation in Afghanistan and, just as importantly, put
    our American soldiers who are on the ground there in both the
    Kabul area and in the west at risk as well.
        Yes, this guy had this as part of his----
        Mrs. Wagner. Yes.
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. His territory. We are very
    mindful that that is an area he knows well and might well seek
    to expand Iranian activity both through the Quds Force and
    otherwise.
        Mrs. Wagner. I am glad you are on top of it.
        How did the Soleimani strike change the IRGC's standing in
    Iran? And have we been able to take advantage of any loss of
    prestige through information operations in Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. Soleimani was a strategic target. There
    was strategic deterrence that resulted from that strike. He was
    absolutely a terrorist. He absolutely had American blood on his
    hands. He absolutely intended to kill more Americans in the
    immediate future.
        But he also occupied a position which was very close to the
    Ayatollah, and there is no one that is going to be capable of
    replacing that strategic input that he was able to provide to
    the Ayatollah. And, therefore, we believe not only did we
    achieve the battlefield deterrence that his departure now has
    led to, but we also have changed the calculus inside of Iran
    and the understanding.
        Your point about the red line. It is not possible for the
    Islamic Republic of Iran to have been surprised by the actions
    President Trump took. We had communicated clearly that the loss
    of American lives would result in a strike of significance that
    would impose real costs on Iran.
        So we exercised deterrence by making sure they understood
    what America was prepared to do. And then, when they took
    actions that were inconsistent with the things that we had told
    them, we executed against that.
        Mrs. Wagner. Very quickly, media reports this week show
    that the Vice President of Iran, as well as Iran's top health
    official, have both contracted coronavirus. Are you able to
    comment on the potential destabilization of Iran or their
    senior political leadership to be deathly ill or even perhaps
    die? Specifically, does the State have concerns about a void in
    leadership as it relates to their nuclear program and the Quds
    Force?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not have any--I do not have very
    much information about beyond what we have seen in the open
    press reporting. And, as I said earlier, we are going to do
    what we can on the humanitarian side to assist the Iranian
    people against building out their systems inside of the
    country.
        Mrs. Wagner. I thank you. I thank you for your time.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Ms. Spanberger.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Sir, after the strike you were the administration's point
    person making the case that we had to kill Soleimani at that
    moment on January 3. Here is what you said. I will read it. You
    said: ``We had specific information on an imminent threat, and
    those threats streams included attacks on U.S. Embassies.
    Period, full stop.''
        That was January 10, after you had about a week to get your
    story straight. Except when we are looking at the fact that
    taking out Soleimani was essential to addressing a blow to
    Iran's malign activity, I question the fact that the day after
    Soleimani's death Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei appointed
    Soleimani's longtime deputy to replace him and continue
    operations.
        They did not stop, and they did not slow down. Isn't that
    true? Didn't they shoot rockets at our people just days later,
    sir?
        The answer is yes.
        Secretary Pompeo. The strike----
        Ms. Spanberger. And the same day that you made that
    statement, you gave a classified briefing in Congress. I was
    there, and you did not provide evidence to us about that
    claimed imminence.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is not true.
        Ms. Spanberger. The evidence of that claimed imminence was
    not given during that briefing.
        Secretary Pompeo. No, we absolutely did. We absolutely did.
        Ms. Spanberger. And, sir, you and I both know that the
    claim of imminence was necessary and pivotal to the
    administration's justification for action in circumventing
    Congress.
        Voice. Point of order----
        Ms. Spanberger. I said there was nothing in that briefing.
    With conflicting information, it is hard----
        Chairman Engel. Point of order. The gentlewoman has the
    time.
        Ms. Spanberger. With conflicting information, it is hard
    for the American people to know what to believe. But,
    fortunately, we have what is called a 1264 report and the
    President is required by law to send this report to Congress to
    explain the legal and policy justifications for killing
    Soleimani. And since it is a crime to make false statements to
    Congress, I presume that we can take the 1264 at face value. We
    received this on January 31.
        Sir, how many times does this report refer to an imminent
    attack on a U.S. Embassy that would be stopped by killing
    General Soleimani? The answer is none.
        Secretary Pompeo. You tell me.
        Ms. Spanberger. So your own report directly contradicts
    what you and the President told the American people over and
    over. You said there were imminent threats to American lives,
    and that is not true. And when the administration was
    constrained by the law to tell the truth, you abandoned the
    talking points.
        Mr. Pompeo, there is another report on Iran that is due
    this Sunday. It is required by a piece of law that I authored.
    It should give more transparency to the American people about
    why you risked plunging us into war, and I expect the President
    will comply with the law and provide that report this weekend.
    Do you expect that will be the case, sir?
        Secretary Pompeo. We always do our best to comply with
    every legal requirement. I promise you we will continue to do
    that.
        Ms. Spanberger. I look forward to reading it.
        And, last, as this administration has been so inconsistent
    with the facts as it relates to coronavirus, on matters of
    security and public health the American people need credible,
    consistent information, and we are consistently not receiving
    that from the administration.
        I yield to Representative Levin.
        Secretary Pompeo. Mr. Chairman, is it possible I could
    respond to a couple of things? I was not asked a question but
    there were----
        Ms. Spanberger. You were, sir. You did not answer them.
        I yield to Representative Levin.
        Secretary Pompeo. There were material--there were
    misstatements made.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Levin controls the time. The problem is
    we do not have enough time.
        Mr. Levin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Pompeo. We briefed Congress 70 times.
        Mr. Levin. Sir, sir, to your left you will see a map of the
    world, right there. Would you please point out for us on this
    map which of our embassies were under threat of imminent attack
    so that you had to kill General Soleimani, regardless of the
    consequences for American safety, on January 3, 2020?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to answer your question.
        Mr. Levin. Which four?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to answer your question. I am
    not going to get into classified material.
        Mr. Levin. Okay. Well, sir, reclaiming my time, we all know
    that Soleimani was a bad guy, but what I am talking about is
    the decisions made leading up to January 3 that brought us to
    the brink of war. And you are not willing to tell us which
    embassies were under attack? Under threat of attack?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am never willing to disclose classified
    information. I assume you are not either.
        Mr. Levin. Right, sir. Well, you cannot hide behind
    classification on this one because you cannot classify
    something that does not exist.
        The administration has given us shifting stories--you, the
    President, others--about what was going on there. On January
    10, the same day you briefed Congress, the President said this
    to FOX News.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Levin. So this is, again, the same day you were up here
    briefing us--and I was there--on Soleimani strikes, and we did
    not hear a word from you on the threats to four embassies. Why
    not?
        Secretary Pompeo. There were multiple embassies which my
    Diplomatic Security team had enormous concern about.
        Mr. Levin. Sir, I have such little time.
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir, are you going let me answer the
    question?
        Mr. Levin. No, because you are not answering the question,
    sir. I am not asking to you reveal classified information.
        Ms. McCaul. Mr. Chairman, will you please let the witness
    answer the question? Have respect.
        Chairman Engel. Well, let me say this. I want the witness
    to answer the question. I hope that when we run out of time at
    the end that the Secretary will agree to stay for a few extra
    minutes.
        Secretary Pompeo. I will not agree to stay for a few
    minutes, but I am happy to answer whatever questions I can.
        Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Engel. This is the problem, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Pompeo. We briefed 70 times, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. All right. Mr. Levin.
        Mr. Levin. Yes.
        Sir, here is the bottom line. If we had the time, I would
    play the Defense Secretary's statement that he had no
    information about embassies.
        We are facing a possible coronavirus pandemic. This
    administration had three different stories about the events
    that brought to us the brink of war. So it is no surprise that
    Americans are scared because this administration keeps proving
    it cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Mr. Zeldin.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I apologize.
    This hearing has been a joke. You are getting asked a lot of
    questions that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
    choosing either to answer the question for you, if you do not
    answer in the first split second of them finishing with a
    question mark, or if you attempt to answer they cut you off to
    reclaim their time.
        So I first would like to give you the opportunity to answer
    any of the questions posed, because what we just witnessed, for
    anyone at home, witnessing the last 5 minutes, it is an
    embarrassment.
        Mr. Secretary, go ahead.
        Chairman Engel. Well, let me just say, Mr. Zeldin, what is
    really an embarrassment is that we could not get more than 2
    hours from the Secretary of State. That is really an
    embarrassment to this committee.
        Mr. Zeldin.
        Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Pompeo. So the record should reflect that the
    U.S. Government has briefed Congress over 70 times on the issue
    of Iran. So I think it is difficult to claim that we have not
    been prepared to share. Indeed, I briefed all of you--some of
    you have referred to that briefing--extensively. I briefed the
    Senate side as well.
        The entire Member--every Member of Congress was invited to
    a hearing where we had not only myself, but the Secretary of
    Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an
    individual from the Department of Justice to talk about the
    legal issues, as well as the intelligence community. We gave a
    thorough and complete briefing.
        I am happy to be here for an additional 2 hours today.
        Secretary Pompeo. Let me just respond to the question that
    came in previously about the embassies, the embassies that I
    have responsible for security for.
        In the days that led up to this strike that we took, our
    embassies all across the region went to heightened security
    posture. We moved resources around the region. We did that for
    two purposes: so that we could respond and deliver medevac
    capabilities in the event that we had to do so, as well as to
    deter attacks on our embassies.
        We took these threats from Qasem Soleimani on our embassies
    seriously, we responded appropriately, and we delivered for the
    American people.
        And I will tell you that today I still have officers in
    these places. I still have a significant embassy in Baghdad. I
    have got officers in Beirut. These are amazing people who are
    living under--in a threatening region. We are doing everything
    we can to reduce that threat, and the strike against Qasem
    Soleimani made each of my officers at the State Department more
    safe than they were when he was walking this planet.
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And for anyone posing questions to you at the hearing
    today, I think it would be great to give you an opportunity to
    answer any of the questions that they are posing to you.
        You are doing a great job. I am proud of you. I am honored
    to have you as our Secretary of State. We have seen al-Baghdadi
    get killed, al-Rimi, the ISIS caliphate destroyed in Iraq and
    Syria, decisions to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,
    recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,
    reversing flawed Obama-era policies as it relates to Israeli
    activity in Judea and Samaria.
        I have heard it referred, as far as the decisions with
    regards to oil sanctions and taking out Qasem Soleimani, as
    going after the fuel and then taking out the driver.
        Instead of seeing oil from Iran go from two to three to
    five million barrels a day and $140 million a day in proceeds
    to the Iranian Government to fund their bad activities,
    instead, we see it going down to 300,000 barrels a day, and
    then you take out Qasem Soleimani.
        The amount of attacks that you have endured for the
    decision of the administration to take out Qasem Soleimani is
    insane. And I have used--I have heard the Speaker refer to it
    as disproportionate to take out Qasem Soleimani, and I have
    posed the question, I still have not gotten an answer: At what
    point is it proportionate?
        There were 600 U.S. troops got killed at the hands of Qasem
    Soleimani. Thousands of U.S. troops were injured at the hands
    of Qasem Soleimani. In the days leading up to taking out Qasem
    Soleimani, our embassy was attacked, and we saw U.S. civilians
    end up getting killed and injured.
        At what point is it proportionate to take out the one
    person who is responsible for killing 600 U.S. troops and
    wounding thousands of others?
        I think the problem is that people are getting antsy at
    what a good job you have been doing. I saw it posed in the
    transcripts, as now revealed, when Mr. McKinley was at the
    closed-door deposition and he was asked about the State
    Department under Mike Pompeo, and has it gotten worse?
        And they were shocked that McKinley's answer was: No,
    actually, the State Department, it has gotten better. And they
    thought that this guy who had just left, just retired from the
    State Department was going to come in and throw you under the
    bus. But even in that situation that person comes to that
    situation of the House Intel Committee--it used to be called
    the House Intel Committee--the House impeachment committee--and
    then posing that question and getting the answer that you are
    doing such a great job.
        So that is really the problem. I encourage my colleagues to
    let you answer the questions going forward.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
        We know that Iran has a long history of revenge killings. I
    am sure that is something you and I can agree on. And it is one
    of the reasons that Iran is one of the most dangerous and
    unpredictable countries in the world, right?
        Secretary Pompeo. That is all true, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Wild. Do you think that the Iranians' revenge strike on
    bases in Iraq that injured more than 100 servicemembers is the
    last that we have seen of Iranian retaliation for the Soleimani
    killing? That is a yes or no.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. The reason I often pause is I have
    tried to make sure and give answers that are not classified.
        Ms. Wild. So you believe it is the last we have seen of----
        Secretary Pompeo. I did not say that. No. I think the
    strike on Qasem Soleimani was necessary, but not sufficient.
        Ms. Wild. Not my question. My question----
        Secretary Pompeo. And I think--I think----
        Ms. Wild. I am going to reclaim my time.
        My question is: Do you think that the strike by the
    Iranians on bases in Iraq after the Soleimani killing was the
    last that we have seen of retaliatory action by Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, no. We have seen the Iranians take
    actions after that already.
        Ms. Wild. Okay.
        Secretary Pompeo. Whether you characterize them as
    retaliatory or not. This is a 40-year theocratic revolutionary
    regime----
        Ms. Wild. And I am with you on that. I am very, very
    concerned about the likelihood of tragic and severe retaliation
    going forward.
        We know that, as you have alluded to, that Iran has a
    pattern of waiting before retaliating. You will recall that in
    1994 Hezbollah bombed AMIA, the Jewish community center in
    Buenos Aires. Those attacks came 2 years after Israel killed
    Hezbollah co-founder Abbas Musawi in 1992.
        Secretary Pompeo. Right.
        Ms. Wild. Iran waited 2 years to get revenge.
        We know that retaliation is not immediate. They will be
    patient. It would be foolish of us to think that revenge for
    the killing of their general is over.
        And I am terribly concerned that Iran is going to be
    looking for even more vulnerabilities and opportunities to harm
    Americans as retribution that will play out over the years. Are
    you worried about that, too?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, yes. We are very worried about Iran.
        Ms. Wild. Okay.
        Secretary Pompeo. This is why we have a strategic campaign
    to change the course of their behavior.
        Ms. Wild. Well, let me just say that I think every day of
    the diplomats and troops spread all over the world, some of
    whom I visited over Christmas with a codel from this committee.
    They are already doing dangerous work, and that is what they
    sign up for, but I am worried that we have increased the
    chances of harm to these people who serve us.
        I think it has just led us down a more dangerous and
    unpredictable path of Iran seeking revenge, and I fear for the
    brave public servants who are going to brave--who are going to
    bear the brunt of that.
        With that, I yield to Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you.
        Sir, I just want to followup to see if enough has been done
    to protect Americans in harm's way.
        The day of the strike, your department issued a warning
    against all U.S. citizens to depart Iraq immediately. Was there
    a concern before or after the strike that Americans could be
    targeted for retaliation?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have known that Americans traveling
    not only in Iraq----
        Ms. Omar. Sir, yes or no would be sufficient.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. But the answer is a little more
    complicated.
        Ms. Omar. I know, but we do not really have that much time,
    so----
        Secretary Pompeo. I feel that----
        Ms. Omar. Did you warn----
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. I need to be accurate.
        Ms. Omar. Sir, did you warn----
        Secretary Pompeo. I apologize for wanting to be accurate.
        Ms. Omar. Did you warn the embassy either before or after
    the attack?
        Secretary Pompeo. The embassy was completely in the loop as
    we were working through not only hours and days----
        Ms. Omar. Okay.
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. But months.
        Ms. Omar. The people----
        Secretary Pompeo. The people----
        Ms. Omar. The people at the embassy, who are the ones in
    harm's way, said that they were not warned. I hope you are not
    saying that they are lying.
        Sir, were you aware--were you not aware that Americans
    might be targeted by this assassination and be retaliated
    against?
        Secretary Pompeo. Oh, the threat from the Islamic Republic
    is now 40 years on.
        Ms. Omar. All right. Well, I ask this because Brian Hook,
    your special representative on Iran, received extra security at
    a speech in Los Angeles after the attack, not in Baghdad; Los
    Angeles. Mr. Hook got protection from Diplomatic Security, the
    LAPD, and counter-assault team.
        Look, I think making sure our public servants have proper
    security is incredibly important. But I have to ask, if we were
    so much safer after the strike, why did a U.S. diplomat need
    counter-assault team to protect him at a speech in California?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. It is undoubtedly the case that we
    are all safer. There are distributional elements to this; that
    is, there are certain persons who made certain decisions that
    might be more at risk. But let me assure you, cumulatively, the
    American people are far----
        Ms. Omar. I will say, sir----
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. Are far more safer.
        Ms. Omar [continuing]. If you are claiming that Americans
    are safer after this attack, apparently your department
    disagrees, at least as far as Mr. Hook and our embassy in
    Baghdad are concerned.
        Chairman Engel. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
        Ms. Omar. I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay.
        Mr. Perry.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Great to see you, Mr. Secretary. Welcome to ``Masterpiece
    Theatre.'' Unfortunately, this is really serious business.
        I am going to read you a quote and see if it is familiar to
    you. ``Turns out I am really good at killing people. Didn't
    know that was going to be a strong suit of mine.''
        Do you know who said that?
        Secretary Pompeo. No, I do not.
        Mr. Perry. That was the previous President. That was
    President Obama.
        So in the country of Pakistan, 2,741 killed, not including
    civilians; in Yemen, 975 killed, not including civilians; in
    Somalia, 286 killed, not including civilians, during the last
    administration.
        Do you remember when it occurred in Congress?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am sorry. I do not understand the
    question. What is the question?
        Mr. Perry. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Secretary, when did we
    declare war on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Perry. I missed that. Did you miss that?
        Secretary Pompeo. It did not happen during my 6 years. I am
    highly confident of that.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, I do not remember it either.
        Do you remember this committee or any committee dragging in
    the Secretary of State and asking them what the strategy was
    during that period of time when we killed--that the United
    States was responsible with killing 4,000 combatants around the
    world, not on the battlefield, declared by the United States of
    America? Do you remember when that happened?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am sure there were oversight hearings
    where Congress asked questions about it, but I cannot recall
    specifically.
        Mr. Perry. Do you remember what the strategy was?
        Secretary Pompeo. In which particular theater?
        Mr. Perry. Any one of those places.
        Secretary Pompeo. I know what the administration said they
    were trying to do.
        Mr. Perry. Do you remember any of my and your colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle--quite honestly, do you remember
    any colleagues on this side of the aisle--complaining about
    removing terrorists off the face of the Earth?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not recall that happening.
        Mr. Perry. I do not remember it either.
        When you have, Mr. Secretary, actionable intelligence
    regarding impending or imminent attacks on U.S. citizens or
    U.S. interests, including embassies, what is your duty?
        Secretary Pompeo. It is to ensure, to the maximum extent
    possible, that none of the Americans that are in any of those
    places--civilian, State Department officials, or military
    folks--have any harm brought to them, so to reduce that risk
    with every tool that we have in our arsenal.
        Mr. Perry. And so you were made aware of security risks
    prior to the strike on Soleimani to U.S. interests and
    individuals, personnel, and took corrective action to make sure
    that the risk was mitigated?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. That is the decision that the
    President made.
        Mr. Perry. Do you remember we had a consulate in Benghazi,
    Libya, when the Ambassador had asked repeatedly for increased
    security at the time from the previous administration? And do
    you recall what occurred? Did he and the embassy receive the
    increased security or did it not?
        Secretary Pompeo. My recollection is that some of the
    requests for increased security were made available to them and
    others were not.
        Mr. Perry. And what was the result?
        Secretary Pompeo. There was a tragic day where four
    Americans were killed.
        Mr. Perry. Yes. Four Americans were killed, and we had
    hearings up here, and the bottom of it was never gotten to as
    far as many Americans are concerned and considered. Yet we sit
    here today and second guess your decisions and the
    administration's decisions to keep America and America's
    interests safe in the face of a terrorist with the
    responsibility of hundreds, if not thousands of American deaths
    and maimings on his hands.
        Mr. Secretary, are we or were we at the brink of war, as
    has been claimed in this committee, with Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I--we were at a heightened sense of
    risk on both sides, but I never observed that we were at a risk
    of anything that--when I hear people talk about--talk about
    World War III, that is not where we were----
        Mr. Perry. Yes. I mean, I do not----
        Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. At any time during this--
    these moments from the first of November through to date.
        You could--you could--having said that, I will tell you
    that the Islamic Republic of Iran considers themself at war
    against the United States of America and against Israel.
        Mr. Perry. Yes. It would seem to me listening to some of my
    colleagues that we should allow Iran to kill as many Americans
    as they want to and not respond for the fear that they might
    kill even more. I do not know how you cannot reach that
    assessment here if you listen to the rhetoric in this
    committee.
        Let me just clear something up here regarding the JCPOA in
    closing.
        Is there any reason to enrich to the level that Iran has or
    have a heavy water reactor constructed for a peaceful nuclear
    power program? Is there any reason at all to do that.
        Secretary Pompeo. The current set--the current installation
    set for centrifuges in Iran and the--both the magnitude and
    levels of enrichment that are taking place, they are not
    consistent with what one would historically find for medical
    isotopes and the like.
        Mr. Perry. I yield.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Let me, before I call on Ms. Houlahan, say that the strikes
    that my colleague referenced were authorized by Congress under
    the 2001 AUMF. Congress has not authorized to strike against
    Soleimani. There is no authorization for use of force against
    Iran. And that is really the difference.
        Ms. Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
        Sir, thank you for being here.
        On January 7, Iran responded to the Soleimani strike by
    launching missiles at American personnel housed at Iraqi bases.
    We now know it caused permanent brain damage and trauma to our
    servicemembers. And the story the administration tells us about
    what happened keeps changing.
        The day after the President told the Nation that, quote,
    ``The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no
    Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian
    regime,'' end quote. And like many Americans, I believed them,
    and I was relieved.
        But that was not, in fact, true. In fact, many people were
    harmed.
        Following the attacks and ensuing reports of injured
    servicemembers, the President had this to say, and I quote: ``I
    heard they had headaches and a couple of other things, and I
    can report it is not very serious.''
        Just briefly, Mr. Pompeo, with a yes or no, do you believe
    that traumatic brain injury is serious?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Ms. Houlahan. I do, too. I am a third-generation veteran,
    and I have family members currently serving in harm's way, and
    I am very familiar with the devastation that these kinds of
    injuries can cause.
        But on January 24 the Pentagon told us that 34
    servicemembers had suffered traumatic brain injuries as a
    result of these strikes. And then, on January 28, 4 days later,
    we were told that, no, actually, that number was 50.
        And then, 2 days after that, the number was 64.
        Sir, with a simple yes and a number, what is the number
    standing at now in terms of U.S. servicemembers who have
    sustained traumatic brain injuries, which the President has
    previously dismissed as simply headaches?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. You will have to go to the
    Department of Defense to get the precise number.
        Ms. Houlahan. So I can give you the number. It is 110. And,
    thankfully, many of them have been cleared and returned to
    duty, and we have heard that about 30 of them still remain in
    hospital care.
        Sir, the administration claimed that the strike on
    Soleimani was, quote, ``to deter Iran from conducting or
    supporting further attacks against the United States forces and
    interests,'' end quote.
        This was not deterrence. It was a decision lacking strategy
    and an endangerment of our national security and of our men and
    women in uniform.
        Mr. Pompeo, the President's decision had clearly very real
    consequences: 110 servicemembers suffered TBI, what the
    President has called headaches. And what we know is not even
    close to ending is the campaign against us and the allies on
    behalf of Iran. And they are currently enriching uranium again.
    By your own admonition, you have told us that we are not in
    safety and we are clearly still in harm's way.
        And so I guess my concern to you, sir, is that I am not
    sure what we have accomplished other than injuring 110
    servicemembers and other than making our Nation a less safe
    place.
        And with the remainder of my time I yield to Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you for yielding.
        Let me just point out that quote attributed to President
    Obama was in a book allegedly overheard, reviewed in The
    Washington Times. I do not think anybody here heard him say
    that, and it was--who knows if that is true or not.
        I would like to ask you, Mr. Pompeo, about something that
    was said after the Soleimani strike. On January 6 the President
    told the American people in a tweet in all caps--I think we
    have it here--Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. It will
    never have a nuclear weapon.
        Now, I agree Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. But in
    that now famous radio interview with Mary Louise Kelly--I think
    you know her--she asked you not once, not twice, but three
    times what the administration was going to do to stop Iran from
    having a nuclear weapon.
        Here is what you said.
        [Video shown.]
        Ms. Titus. Well, since you made that comment, Iran has
    tripled the amount of stockpiled uranium it has. So I am going
    to give you another chance to answer the question: How are we
    going to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
        Secretary Pompeo. We will stop them.
        Ms. Titus. Well, you know, that is really not a plan.
        Secretary Pompeo. Let me give you--let me give you a more
    fulsome response if you will permit me----
        Ms. Titus. I will take my--I will take my time back since
    you are making fun of my question.
        Secretary Pompeo. I would be happy to--I would be happy to
    give a more fulsome----
        Ms. Titus. We will stop them is like a bumper sticker. That
    is not a plan.
        Secretary Pompeo. I would be happy to give you a more
    fulsome response.
        Ms. Titus. So I will go back to the interview with Ms.
    Kelly.
        Secretary Pompeo. You decided to have some fun. I thought I
    would have a moment, too.
        Ms. Titus. Excuse me, Mr. Pompeo. I have got my time back.
        To use your words, further on in the interview--I guess you
    think this is funny--she asked you--told you that Iran had
    admitted that they had removed all limits on their centrifuge
    program, and you said, in effect, well, he is blustering.
        Frankly, Mr. Pompeo, I agree blustering is dangerous,
    especially when it comes to nuclear weapons development, but
    today you are just blustering. This is not a plan. This is not
    an acceptable substitute for a plan. And we are just not going
    to allow that.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is exhausting. I mean, this multimedia dog-and-pony
    show that is being put on.
        And nobody thinks the Secretary of State thinks this is
    humorous. We can have a moment of levity without trying to get
    a YouTube moment out of it or without, you know, being upset
    and feigning anger so that you can go get a TV hit tonight on a
    cable station.
        And, Mr. Secretary, you were on this--you understand this
    committee. I fought like hell to get a waiver, because I am on
    Energy and Commerce, to get on this committee, because the
    thing I love about this committee--loved--was its
    bipartisanship. The whole time we had the majority, we never
    took one vote that was partisan on this committee, not once.
        Ms. Titus. Now, that is not true.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Our very first thing that we did on this
    committee under the new majority was take a partisan vote. I
    think we took two of them. One of the very first ones was
    Yemen, preventing the U.S. from doing anything in Yemen,
    because that is a campaign issue out there right now, even
    though most people have no idea what is going on.
        I will just ask you real quick, Mr. Secretary: How much
    humanitarian aid has Iran provided to the Yemen crisis?
        Secretary Pompeo. Zero.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        But you have been on this. You understand what is going on
    here, this show. You know, Soleimani--initially, I think a lot
    of folks in--did not even know who Soleimani was, and then, all
    of a sudden, find out he is killed, and then they are outraged
    about it.
        A point I would like to make is we operated--and I was part
    of those operations--against Iranians in Iraq during the Iraq
    war. So by killing Soleimani in Iraq, protecting U.S. troops,
    like we did on Task Force 17, we were operating under the same
    authority that we had to defend American troops against Iran
    that we did when we killed Soleimani--in Iraq, by the way.
        So when all this discussion about not having the authority,
    then you are you saying that we did not have the authority to
    defend ourselves and operate against Iranian IED networks in
    Iraq in 2007 and 2008. So all those--all that positive movement
    we made to defend our troops was totally illegal because
    Congress did not authorize it.
        It is the same authorization that we have today, and I
    would argue that it was quite proportional, because instead of
    blowing up sites where there is 100 soldiers working that want
    a paycheck in Iran--it may come to that someday if Iran decides
    to escalate--but instead of doing that, we killed the man
    responsible for these deaths.
        Mr. Secretary, let me ask you quickly, how many Americans
    have been killed and injured as a result of Mr. Soleimani?
        Secretary Pompeo. Hundreds.
        Mr. Kinzinger. How many people around that region do you
    think are dead, including the Syria crisis, because of Mr.
    Soleimani?
        Secretary Pompeo. Thousands from every faith, including
    thousands and thousands of Muslims.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So I think, you know, my friends on the
    other side of the aisle say, well, we get it. He was a bad guy.
    Yes, he was a bad guy. However, X, Y, Z, whatever the argument
    is.
        It is like saying Osama bin Laden was a bad guy. No, he was
    a demon. Mr. Soleimani also was a demon. This is a guy that
    traveled around arrogantly in the Middle East bragging about
    the amount of people he killed, bragging about his ability to
    expand the Iranian empire and the methods that come along with
    that, half a million dead Syrians right now.
        By the way, Assad would not be in power if it was not for
    Iran. We look at the destabilization of Lebanon. We look at the
    innocent dead people in Yemen, at the Yemen conflict. That is
    not America in Saudi Arabia. That is because the Iranian regime
    overthrew the legitimate Government of Yemen, parks weapons in
    the middle of populated territory so that when they are bombed,
    when they threaten airplanes, it kills civilians, and they can
    parade the civilians out. That is the heartlessness of what we
    are talking about.
        Mr. Secretary, I also want to just mention on the airliner.
    After the Iranians shot down the airliner, it was amazing to
    see the number of people that blamed President Trump for
    shooting down the air--none of this would have happened if it
    was not for President Trump's irresponsibility, is what I was
    told.
        I think an important thing to remember is we killed
    Soleimani, the right move. Iran reacted. And then, fully
    expecting us to react, they turned their surface-to-air missile
    sites on trying to defend their airspace, fully assuming
    America would react, and we did not, because we showed
    restraint.
        And then a trigger-happy, or whatever the situation was,
    surface-to-air missile operator shot down the airliner. That
    was not President Trump. I would argue President Trump showed a
    great deal of restraint.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you coming in here. I am
    sorry--some of my colleagues have been very respectful in their
    questions, legitimate questions, but I am sorry that some have
    not.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, you and I were both on the Intelligence
    Committee before you left to go to the CIA, and I am still on
    that committee. I listened to your answers on classified
    information, and I have seen that classified information, and,
    after reviewing it, I do not think that you are telling us the
    truth. And I would encourage the President and you to
    declassify as much of that as possible. I think, if the
    American people read it themselves, they would not believe that
    you are telling us the truth.
        Here is my question. My colleagues have shown killing
    Soleimani made America less safe in ways that were entirely
    predictable, and yet it does not seem like the administration
    was at all prepared for a vote to expel American forces from
    Iraq or for guided missile strikes that forced our
    servicemembers to hide in bunkers, or for a complete halt to
    the fight against ISIS. Just like the pullout from Syria, the
    President made a decision with no planning and no understanding
    of the consequences.
        This is exactly why the Framers of our Constitution decided
    not to entrust any single person with the power to take America
    to war.
        Instead of following the law and seeking authorization, you
    first said there was an imminent threat, which we know is not
    true. You then concocted a theory that Congress had somehow
    already authorized you to attack Iran.
        Mr. Secretary, do you really believe Congress authorized
    the President to attack Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am very confident that every action
    that this administration has taken is fully lawful.
        Mr. Castro. The President and the administration has
    referenced the 2002 AUMF. Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, how
    many times has the 2002--how many times does the 2002 Saddam
    Hussein authorization, which you are invoking here, mention
    Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. I will leave to the lawyers to debate the
    scope of that, but I know that this was discussed, vetted,
    approved by the lawyers, as has every action this
    administration has taken. We conducted this attack fully inside
    our statutory and constitutional responsibility. The President
    acted lawfully.
        Mr. Castro. You know, Mr. Secretary, that it does not
    mention Iran.
        Every member of this body knows that Congress never
    authorized war with Iran, and we certainly did not do it 18
    years ago on an authorization for an entirely different war.
        I yield to Mr. Espaillat of New York.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, good morning.
        We all came here to discuss some very important issues,
    issues of life and death, war and peace, ultimately also about
    the separation of powers and our constitutional rights as a
    duly elected branch of government to know what is going on and
    whether or not we will engage in warlike action.
        But the fact of the matter is that Americans across the
    country, as they send their children to school, as they went to
    work, were terrified--we are terrified as a Nation about the
    coronavirus, particularly when we read in the papers that one
    of the top officials, the vice president of women and family
    affairs in Iran, contracted the disease, and we saw yesterday
    how Wall Street took an unprecedented dive.
        Americans are terrified. I am terrified about the
    coronavirus. My question--I know you want to answer questions,
    so my question is a very direct one, a yes-or-no answer
    required.
        Do you feel that we should divert funding to build the wall
    to stop the spread of this coronavirus that is terrifying
    American families across our Nation?
        We have a money problem. The President has presented a deep
    cut to your Department. Do you feel we should divert money from
    building the wall to stop this pandemic, yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. That is a straw man argument.
        Mr. Espaillat. Yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. It is a straw man argument.
        Mr. Espaillat. Yes or no? Give me an answer. You want to
    answer questions. Yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. We can do all of the----
        Mr. Espaillat. I reclaim my time. Yes or no, do you feel we
    should divert funding from building the wall to stop this
    pandemic that is terrifying American families, yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. America has the resources----
        Mr. Espaillat. You are not answering my question.
        Let me ask you another question. Your State Department
    personnel are the first point of contact, or regularly the
    first point of contact overseas, from diplomatic engagements to
    consular service. Do you feel your employees are at risk
    exposed to the coronavirus? They are in China. They are all
    over Asia. Do you feel your employees are in danger and risk of
    contracting the coronavirus?
        Secretary Pompeo. We have taken a number of actions----
        Mr. Espaillat. Are they in risk of contracting this virus,
    yes or no?
        Secretary Pompeo. Sir, would you permit me to answer the
    question?
        Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Give me a yes-or-no answer.
        Secretary Pompeo. It is more complicated. It is a
    complicated----
        Mr. Espaillat. No, it is not.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Espaillat. You are sitting in a consular office
    interviewing people in China or in Japan or in Asia. Are you at
    risk of contracting this disease?
        Secretary Pompeo. Every one of our Ambassadors evaluates
    the risks to their officers every day. Our officers, all across
    the world--not just from coronavirus--are at risk. That is why
    I am so proud of what they are doing.
        Chairman Engel. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I will answer that
    last question. Yes, everybody is at risk of it.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Everyone is at risk----
        Mr. Yoho. Mr. Secretary, you said in the beginning the
    Trump administration will neither tolerate----
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Yoho [continuing]. Or appease the Iranian terrorist
    regime. Yet the President has said he would be open to talking
    to them, and I think that is great, and we are thankful for
    that. But that should be the policy of America beyond this
    administration, and hopefully for the next administrations,
    that we will not tolerate this kind of activity against our
    country. So I appreciate them standing strong.
        My colleagues have--I was just going to point out one of
    them, but many of them have laid out claims that there is no
    strategy. Pulling out of the JCPOA, eliminating Soleimani,
    sanctions on Iran, you know, the other things, no response to
    coronavirus. But a lot of the things we did do--pulling out of
    the JCPOA, the sanctions--those are the strategies, and I think
    you will see the response down the road.
        As far as the coronavirus, my colleagues on the other side
    said this administration has done nothing. We have had two
    hearings in this committee, on the subcommittee, Chairman Bera
    and myself, and we have had the administration here. In fact,
    we had two epidemiologists showed up, we have had two hearings
    on coronavirus with epidemiologists, State Department
    employees, Dr. Redfield from the CDC, and we have offered help
    to Iran and to China, and they have not taken it.
        To date, you know, everybody is worried about coronavirus.
    You know, the last thing we need to do is dramatize it that
    everybody is going to get coronavirus. We did that with Zika,
    we did that with Ebola, and we were blessed because of the
    system we have in this country.
        To date, there are 57 cases confirmed of coronavirus of
    Americans. Forty of them were on a cruise ship. I won't mention
    the name. Three were from Wuhan. Twelve are travel related. And
    two are person-to-person.
        So I think, in a country of 330-some million people, that
    is pretty darn good. And so I applaud the administration.
        We talked to Dr. Redfield yesterday. He says they are
    staged, they are ready to go. We talked to Patrick Kennedy that
    received the cruise ship in Cambodia. The State Department was
    there. They had six staging areas. They worked with Hun Sen and
    the Cambodian Government, which I appreciate, and they got
    those people home safely.
        I do have some questions that are pertinent to this
    hearing. With Soleimani being eliminated, can you report in
    this setting have you seen a weakening in Iran's Quds Force or
    their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen, or anywhere else?
        Secretary Pompeo. I would prefer to answer that by saying
    that the cumulative effect of the actions that we have taken
    since this administration has come into office have reduced the
    capacity for the Islamic Republic of Iran to inflict terror
    around the world. There is no doubt about that.
        Mr. Yoho. No doubt about that, and I feel like that.
        Do you have a sense on the replacement of Mr. Ghaani?
        Secretary Pompeo. In this setting, I will simply say that
    Qasem Soleimani was a unique leader in that the broader
    institution and array of the IslamRepublic of Iran, he was a
    loud voice, he was a voice that had lots of people who were
    willing to listen to him, and there is not a leader that is
    likely to be able to replace him completely, adequately, and
    fully.
        Mr. Yoho. And I think that is justification enough. If we
    look at our servicemen and--women that were either killed or
    were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, we know 70 percent of
    those came from IEDs; 90 percent of those came from Iran.
        Who was in charge of those?
        Secretary Pompeo. They were--those were Quds Force
    operations that was led by Qasem Soleimani.
        Mr. Yoho. Right. And then we can go back to when Bill
    Clinton and President Obama--or prior to President Obama, Bill
    Clinton had the opportunity to remove Osama bin Laden. He had
    10 to 12 different times he had the opportunity to apprehend
    him or eliminate him. He chose not to. The question is, would
    9/11 have happened had we done that?
        Secretary Pompeo. I do not want to speculate.
        Mr. Yoho. We cannot speculate.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Yoho. But we can probably look into the future. Had
    Soleimani stayed there would have been more deaths attributed
    to Iran and the IEDs. And so I commend this administration for
    doing what they did.
        And, sir, you have got a tough job. We need to focus on
    what is going on in the world. It is not just Iran. We have got
    China. We have got North Korea. We have got what is going on in
    Venezuela. We have got the economies, you know, being adjusted
    all over the world. And so we cannot just focus on one area. We
    have got to look at the whole picture. And I would think
    Congress would come together to focus on that.
        And I yield back. Thank you.
        Secretary Pompeo. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, you and I had what I thought was a very
    constructive conversation at the Munich conference about the
    importance of defending State Department personnel, and I
    appreciated some of the things that you said to us about that.
    But since we got home we have heard the following statement
    from a White House deputy spokesperson, who said: ``Too often
    we have people in this government--I mean, the Federal
    Government is massive, with millions of people--and there are a
    lot of people out there taking action against this President,
    and when we find them we will take appropriate action.''
        We have seen reports that the White House personnel office
    is compiling lists of so-called deep State people, disloyal
    people, to purge.
        There are some 24,000 civil and foreign service officers,
    Mr. Secretary, who are also listening to you right now. They
    know that they have a duty to implement this President's
    policies, and they do. You called them just a moment ago
    amazing people. You know they are not working against this
    President.
        But they also feel they have a responsibility to share with
    you and their President their best judgment, to tell you the
    truth as they see it, whether it is what the leadership wants
    to hear or not.
        So my question is, if they do that, if, for example, a
    State Department official goes to a meeting at the White House
    and reports that there are more ISIS fighters today than when
    ISIS took over half of Iraq in 2014, that the strike against
    Soleimani may have temporarily hampered our ability to fight
    them, or if a public health expert working for you tells the
    public or the President that, you know, this virus isn't
    necessarily going to go away when it gets warm, are you going
    to back them up when they speak what they believe to be the
    truth? Are you going to stand by while people in the White
    House talk about purging your employees?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, actually, this is a really easy
    question. There is not a day goes by that State Department
    officials do not tell me things that I disagree with--not one.
    Can't imagine a big organization--I actually welcome it. I had
    all my Ambassadors in this week. The chief of mission
    conference was in town. I heard lots of voices.
        What I always demand from them is the truth as best they
    know it; their policy judgments as well. They have lots of
    experience, time on the ground in many of these places, and I
    always welcome that.
        Mr. Malinowski. Are you willing to get into a fight with
    the White House if necessary, as all of your predecessors would
    have, in the face of these kinds of comments from, like, a 29-
    year-old guy in the White House personnel office?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, it is not about fighting. It is
    about being right. It is about making sure that we deliver on
    behalf of the American people.
        I do that every day. I work to make the case for delivering
    American diplomacy in the way that this institution always has.
    We have built it up. We have made it better than when my
    predecessors were there. And I hope that my successor makes it
    better than when I am there.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I hope we see you
    do that publicly.
        And I yield to Mr. Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you. Mr. Pompeo----
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lieu [continuing]. On January 7th, Iran's foreign
    minister told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly that, following the
    Soleimani strike, Iran was going to get rid of all limits on
    the centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium.
        So let me put that in some context. As of last November,
    the IAEA said that the Iran stockpile had grown to over 800
    pounds, but then, after the Soleimani attacks, Iran told the
    world that stockpile has more than tripled to about 2,600
    pounds. So my question to you is, does Iran have more enriched
    uranium now than when Donald Trump took office?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Lieu. Okay.
        I want to switch to coronavirus. That is on top of people's
    minds.
        Secretary Pompeo. May I just make sure I get that accurate?
        Mr. Lieu. That is fine. Yes is good.
        Secretary Pompeo. They have more--they have enriched to a
    higher level than they did when we took office.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
        Secretary Pompeo. That is a true statement.
        The maximum--it is a little more complicated, and I just
    want to be precise.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
        Secretary Pompeo. Thanks.
        Mr. Lieu. So I am going to switch to coronavirus, which is
    at the top of people's minds. Donald Trump's chief of staff,
    Mick Mulvaney, told the Conservative Political Action
    Conference that the coronavirus was the hoax of the day.
        Do you agree with Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Mulvaney
    that the coronavirus is the hoax of the day?
        Secretary Pompeo. The State Department is doing everything
    it can to protect American citizens around the world from the
    coronavirus.
        Mr. Lieu. Do you believe that coronavirus is the hoax of
    the day?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am not going to comment on what others
    are saying.
        Mr. Lieu. Just a yes or not. I am just asking you, do you
    believe the coronavirus is a hoax?
        Secretary Pompeo. I am just telling you what the Secretary
    of State is doing.
        Mr. Lieu. Do you believe the coronavirus is a hoax?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are working to keep people safe.
        Mr. Lieu. You cannot even answer that question?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I mean----
        Mr. Lieu. It is not even a gotcha question. Do you believe
    the coronavirus is a hoax.
        Secretary Pompeo. It is a gotcha moment. It is not useful.
        Mr. Lieu. Is the coronavirus a hoax? Can you just answer
    that question?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are taking it seriously. This is a
    serious----
        Mr. Lieu. All right. Are you--at 12:15 today, are you, in
    fact, yourself speaking at CPAC? At 12:15 today, are you
    speaking at CPAC?
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes, I am. I am planning----
        Mr. Lieu. All right. So you could only give 2 hours to this
    bipartisan group of Members of Congress, and instead of
    answering questions on life-and-death issues from a bipartisan
    group of America's Representatives, you are going to go talk to
    a special interest group.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Lieu. You, sir, represent all Americans, not a special
    interest group. It is shameful you cannot even answer basic
    questions.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The first question that I would offer--I would offer to
    yield you 10 seconds, Mr. Chairman. Was it appropriate for Ms.
    Lowenthal to offer information from a classified setting?
        Chairman Engel. Who?
        Mr. Levin. Ms. Lowenthal?
        Mr. Mast. Was it appropriate--I did not yield you any time,
    ma'am.
        Mr. Chairman----
        Ms. Spanberger. That is kind of----
        Chairman Engel. I think--I think we have--I do not decide
    on the appropriateness of it. Every Member of Congress has a
    right to say whatever they feel they need to.
        Mr. Mast. I will be asking that the Ethics Committee
    determine whether that was appropriate for her to offer
    information from a classified setting.
        Now, I want to talk about some important points that were
    made in the very beginning of this hearing.
        The first comment from the other side today was how can we
    offer--how can we make sure that we offer Iran aid? From Mr.
    Cicilline, can we make sure, can we ensure that we can offer
    aid over to Iran? That was the first question that came out of
    this committee.
        Second comment from the other side----
        Ms. Spanberger. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast. No, I will not.
        Second question that came out was this. Offering that you
    should spend more time here and that Secretary Clinton spent 11
    hours here. Wow, we should give her a hand of congratulations.
    Not even 1 hour for every hour that she allowed our men and
    women overseas to be killed without dispatching any QRF, any
    quick response force. Congratulations for that.
        I want to ask a couple questions here.
        It does make sense to me that many on the other side are
    upset about killing somebody who was attacking our embassy.
    That is consistent with not defending Benghazi. That would be
    consistent.
        So I want to ask here, are any of my colleagues--I am
    willing to offer time for this--who have been chastising the
    President, who keep saying over and over and over that we are
    less safe because of killing Soleimani, willing to say right
    now--I will offer you time--that you wish Soleimani was still
    alive?
        I am willing to yield you time. You said we are less safe.
    I am willing to yield you time if you want to say you wish to
    see Soleimani was still alive.
        Mr. Cicilline. I am happy to answer your question. Of
    course we think the American----
        Mr. Mast. I did not yield you time yet. If you want to ask
    me----
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, you said you want to yield time. Do
    you want an answer or not?
        Mr. Mast. Would you like to ask me if I would yield you a
    moment?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes. Happy to answer your question.
        Mr. Mast. I would yield you a moment.
        Mr. Cicilline. We believe the principal responsibility of
    the President of the United States is keep the American people
    safe. We believe this action ultimately has made us less safe.
        Mr. Mast. So do you want Soleimani still alive?
        Mr. Cicilline. Of course not. Nobody on this side wants
    Soleimani alive. You know better than that. Shame on you for
    even asking that question.
        Mr. Mast. Everybody says that we are less safe.
        Mr. Cicilline. And shame on you for suggesting----
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time.
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. We are not----
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time.
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Concerned about the safety of
    our embassies.
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time.
        Mr. Cicilline. You know better than that.
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time.
        Ms. Spanberger. Will the gentleman yield? Will the
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast. I will offer a moment of time.
        Ms. Spanberger. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast. Would you like to offer that you wish Soleimani
    was still alive? I will yield time----
        Ms. Spanberger. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast [continuing]. If you would like to offer it.
        Ms. Spanberger. Yes. I am Congresswoman Spanberger from
    Virginia.
        Mr. Mast. I am sorry. I apologize for stating you
    incorrectly.
        Ms. Spanberger. And, referencing what you stated earlier,
    the point of it was there was no evidence given in the
    classified briefing, none. None of imminence. None. And as a
    former CIA case officer, I am very happy that Soleimani is
    dead. So we need to have----
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time again.
        Ms. Spanberger [continuing]. A strategy.
        Mr. Mast. I will reclaim my time.
        Ms. Spanberger. And we need to ensure that we are
    protecting the American people.
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time.
        Ms. Spanberger. And those are the focuses of our questions
    to the Secretary today.
        Chairman Engel. Everyone yield, please. Everyone yield. The
    gentleman reclaims his time.
        Mr. Mast. Again, it was said no less than 10 times, we are
    less safe, we are less safe, we are less safe because Soleimani
    was killed. It was said over and over here.
        So it is a simple question: Do you wish he was still alive?
    I will still hold on for another moment here if anybody wants
    to offer they wish he was still alive.
        Ms. Spanberger. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast. I am not yielding you any more time, no. You have
    used up enough. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. We will try to get the gentlewoman----
        Mr. Mast. I have another question.
        Chairman Engel. It is his time now.
        Mr. Mast. At this point, would any of my colleagues like to
    offer this? At what point would you say that Iran has gone too
    far? I am willing to offer time for that. When can you say Iran
    has crossed a red line?
        I will sit here and wait.
        Ms. Spanberger. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mast. Absolutely, if you want to offer when Iran goes
    too far for you, please.
        Ms. Spanberger. Well----
        Mr. Mast. But if not, I will reclaim my time.
        Ms. Spanberger. The question was when Iran crossed a red
    line, and so I am asking, in response, I would like you to
    first define what a redline is. What red line?
        Mr. Mast. I am asking what is your red line. When, for you,
    does Iran go too far that it justifies killing Soleimani or
    taking up some other sort of action against Iran? What is your
    red line? For any of my colleagues over here----
        Ms. Spanberger. Iran went too far decades ago, but the
    question is whether or not there is authorization for this
    particular strike.
        Mr. Mast. Which? When we go out there and label somebody a
    designated terrorist, when we put that wanted sign on their
    back, there is justification for a strike. Just as if----
        Ms. Spanberger. That is a sanctions designation. That has
    nothing to do with use of force.
        Mr. Mast. I reclaim my time, ma'am. I am reclaiming my
    time.
        Just as if his now replacement, Mr. Esmail Ghaani, he has a
    wanted poster on his back, being the head of a designated
    terrorist organization.
        So would anybody else care to offer that they have a red
    line for actions of Iranian aggression?
        In my last couple seconds, I will offer this. I heard--I
    heard one response for a red line of Iranian aggression. That
    leads me to believe there are no red lines for many of my
    colleagues for Iranian aggression.
        Chairman Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Mast. That should be concerning.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. No, I will pass, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Trone.
        Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Eleven hours of testimony by Secretary Clinton on Benghazi.
    Two hours--2--by Secretary Pompeo on Iran. Arrogance.
    Arrogance.
        Mr. Pompeo, I think the way the administration has handled
    Iran policy in recent months explains why so many of us are
    concerned about the response to coronavirus.
        If the administration is not going to tell the truth about
    the alleged imminent threat to our people in our embassies, why
    should the American people have the confidence in the
    statements about the threat this disease poses?
        If the administration hides the fact that the number of
    servicemembers who are injured in an attack, how can we know
    the numbers about diagnosis and quarantines are accurate?
        When the administration fires or sidelines people like
    Ambassador Yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, DNI
    Maguire, or this week the HHS whistleblower who is being
    targeted just because they told the truth, should we believe
    what you tell us about another looming crisis?
        The American people are scared, sir. My constituents are
    scared. And the administration's track record of incompetence
    in dealing with crisis does not inspire confidence. And to make
    it worse, the President has tried to slash the personnel and
    programs that can make us better equipped to grapple with a
    global health crisis. It is reckless.
        So we end up with mixed messages, muddled information,
    confusion. It is really the last thing we want in this
    situation.
        We need to do better. The American people clearly deserve
    better.
        I yield to Mr. Allred.
        Mr. Allred. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I am going to make a statement. I am not going to ask you
    any questions, Mr. Pompeo.
        No one disputes that Soleimani was a dangerous, hardened
    terrorist, and no one over here mourns his death. I know that
    some would prefer to take a simple path, to call hard-fought
    negotiations to cap Iran's nuclear program that is now back on,
    as has been evidenced today, appeasement, a term with, we know,
    historic freight, or declare an unauthorized strike to kill one
    of Iran's most senior generals the same as taking out any other
    terrorist, as if there are not geopolitical consequences at
    stake.
        But as a member of this committee it is our job to ask: And
    then what? Because foreign policy and the actions taken on the
    global stage cannot be shortsighted, they have to consider what
    comes next.
        What happened after the strike was a series of actions that
    were both predictable and hurt the long-term national security
    interests of the United States, similar to some of the
    impulsive decisions we have seen from this administration, such
    as turning our backs on the Kurds after a phone call, or
    inviting the Taliban to Camp David on the week of 9/11.
        And now we face the possibility of a historic global
    pandemic led by a President and an administration that have
    shown they are incapable of thinking about what happens next.
        This administration has left the State Department and key
    positions vacant, has left the National Security Council and
    the CDC with key positions vacant, and of course, as my
    colleagues have pointed out, sought to slash critical funding.
        Governing and leading the world requires stable leadership.
    The world looks to us for that leadership. They watch us. They
    fear our military, but more than that, they respect our values
    and how we lead.
        Government by chaos makes us less safe and the world less
    safe. I hope and pray for our great country that we will get
    our act together as we face this coronavirus, and I will work
    with this administration to do everything I can to protect my
    constituents and our great country.
        I hope that you will in the future give this committee the
    time that it deserves to discuss these issues. The American
    people want to know why we took this strike, what went into it,
    what the explanation is. There has been no debate. We need to
    talk about the authorizations for such actions. That is our
    role in a democracy, and I encourage you to give us the time to
    have that discussion.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Wright.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today.
        As you have seen, Ringling Brothers has nothing on this
    committee. Rarely have I seen adults behave in such a
    despicable and rude manner as they have today, including
    employing bullying tactics, which I think is reprehensible.
        I want you to know that I think you are doing an
    outstanding job and that the United States of America and the
    world are safer because you are the Secretary of State.
        I have a real simple question, and then I am going to
    yield, because we are about out of time for the committee, and
    it has to do with the protesters in Iran. And realizing the
    limitations that we have to affect things internally, do you
    believe we are doing everything we can to support those
    protesters? Is there anything Congress can do that would help
    the protesters in Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. So we have taken a very different
    approach with respect to the protesters than the previous
    administration did. We are doing all the things that we have in
    our toolkit. This is what we do in countries where people are
    demanding freedom, liberty. They want simple, basic human
    rights that have been denied them for so long inside the
    Islamic Republic of Iran.
        We saw what happens with this fraudulent election that not
    only did not let people run, but then the Iranian people chose
    not to vote as well. They knew it was a fraud, a joke, that it
    was not a real election.
        I am happy also to share with you in another setting all of
    the things that the administration is doing to try to create an
    environment that the Iranian protesters can, at the very least,
    not be harmed.
        And then our effort, our effort more broadly even than just
    Iran, throughout the Middle East, is aimed at standing up a
    free and sovereign Iraq, a Lebanon that is not suffering under
    the hands and control of Hezbollah. Same thing with the Islamic
    Republic of Iran. It is a comprehensive strategic approach to
    the region, and, if we get it right, the people of that region
    will be better off and America will be more secure.
        Mr. Wright. Right. Thank you.
        And I am going to yield the remainder of my time to Mr.
    Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Wright. I
    appreciate that.
        And thank you, sir, for being here.
        And I have not been in Congress long enough to be bitter or
    shout out at you or anything to, you know, cause any great
    attention to myself.
        Secretary Pompeo. You will learn quickly.
        Mr. Burchett. Yes. Well, I was kind of hoping I would so I
    could get more TV time, and I have not--nobody has even taken
    my picture, as you can see. So I will just keep--thank you,
    brother. I appreciate that. I will put you on my Christmas card
    list.
        But since we took out Soleimani have Iran's actions changed
    any that you have seen? I suspect they walk out every morning
    and look up in the sky.
        Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
        Mr. Burchett. But besides that.
        Secretary Pompeo. So the answer is--the answer is yes, but
    it is much more complicated than that. There is no single act
    that you can stare at independently and say that this was the
    one variable that moved the entire strategic puzzle. It is more
    comprehensive. It is bigger than that. This is just one element
    of the efforts that we have undertaken.
        So to say that the responses are--to draw a correlation
    like that I want to be very cautious about.
        Mr. Wright. More of a long-term thing. So thank you for
    that.
        How has the administration's maximum pressure campaign
    affected Iran's ability to fund Hezbollah?
        Secretary Pompeo. You can see it in a classified setting.
    We are happy to share the actual data. But there are hard
    decisions being made, difficult decisions about whether you
    should make payroll for Hezbollah, how big a Shia militia can
    you support inside of Iraq, should you work on your external
    assassination campaign in Europe, should you underwrite malign
    activity in Afghanistan.
        Finite resources, that was referenced earlier, they were
    shipping roughly somewhere between 2.7 and 2.9 million barrels
    per day of crude oil at closer to market prices. Today, that
    number is somewhere between a quarter million and 300,000
    barrels a day, and they are getting deeply discounted or having
    to ship it to Syria in exchange for their work on the ground
    there.
        This has put enormous constraints on the regime and its
    ability to foment terror around the world. And America is
    safer. Israel is safer as well.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you.
        What can be done to mend the rift between the Gulf
    countries to make the GCC an effective local deterrent against
    Iran?
        Secretary Pompeo. We are encouraging all the Gulf States to
    join us in this effort. They all see the threat to a nation,
    see the threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Disputes
    amongst them make that more difficult to prosecute effectively,
    and we hope they will get this figured out.
        Mr. Wright. All right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my
    time.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        We are just about run out of time. Let me say two things.
        First of all, Mr. Secretary, we hope you will come back
    soon. We hope you will give us more time when you come back. I
    think you can sense the frustration on this side of the aisle
    that we only had you for 2 hours. There is a lot more time we
    could have done. I have been on this committee for over 30
    years, and most Secretaries give us 3 or 4 hours when they
    come, and we hope we can get back to that as well.
        That is the frustration on this side, that we did not feel
    that we were able to get into a lot of topics that we think are
    necessary to discuss with the Secretary of State.
        But I do want to thank you for coming here and let you know
    that you are always welcome. Whenever you want to come to
    discuss matters with us, we are always happy to have you.
        Let me ask--so thank you, and safe travels to wherever you
    are going.
        Before I adjourn the committee, I would ask everyone to
    please keep their seats while the Secretary departs. So we can
    do that now.
        The committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     letter

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]