[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]