tv Secretary of State Pompeo on 2019 Budget CSPAN May 25, 2018 3:32am-5:40am EDT
i thank him for the things he has been doing since he was sworn in, immediately going to be nato summit by mr. secretary, out of respect for what has just occurred, if you would like to read the letter, i would appreciate it. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, senator menendez, for allowing me to do. i wanted to read the letter that was transmitted to chairman kim and north korea. jong-un,r is to kim the state affairs commission of the democratic people's republic of korea and it reads as follows , "dear mr. chairman, we greatly appreciate your time, patience and effort with respect to our recent negotiations and discussions relative to a summit long-sought by both parties which was scheduled to take place on june 12 in singapore. we were informed that the meeting was requested by north korea, but that is totally irrelevant. i was very much looking forward
to being there with you. sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, i feel it is inappropriate at this time to have this long-planned meeting. therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the singapore summit for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place. you talk about your nuclear capabilities. but ours are so massive and powerful that i pray to god they will never have to be used. i felt that a wonderful dialogue was building up between you and me and ultimately it's only that dialogue that matters. someday i look very much forward to meeting you. in the meantime, i want to thank you for the release of the hostages who are now home with their families. that was a beautiful gesture and was very much appreciated. if you change your mind, having to do with this important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write. the world and north korea in particular has lost a great opportunity for lasting peace and great prosperity and wealth.
this missed opportunity is a truly sad moment in history. sincerely yours, donald j. trump, president of the united states of america. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. corker: thank you, sir. we want to thank you for joining us today and although you are for a confirmation, you were here just six weeks ago for your confirmation hearing. i want to commend you on an energetic and forceful start to your tenure. we hold a budget hearing each year, that is the formal subject of today's meeting but as you and i have talked, budgets coming from the administration these days and for many years are not focused on that much as you know and there is a process we go through here to determine what expenditures are going to be made. since it does not have a great effect on the outcomes here, it would be my guess that there will not be many questions around the budget. i think you know that even
though you are going to present it, fulfilling your responsibilities. while discussing the budget is not a productive use of our time today in all likelihood, i am hopeful that your remarks will help outline your management plan for the department and the steps you have taken thus far on that front. i want to discuss with you our efforts to update authorities we used to fight terror abroad. for members on both sides of the aisle, today, we have agreed to two rounds of questions if necessary. we recognize that there may be -- there have been questions about the aomf. many questions will address the aomf. wouldpartisan legislation updated with respect to the taliban and the islamic state. -- in iraq and syria. it provides the administration
the flexibility to win this fight while strengthening the rightful and necessary role of congress, and i believe it is the best chance we have to address this issue in a constructive way for them first time in the most 17 years. -- almost 17 years. since last june, our committee hearings, four public a classified briefing and other meetings on authorized use of military force. we've heard from policy experts and secretaries of state and defense twice. during your confirmation hearing, you testified that we and you wouldaumf welcome continuing to work with us toward that end. you have experience working on that topic when you served in the house and i appreciate your support with respect to this issue. i hope while you are here that you could speak to our strategy to get a new and better iran deal now that we have rich run
-- withdrawn from the conference of plan of action. we staunchly oppose the jcpoa because it allowed iran to maintain enrichment capacity. the limits on that enrichment capacity expired after only 10 or 15 years. while i am disappointed that the to reach were unable an arrangement with the administration to address the serious flaws in the jcpoa, i am hopeful that going forward, a new agreement that addresses iran's nefarious activities can be reached. with iran's proxies performing well in recent iraqi and lebanese elections as well as its rising threat to our partner, israel, countering iran comprehensively has never been more important. i know you share that belief and have spoken to that recently. so i eager to hear what can be am done to support our allies.
we thank you for appearing before us, i thank you very much for your accessibility and transparency and i look forward to your testimony. thank you very much. i will turn to my friend senator bob menendez. senator menendez: thank you for coming to this hearing and agreeing to two rounds of discuss the we can administration's views on a new aumf and other exchanges. as you know, i believe the frequent open and frank exchanges are important. to that, i appreciate our call of last week. let me depart for a moment because since we started his hearing with current events, let me remark on them briefly. the art of diplomacy is harder than the art of the deal. the reality is that it is pretty amazing that the administration might be shocked that north
korea is acting as north korea might very well normally act. while we applaud robust diplomatic efforts to try to denuclearize the korean peninsula, many of us were deeply concerned that the lack of deep preparation that is necessary before such a summit is even agreed to was not taking place. now, we see the consequences of that. i am not sure that constantly quoting the libya model is the diplomatic way to get the results we seek and north korea because that did not work out too well for gaddafi. i look forward for having an opportunity, i'm sure other members will, as well to discuss that. i was pleased to hear that at a recent town hall, you said we are fortunate that our president of values and understands the power of diplomacy and knows we must use every tool in our diplomatic toolkit.
surely, mr. secretary, i am sure you can't be here to defend this budget which runs counter to the very assertion. it runs counter to the goals and ideals that you championed in your confirmation and those that the administration defined in its national security strategy. robust diplomatic engagement, maintaining our position of leadership and the present's -- the president's ambiguously defined goal of putting america first. the budget presented is instead stunningly irresponsible. in my view, it undermines our abilities to promote american foreign-policy, betrays our values and makes our citizens in the world less safe. far from america first, it would leave america isolated and behind. i'm sure i don't have to tell you that you have inherited a department with a prevailing sense of plummeting morale, with one career ambassador left. i completely support your
efforts and will be a willing partner to fully staffed the department with qualified, appropriate nominees. however, as we discussed, mr. secretary, some of the nominees are themselves the cause of delays. we have a responsible, transparent vetting process. some of these nominees have failed to disclose not just campaign donations or organizational affiliations but some have failed to see -- to disclose significant lawsuits of which they have been the subject. it is extremely important that every nominee be honest with the committee. with a significant number so far, this simply has not been the case. i commend the steps you have taken to lift the hiring freeze and open positions to eligible family members, but some bureaus are still not hiring. without an operational agency, i do not know that we can possibly promote our interests on behalf of all americans. secure cannot hope to our interests and our senior officials contradict each other
in public, act impulsively and offer more support to our adversaries than our allies. members of the intelligence community, which included you until recently, continue to point to incontrovertible proof of russia's interference in elections, yet the president refuses to even acknowledge this democracy and the budget request includes a 63% decrease in funding to counter russian aggression. the administration's national security strategy talks about the challenge of a revisionist china, yet the president charges united states department of commerce with saving chinese jobs while the budget request decreases funding for promoting american interests in asia by -- east asia and the pacific by nearly 50%. in the middle east, even as proxy fighters inched toward the israeli border from syria and lebanon, the budget proposes massive cuts for critical assistance throughout the region. in the western hemisphere, while
the president says combating drug trafficking, we have a derogatory and a hateful and a racist set of tweets and confounding reports that your predecessor ignored warnings that rescinding tps would leave our citizens at risk. the budget proposes cutting critical funding to mexico to trafficking. the administration takes steps to erase core american values, not only in terms of what they're asking for in this budget or not asking for, but literally erasing the words, these values. democracy, governance, labor and slavery and human rights. as we discussed, these not merely ideals, they are critical enablers for our foreign policy. let me just close, i do hope to hear from you on the vanda: -- aumf.
i understand the administration thinks it has all the authority it needs but since distinguished members of the community are moving forward on a aumf and there is a proposed aumf, i would like to hear the administration's views on that aumf as part of your presentation. we look forward to your remarks and thank you for joining us. sen. corker: mr. secretary, thank you for being back before us. within a matter of six weeks and we look forward to your comments and as you know, questions thereafter. secretary pompeo. thank you. you were gracious enough to allow me to read that statement. i have prepared remarks that have been submitted for the record. i will save a couple minutes here this morning. a couple items i want to mention off the top, things that have happened recently that are important to our diplomatic efforts around the world, that i wanted to share with you and explain to you and spend a couple minutes, you asked senator corker what i have been
doing in my three and half weeks to get the team back on the field. i'm happy to share what i have done and what i have in the queue. now i have had a chance to get on board and see more of the challenges in front of me. first, you would've seen in the last 48 hours that we had to officers discussed declared persona non grata in venezuela, we have responded reciprocally by expanding venezuelan officials from the united states. -- we are deeply worried about what is taking place as a result of the sham election that took place on sunday the 20th. we are doing all the right things, we have an american there that we desperately want to get back. joshua holt. so know that we are engaged, we were disappointed that the regime kick our folks out, but not surprised. we have been trying to do the good work that diplomacy brings
to a country occupied by the great people of venezuela, and madero found a unacceptable. second -- also in the last 48 hours, we notified our workforce in china about a medical incident that took place there. king gonzo -- we had an officer who suffered a medical incident consistent with what happened to american officers serving in havana. we informed the chinese government about that. they said all the right things and have demonstrated they are willing to help us identify the vector which led to this medical incident. we have medical teams heading there. we have all the appropriate folks heading to help. all the american officers serving in china are doing the things we can to mitigate the risk that we have another incident like this.
my first three and a half weeks we have taken steps to allow our team to effectively conduct their jobs, we allowed the team to hire family members, a ready source of capable officers to serve alongside my current colleagues. we think that will help families a great deal, and the hiring freeze was lifted. some of the bureaus are not hiring, we still have a little bit of guidance that needs to be issued, but most of that is now out. we have a plan for how to do that in a thoughtful way so resources are spent appropriately. know that it is now the case there are demand signals, we need additional talent. state department employees are empowered to bring them on board. the third piece is, i have spent a fair amount of my time personally and have teams working to get america senior
officials on board. there are still gaps at the assistant secretary level, at the under secretary level. we are pushing nominees to make sure they get through correctly and we are working to get other nominees across so we can engage all over the world sharing the american ideals and values in the way the state department has done historically well. i look forward to being the leader of the organization that is back on the playing field, leading america's diplomacy abroad. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back. sen. corker: i will yield for the moment and interject along the way and turn to senator menendez. sen. menendez: thank you for the insight for the most recent things. let me start with north korea, understanding that the summit is not going forward at this point but hopefully at some point there will be an opportunity to seek the appropriate type of meetings necessary to denuclearize the peninsula.
since i have heard different statements coming out of the administration, i want to see if we can go through a sense of what we might mutually agree is the essence of the elements that are essential to any deal with north korea. i'm going to ask you to give me a sense of yes or no on some of these questions. do you believe that the current nuclear test suspension must continue? and that denuclearization means the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear weapons facilities, technology, and material from north korea? sec. pompeo: there are two questions there. the second one is with respect to dismantlement. i think the answer to that is yes. we are looking for the complete dismantlement of their weapons systems. the delivery capability associated with that, and all of the elements of their program that would lead them to have material. enriched material. fissile material that could be used at some time to build out a weapon system. i think the answer to that is
yes but i wanted to make sure i clarified. sen. menendez: ok, i appreciate that. do you believe that any deal must include an agreement that north korea must end the production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium from military programs? sec. pompeo: yes. but as we begin to head down this path, i have to tell you, i've had discussions with chairman kim personally, there have been other discussions. i am going to reserve some space for us to be able to conduct these discussions outside of the public sphere. i think that's important. i think it's important for our eventual ability to achieve the outcomes that i think everyone in this room hopes we can achieve. sen. menendez: i certainly want to give you negotiating space but i at least want to understand, as a committee responsible for oversight, what is our standards that we're going into? that's what i'm trying to determine. what's the standard? sec. pompeo: i think we've made very clear what our objectives are. sen. menendez: let me ask you
further, would a deal have to include an agreement that north korea must permanently dismantle and disable its nuclear weapons infrastructure, including test sites, nuclear weapons research and development facilities, particularly with respect to advanced centrifuges, and nuclear weapons enrichment and reprocessing facilities? sec. pompeo: that is certainly our objective, senator. sen. menendez: would any deal have to include agreement that north korea put forward a full, complete and verifiable declaration of all its nuclear activities? sec. pompeo: yes. i only wish the iranians had done so. sen. menendez: would any deal include robust restriction to assure that nuclear material technology and expertise are not exported? sec. pompeo: sir, we have a deep aim, wholly apart from denuclearization, of the north korean peninsula and a lot of work under way, to ensure that the proliferation does not occur. sen. menendez: does any deal have to include an agreement
that north korea continue its current ballistic missile test suspension, including any space launches and that any agreement must include the dismantlement of all ballistic missiles in a prohibition on all ballistic missile development? sec. pompeo: i think i said this in my confirmation hearing. i'm happy to reiterate it. it is the case, it is our objective, and i shared this with chairman kim, that the missile program is a central component of their capacity to hold america at risk and it is our aim that as part of this agreement that we would reach, that they would no longer possess the capacity to achieve those kinds of launches that i think you're speaking to in your question. sen. menendez: and to be truly, completely verifiable and irreversible, any agreement with north korea should be permanent in nature with no sunsets on its provisions? sec. pompeo: yes, sir. sen. menendez: ok, well those are all very helpful to understanding the standards of what we're trying to achieve. let me ask you, as we walk away
from the summit, where does that put us with the rest of the world? do you believe that somehow we are strengthened in this regard? or are we weakened as a result of walking away ourselves? because of some statements? sec. pompeo: i don't believe in that sense, that we're in a position to believe that there could be a successful outcome. i think that's what the president communicated pretty clearly in his letter. i can add to that, over the past many days, we have endeavored to do what chairman kim and i had agreed was to put teams, preparation teams, together to begin to work to prepare for the summit. and we had received no response to our inquiries from them. so in addition to what the president laid out in his letter, it is also the case that
-- i disagree with what you said in your opening statement. i think the american team is fully prepared. i think we're rocking. i think we're ready. i think we're prepared for this meeting. i think president trump's prepared for this meeting. we were fully, fully engaged over the past weeks to prepare for this meeting. so i disagree with your assessment that the americans are not ready. sen. menendez: when i said not ready i'm talking about, you know, we needed to test all of the propositions and lay out all of the elements of what was ultimately to be decided in a way to find out whether the north koreans were truly true. sec. pompeo: that's been three times before in american history and kim jong un today possesses the most robust nuclear program he has ever had. sen. menendez: and as a result of canceling the summit, he still possesses them. let me ask you this. in your confirmation hearing you noted that russian bad behavior is the driver behind the currently acrimonious bilateral relationship and this behavior presents a clear danger to the united states.
we've seen a whole host of actions, decisions, undisputed findings of the intelligence community. we saw russia deploy a chemical weapons attack on the soil of a nato ally. we saw a chemical attack that russia supported by assad. can you tell me why it is that the president seems unable to speak of russia in a way that acknowledges that there was an attack against our own country in terms of the cyberattack on our elections, and actions that we've noted others that acted this way, that were put as a terrorist state, and yet we see no such actions as it relates to russia. i'm trying to understand the administration's views on russia. sec. pompeo: you just said there have been no actions. i fundamentally disagree with that. i'm happy -- i brought a list of the actions this administration's taken to push
back against russian aggression of all forms. their cyber efforts, their election meddling efforts, the chemical attack that took place. the list is long. i think the record ought to properly reflect that it is far more than took place under the previous administration. indeed, most of this meddling took place during the previous administration. and this administration is now working to deter that from ever happening again. and i think our administration ought to be very proud of the work we have taken, sanctions and otherwise, against russia. sen. corker: senator johnson. senator johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thanks for your service. in your answers to senator menendez's questions, you sure seem to make clear what your definition of dismantlement really means. you said you made it also clear to chairman kim jong un. did you? sec. pompeo: did i make it clear
to him? secretary johnson: how clear? how many times did you repeat it? sec. pompeo: sir, i spoke in mr. pompeo: sir, i spoke in english. there was a translator. but our team confirmed that the translator said what i said. i don't know. i had two meetings, maybe three hours-plus total. enough that i understood him to have understood what it was i was saying. indeed, put aside what i said, when i heard back from him -- mr. johnson: that's what i wanted to ask you. mr. pompeo: when i heard back from him, there was little doubt in my mind that he understood the scope of what it was we were asking for, what the nature of what would have to take place, the verification that we would need to undertake in order to be comfortable, that we could begin to deliver the assurances that he in return asked for. so i think we were having a real conversation where there was real understanding between the two of us. it's what caused me to recommend to the president that
i thought the time would in fact permit us to have a real opportunity to do something historic. i'm still optimistic that we will reach that point. i know the president is as well. mr. johnson: so you have no doubt that you made it crystal clear and he fully understands exactly what dismantlement means in terms of these negotiations? mr. pompeo: to the best of my ability, senator. mr. johnson: so he understood it. did he have any reaction whatsoever? mr. pompeo: yes. and while i have -- mr. johnson: did he resist it? did he seem welcoming to it? what with a his, as best you could determine through translators, what was his reaction to really was table stakes? mr. pompeo: he was unsurprised. there would be no surprise what secretary pompeo's brief would be when we walked into the oom. we made this clear through we made this clear through multiple channels over months of this administration. so there was no surprise. he conversation resolved
around how it is we would achieve that, what the mechanisms might be to achieve that. and how the united states would demonstrate in return that we ere committed to the assurances that we were assurances that we were prepared to provide to him. mr. johnson: so you say he basically accepted those terms of a negotiation, he knew the u.s. side would be pressing for your definition of dismantlement? of a negotiation, he knew the u.s. side would be pressing for your definition of dismantlement? mr. pompeo: yes, senator. i don't know how -- yes. i don't know how you would read the administration's statements over the past months and then have secretary of state walk in and repeat them and not at least understand -- yes. i think the answer is yes. mr. johnson: so with that understanding, he still released three hostages? mr. pompeo: yes, that's correct. and agreed to have a summit on june 12 as well. and agreed to send teams to prepare for the june 12 meeting between the two leaders. mr. johnson: the point i'm trying to make is the
administration has been crystal clear, completely consistent. the result of your meeting was still to release three hostages. so what's changed here is kim jong un's approach to this thing, correct? very disappointingly so. mr. pompeo: i regret the statements that north koreans ave made over the past few days. and the fact that we've not been able to conduct the preparation between our two days. teams that would be necessary to have a chance for a successful summit. mr. johnson: do you believe the chairman also believed president trump's offer of assistance in return for that complete dismantlement? do you think he had any doubt of that as well? mr. pompeo: always -- my wife always reminds me i should be careful about knowing what's in someone else's mind. mr. johnson: i'm just trying to get your understanding of how those talks went. mr. pompeo: yes. i communicated very clearly hat this was a sincere
ommitment on behalf of the president of the united states, that we were prepared to make that transaction happen in a way that would allow his regime to have the assurances it needed in order to make this fundamental strategic shift in the history of -- in the north president of the united states, that we were prepared to make that transaction happen in a way that would allow his regime korean trajectory, to make this fundamental shift where for decades it has been that these nuclear weapons were the thing that provided them security. and to convince them that in fact his security was best assured by going through this process and working with the united states to achieve that. mr. johnson: so what conversations now have you had with the chinese officials on this topic? are you convinced that they are going to continue to corporate and maintain those sanctions, which is the only thing that's going bring kim jong un to that negotiating table in good faith, to actually agree to dismantlement, in exchange to the benefits to his economy and his people? mr. pompeo: i met with the chinese foreign minister yesterday afternoon. he assured me that they would continue to abide by all the
u.n. security council resolutions elating to this. and that they understood that those needed to remain in place. not until june 12. at this point we're talking about, in the context of there being a similarity on june 12, but not only through june 12 but until such time as we achieved what it was the americans and i think frankly china agrees would be the outcome that is best for the world and the best for north korea as well. mr. johnson: are you getting any hints that there's any relaxation of those sanctions more, goods crossing between the border? between china and north korea? mr. pompeo: we haven't seen anything to suggest they've violated the security council resolutions in a substantial way. i always -- i worry about everyone.
>> i can tell you speaking -- we had numerous discussions with the obama administration during the negotiation. doesn't mean we were satisfied. >> i point that only because i think the bar is low and i am going to beat that. we will do our best to keep you fully apprised. let me state what i think is more important. it is the case, it is our intention to achieve an
agreement that will be put before the united states senate. that is our goal. our goal is to do what i had hoped would happen with the iran deal, that the united states itste would conduct appropriate constitutional duties. >> thank you. >> there's a lot of work to do. we are at the early stages here. we believe that if we get this right and we are successful that it would be appropriate. an important for north korea could >> i appreciate the response. i would caution you that the record of the senate taking up treaties -- >> i understand. >> that is like i say it would be well served to have discussions during the course of these negotiations. in a venue where we can talk freely. >> i do appreciate that and i get the challenge.
that is why i left the room for an agreement that did not make it there. you hit an important point. it is important for americans, our constitutional democracy to do that. it would prove important for the north koreans. amongk it's important multiple dimensions. >> i'm going to change focus to iran. president trump was clear that he intended to terminate our involvement with enlisted three conditions if the agreements were modified, one to include ballistic missiles within the agreement, even though congress had passed statutes giving the president authority to impose new sanctions against iran for ballistic missile violations. he mentioned he wanted inspections, more intrusive. even though the iaea said they were satisfied with the inspection regime. he said we needed to deal with sunset provisions with dealt with limitations, even though the agreement had no sunset on
it. it was certainly unclear as to when tripwires would cause of violations of the agreement. is the administration still in that mode? these changes that must be made in the agreement for it to be satisfactory? has there been a change in position? >> let me speak to the former and latter. , the stateede department have been working to get those agreements from three european countries prior to the president's decision. we were never able to get there. the same problem that existed when i came in, the fourth day in office existed until the variant. evidence that the europeans had any intention to agreeing this desk agreeing to those three provisions. we have now laid out a series of things that we are working diligently to get the whole world to sign up on.
12 things we're demanding the iranians to do. i think you would agree with each of those 12 items. that is what we are looking for iran to achieve. that is the mission statement the president's that -- president set out for the state department. >> are we -- is regime change part of our objective >> -- objective? >> no, sir. good do we want to include -- >> do we want to include iran's activities in regard to terrorism? >> yes. >> is there a reason why the child -- the trump administration has a use the tools that congress provided? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> is there a reason why we haven't engaged europeans who have offered to join us in these matters prior to us will -- prior to us pulling out of the iran agreement.
>> i have to be honest with you, the europeans have told us that they are ready to engage on missiles and for three years did nothing. nothing. they talked about agreeing to things on terror, they said they would do it. happened -- this is my judgment, what happened is -- you saw this yesterday. the iranians made an announcement. they said if the europeans do anything on missiles, we will withdraw from the jcpoa. the iranians viewed this as not just nuclear. important.y >> the question i am trying to get answer is we give you tools to deal with these areas. they have not been used and the europeans, you had their attention because they did not want the united states to pull out of the clear agreement. now we don't have their attention.
because they are worrying as to whether they are going to be sanctions posed against companies located in their countries. i'm not sure with the strategy is now in regards to going after them for their terrorist activities, human violations -- human rights violations. >> the strategy is to develop a global consistence to say that we're just global consensus -- global consensus, we're asking the iranians to do what everyone do, -- expected to the work you have been able to carry out over the brief tenure you have had at the state department. congratulations on bringing home three americans and the work that was taking place to lead to the summit on june 12. kim jong-un has walked away from historic opportunity for peace and should be held accountable for his decision. in the internal debate that must
be taking place within kim the-un's mind between kim propagandist and kim the peacemaker, it is clear that kim the propagandist prevailed internally. the piece lost out to that propaganda. president trump was eyes wide open throughout this entire process of knowing that he would have the choice of continuing with a summit or walking away from it should denuclearization not be on the agenda, or at least not be something that kim jong-un was willing to entertain at that moment. he made the right choice because in the past two weeks, we have seen kim jong-un walk away from what seemed to be a commitment toward denuclearization. it is the policy of the united states and i think this answers some of the questions that have been asked on this panel when this body cast and this president signed into law the
north korean policy sanctions enhancement act, it clearly lays out under u.s. law when sanctions against north korea can be terminated. section 402 of that act, any sanction or other measure may only be lifted when the president determines and satisfies to -- and satisfies that the government of north korea have met denuclearization. where already put into law what we expect of north korea. maximum pressure, cannot be lifted until these conditions under u.s. law have been met. mr. secretary, is it your opinion that this decision is a result of a weak leader who lacks the internal support to go forward or is this poor negotiating strategies by kim jong-un? >> i don't think it is the former.
in fact, he has demonstrated an enormous capacity to lead his country and his team. i don't think that is it. frankly i don't really know i want to speculate as to why it is they took the actions, because i don't think we know. what i am hopeful is we can continue to have conversations and put this back on track so we can get to a place where we can achieve outcome. i think it is worth -- we talk a lot about summits and deals. it is not about the deal. it is about the outcome. it is about achieving this permanent physical change and transformation that will have opportunity to change the world and it is corollary to that. fundamental change in north korea. it would lead north korea to have the opportunity for prosperity and good things it all the things their neighbors to the south have.
that will have to be a deal to get us to that point. we shouldn't spend all our time thinking about that deal without focusing on where you began your question, here is what this needs to look like in on to do what president said to keep americans safe from the threat to north korea. >> thank you, mr. secretary. hope the north korean people will know what kim jong-un walked away from and what he should walk back to. that is this opportunity for peace and prosperity on the peninsula. as they look to the south and see the opportunities they could have if they rejoin the global community and responsible nations. with this decision, is it the determination of the state department to continue the full -- does congress need to take additional steps including the embargo of north korea?
>> i think congress should work together to do everything to continue. which i am hopeful will lead to the good outcome we have described here. >> in addition to that economic embargo on north korea that we must continue to pursue and help -- that is correct. secretary, turning to the issue of taiwan quickly. burkina faso has announced a decision that would no longer recognize taiwan. the world health assembly meeting has excluded taiwan, senator markey has introduced legislation to encourage to make the policy of this country that we will pursue involvement of taiwan and international organizations and pursue high-level visitation by the united states, the asia reassurance initiative act which
we have talked about at length reiterates our important relationship with taiwan and that we continue around the globe to build support for taiwan. what is your sense of what is happening and how we can pursue such a policy? mr. pompeo: i think your point about you and senator markey working together demonstrates the policy toward taiwan over multiple administrations. that hasn't changed under president trump, the same one policy -- one china policy is still american policy. i am aware of the taiwan act which was passed during this administration. i do not see any change there. mr. gardner: as it relates to china and south china sea activities, can you talk about the administration as it relates to china's militarization?
mr. pompeo: i will leave the details to secretary mattis but yesterday, we decided to disinvite the chinese from an exercise they were invited to participate in in response to the weapons systems put islands that the chinese had agreed not to do. we are working along multiple fronts, not the least of which is my diplomatic effort to convince the chinese that it is not in their best interest nor the world's to expand throughout the south china sea. it is important to ensure that they remain available to us. mr. gardner: i look forward to working with you on the asia initiative reassurance act. senator: thank you mr. chair. i want to thank you for your work on bringing americans home. we thank you for that.
mr. pompeo: it was an amazing day. senator: you were deservedly proud on that day and we were grateful. i was listening to some of her testimony in response to questions from senator cardin. senator: you were deservedly you testified that regime change in iran is not an administration policy. is that correct? mr. pompeo: that is correct. r. markey: i ask you a question about having this committee receive a legal memo from 2017 regarding airstrikes in syria and you said, i promise i will work alongside you to the best i can to get that information and if it is classified, i will work to get you that and if it is unclassified, i will work to do that as well. two days after that, we carried out airstrikes in syria, we have not received the memo in any version and i would like to ask why and will you work with
us so we can see the appropriate version? mr. pompeo: i will accept responsibility. that information and if it is lassified, i will work to get i have not turned to that. i will. mr. gardner: you have been busy but i do want your commitment. mr. pompeo: i made a commitment that i would do it and i will turn to it this week. i may have an extra day now. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. secretary. -- senator: you were talking about an american who was hit by what appeared to be a sonic attack. he said it bore signs similar to those that were inflicted upon americans serving in cuba. the cuban situation has been significantly studied including by a medical team at the university of pennsylvania. the incident in china apparently started in the late 2017 and continued through ecently.
the state department has done some study and you have reached the conclusion that symptoms experienced by this american are similar to the symptoms experienced by americans in cuba. is that correct? mr. pompeo: that is correct. the technical term is consistent with, that is, the system -- symptoms are very similar. mr. kaine: here is a significant concern. when these things were happening in cuba, we were speculating about what was going on and the speculation was naturally, is it the cuban government? is it a rogue element? maybe to try to upset a bromance between cuba and the united states? or is it a third-party, maybe ussia? now that something similar has happened in china, the question about motivation and
attribution gets much more complicated. we have been talking about this on the armed services committee. i know there has been an fbi investigation. the dod is looking at this, the fbi is looking at it. medical teams from the university of pennsylvania are looking at it. who is in charge in the administration of trying to figure out what is going on and who is behind it, and what advice should be given to congress or what we should be doing to counter it? it seems like there are a lot of cooks. mr. pompeo: that is a good question. opening a second venue -- i don't want to overstate the nature of that. they could be separate activities. knowing what we know now, this has changed. it has gone from a localized
incident to one that is broader in the question is, where might we see this? those are reasonable questions to ask. the state department will lead the effort because it is an overseas security issue. we will lead that effort, my deputy will be in charge of the team. we will have it from what was the doctor, -- what was the vector, there will be folks rom the department of energy figure out what would be to these symptoms, multiple agencies involved. the responsibility will fall to the state department to resolve figure out what would be to this and protect our officers. if it's the case that this was something intentionally done, there will be others to do that work but the state department will lead efforts. mr. kaine: are you aware of diplomatic personnel in any
countries other than cuba and china have experienced attacks of this kind? of this kind? mr. pompeo: no, sir. mr. kaine: i think this matter is critical. i just came from a closed briefing of declassified is critical. portion of the annex and without getting into what was said there, this was part of the discussion. i asked the same question, who s in charge of this? they did not say you were in portion of the annex and charge. they did not say who was in charge. i am glad you said somebody is in charge of it because it is critical that the ability to inflict damage upon u.s. personnel who are serving the country in a way that is hard to attribute and measure should
scare us. happening in one country leads to a set of hypotheses, happening in a second country raises the stakes in terms of getting to the bottom of it. i would hope that as the state department investigation continues, we would be briefed upon this because it would have significant bearing on all kinds of decisions we might need to make. i do not have any other questions. mr. pompeo: i am prepared to do the piece we can do and provide you information in a classified setting. mr. kaine: thank you. senator: mr. secretary, welcome, good to have you here. let me start with afghanistan. i support the goal of ensuring that afghanistan is never used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks. i know you support that objective. i support making sure that we are constantly assessing our progress there and revisiting our objectives as well.
this morning, as you are likely aware, the special inspector eneral for afghanistan reconstruction published a report on stabilization efforts. the report looks at 17 years of reconstruction efforts. reconstruction published a they identify seven key findings, 10 lessons, 11 actions that can be taken to increase the likelihood of success. it will take some time to digest the findings, i only ask that you review this and provide a written response by the first of october and what actions the state department plans to take and not take in response. can i get your agreement? mr. pompeo: we have a team. it is important. it is very sobering.
you have my commitment. mr. young: thank you so much. i would like to give it to china's predatory economic policies. in your testimony, you referenced the national security strategy and a couple pillars relate to promoting american prosperity and preserving peace through strength. you will agree that these are related pillars. there is a lot of overlap. our economic competitiveness impacts prosperity but also national security. i chaired a senate foreign relations subcommittee hearing on may 9 pertaining to predatory national economic practice. e heard from three witnesses and discussed china's troubling use of forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, denial of access to chinese markets, state owned enterprises and related topics. i hear from people at home chinese markets, state owned about the economic implications
but as you know, there are major national security applications associated with his. the national security strategy says the trump administration will no longer tolerate economic aggression and i just want to know whether you agree that for us to have an effective response to these ongoing practices of the state capitalist model, it is going to require a bilateral approach, a strategic approach. one that is understood not just by those in the administration but also those of us here in congress. to that end, do you agree with everything i just said? multilateral, strategic and understood by the administration and congress? mr. pompeo: i do.
mr. young: based on that understanding of the nature of the threat and the consensus about what needs to be done moving forward, i introduced legislation, the national economic security strategy act of 2018, i will just say i would hope that your team could eview the legislation. i look forward to working with you and your team moving forward to see if we can advance this legislation. this would create a written strategy analogous to the national security strategy to deal with predatory international economic practices. whether they emanate from china or other countries. i look forward to working on
that with you. xxx in my remaining time, i just want to emphasize what we are here in part to discuss, which is the international affairs budget funding. i know you agree, today's national security challenges require the u.s. to use our full range of non-military tools to keep us safe and secure, and to advance our values and interests. i know you also agree diplomacy and development can help avert conflict, shorten its duration, prevent its return and frankly, keep our men and women off the battlefield whenever possible. i helped lead a bipartisan letter to the appropriations committee last month. i was encouraged that 42 senators signed onto it. they don't typically do that as it relates to state department funding, but there is a growing sense that we need robust funding for fiscal year 2019. and i look forward to working with you and your team to do whatever we can to ensure that
the state department gets that funding moving forward. mr. chairman, i request nanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. chair: without objection. senator young: i will join the others and congratulate you and others in the administration for the recent prisoner release. that was a great, early morning for our country. yield back. senator: secretary pompeo, senator: secretary pompeo, thank you for being here. let me commend you for lifting the hiring freeze and improving morale at the state department. senator: secretary pompeo, thank you for being here. let me commend you for lifting the hiring freeze and improving morale at the state department. i appreciate you following through on that. i understand you are going to
be meeting with the turkish foreign minister in early june. and as i'm sure you are aware, the turkish foreign minister could decide to release pastor brunson from jail and sent him directly back to the united states. pastor brunson has been held there since october 2016. do you intend to raise that issue, when you meet with the foreign minister? secretery pompeo: yes. senator: and can you also give us some insight into how you might discuss the issue of turkey's decision to buy the russian s-400 missile defense system. secretery pompeo: certainly. i have spoken with the turkish foreign minister at least once and maybe twice in my first three weeks. many, many topics that we have covered, in each case we talked about the incredible need to return pastor brunson. this is deeply wrong, immoral, unjust. no success so far, but you can be assured that we are working diligently on that.
second, i have spoken to them about the best-400 and we have implored them not to take that weapons system, for a host of reasons i won't belabor today. you know them well. there are several, but the other major topic we are going to work on is trying to achieve you know them well. a resolution about turkish activities in northern syria. my predecessor began a process called the roadmap, and it is our effort to put the details together surrounding that. i think there is a team and ankara -- team in ankara this week. and i hope it can resolve that so we don't end up in a situation where we have two nato allies, too close together where we are creating risk. senator: thank you. i appreciate that.
mr. secretary, were you around the decision-making around the resident's letter this morning, about pulling out of the summit with north korea? and were their discussions as part of that decision, about what should happen next? and what do you expect to happen next? are we going to see a return to the volatile rhetoric that increased most americans' concerns about the potential threat of a nuclear war with north korea, or is there something else in mind on how to move forward next? secretery pompeo: i was part of the discussion last night and this morning. it was the president's decision, ultimately. and we did talk about what the path forward would look like. the negotiating path, that is the path that we hope will resolve this, as well as the things that we need to do in the days and weeks ahead to prepare for the eventuality that we were back where we were, six or eight, or 12 weeks ago. and there's still lots of discussion going on inside the
administration about exactly how to proceed, but i am confident that in the coming days we will have laid out in some detail. how to proceed, but i am summit that didn't work, that we always knew there could be a ultimately was unsuccessful, so there has been a great deal of work to think about what happens when you are at a moment that you don't have the opportunity sitting right in front of you. i hope that we do. i hope that we are quickly able to get back to that place but ultimately, chairman kim will have that decision to make for himself. as the president said, we welcome their outreach to head down that path. senator: can you share any insights about how the administration is looking at what should happen next? secretery pompeo: yes, in some ways it is situation normal. the pressure campaign continues. senator: not a lot of insight there. secretery pompeo: i don't know what to say, other than there has been an incredibly
effective global campaign to create pressure on the north korean regime, so that we could resolve the issue of chairman kim's regime threatening the united states of america. that existed yesterday. it exists today. it is likely to exist tomorrow. so our process remains the same. senator: there is a story that just came out, that said the outh koreans were completely surprised by this decision. did we consult with our allies about the decision before making it public? or at least advise them it was coming? secretery pompeo: i don't want to get into who we notified. the white house i think, will speak to that at the appropriate time. if i might just say one more thing senator, chairman mode was here. we had extensive discussions. we are locked in with the republic of korea.
we have spoken to the japanese foreign minister. i spoke to him yesterday afternoon at 1630 hrs. we are in lockstep with them. senator: and did we advise them this was coming? secretery pompeo: we told them we hoped the summit would succeed, that there would be discussions, but that there was a was a risk it would not move forward. we have been consistent on that privately and publicly as well. president trump has said repeatedly, he was very hopeful that would succeed, but it might not. senator: sure, but that is a very different situation than aying, this letter is coming tomorrow. the president is pulling out of the summit. that is the question i'm really asking, and it goes to the approach to iran's behavior as well. because as america was trying to negotiate the iran deal, there was a real effort to work cooperatively with our european allies. tomorrow. the president is pulling out of the summit. the president's response to pulling out of the nuclear
agreement with iran has to some extent blamed our european allies, who are part of that negotiation, for the failure to get stronger agreement. do you think that is going to have lasting impacts on our relationship with the europeans? secretery pompeo: a couple of hundred years of history would suggest the answer to that is no. senator: so we are moving forward with them on a united front for how to approach iran? secretery pompeo: i think throughout history there have been differences between not only europe and the united states, but individual european countries amongst themselves. this is no exception. they are in a different place. they have stated publicly their intent to work to remain inside the jcopa framework -- the jcpoa framework. i talked to the foreign minister weekend i are came to acknowledge that the uranian's re launching missiles into
riyadh and a german is going to get killed. and one ought to think that is a condition that would be an acceptable to the people of germany, and i am hopeful that they will join us to push back against what would ask from iceland. don't launch missiles into riyadh. people have said what the president laid out and when i spoke to on monday was a fantasy. if you look at the 12 items, it's nothing that we don't ask of every civilized nation on earth. it is to join the league of normal nations. it doesn't seem like too tall an order for any european country to read to your point, i think the europeans share our values and interests. i think they would agree with our assessment of that bad behavior, so i am hopeful they will join us in our effort to seize that bad activity by the islamic republic of iran. chairman: senator barrasso. sen. barrasso:: i know we are going to continue to work
toward the goal of complete denuclearization, and put maximum pressure on north korea in light of today's announcement. as we continue to impose sanctions and conduct joint military exercises in keep the regime aware of their actions, do you believe china is embracing the maximum-pressure strategy to get north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program? and in terms of what we can expect of china regarding north korea for future activities, have they responded in our efforts to continue along this line? secretery pompeo: i haven't spoken to them since the letter was released but i did speak to them yesterday afternoon, and hey made every commitment that
they were prepared to continue in the way that they have. they were prepared to continue in the way that they have. i wish to give the chinese full credit for what they have done. it is historic. it is different than what they have done in previous iterations of this, and we are appreciative of that. i asked them to continue that while these negotiations took place and they agreed to that. senator: can you speculate on appreciative of that. what your view is of china's ultimate goal in north korea? secretery pompeo: i can to you precisely what they said. they agree that this is the right answer for the korean peninsula. senator: on monday you outstanding remarks at the heritage foundation on iran. two weeks ago the president ended the participation of the united states in this flawed iranian deal. i strongly support the decision. you stated that first we would apply unprecedented financial pressure on the iranian regime. you said leaders in terror on would have no doubt -- leaders in tehran would have no doubt about our effect. ew sanctions are coming.
when the administration be on track to have the sanctions fully reimposed by the november deadline? and kenny talk about what additional sanctions may be considered, and are there things congress can do to be helpful? secretery pompeo: the answer to the last one is always yes. i'm sure there are tools we will need assistance with, although you have given us enormous capabilities and brett there, and we appreciate hat. i think -- capabilities and breadth there, and we appreciate that. the preparations are well along to rolling out those sanctions. you saw some additional he gets the central bank of iran and some of its officials in that same vein. the core effort with respect to
the sanctions is to deny iran the wealth to do the bad stuff that they have been out doing, during the jcpoa. people forget that all this bad activity took place during the jcpoa. so it's not the case that the withdrawal compelled the uranian's to launch missiles. -- compelled the iranians to launch missiles. so it's not the case that the and we help the world will join us as well so they are not just simply u.s. sanctions, but global and you and sanctions in addition to the sanctions the .s. puts in place. senator: in addition to the bad things iran is doing in the region, i have concerns about what is going on in lebanon. in may, lebanon held its first elections in nine years, resulting in electoral gains by has a lot -- by hezbollah. ongress has put in place
restrictions on funding for lebanese armed forces. -- armed forces, if the body is controlled by a foreign errorist organization. should we continue to provide assistance to lebanese armed orces? secretery pompeo: i don't believe that it is, although we are reviewing that to be sure, to make sure the actions we take,, the funding we provide, is provided according to the law. we will continue to review hat. the lebanese election was not what america would have hoped, and what i think the lebanese people would have helped either. but i do hope that when it all
shakes out, that we can continue to provide support to the lebanese armed forces in a way that is appropriate, and do our best to help return lebanon to what everybody knows it once was. senator: the jewel of the mediterranean, it was once called. things are different. 'd like to move to turkey. during testimony this week before the house foreign affairs committee, you said we need to get turkey to rejoin nato. others have called turkey and nato a troubled marriage. during testimony this week efore the house foreign turkey has taken steps to undermine the nato alliance by cooperating with russia, to attack the kurds fighting isis. in december, turkey announced it would be purchasing the s-400 antiaircraft defense system. can you talk about our strategy to bring turkey back into the nato fold, and the areas where we could actually be working cooperatively with resident
erdogan -- president erdogan? secretery pompeo: some efforts we took up in syria, there are pockets where they continue to allow us to operate out of air bases there. so those are piece is very important to the department of defense as well, but the trend is wrong, to be sure. their actual possession of the s-400 causes multiple levels of challenges between us and between turkey and nato. we are pressing diplomatically to make sure, we are trying to offer alternatives as well. we are trying to provide a system of legitimate defense needs and we are trying to do things that encourage them to come back. if i said rejoin nato, i may have misspoken. they are obviously still a member of nato. i hope their actions will prove to be more consistent with what it is nato's primary objectives
are. senator: there is a question about their intent to purchase 00 f-35's. ecretery pompeo: it is still very much alive issue, the turks' capacity to have access to the f-35. chair: senator booker. sen. coons. senator: thank you for your service coming thank you for lifting the ill-considered state department hiring freeze, and thank you for securing the release of three american detainees from north korea. i recognize you didn't craft the state department budget for fiscal year 2019, but i will second the terrific comments by ranking member menendez, who offered a detailed criticism about how it undermines our values and our security. i am frustrated the administration ignored it the bipartisan will -- ignore the bipartisan will of congress and
submitted a budget request that would cut by 30% much of the state department activity that would weaken our global standing. i want to focus on the budget request and important foreign-policy issues challenging us. i thank you for your strong endorsement in your written testimony today, and your spoken testimony before house foreign affairs, of the build act, a bipartisan bill that could help us step up around the world to crowd in american private capital and confront the challenge of china's mercantile activity in the developing world. that is a promising bipartisan initiative and a want to make sure that we work together to use that to strengthen international development, and advance our foreign-policy interests. let me ask about ebola. in 2014 i visited liberia and saw the devastation of an epidemic that cost 11 thousand lives before was finally halted at a cost of more than $5 billion to the united
states. thousands of volunteers and government employees were deployed. folks went there because of heir strengths and skills in medicine and nursing, their religious faith from across a wide range of groups and countries, that in the end of american action in liberia was key to turning the tide and to restoring some semblance of health and stability to liberia. and i think in many ways that response represented the best of american leadership. but today, i am concerned. the president is considering rescinding funds to fight the new evil outbreak in the drc. there are new cases in a city of more than one main people, that have alarmed many of us involved in the response in 014. reportedly, the president is close to closing the part of the nsc designed to lead international responses to pandemics, and cutting funding for global health security. do you agree with these
steps? do you think this is a responsible response, including the rescission of ebola funding? ? secretery pompeo: thanks for the question. it is an important issue we are watching closely. the good news with the drc is that we are up in front further than we were last time. having said that, as you well know, you are on top of it until you are not. and so we are deeply focused on making sure that we try to stay out in front and do everything we can. we also believe we have enough resources to date. we don't think there are funding shortfalls that prevent us in the near term from doing the things we need to do, so we think we are ok there. you asked about the rescission. i have had many discussions about that him and my push has been, this is important. we need to make sure we have the resources, not only for the current issue, the one that we know about, the one that is in the news today, but we know that each of the challenges, these global risks, needs to be addressed in a way that is
appropriate. i was a little bit late to the debate but i am on the scene now. i didn't receive any pushback from my request a mixture we have the right number of resources. senator: my sense is and the package continues to include rescissions to the crisis fund, which has been critical in allowing a rapid response to major humanitarian crises. the president just signed into law a bipartisan bill the grass those authorities. i hope you will really look nto these rescissions. our response as of now is significantly underfunded and puts us at a risk of repeating what was happening in 2014, where as you said we thought we were on top of it and then it emerged into a regional
tragedy. president trump, then a private citizen in 2014, tweeted that the u.s. can't allow ebola-infected people back. "people go to far away places and help and that's great, but must suffer the consequences." many people on the front lines were u.s. aid and u.s. military. you think health professionals who risk their lives to contain an outbreak should be of the consequences, and be kept out of the united states, as that suggestion in a different context from our now-president might lead one to believe? secretery pompeo: there have been no discussions about that. yes, they obviously need to come back after doing the great work that we did. senator: i hope we work together to ensure that anybody who deploys is certain that they can safely return home. let me move to the iran strategy.
secretery pompeo: there have you gave his speech monday at the heritage foundation. you laid out 12 demands of the ranian regime. i agree we should expect no less of nations that are part of the community of civilized countries, but i am struggling with exactly how we are going to get there. this is an ambitious agenda, and other than threats to impose secondary sanctions that i'm concerned will distance us from our european allies, how exactly are we going to pushback on iran and syria, pushback on chiron -- pushback on a run in other regions. one of the suggestions is pushing back on the iranian people. are you advocating president trump remove iran from the list of countries whose citizens can't come to the united states through the travel ban? nd help me whether the trump administration these policies consistent with outreach to the reigning people. secretery pompeo: -- judy iranian people -- to the iranian people. secretery pompeo: i would say dministration these policies more broadly, the policies are under review to make sure we get that right.
when i was speaking to wasn't actually that. i was speaking to a broader understanding, where is important to know, for the reigning people to understand that they would be on their own. some suggested about whether our motive is regime change. it is certainly not. it is the case that we are convinced that the reigning people don't support the venture resume that has been engaged in, so the efforts we have, we talked about it gec, we talked about other policy tools america has and i think has fallen into disrepair. getting those back out and being effective at being effective at communicating with the reigning people as well. but i'm happy to take on board considering what we are to do with respect to the visa policy that might, i would have to think about the secondary effects as well. senator: i respect to the complexity of the undertaking
but look forward to asking more questions about how we are going to move forward with our european allies. thank you. chair: senator. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. secretary, thank you for being back with us. i'm disappointed but not surprised with the summit being canceled, given the nature of the regime. it seems the reason they were really to come to the table in the first place was because of the maximum-pressure campaign, because of the sanctions, and because we internationalized those sanctions, in particular with china play such a central role. first, it seems to me the next-pressure campaign has been paused over the last several weeks. do you intend to reengage, to ramp that backup? -- ramp that back up? and what about china getting engaged? secretery pompeo: i didn't, my
sense was that we had not taken much of a pause. we are still outworking around the world to convince others to do the things we need them to do. the reluctant activities. -- there were lots of activities. we still have work on ship-two reference of transfers. we are building out the capacity as well. i think we are continuing that come even up until today. reference of transfers. -- continuing that today,. i think there are additional sanctions we will seek to put in place in the united states and i'm sure we will go back to others and ask him to do more as well. the second question slipped my mind. senator: you answered it, regarding the international pressure. secretery pompeo: if i could say one more thing, it is, senator portman, very important that the world observes that this effort continues.
it is one thing for the united states, but we need our partners who have done so much work and had economic pain to their own countries, to stay with us until we achieve the outcome. senator: i think that is essential and key to the apparent success you had at one point in getting them to talk. you have had conversations and direct negotiations. we spent a couple of years tried to get auto warm beer -- otto warmbier united states brutal there has been a step forward even though the summit has been canceled. again, given the nature of the regime, it is not surprising that the canceled -- that they canceled. you talked about the state department getting its swagger back. you and i talked about this a lot in your confirmation process, during private meetings and public testimony.
one of the ways you get your swagger back, you talked about using the gec, the global engagement center, and an effort to communicate directly to the reigning people more aggressively. you said you thought some of our efforts to do so had fallen into disrepair. i couldn't agree with you more. and based on legislation, senator murphy and i wrote a couple of years ago, you now have the ability to do that because we have invested in the state department this responsibility to coordinate all of our international efforts to push back against this information propaganda -- push back against disinformation propaganda, but also be more effective in getting our narrative out. i'm encouraged that dod funding is finally coming your way. i think the dod funding should be looked at as a two-year funding source now. we are so close to the fiscal year, i hope you will look into that come i think that will be helpful. you also talked about ensuring
that the right people are in place, not just contractors, but having folks there that are senior members of your foreign service organization who can really make this gec be the effective body and i think you believe it ought to be. i appreciate your personal commitment to this that you may during the confirmation process and i want to ask you, where are we with regard to ged? what were can we he doing here o help you? but there are now 13 full-time but there are now 13 full-time positions that were frozen out from being hired, we are working on it. i agree with you, we need career professionals leading arts of that organization. it is going to take me a bit to get where we need to be, so a little forbearance. but know that we are working hard at it. i would look at in -- i would like to put that in the context of what i view as an incredible priority. he gec is an important
place. it has a lot of money. as public diplomacy goes, $69 is a lot of money. we should be able to do some incredibly effective work there. but we have they broadcasting board of governors, the bbc that i am an ex officio member of. i don't think it is well coordinated with inside -- well coordinated inside the state department. it has four bureaus, to secretariats, there is a lot of work to be done to get that rights of the we can begin that important piece of american diplomacy. im focused on a. at one of my seniors coming to me with a plan. as a young member from kaansas, it overwhelmed me -- member
from kansas, it overwhelmed me, and now i have an opportunity o do it. senator: let that swagger work and let's go for it. by the way, i was in the czech republic visiting radio free europe and radio liberty about a month ago. one issue that came up there was -- this et sanctions issue has put more light on the fact that, with regard to china and russia and other countries, there is an effort to influence and try to obtain more access to our key technologies. one thing they said in the czech republic is -- there can be backdoor come as you know efforts by china and other countries to get into our technologies for europe. a question i have for you is whether you would work with our european allies said that the eu can have an effect and put this regime in place as well, and we can work with them and other allied, because by multilateral lysing this i think it will be much more effective as we can finally pushing back on the disinformation propaganda and putting our narrative out
there, but dealing with the reality that the technological races on and other countries are accessing our technologies and with the harms our national ecurity. secretery pompeo: i agree we should help other countries get the same syfius regime put in place right now. some have been begging for help. we need to get out there and do t. senator: thank you mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. senator: mr. secretary, i want to echo some comments my colleagues said said in thanking you. you spoke to me personally and publicly with the committee as publicly with the committee as well a doing something about morale. i heard a lot of disturbing comments about the hiring freeze and the effect on families of the people that were committing themselves to serve our country. i want to let you know how grateful i am for you sticking to what you said you would do. secretery pompeo: there is a lot more work to be done. i hope i can roll out some things in a handful of weeks that will take months, but i intend to honor the commitment
they made, not only to this committee but to the workforce when i spoke to them last week. senator: i expect you to fix all the problems in the first wo months and i'm disappointed that you haven't moved that quickly. you and i both share not only a patriotic bent but he humanitarian bent as well. that you haven't moved that i know you were personally disturbed by what is going on n south sudan. since 2013, the civil war, 50,000 human beings have been killed. you have 4 million people displaced, 7 million people who have had to receive aid to survive, and now we are seeing a level of humanitarian crisis were 5 million people are on the brink of starvation.
and what is painful in this is, is compounded by the challenges that we are seeing, with epic levels of violence against women. 65% of the women in the country have experienced violence of a sexual nature. in addition to this, the crisis in south sudan has allowed for a proxy battle between other regional countries. it is causing destabilization in the entire area. you have uganda, ethiopia, kenya, wall now are saying the effects of the civil war, and are undermining some of the important work we are doing of a security nature. this is a situation growing worse and worse and worse, both from humanitarian concerns as well as our regional interests, ounterterrorism interests in the region as well. i have had constructive conversations with chairman the region as well. corker about our diplomatic focus in the area. at i know there were issues where we will fully support for an ambassador in the region,
but i would like to get your frank opinion on some things the chairman and i have been discussing. given the transnational nature of the crisis, i'm wondering if you share our concerns that we do not have a special envoy that is getting up every single day and focusing on this issue, and trying to address the grievous humanitarian, iplomatic, medical and security consequences that this crisis is causing. secretery pompeo: senator booker, your factual statement about the situation is spot on. you characterized the risk and the tragedy that is taking place there perfectly. i will also said, i thought about this in my previous role and have added chance to dig into it only a little bit in
this one, there may be fundamental rethinking. maybe that is your point about our approach to this. we have been at the same diplomatic line for an awfully long time with, i would say marginal success. but perhaps if we had not been doing that it would be far worse. but somehow, we have to create a situation that is fundamentally different than the set of incentives that sit on the ground today and spillover into the regions you describe. the risk is real. as for whether there is a requirement for a special envoy, i have not given it serious consideration and i our approach to this. will do some. -- and i will do so. we do need our team focused on this issue every day, and weather requires a special
envoy, i don't know the answer. i'm certainly willing to consider it. senator: my team also made me aware that a previous director was moved from the south sudan office into a different office without explanation. at least from standing outside her agency, it looks like we are pulling back on the people that have the specialty and the focus, and are not sure what is filling that void at a time, if you have heard my bias, we should be ramping up attention, focus and energy into that region. secretery pompeo: senator, you are informationally ahead of me. that, but thank you. i will dig into it. senator: i am grateful, sir. nd again, observing you, i feel like i know your or values. we have had private conversations about this, the great power that your position holds, and i know that your ttention, we all have the same 24 hours, with asia, with europe, with the middle east, that demands so much right now.
senator coons, senator flake, other senators have attention on africa and alleviating human suffering. what we have done with usaid is stunning, and every american should be proud, and understand that not only is it umanitarian, but as martin luther king said, justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. and in infectious diseases, specially, justice everywhere, if we don't deal with contagions in a proactive way hey have a chance of spreading. so i want to echo what senator coons said with more eloquence the me, about my grievous concerns about the growing crises that we see in the drc
in general, which i think is an area in need of more diplomatic attention, more american pressure, more guts and swagger that we are talking about other reas of the world, that we should be focusing on the same areas with some of our african nations and our brothers and sisters in humanity. and he does, to me, send out a stunning reflection of our values. budgets reflect values, and we are announcing rescission packages that do things that just don't seem to make economic sense, as well as moral sense. and i know you operate with a strong moral core, and also understand fiscal conservatism, about making investments that can make our -- that can save our country money. the decision for 232 million dollars any bowl of funding struck me as a staggering, when we know from past experience with outbreaks, a small amount invested could save us a
tremendous amount on the backend in a fiscal manner, with just the human suffering alone. and i appeal to you, not just as a fellow american but a fellow american but at fellow humanitarian, to give some focus to drc, give some focus to what is going on with american posture and resources in dealing with the ebola virus. we have so much power in this country. this is a place where we make the investment, if we apply the focus, we can make a tremendous impact on human suffering. it is not going to be on the fellow american but at fellow front page of the new york times and won't be talked about on cnn, what they seem to be distracted by these days, but you and i are towards the end of our lives. you are in a position right now where you can make a difference on these issues in such a substantive way. secretery pompeo: thank you, senator booker. senator: thank you, sir. chair: senator paul. senator: i think a lot of people think the iran agreement had some serious deficiencies. the 150 billion dollars was released allah wants instead of gradually.
that being said, the $100 billion released was a great inducement to get a rant -- to get iran to sign the agreement. that was a caret. caret is gone and they got the good thing, and now we want compliance and are pulling out. the question is, what are the next inducements to get them to sign things? there are two polity -- there are two possibilities of what will happen. you reduce the strongest sanctions. they either don't work, that is one possibility because they you reduce the strongest sanctions. are unilateral. let's say they don't work during that means europe, china and russia continue to trade with them and you ran -- with them and iran says, they will continue to trade with us, they don't develop nuclear weapons or any technology like that but they don't do anything else that you would like. so basically, we don't get what we want in the sanctions don't work. the second possibility. let's say the sanctions do work.
we have enough manipulation of money that flows through us from europe, europe buckles and i think russia and china will still trade with them. let's say it works in a puts money that flows through us from europe, europe buckles and enough pression enough pressure on a rant. and the first possibility is, we love secretary pompeo's 12 point strategy and we accept that. i think that is unlikely. the second possibility of the sanctions work and they put enough pressure on them, iran feels the pressure, is that they restart the nuclear centrifuge program. so those are the two possibilities. i would like to go to the 12 steps you would like iran to do, and explore what these would mean if we thought about hem in terms bigger than
iran. one of your first things is, you want iran to reveal the military dimensions of its nuclear program. let's substitute israel for iran. does anybody think israel is going to reveal the military dimensions of their nuclear program? you say, well they are our friend. from the iranian perspective, they are a regional rival. let's put saudi arabia in there. saudi arabia revealed the military dimensions of their nuclear program. i'm guessing there are files at the cia where some say they have purchased nuclear technology. you probably can't admit it, but let's put saudi arabia in thre -- and there, and they are not discussing nuclear weapons. so you're asking them something they are not going to agree to.
let's move on. proliferation of ballistic missiles. i don't like them threatening us with ballistic missiles. nobody does. but they respond to saudi arabia. there is a 1000-year-old war there. there is a 1000-year-old religious war over there and there's hostility between them. so when we supply weapons and the saudi spy ballistic there's hostility between missiles, the saudi symbolist of missile program -- the saudi's have a ballistic missile program, and they respond to that. so when you tell iran you have to give up your ballistic missile program, but you don't see anything to the saudi's, you think they're going to sign that? there would have to be crippled starving people in the streets for them to give up that information. had we kept the iranian agreement, and you said to the iranians, we want peace with saudi arabia, could we get saudi arabia to the table with a ran to discuss a freeze of ballistic missiles? when we went to russia, we
didn't just say we will give up our weapons and neither did russia. we did it in parity. we had an agreement. if you leave saudi arabia out of it and leave israel out of it and look at iran in isolation, that is not the way they perceive it. so i don't think they are going to jump at your 12 notions of what you would like them to do. secretery pompeo: the example of saudi arabia is a reasonable one. we have told the saudis exactly what i asked of the rainy and. senator: -- of the irradiance. -- of the iranians. do we have information that the saudis talk to actors and a ron and other places about purchasing nuclear technology -- iran and other places about uclear technology? it is a one-way playing field. unless we understand that there are really three big players, iran, israel and saudi arabia.
we want iran to do things we are not willing to ask anybody else to do, and that we would never do. secretery pompeo: i disagree with you. i think we ask my notes -- ask most nations to do precisely what we are asking iran to do. senator: in their support for the hutu rebels, you are not asking the saudis to stop bombing yemen. it is squarely on the shoulders of the saudis. we get reports from the defense department that says, there have been 32 missile strikes nd saudi arabia. but there has been 16,000 bombings of yemen by saudi arabia. nobody even mentions that. we act as dividend even happened. if we are so ignorant that there two sides to this war we are not going to get anywhere. iran is not going to do that but they might if you said, this arms race with saudi arabia doesn't make sense. another one is to withdraw all
forces under rainy command from syria -- under iranian command rom syria. there are dozens of groups in there. ne of the leaked emails from wikileaks was from john podesta -- from clinton to john podesta saying, we have to stop saudi arabia and qatar from funding isis. they were acknowledging that they knew about it and a knology that it was a problem, but weapons were flowing into all cons of radicals in their. so if you -- radicals in there. the whole syrian war has all these radical jihadists.
the people that attacked us came from saudi arabia. we had an oral that in them with more bombs. so until we acknowledge that the whole syrian war has all these radical jihadists. there are two sides the war are three sides to the war in the middle east, you are not going to get the agreement. i think was naãve to pull out of the iran agreement and then the end of think we will be worse off for it. chair: senator udall. senator: thank you secretary pompeo, for being here with us today. zte, the chinese cell phone company, was hit with a $1.9 billion fine for violating u.s. law. he department of defense has warned about security warned about security vulnerability with these phones. soon after zte reported financial problems, the metallurgical corporation of china made a decision to support a $500 million project in indonesia, which included trump-branded properties. and soon after president trump sounded the alarm on behalf of the chinese company zte, tweeting that the president of china and i are working together to give massive
chinese phone company zte a way to get back into business fast. too many jobs in china lost. congress has been instructed to get it done. that is the end of the tweet. many observers found these events and their timing strange, i would say very strange. the trump organization owns assets around the world, in india, the middle east, panama, and has pursued a project in russia well into 2016. members of congress and the executive branch or under an ethical duty to avoid even in appearance -- even an appearance of a conflict of interest. you agree there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest in this sequence of events with china? secretery pompeo: senator, i haven't seen any indication that would support the connection you seem to be drawn. i was part of the conversation early, and more recently about zte.
i knew about zte when i was a member of congress as well. this ministration takes the threat that zte poses seriously. it's the first administration to take zte seriously. the previous administration chose to do absolutely nothing about zte, so the critics that say this administration has not one enough, i think -- senator: given the president efuses to disclose his tax returns, how can you assure the american people that american foreign-policy is free of his personal conflicts of interest? secretery pompeo: senator, i find that question bizarre. senator: you don't want to answer it then? you have described it as bizarre but you are not giving
me an answer. secretery pompeo: i think that is indicative of my answer, senator. i have been incredibly involved in this and ministrations foreign policy per 16 months, and i have seen no evidence of what you are's grisly -- what you are spiritually suggesting that you are scotus leslie -- scotus liz lee -- scurriously suggesting. senator: i know. it is fake news. back to my question with the specific case of zte, do you think it is in u.s. interests to help the problem -- the problematic chinese phone company to get back into business fast? that is the trump tweet. and as the state department using any resources to work with the commerce department on this issue? secretery pompeo: i don't know he answer to your second
question. i have been involved. yes, the state department is using some resources to work with the department of commerce during some part of my time, for sure. there may be others. y team members have been involved in this along the way as well. senator: the first question was, you believe it is in u.s. interests to help the problematic cte phone company -- zte phone company get back into business fast? secretery pompeo: i am convinced the administration will make a decision that will be in the best interests of the american people. senator: the former ambassador to panama told the new yorker that the president after him, what about the hotel? that's a quote from the ambassador in an oval office meeting to discuss the u.s.-panama relationship. does the president ever discuss overseas trump properties when discussing foreign-policy issues with you? secretery pompeo: i have never seen us make any decision based on anything like you are suggesting.
i don't know how else to answer that question. senator: good. i just want a straight answer. secretery pompeo: i'm not sure that was exactly your point there, senator. senator: no, no, i wanted a traight answer from you. we will see how history plays this out. i want to offer my condolences to the people of cuba, and to those who pierced on the flight from havana last week. this is yet another example of over 50 years of failed isolationist policies toward cuba, and it just continues on we will see how history plays this out. and on. the u.s. embargo prevents cuba from leasing u.s. planes in parts. this is a safety hazard that may have led to a disaster on the island last week the crashed plane was an inter-cuba flight, a root that is generally not serviced by u.s. air carriers. this means cubans and american tourists alike are subject to the same dangers of a poorly-regulated airline ndustry.
there's no doubt u.s. companies would benefit from business with cuban airlines, and cubans as well, as american tourists, i think would be safer because there's no doubt u.s. companies of it. this administration continues to back track on efforts to engage with american officials. with the state department be open to dialogue with cuban officials to help improve their safety and upgrade aircraft, to avoid another catastrophe? secretery pompeo: the suggestion is that the responsibility of the aircraft's failure in rest with cuba and they cuban people. icily disagree with that. i'm happy to consider whether there is an appropriate mechanism to engage with cuba on civil aviation. i don't know the answer to the question. senator: the point of the question is, when there is cooperation on all fronts in cuba, i think americans do better and cubans do better. and that is what the policy of
the last administration was, to uplift everyone. and when i had a discussion with you in my office, you talked about, we are going to try to have an engaged policy with cuba. we are not going backwards. my time is up, mr. chairman. i would wait for the second round. thank you. chair: thank you. on the zte issue, there were a few of us that were part of a briefing last night. i do think that, having nothing to do with other countries' interests, i do think the administration is using trade policy and some of these other sanctions issues, maybe too transactionally. i know that doesn't happen to the state department. and sometimes, just based on feelings with an individual they are dealing with, i do sanctions issues, maybe too think that inconsistency has
created problems. the thing they have discussed over the last 24 hours relative to otto,, to me is an abusive presidential authority, absolutely and abuse of presidential authority. to me it sounds like it has to do with domestic politics or some other issue, and i hope that will be abandoned quickly. i think it is dangerous and destabilizing and should end immediately. but i have to say, i agree with the secretary. i saw nothing whatsoever as it elated to some kind of personal conflict that may have taken place, but i do think the inconsistencies are creating problems for our nation. senator isakson. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. this is been a long hearing.
we are both in dohring annexed a long hearing, but it is an important turning and it is about the budget. i would like to ask about that. one senator raised the question of the ebola outbreak in liberia him and he was right on point, because the rescission the administration has put together includes removing part of the emergency money that went to ebola in the crisis response of the united states, which in part the state department is responsible for. by reducing that, i want to make sure you are aware of, since you and i talked one month ago, we had the rainy and deal fall through, changes in the korean deal, you have been a busy man. this is important. we had 16 isolation bids in the united states that met the standard necessary to stop and ebola outbreak from expanding in the u.s.. we had just enough and saved 16 lives by having those isolation beds at emory university in atlanta.
he national institute of health in maryland, there were two locations, but we brought back some doctors who went in there and contracted ebola, brought them back to the united states and put them in those isolation chambers to make sure we are not spreading disease. and we curtailed the potential health in maryland, there were rowth of ebola in the united million people. so it's an important response as you go through all of the things you have to look at, and this rescission we are playing a dangerous game if we are reducing our preparedness for something like an ebola pandemic. i hope you will take a look at that. we have tangible proof. we know we have the democratic republic of congo having an outbreak now.
we know how we stopped the last one and being prepared early is going to be very helpful. secretery pompeo: senator, i will absolutely look at it. senator: and that is a state department diplomatic issue. you talk about diplomatic issues, if you have a pandemic, you have a political problem. second thing a want to ask about is the, you lifted the hiring freeze on may 15. secretery pompeo: senator, i believe that is correct. senator: i think the 200 4690 dollar impact initiative request for areas where you want to make changes at the state department, -- secretery pompeo: there are pieces of that initiative that are incredibly worthy and will get us a good return, for sure. i haven't had a chance to dig into it.
sen. isakson: i asked you in your confirmation hearing, i have been told and it has been reported that the job you did at the cia in restoring morale and swagger, if you will, was remarkable. you got high marks for that. i told you that my take on the state department was that they were having a morale problem and you were going into a econd challenge. i do urge you to work on morale and diplomacy around the world. you are a great leader and they need that swagger. you are a great leader and they sec. pompeo: thank you, senator. i will work on it a little bit
every day. there's important components of getting that right, returning their authority to them, giving them room to do the work they came to do. we are getting along the way to achieving that. sen. isakson: thanks for a great start. sec. pompeo: thank you, senator. >> senator markey. sen. markey: secretary, were you involved in the drafting of this letter? sec. pompeo: yes. sen. markey: then maybe you can help answer some questions bout it. the president wrote, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in north korea's most recent statement, i feel it is inappropriate at this time to have this long planned meeting.
how did you expect north korea to react to comparisons between north korea and libya, between the fates of kim jong-un and qaddafi? why would you expect anything other than anger and hostility in reaction to these comparisons? sec. pompeo: i appreciate this question because there's this misunderstanding with the idea of the libya model. have to find out what transpired when the libyans chose to give up their nuclear weapons. it was quick, decisive diplomatic work over a relative short period of time in 2003. that is the libya model. sen. markey: the libya model as kim jong-un has been
interpreting it is that it is one where the leader of the country surrenders their nuclear capability, only to then be overthrown and killed. why would you not think that kim would not interpret that as it continued to escalate with john bolton on the sunday shows, with the vice president talking about the qaddafi model? why would you think there would be any other interpretation than what happened to qaddafi at the end of his denuclearization, which is that he wound up dead? why would you think that would not in fact elicit hostility from a negotiating partner only three weeks from sitting down across the table from him?
sec. pompeo: there are probably several reasons. the first is, that is not what they were talking about. sen. markey: not right. that is not how kim would be interpreting -- sec. pompeo: senator, i'm elling you what they said. sen. markey: what who said? sec. pompeo: i heard ambassador bolton speak to this. he was speaking about the nuclear negotiation itself. sen. markey: what who said? sen. markey: what john bolton said -- i'll quote you what he said. he said, we have very much in mind the libya model of 2003, 2004. that is what he said. sec. pompeo: exactly. that is my point. do you recall when qaddafi was killed? sen. markey: i think perhaps donald trump is the only person in america who would not be interpreting that to mean that at the end of the story, the leader of the country dies.
why would president trump think that was a good model? sec. pompeo: i actually think you made my point. sen. markey: what is that? sec. pompeo: 2003 and 2004. qaddafi survived long after 2004. ambassador bolton spoke to 2003 and 2004. let me give you the second reason. sen. markey: no. the model is he gives up the weapons in 2003 and 2004, and he ultimately gets killed. that is what we are saying by using the qaddafi model. why would that be a good way of having a conversation with someone who we are asking to engage in denuclearization? sec. pompeo: we clearly are having a difficulty in communicating. i'm doing my best to articulate and i'm clearly incapable of communicating to you. sen. markey: i think you are.
i think you are trying to ivide the qaddafi question into a negotiation to give up the nuclear weapons and then what happened to him subsequently, as though it is two separate storylines. in the mind of kim, it will not be separate storylines. it will be the qaddafi story as is understood by i think everyone but this white house. why are we not understanding that that is the story of libya from 2003 and 2004? sec. pompeo: that is not what bolton said. he spoke specifically to 2003 and 2004. let me give you one more reason that chairman kim should understand it differently. he and i spoke about what assurances were going to be provided to him. these were assurances that he and i spoke about what would clearly have to be
capable, in the same way we are demanding a permanent denuclearization -- in that same way, we have to provide him assurances that extend beyond the end of the negotiations. we had a discussion in this vein. we have to make commitments that will extend well beyond that. sen. markey: did you agree that using the qaddafi model was a good way to incentivize him to denuclearize? ec. pompeo: i didn't make that decision. sen. markey: i'm asking, do you decision. agree with the decision to use the qaddafi model? sec. pompeo: i don't -- i've tried -- sen. markey: you are our chief diplomat. sec. pompeo: i've given you my approach. you are trying to characterize what ambassador bolton said. sen. markey: and vice president