tv Secretary of State Pompeo on 2019 Budget CSPAN June 27, 2018 10:03pm-11:35pm EDT
they regard as most important, but i don't think we expect necessarily specific outcomes or dishes and -- decisions. , forut a bilateral summit as long as it has gone on, to cover all the issues they choose either in the one-on-one or the expanded meeting. we will follow their lead after the discussion. at a hearing on the state department budget, mike pompeo answered questions about global security threats including north korea, the syrian civil war, and upcoming nato summit, and vacancies at the state department. lindsey graham chairs the subcommittee on the state and foreign operations. this is an hour and a half.
sen. graham: we are pleased to have mr. pompeo with us. we will run the train on time and have six minute rounds. i will give a very short closing statement. i'm pleased you were chosen by the president. i think you are the right person at the right time. you understand the world for what it is. a complicated place. being a former cia director you understand the threat. president's
confidence in you have my confidence and i appreciate you and your family willing to do this. if you don't want to be an endless wars, you want to have more tools than dropping bombs, it is essential that our diplomats under your command serve safely. to the public, how often talk about the military because they deserve it. but don't talk enough about the state department and the id members serving in very dangerous locations without the security footprint that we would like. but, they take risks on behalf of this nation and they are heroes. i think it will be a good voice for their needs.
as to the president's budget request. this is 20% below what we wound up doing. we have time constraints, these are the threats that we face. challenges and state actor challenges really since 2011 when we implemented sequestration. everything on that chart is in your purview. north korea being one of the easier challenges. north korea, iran, and isis is a pretty good challenge. yemen,ou go to syria, and on, and on, and on. here's what we are trying to prevent. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and you are an essential part of all of this. i don't see how it make sense to put the budget -- to cut the given your0%
portfolio and. i will ask you one question in a minute. if we give you more money, can you wisely spend it? you will senay yes. if you don't, we will have a problem. having said that, i want to turn it over to senator lee and i appreciate you coming today, mike, because you are in demand. you need to tell us what we can do to help you better do your job. secretary, thank you for being here and welcome. you are no stranger to the congress. i know that you know this committee has had long bipartisan support for the state department. we have done this when republicans or democrats have been in charge. i have graham and swapped seats on this over the
years. we have always worked together. unanimouslye reported the fiscal year of 2019 state foreign operations bill is higher -- is hard to get a unanimous conclusion that the sun rises in the east, but we did it. andejected that proposed some in the americans have sacrificed over these decades and generations. we have to lead by example. we have do stand up for our values and principles. we have to pay our fair share. we have to protect our interest. with the support policies and programs and enhance our reputation and credibility. i will close with this, i think we have two choices. by 25%,o cut the budget
/our contributions to the united nations, withdraw from international agreements and borders, close our bully our neighbors, ignore the fact that our strongest competitors are methodically expanding as we pull back. the other approaches to be a world'snd the superpower thanks to sacrifices of generations of americans coming before us. that is the approach the subcommittee has taken. we credit the chairman because he committed at the beginning, put it together, and we try to have a unanimous vote. and we did. sen. graham: we like ourselves if nobody else does. the floor is yours mr. pompeo.
mr. pompeo: thank you very much. i look forward to our conversation. distinguished members of i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the president's budget. is list you showed there long and i'm sure you could add a couple others and you could add more as well. how much ito know appreciate the fact you have operated in a bipartisan manner. i talked to many of you on the phone, had production -- productive conversations, and no i am always available to understand your priorities in the way you are thinking about the world is helpful to me. it is something i value extraordinarily. short with your statements and i will be the same. reflects a budget managed to -- an effort to manage dollars wisely. onmet substantial progress
next year's budget. i look forward to our teams working together to achieve america's objectives. i have submitted my written statement and i'm happy to close their and to questions. sen. leahy: we will do the six minute rounds and get on with it. let's start with afghanistan. you know general miller? sec. pompeo: i do know general miller. sen. graham: i asked him what would happen if we withdrew in afghanistan, he thought it would lead to disorder and chaos. do you think it would be any different than iraq when we left too soon? view, i for my point of would be concerned about isis and al qaeda's support and ability to merge because another want to and they are consistently looking for that opportunity. do you believe that assessment of afghanistan? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: if you -- to you
believe that you cannot do much without security in terms of the state department if we backed out and your people would be sitting ducks? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: we will keep the aid coming to afghanistan and i don't think how the state department can operate if the security department does not exist read if we withdraw too soon, that will fall apart. that is just the way it is. if we achieve an agreement with north korea, would it be wise to send it to the congress? sec. pompeo: it would. leahy andm: senator others sent you a deal with what on anld look good agreement with north korea. we must fully do nuclear eyes
north crazy a -- the nuclear denuclearize north korea. north korea must submit anywhere, anytime inspections and any agreement with north korea must be permanent in nature. it is -- is that an outline of a good deal? i said i do three times, it is starting to sound like my wedding. yes, that is not outline the kind of deal of what president trump is looking to do. get graham: how we bipartisan support, we will do our best. i think you are the right got to try. i hope we succeed. if we fail it will be bad. syria. we have about 2200 troops in syria, is that correct? sec. pompeo: yes, sir. sen. graham: the state department for syria comment --,
-- syria, can it be achieved? sec. pompeo: we are looking to achieve the political resolution since the uprising in syria. we not in a position where we leverage toent achieve the political outcome that is the best interest of the united states and the world. if we withdrew from the north without thinking about the turkey, kurdish conflict there are a number of things i worry about in the north. one of them is in the province in the al qaeda news front that i'm very concerned about. president irwin was just reelected, i think it is a five-year term, can you outline where we are out with turkey and where we help the administration to make turkey a better partner.
sec. pompeo: in my time, it has been difficult. with the turks it has been difficult as well. it is something they were not happy about. we have made progress now three weeks ago and we came to an understanding on how our forces would work together to resolve a complicated issue between kurds and arabs. a real mix. we are hopeful we can build on that. they were ultimately be part of a political resolution and an important part. we need to recognize and do our best to work alongside of them. now that the election is over, i'm hoping we can begin a more productive conversation with them. sen. graham: iraq, could you give us an assessment of the political progress there and the challenges? and if you can answer this question, if iraqis would expect -- except the force of nato and u.s. forces, is it in our interest to leave that force
behind? sec. pompeo: that is the current plan. there is some work that will be advanced. at the nato summit in a few days, we hope to develop that nato force. we watch closely. our ambassador there and our team on the ground watches closely as the election took place and how formation efforts have been done to achieve an iraqi national unity government with little iranian influence as possible. toare doing our best facilitate that where it is appropriate. ultimately, the iraqi people will decide the formation of the government. i hope it is one where we can reduce the influence of iran. most of the iraqi people want that. of iran,am: speaking and yemen, and you think it is important that iran not be able to nominate yemen? 6 i do -- sec. pompeo: i do. iraniannormous
influence. sen. graham: do you trust the russians to drive the iranians out of syria? sec. pompeo: that is a specific question. i can generalize. with respect to the russian capacity to do that, it is an open-ended question. if they could achieve that, if the russians could get the iranians out of there, i would applaud it. sen. graham: i trust them to do that as much as i trust them to police chemical weapons. finally, your counterpart, secretary mattis, of the department of defense, you have been a great team, when he was commander he said the following, paraphrasing. if you cut the state department's budget, you better buy more ammunition. do you agree with the general concept? sec. pompeo: diplomacy ought to be at the center of the dispute resolution around the world and keep our young men and women in uniform out of harms way. this committee is
open 24 hours a day to help you. we may have our differences but i'm pleased with the leadership you have shown, and we want to help you be successful, senator leahy. sen. leahy: in earlier testimony, you highlighted for areas of the budget to counter isis as priorities in the administration. they are sustained and increased compared to the fy 18 request. would slash funding for each of the programs substantially. that was rejected by republicans and democrats alike in congress. request president fy19 compared to the fy18 is global health would be cut by 23%, humanitarian aid would be cut by
17%, security assistance would be cut by 19%. any change want to make about the fy19 budget request? sec. pompeo: it did happen before my time. i will get my swing and on the fy202. suffice it to say, when the budget was put together, the president had lots of things to consider. it was an effort to try to balance and you all were gracious. things that impact national security, we're looking forward to our conversation with you. sen. leahy: would you be horribly upset if we did like we did in last session to restore the cuts? you have to answer that. sec. pompeo: the answer is i'm looking forward to the conversation so we can get it right and make sure we don't have resources we need and we do have resources we do. sen. leahy: question is more
rhetorical than anything. we are restoring them. asked to do a korea.g about north it has been rescheduled a couple of times because of travel. the president said the north korea the longer poses a nuclear threat. we are concerned about that. we want to ask you more than anything, what, if anything, has north korea done to dismantle its arsenal. i understand these are questions we cannot answer in open session, are these things you can commit to in a classified senators -- classified sitting in front of all senators? sec. pompeo: i do. yes.
i'm happy to provide everything. sen. leahy: thank you. the iran nuclear agreement was signed, the prime minister netanyahu said it was and weeks or months away that is why many supported the agreement being weeks away from having an agreement. you recently give a speech and listed 12 conditions iran must meet in order for the trump administration to agree to it, a new deal. iran immediately rejected the 12 conditions. the european union forcing policy chief -- foreign policy chief said there was no earlierive to the agreement. if president netanyahu, in the
next three or six months, iran resumed full speed ahead for nuclear weapons, what do we do? they rejected the a ministration's request for a new agreement -- the administration's request for a what do we doread now -- agreement. what do we do now? sec. pompeo: i will describe the path forward as we see it. you refer to the 12 structural changes we helped the iranian undertake.hope to the think anything we asked belgium and others. sen. leahy: i don't dispute that mr. secretary. but they have rejected them. what do we do? sec. pompeo: we put pressure on them in the same way that other countries prevent -- present rex
-- risks. we have allies across the gulf states. with allies in other parts of the world. we will be meeting at the political minister level a week from today. i will be meeting with my board member counterparts to develop a path forward. sen. leahy: was mr. netanyahu right that they were only weeks away from building to killer weapon? sec. pompeo: i don't want to get into the details of intelligence but i think we have said it before, they have a breakout capacity, 12 months to be precise. sen. leahy: we have health incidents involving health and china. china is doing the same thing and we happen to recall the incidents. the travel advisory was
triggered by embassy personnel. the department issued a health alert. cuba we were told that they failed to take appropriate steps to protect the diplomat. what is the difference? isn't that the same event in both china and cuba? sec. pompeo: that is a good question. i don't know if they were the same event. it's the case of the medical , asition to date and china the medical folks would say is consistent with what is happening with cuba. we're up to two dozen plus. we don't know the source of either of these. we are continuing to investigate in both places. better initiald responses from the chinese government than we did on the cuban government on how to deal with them. neither of them has led to a toisfactory outcome leading
determine how to keep officers in the state department officials in those two places say. sen. leahy: we have chinese for diplomats out of the united virtually the same kind of attack. scope,mpeo: the consistency, time. are different. senator, i'm deeply aware that we face a similar situation there, and you can expect the response our government would is the same as other officers. sen. leahy: my time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for being here. -- you areu hear here. i have a lot of confidence there. thank you for serving. mr. secretary, as you are well aware, israel is our closest
ally in the middle east. it is democracy have many policy isd the stated the destruction of it. one enemy is hezbollah. how would you describe the relationship between iran and hezbollah? hezbollah is a fully funded client terrorist organization active along multiple dimensions. capablems and rockets -- a very capable intelligence force. not only active in the west around the israeli lebanon border but also now active in supporting iran and assad in syria. has below also has active efforts for extra budging including places like the united states. the have the appropriate amount of resources to carry out the policy on their stability?
sec. pompeo: i believe we do. >> what are the areas of cooperation the united states needs next with israel? experience eight weeks here, and in my previous role, we have no better partner along many dimensions than the in re zunis -- then the israelis. not only in the work to help keep us safe, but us pushing back terror threats in the united states as well. there may be other opportunities to do more and better, but we have a solid working relationship across diplomatic military intelligence agencies in each of our governments. >> i know you have been busy. we both have been on the job about the same a month of time. thank you very much. >> thank and mr. chairman. mr. secretary, think you for being here.
i note that the administration is committed to an agreement with north korea on their nuclear weapons and i think has been described as complete and verifiable. is that the term you use? sec. pompeo: yes ma'am. >> in order to get that kind of an agreement, i think we need to know, and hopefully you will agree with this, that we need the scope of their nuclear weapons program so we need to know how many weapons they have, how much nuclear material facilities, that thing. have we requested that kind of list from north korea, and what is their response to that request? sec. pompeo: i would get a handful of questions like this today. i will answer them each the same way. i'm not prepared to talk about the details of the discussions that are taking place. i think it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to achieving the in-state we are hoping to achieve. they are watching the searing.
--this hearing. things that we know, that the north koreans know, not only from the president's summit, but the previous encounters i have had there were a significant number of meetings that took place in multiple places including the run-up to the summit. the north koreans understand the summit -- the scope of the request we are making and the elements the required. one element would be a thorough understanding of each of the .lements you laid out their material on hand, their capacity to develop that material, weaponization efforts, engineering, physics efforts, and weapons and missiles they would deliver. we have been unambiguous in what we mean by complete denuclearization. >> by understanding in the past in negotiations is that north korea has been unwilling to provide the kind of inventory of
what they have. can you at least tell us who is leading the continuing negotiations with north korea? is there an interagency group that is doing that? >> yes. your point, it is the case that previous efforts have not been able to achieve the complete declaration andhe north korean system some small pieces and pockets have achieved it. gone at thishave problem before, i have spoken to. with respect to the ongoing negotiations, it is me who is leading the efforts and it is inter-agency with significant teams from multiple pieces of our organization with our korea and asia experts.
this is not just u.s. and north korea at the end of the day. .o.e.ve excellent d and i might forget somebody who will come after me, but we have excellent efforts from my team. >> the efforts are ongoing? >> yes. >> the fourth tenant that was signed was having to do with returning the remains of americans missing in action from the korean war. a constituent of mine runs a nonprofit that looks to repatriate americans who are still missing and i know that the president has made statements recently that has said that they have sent back remains of great heroes. it is my understanding that we have not received any of the remains from north korea and
that past efforts to repatriate those who died in the had "difficult thatenges," let's put it way. do you see this being resolved in the foreseeable future? i am optimistic that we will have opportunities to receive some of the remains in the not-to-distant future, but there are reports of those who abet this previously and we will need to get access for the process to begin. deare intent on nuclearization and we want to
get as many remains back for america and others, as well. we are dogged in facilitating this as quickly as possible. >> thank you and i appreciate that. to be clear, we have not received any? >> that is right. we have not. >> i know syria came up in the hearing and i think that it was raham who has mentioned the situation there. are you aware of a withdrawal of any forces question mark >> -- forces? >> no. conditions-based. we have objectives that we will outline and how that will be undertaken by each of the countries. >> how do we define that?
are we talking about weeks? months? >> it is conditions-based and we thatpolitical processes need to be sustained on the ground. retary, it is great to see you again. nation sees a lot of the issues around the world and sees that there are many issues around the world. thanks dffor taking those on because you have become the tip of the spear and i appreciate you doing that very much. eartral america is near and d and i having engaged with people in the northern triangle. are exceptionally important
in the northern hemisphere and had anesident biden alliance for prosperity. timese done this two more with $500 million going into the region. well? doing this are there things that we need to do better or do you see things that we need to do better? >> a great question, senator. i do not know the answer, but i know that we have devoted a great deal of resources, not only the money, but the time. the vice president is there and is having conversations that are not too different from the ones the vice president biden had. it would be worse having done that. it is something i have asked my team to describe to me.
what we have would go through d.o.d. and we need to stabilize that to reduce the immigration issues. requirements, are there any issues or concerns that you have? >> i'm sorry? >> the money and how you are receiving it. honduras, is that working or not working question mark >> this condition sometimes reduces our flexibility, but i can answer it specifically. lotoming up, there is a riding on our southern partner and what is going on in those elections. what engagement do we have or
mode? in a wait-and-see >> we are not in a wait-and-see mode. there is a lot of things going on, not the least of which is immigration and things coming across. you see the trade negotiations and they have been met with -- counterpartmet with several times and i expect to go that way not too long after the election to meet with the current government and, per haps, the next. they are an important country for our country. and voiceurn to ppg of america. -facinge a forward
face of america. what message do you see as viable for america? much of the world gets a view of us from voice of america. tomy counselor had a chance go out there and there are pieces of this that work. well -- that work well. diplomacypublic operation. there other places that have been described as "disconnected" not well done. there have been issues with the bbg. this viableturn to tool. what we have three different forward-communicating tools without real coordination and good leadership
with and it is an area we need to do greater oversight with. >> good on you. i agree. it is not the absence of resources. i think that we have ample resources and it is on me to execute. >> let me ask you a hard question. can we move forward in syria with iran ansd assad? >> no. >> strategically, is this where we negotiateas with the russians, the turks, ians?he jordan i have spent time working on this issue and hope to get back to the political process that stalled out before i took office a couple months prior to that. we have a lot of regional allies.
states are helpful. the europeans share our co mmon understanding and the israelis, certainly. d regime has been very successful over the last seven years and it seems that iran is a greater threat and the place we should focus efforts, at least to begin the resolution. >> i want to talk about u.n. r.a. what is the strategy? we are not walking away from the palestinians, but this model is not working. i want to know the strategy of where we are going now. thank you. you for being here.
wills are fair game and i begin with one of my own. this is a short inventory of to allies ands partners. i know you cannot read it and i cannot even read it. the type has to be so small to include all of the things that the president has said about allies over the course of the years in this concerns democrats and republicans. it is not that allies should not be subject to criticism, but the isriol all of the criticism harming, in real time, the u.s. national security interests and the latest is a tweet that seems the politicale opposition to the german chancellor.
right and thethe nationalists and the very people who are trying to destroy nato and the e.u. it was surprising to us that the germans have been a hard case to re-apply sanctions. they are not looking to us and they are doing the opposite, passing a piece of legislation that gives companies attempted harbor fromss" secondary sanctions and it is hard to imagine how we will put together a sanctions regime against iran that would be "the strongest ever" with the space between the united states and allies in europe. we should remember that the u. . does $300 million of trade
with iran. germany does $3 billion. on the progress being made are not being made to reapply the sanctions. this is the foundation of the itinistration's plan and seems like a particularly rough treatment of european allies that is pushing us further from the new sanctions regime against iran. not closer. has been a difficult discussion since we decided to withdraw. the europeans have a different path forward and they would have sen differently. there is a recognition in recent weeks that we need to find a way forward together. so, i talked about building the toughest sanctions in history
and i am optimistic i can. it is not just about the 3 european countries. there are many that are prepared to assist us and we have gulf state partners. is something they want alongside with us. fanned oeams that are ut across the world and they would ship with that looks like. that theyection is talked about this in terms of years and i hope to beat that substantially. >> the answer you gave to senator lankford was about syria and if there was a way forward resent and you
answered, "no." everybody who has watched this country does not see a circumstance where iran doesn't have a significant presence or influence at the end. is your answer to lankford, the suggestion to take a course ranian presence in syria? that would require a heavier lift than the administration is willing to put in. >> i was too definitive. your observation that there was iranian influence before the operation was correct and there will be influence when we all pass, but i'm talking about officers passing through the withry and uderwriting
financial assistance, terror operations, support of the sunni regime. they have increased their military capacity in a way that 5 yearsferent than 10-1 ago. >> that is fair. >> we are all very surprised and our allies were surprised when the president announced that he was going to bring back russia -8 without preconditions. the position change? are we willing to allow russia to rejoin if they have not implemented the minsk agreement? president speaks for himself, in terms of seeing
ambassador olds and the last hour -- the president believes that russia is of the belief that conversation with them -- that conversations with russia are inevitable and we have been harder on russia than many previous administrations and the president is looking forward to the opportunity to find the places where we can have productive conversations that lead to improvements for our countries and there is weyes wid e open that the deal space is small and the president is helpful to reduce the temperature and the risk. we need to find a handful of places we can. would he allow them to come back in, if the minsk
agreement was not fulfilled, if he got concession somewhere else? >> i couldn't tell you which set of trade-offs would ultimately be -- i am confident i could find a set of trade-offs where you would agree it is a right outcome. >> thank you. thank you, secretary. great to be with you. as you referenced in your written testimony, there is an important opportunity for us to develop a finance institution from a better utilization act thjat came out of the foreign relations committee yesterday and has strong bipartisan support in the house in the senate and has been welcomed by the administration and, in a late revision, the secretary of state will be the chairman of the board in the new institution.
tell me, if you would, how this new finance corporation will be a tool in the twill kit for the state department -- the tool the state department and how you see this increasing our interests and values in the world? >> it is not intended to eliminate humanitarian assistance or development assistance, but dice reshape how our organization thinks about things and it will not be the first time, but would be the first time, in a strategic or coherent way where we looked to bring private capital to bear alongside the government. there are resources from other countries where we strategically identify targeted needs for development and the kinds of
capital that they need, but it is not always the case they need the grant. there are lots of different achieveds that can be in the act accomplishes giving us a flexibility to identify a development need and bring that to measuver the time re the outcome. >> i look forward to working with you to implement the new tool. when trump signed the executive order to end family separations, the crisis in central america, which is the source of people fleeing. i ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the vice den, whot, joe bi said that we need to address the root causes. protection on border
would be insufficient and the administration has repeatedly aid to centraling america, and it has fallen 20%. that we need to focus on the northern triangle countries of central america which, together, represented mount --ming amou overwhelming amount of those cross the board. does the president planned to add to the diplomatic aid efforts? answer to the second question is yes and the answer to your first question -- d has asked aor similar question and i don't the the region lacks for -- i don't think the region lacks for
financial support and i think some of this has been effective. i do not know what the right number is for financial and i think we need to make sure that there is an outcome we can deliver. am not sure we can deliver the outcome that can achieve what you are describing. i agree that the question is right. we have challenges along the southern border for years to come. >> it is important to meet the legal and the treaty obligations and having better access for asylum atn for embassies, rather than having lives to takeng
this dangerous trip. suggested tha withmp is planning to meet vladimir putin. russia is said that trying to divide the trans-atlantic alliance and says that russia has meddled in france, spain, ukraine and has nato to divide tthhe alliance. will the russian interference in a focus ofstates be that summit with putin? >> here is what i can say. summit, everynato conversation that has been had between the united states government and the counterparts,
lavrov, i raise the issue and i am positive that donald trump will raise the issue that meddling in the elections is not etc.. >> i hope that they hold them ike countable -- hold them accountable. assad regimed the is on the march and i wonder if, i closing, i could ask, that agree with the proposition advanced by the chairman that we need to remain on the ground and engaged in syria to have the opportunity to shake any negotiations around this conflict. is it your opinion that we will syria thatdvances in
forld great opportunity those hostile to our allies? >> the u.s. forces there do not have the ability or the reach to the region that you have described and the russians have flown missions there in the last several days. >> is and that in violation with an agreement that we have every with the russians? >> yes, sir, it is. we've indicated just that. >> that seems to be an important agenda item for a summit that would he tween the president and the president of russia. >> are they listening to what we say and do they care? i will answer the first and cannot speak to the latter. and they areening
not just listening to us. it is the voice of the israeli moving in a way that is not consistent with the agreement that was signed off by vladimir putin. it is not acceptable. is a defining moment for our president. russia is trying to take advantage of the vacuum that has been created by both administrations and i hope that they listen to what we say and seriously consider what we say. rman, thank you for this hearing. i want to thank chairman pompeo for coming. i spent half of a decade in china and have led multiple groups to china since coming to congress. twice in 90there days. the growing influence is readily
apparent and i believe that it is critically important that we, d complacencyavoi and that we are clear about the challenges and the opportunities that china brings in a relationship with the united e as the most se consequential between any two countries in the toy first century. we cannot just feview this as a trade dispute, but it is thistant that we have economically and militarily. >> there is only so much that can be done to counter china unilaterally and i believe that it is a poor that we work with mitigate actions
in the south china sea, with engagement with allies. secretary, what are some of your strategic goals in in gauging with allies in the pacific region to proactively counter chinese influence to expand influences? mattis, mnuchin, and i have worked on this program and you define the problem well. the toolsets are new. it is the case that we have a challenge that you identified where the world has been very complacent over the last 5-15 years and we are working through multilateral
organizations to develop strategies in each of the domains that you have described. the trade domain is one where we are working diligently to figure out how we can have trade relationships in a way that is fair and reciprocal for the united states and do not benefit china. diplomacy, weo will come next year and ask for isources in the region and know that they did a couple of years ago. we need to be in each one of those countries and make it clear that you are better off with the united states as a partner and ally than china. many did not see the negative ramifications for moving closer to china in the last five and 10 years and then, secretary mattis, he has reconfigured how the department of defense considers the challenge in the south china sea and in the
indian ocean. >> thank you. i'm grateful to see this elevated to more of a strategic level versus being somewhat more "tactical." resented --at tpp presented an opportunity to put pressure on china because the vacuum allowed china to come in .nd fill it would you support efforts to nation's?ith the tpp >> i do. the president prefers bilaterally. improvingve that trade relationship with each of this country's is good for the united states economy and is
important for national security. >> i share that view. i want to talk about russia, for a moment. this is another adversary to the states. crimea anderence in interference in the u.s. elections, this has been a problem. there is the nordstream pipeline that would allow russia to undermine the oil and ilities tollies' ab counter. we are engaged in a "all of
approach" tont convince countries that increased energy relationships with russia is not consistent with what we're trying to do. tream example is one of those that we think is the wrong direction and allows rush to have the capacity to influence germany and all around europe. hifting back to the asia-pacific and north korea, theld they not commit to process, would you commit to walking away from the negotiating table question mark >> yes. the president has made that clear. risk in china using north korea for -- "whatthe question of
evidence?" >> what risk? >> president xi said that he would work alongside me on this shared objective and we're certainly watching to make sure that every country that is committed to helping us achieving that is actually doing that. >> do you see any backsliding on china's part? yes.modest amount, >> do you believe that nato is obsolete? >> i do not. en you meet counterparts mother countries, how do you explain that the president has said so question mark -- counterparts from other countries, how do you explain that the president has said so?
>> the president is unambiguous about his view. when he spoke in warsaw, he made it clear for how he believes we would achieve atlantic unity, but having said that, it is time for them to care about pushing back against russia as much as we do and we have increased willingness and progress has been made. to date, they have not even ir ownup to the promises. >> it is my disdain of the european union will have a meeting to continue the russian sanctions and that the new italian government has made it part of their platform that they onese russian sanctions and nation can veto the regime. it seems that the european union
will lift sanctions on russia in a short amount of time. is that your understanding? that we willul continue to engage with the europeans and the italians and convince them that the sanctions regime is important to achieving the outcomes that are in the best interest of europe and italy and we are hard at that effort already. >> i sincerely hope that you can , but would have to say that, you look at the policy today, and is it true or not true that the russian occupation of korea? >> we reject that occupation. -- of crimea? >> we reject that occupation. >> we believe there is a threat to friends in the baltics and po
land and we have sent additional money. >> we have increased the advanced forces there in europe. >> do you think the president rewarding russia with a membership into the g-7 is consistent question mark once i think the administration is unambiguously tough on russia and it is indisputable. >> i would raise the question of the g-7. let me ask about the border. me that itgree with is no coincidence that we are having a border crisis when we are facing a drug crisis in this country? >> i am not sure that i'm prepared to opine into the correlation between those two. >> stick with me for one second.
the drug gangs and the drug cartels that have made many parts of those countries lawless and the gangs threaten individuals who risk their lives to come to the border. the reason the gangs are prospering is because of the appetite for narcotics in the united states and the fact that we launder millions of dollars into those gangs. do you see that question mark >> it is -- see that? representser now $100 billion. next you think we are doing enough -- >> do you think we are doing enough? >> for many years, we were successful with the movement of money and the support of the cartels and the drug trade. on the demand side in the united states, we have a lot of work to support theffort to
defeat of the narco terrorists in mexico have fallen short. >> what about the narcotic, fentanyl, which is taking many lives? it is a synthetic opioid. playing ins china shipping fentanyl to the night states? amount.nificant congress has been fantastic in providing resources to the executive branch to push back against this new and truly-grave threat. >> i was in venezuela and o said that aur lection wouldn't be
recognized they were the world. there have been incredible negative outcomes in public health and they have now gone through with the election. what's is the next step to put pressure on him question mark >> we would put the additional sanctions on the regime and what is the next step to put pressure on him? >> we would put the additional sections on the regime and continue our diplomatic outreach to make them return to some semblance of a democracy. i have to say that this is an enormous challenge that our t ools have not proven sufficient to darte. we have is one tool not used and you know it is. would you consider imposing oi a
sanctions between the unites states and venezuela. >> we are continuing to review this and there are ramifications to doing this that make it more complicated. i know that you are aware of those and i don't mean -- i know that you get it. reviewing the points of if we need to suffer the negative ramifications to get the outcome that gives the venezuelan people a chance. gees leavingu venezuela and were talking about almost 10% of the population. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your service. >> i am in favor of summit meetings between the president of the night states and the iteign adversaries when advances interests and imo opposed to those when it provides a propaganda windfall
adversaries. i think the jury is out between trump and kim jong-un. there was a headline in the wall street journal today about north korea upgrading a nuclear site. that is a troubling report. you would agree that north korea poses a nuclear threat to the united states. >> yes. >> i think it is important that the president does not engage in puffery on this. after the summit meeting, he said that there was no longer a nuclear threat from north korea and i think we need to be very clear about the past history of negotiations with north korea. do you agree? clear-eyed. be
i'm coffee at what the president didnded there was that we reduce the -- i am confident about what the president intended there was that we reduce the threat. i watched him. >> i understand your interpretation. >> his his point is a fair one. for the moment, we have reduced the risk and we are endeavoring to do that more. >> i understand what you said, but he said "there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea." i would point out that he reduced tensions from when he took it to a boiling point and brought it down.
i don't want to engage in that, but i just want to get a clear that you believe that north korea poses a nuclear threat to the united states. with the chairman mentioned and in ah president xi press conference after, trump the they were weakening sanctions and "that is ok" and border isi think the more open than what we started, but it is what it is." with ant to answer this two points. it is the case that we have observed china not enforcing controls over crossing the
border areas over areas 6-12 they have been enforcing sanctions in a way that we have never seen them do before. we were singularly effective in this. and they are still on-sides, that the case sanctions remain a priority of .he admionistration i remind them of the importance of doing that. that placinghear place.on north korea in ey and i would further reduce the
flexibility and i think that is an important message to send. at the summit, it was discovered that china was reducing the levels of sanctions. let me ask you about turkey and kurds that the syraian important ally. give me an assurance that you ergodan be bullied by to throw them under the bus. to hurl is no impulse yellow objects. >> with turkey acquiring the f would,nd the
that pose a national security threat? i know you have testified over the house that you are imploring turks not to go forward and i think that we want a more definitive statement. the committee passed legislation that says, it is one or the other. get thethe trurks to but can we get a pledge that they will not get that until they agree to not acquire the s-400. on theave been cleared risk. >> they will only understand a definitive statement and we have sent them one. i think it is important that the u.s. government is on the same
page. so, i am asking you to make a definitive statement, if not right now, which i would think would be helpful, but very quickly. is a ceremony in texas the same day that we took action. the more turkey think they can the more it drags out and we should end this and make it clear that they have to choose as an ally. at cannot put other allies risk. but i've spoken to my counterpart in the last several days about not just the f-35 but pastor00, brunson's return is of paramount importance to us as well.
i think this will lead us to an outcome that pleases everyone on the committee. >> i appreciate that. there is a long list. ria iss happening in sy one and the pastor is another. let's be clear that turkey has unlawfully taken the pastor. i would like your commitment that the pastor will not be used chipbargaining with turkey or cooperating with the turks to throw the syrian kurds or allowing them to get the 2-400. -- the s-400. what they have done is horrible, did with theey foreign nationals who worked for
our embassies. >> those are separate and we are not linking them. >> we are just about done. wrap. quick rap and -- in terms of staffing, are you making progress? >> yes. not as rapidly as america needs is to. f north korea is watching, and i hope that you are, take that deal. it would be good. this time around, are you agreeing that we are running out of peaceful options? >> i do. the north koreans appreciate that we are serious about accomplishing the things that they have put on the table. these are things we have said we would do. the president made a commitment with the senior-level joint exercises and we have paused a major run and we are following it ish on commitments and
our expectations that the north koreans do that relatively-quickly. >> along those lines, i am willing to suspend that exercise, but i am not ok with withdrawing troops from south korea because they are a stabilizing force for the region and i do not want china to get the wrong cue. do you agree? >> i do. >> we will talk to you about an initiative on working on that. a bridges falling apart and we are going to spend now or later. we had to do some been about gaza. i thank you for what you are doing. senator leahy. >> we spoke briefly about this outside and a number of us republicans and democrats came
dp earlier today from jordan an thee was concern about agency and the conversation we had. senator graham was there, too. a normal contribution is somewhere between 350,000,000-400,000,000 dollars million-$400 million. lebanon, the west bank, gaza. u.r.n.r.a.tive, the bhools, they are schools run y hamas.
instead of the blue flag, we would see the black and green flag. we have seen this over the years and there have been some who have been educated the wrong way and it is the way when a leader leads a society and that is where they continue. we have the refugees and others there. what do we do about education for these kids? what dothe u.n.r.a> we do? >> there are questions about what we do and if others would provide funding to the schools that open. are not doing so that we don't want them to do a we don't have the wrong folks
underwriting. has been mismanaged for some time. we have a mechanism to avoid the challenge and a second for the jordan to go to school. i think we are getting closer to the solution. >> there are concerns about the west bank, gaza, and so on. the refugeess, in dwarfs had to take indwarf what the united states has had to do and i would hate to see
them go somewhere else, if we just look the fuse -- lit the fuse. supporter infind a the committee to do what is necessary, but the time is limited. talked about how you law and youleahy enforce it and pursue the necessary resources. it is a state department law that foreign individuals and units determine if they are eligible for aid. american taxpayers were concerned about aid going to a military unit in another country
young boys.e raping that is not what we want to spend money and should not. i appreciate that you said you would support it. ambassadors told to support it? are.s, they ambassador says -- even though we spent a great the policeey to help and the military forces in this country, is he correct? familiarr, i am not with that.
i appreciate that. i will tell you who the ambassador is. >> thank you. very briefly. >> the senator mentioned the u.n.r.a. money and there is the funding that is being held at the white house and i would appreciate if you could maybe have a member of your team get back to us very quickly about what the plan is. >> you can tell that i need to go and find out exactly what the status is about that. is a very complicated situation and it is making a desperate situation worse. the other thing i would ask is, you have been very clear in previous testimony about past
interference and what you are projecting to be interference into the midterm elections. in the meeting with the press covers they just had with ambassador bolton. kremlin said the that they have never feared and they never will. i'm working on something with senator rubio called the which would put in some disincentives. and youm looked at it think that it is harsh, but we want feedback as to what you becaused be workable, it is easier to prevent the rushes from interference in the
which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: today supreme court justice anthony kennedy announced his retirement. justice kennedy was nominated by president reagan in 1987 and confirmed unanimously by the senate. we interviewed justice kennedy in 2009. here is part of that interview. >> if you had a child or grandchild who said, i would like to be a lawyer. would you say that is a direction i would encourage you to go? >> absolutely. i still miss being a lawyer. after some years on the bench, i would be very happy practicing law. i loved it. >> what is it you loved? >> as i have indicated, you have defendth, an obligation to something basic to the american identity, the american ideal to freedom as we know it. >> fresh out of law school? >> you are playing a little part
in that when you have a case involving a misdemeanor, even if felony, you are just a little cog in the wheel. the idea the government cannot arrest your client without cause, convict your client without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is so impressive. havethe world doesn't freedom, because it can't or because it doesn't want it. and the jury is out as to whether or not the rest of the world will choose freedom, and we have to make that case. frankly, it is not being made. i'm not sure we are picking up a lot of ground. >> what do you mean by that? >> well, there are 6 billion people on this earth of humankind.
over half of them have to live outside the law. as an obstacle, not an instrument of progress. ,hey see the law as a threat something to be avoided, not embraced. they don't understand it. i gave a speech not long ago talking about silva needs and -- talking about the great soviet writer who gave a commencement 1978 and 1977 or criticized the united states and the west for being obsessed with the law. i was just astounded that this man, who i thought understood , therinciples of freedom unyielding, indomitable human spirit to rise above tyranny, would criticize -- and it
occurred to me that he thinks of the law as something cold, something as a threat. for us, the law is liberating. that is the big difference. we have to teach that and we don't teach enough of it. announcer: justice anthony kennedy's retirement brings a significant change to the supreme court. , from the story on c-span president trump nominating a replacement, the senate confirmation hearings, to the swearing-in, all on c-span. c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. here is what we are covering thursday on the c-span networks. 9:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage of the house begins. there are expected to continue work on the 2019 defense spending bill. on c-span2, live coverage of the senate as they work on the farm bill. on c-span3 at 9:30, fbi director christopher wray and deputy
attorney general rod rosenstein testify at a house judiciary committee hearing on fbi and justice department actions surrounding the 2016 presidential election. announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. pennsylvaniaing, republican congressman discusses immigration and the dishes area -- and the judiciary committee hearing on the clinton email pro. another congressman talks about the future of u.s. immigration policy. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. the heads of t-mobile and sprint testified at a senate hearing, looking into their proposed merger that would form the country's second-largest wireless carrier.