tv Secretary of State Pompeo on 2019 Budget CSPAN June 28, 2018 5:32am-7:01am EDT
, we would like to hear about any specific results you expect from the meeting between the president's, specifically in the area of arms control on the treaties. we certainly discussed these issues today and various meetings that i had. the purpose today was not to reach any conclusions but to help lay the basis for the conversation between the two presidents. i expect between them they will proceed along the issues that they regard as most important, but i don't think we expect necessarily specific outcomes or decisions. it is important after the length of time that has gone by without a bilateral summit, for 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 secretary ofdget state mike pompeo answered
>> the subcommittee will come to order. we will have six minute rounds and i will give a short opening statement. 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 a robust foreign assistance account. it is essential that our diplomats serve safely.
to the public i often talk about the military, because they deserve it. i don't talk enough about the state department members that serve in dangerous locations without the security footprint that we would like, but they take risks on behalf of this nation every day and they are very much heroes. i think you will be a good voice for their needs. the president's budget request, it is 20% below what we wound up doing. we have time constraints. these are the threats we face. nonstate actor challenges and to state actor challenges since 2011 when we implemented sequestration. chart is inn that your purview.
, iran, and isis is a pretty good challenge. you are dragging afghanistan on and on. here's what we are trying to prevent. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. you are a central part of this. i don't see how it can make sense to cut the budget over 20% give in your portfolio. , doe give you more money you think you can wisely spend it? say yes.ill if you don't, we will have a problem. want to turnhat, i it over to senator leahy. i appreciate you coming today, because you are in demand. this subcommittee needs to say what is on our mind and you need to tell us what we can do to better do your job. eahy: welcome.
your no strangers to the congress. this committee has had long of the statepport department, whether republicans have been in charge of the senate, or democrats. a republican or democratic administration. over the years, we have always worked together. the committee unanimously reported fiscal year 2019 state to aperations bill unanimous conclusion, sudden ast.s in the e we rejected the cuts. our goal was to enable the united states to be a global , that so many have
sacrificed for over generations. it means we have to lead by example. we have to stand up for our values and pay our fair share to support international alliance organizations, support our interests, and hands our enhanceion and -- i our reputation. we have two choices. one is to cut the budget at the state department by 25%, slash our contribution to the united nations, withdraw from treaties, close our borders the people fleeing violence or war, bully our neighbors, and ignore the fact that our strongest competitors expand influence as we pull back. the other approaches to be a leader when we are still the world's only superpower thanks
to the sacrifice of generations of americans before us. that is the approach the subcommittee has taken. the lion's share of credit goes to the chairman. he committed at the beginning that we would make it bipartisan and try to have a unanimous vote. we did. graham: we like ourselves if no one else does. the floor is yours. i appreciate you having me and i look forward to our conversation. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the president's budget and issues on your mind. i want you to know how much i appreciate that you have operated in a bipartisan manner. we have had per. conversations over a range -- had productive
conversations over a range of topics. the way you're thinking that the world is helpful to me. it is not something i do as a courtesy, but something of value extraordinarily. you were short with your opening statements. i will do the same. you will see the overall budget reflects an effort to manage dollars wisely. we have made progress working on next year's budget. i look forward to each of us and work tos to continue to achieve america's foreign policy objectives. we have a written statement. i'm happy to take questions. sen. graham: we will do six on withounds and get it. let's start with afghanistan. do you know general miller? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: i asked him what would happen if we withdrew in the next six months in afghanistan. he said he thinks it would lead
to a lot of disorder. i asked, would it be different than iraq when we left to soon? he said it would be similar. what are the concerns? i would be concerned about isis and al qaeda's ability to emerge . they want to and are looking for that opportunity. do you agree with that assessment? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: do agree with me that if we left without conditions of withdrawal come you cannot do much without security in terms of the state department, your people would be sitting ducks? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: i want you to convey to the president that we will keep the aid coming to afghanistan, it is metrics-based, make sure we don't waste our money, but i don't see how the state department can operate if the security environment doesn't exist. if we withdraw too soon, it will fall apart. in terms of north korea, if we are able to achieve an agreement with north korea, do you think
it would be wise to send it to the congress? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. graham: several democratic colleague sent you a letter about what a good deal with look like with the north korea. any agreement that north korea must be billed on the current nuclear test suspension and include the dismantlement and removal of chemical and biological weapons from north korea. second, our goal must be the full and complete and verifiable denuclearization of north korea. north korea must continue its current full test suspension, including any space launch, dismantling their program. korea must submit to any time anywhere inspections. any agreement with north korea must be permanent. is that the outline of a pretty good deal? do threeeo: i said i times. it is starting to sound like my wedding. that is the kind of deal that
would achieve a president trump is attending to do in our discussions with north korea. sen. graham: there is bipartisan support for what a good deal will look like. we will do our best and i think you are the right guide to try. if we fail it will be very bad. syria, we have 2200 troops in syria? sec. pompeo: that is correct. sen. graham: the state department's plan for syria, can it be accomplished without military presence on our part anytime soon? sec. pompeo: we are not in a place yet. we are taking the lead to achieve the political resolution that has proven elusive since the uprising in syria. we are not in a position where we have sufficient leverage to achieve the political outcome that is in the best interest of the united states and the world. sen. graham: if we withdrew from the north with out sound thinking, do you
worry? thingsmpeo: a number of i worry about in the north. the al qaeda nusra front and a host of terrorists i'm concerned about. sen. graham: president erdogan was reelected to a five-year term. can you outline for this committee where we are at with turkey and what we can do to help the administration to make turkey a better partner? been, in my it has time in this administration, difficult with the turks. it was difficult before that. themecision to work with is not something they were happy about. we made progress. we came to an understanding about how our forces would work together to resolve a complicated issue between kurds and arabs, a real mix. progress. we are hopeful we can build on that. they will be part of a political resolution, an important part.
we need to recognize that and do our best to work alongside them. now that the election is over hope we can have a more productive conversation with them. , can you giveraq us an assessment of the progress in iraq. if the iraqis would accept a residual force made up of nato and u.s. forces, do you think it is in our interest to leave that force behind? sec. pompeo: that is the current administration plan. there is some work that will be in aced at the nato summit few days to develop that nato force. we have watched closely our thessador and our team on ground watched closely as the election took place and government formation efforts have begun to achieve a government in iraq that was an iraqi national unity government with little iranian influence -- as little iranian influence as we can achieve. we are doing our best to
facilitate where appropriate, but the iraqi people will decide the formation of their government. we hope it is one where we can reduce the influence of iran. i think most of the iraqi people want that as well. sen. graham: yemen, do you think it is important in iran not be allowed to dominate human? -- yemen? sec. pompeo: i do. we can see enormous irani influence in yemen. sen. graham: do you trust the russians to drive the iranians out of syria? a specific: that is question, i can generalize. the russian capacity to do that is an open-ended question. if they could achieve that, get the iranians out of there, i would applaud it. sen. graham: i trust them about as much to do that as i do to police and local weapons. -- chemical weapons. secretary mattis and the department of defense come you
have been a great team, when he was commander he said the following. if you cut the state department's budget you better by me more ammunition. do you agree? sec. pompeo: diplomacy is and ought to be the center of dispute resolution around the world and can keep our young men and women in uniform out of harms way. sen. graham: this subcommittee is open to you 24 hours a day seven days a week to help you. we may have our differences, but i'm pleased with the leadership you have shown early on. we want to help you be successful. secretary, in your testimony you highlighted for areas of budget security assistance, counter isis, humanitarian aid, global health. as priorities in the administration compared to the fy18 request.
slashed funding and was rejected by republicans and democrats alike. 9 requestdent's fy1 compared to fy18 is global health will be cut by 23%. humanitarian aid will be cut by 17%. security assistance would be cut by 19%. anything you would change about the fy 19 budget request? sec. pompeo: it did happen before my time. 2020. get my swing in fy when the budget was put together, the president had a lot to consider. it was a lot to balance. you were gracious and we got an
increase at the state department and dod, things that affect national security. we are forward to our conversation with you. sen. leahy: would you be upset if we did what we did in the last budget to restore the cuts? sec. pompeo: the answer is i'm looking forward to the conversation so we can get it right. my question is rhetorical. you have been asked to do a about north korea. it has been rescheduled a couple of times at your request, we understand the travel. the president said north korea no longer poses a nuclear threat. we are concerned about that.
i want to ask you what, if anything, north korea has done to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. i recognize these are not questions you can answer in open session. with you commit to a senate briefing in a classified setting for senators to discuss exactly where we are with north korea? sec. pompeo: i will. i do. i'm happy to provide that briefing. sen. leahy: thank you. before the iran nuclear agreement was signed, prime minister netanyahu noticed iran was weeks or months away from building an atomic bomb. that is why many supported the agreement. they were a few weeks away from having one. on recently gave a speech iran policy and listed 12 conditions iran must meet for the trump administration to
agree to a new deal. iran immediately rejected 12 conditions. the european union's foreign policy said there was no alternative to the earlier agreement. if prime minister netanyahu is telling the truth, in the next three to six months iran resumes full speed ahead to build a nuclear weapon, what do they do? they rejected the administration to request for a new agreement. mr. and and yahoo! say they are a few weeks -- mr. tha netanyaho say they are few weeks
away from building a nuclear weapon. what do we do? sec. pompeo: refer to the 12 structural changes we hope the iranian leadership will undertake. a fair reading of any of those would be nothing more than asking iran to be a normal country. the same thing we ask of elgin and others. sen. leahy: they rejected them. what do we do? sec. pompeo: we put pressure on them. we execute diplomacy, we do our best to gain allies. we have allies across the gulf states, out other parts of the world. we will be meeting at the foreign minister level. i will be meeting with my counterparts in brussels to develop a path forward. he right theys were weeks away from building a nuclear weapon? sec. pompeo: i don't want to get into details of intelligence,
but we have publicly said they have a capacity in 12 months, to be precise. sen. leahy: thank you. we have health incidents involving u.s. personnel in cuba and china. in cuba they refer to them as attacks. in china, when the same thing seems to have happened they were called incidents. in cuba, a level three travel advisory was triggered. the department issued a health alert and no order departure. you said china was the right cuba they failed to take appropriate steps to protect diplomats. isn't it the same event in china and cuba? sec. pompeo: that is a good question. i don't know if they were the same. the medical condition, the single medical condition to date in china is consistent with what
happened in cuba. we are up to two dozen plus in cuba. we don't know the source of either of these. we are continuing to investigate in both places. we have received better initial responses from the chinese government banned the cuban to deal with how them, but neither has led to a satisfactory outcome so we can keep foreign service officers serving in embassies in those two places say. heavily throne chinese diplomats out of the united states as we did cuba's for virtually the same kind of attack? ,ec. pompeo: the magnitude scope, consistency, and time are different. i'm deeply aware that if we determine we face a similar situation, you can respect the response would be commiserate to
the risk of our officers. sen. leahy: my time is up. thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary for being here. i'm glad you are here and you recognize the seriousness of what we are facing. i have a lot of confidence. mr. secretary, israel is our closest ally in the middle east. it is a democracy surrounded by enemies whose policy is its distraction. hezbollah is one of those enemies. how would you describe the relationship between iran and hezbollah? sec. pompeo: as well as a fully funded terrorist organization of the iranian regime active along multiple dimensions. , a capableable
intelligence force, active not only in the region of the west around the israeli-lebanon border, but active in supporting assad in.i hezbollah has external plotting, including places like the united states. >> do you have the appropriate resources to carry out a policy that supports israel's defense? sec. pompeo: i believe we do. >> what are the areas the united states needs next with israel? experience in my previous role, we have no better partner along many dimensions than the israelis. not only what we do to keep israel safe and secure but what they do to help us push back against terrorist threats of the united states. there may be opportunities to do
more and better, but we have a solid working relationship across intelligence agencies and our two governments. sen. hyde-smith: i know you have been busy, we have both been on the job two months. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. isnow the administration committed to an agreement with north korea on their nuclear weapons that i think has been described as complete and verifiable. is that the term you used? to get that agreement, we need to know, and hopefully you agree , we need to know the scope of their nuclear weapons program. material,uclear
facilities, that sort of thing. -- have we requested that list with north korea? what is their response? sec. pompeo: i will get a handful of questions like this, i will answer each the same. i'm not prepared to answer questions about the details. i think it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to achieving the in state we are hoping to achieve. they are watching this hearing. that thingsakable we know that the north koreans , not only from the president's summit but from previous encounters i have had, there were working level meetings in multiple places, including in the run-up to the singapore summit. the north koreans understand the scope of the request we are nuclear'sh the asian and the elements. one element would be a their own
understanding of each of the theirts you laid out, physical material, their capacity to develop that weapon,, engineering, physics efforts, and the missiles that would deliver them. we have been not ambiguous in which we say when we say complete the nuclear is a. sen. shaheen: my understanding and past negotiations is north korea has been unwilling to provide that in the tory. -- that inventory. can you tell us who is leading negotiations with north korea? is there an interagency group, are they ongoing, where are they taking place? sec. pompeo: it is the case that previous efforts have not been able to achieve complete declaration of a north korean system. some small pockets they were able to achieve. to most of the
folks that have gone at this problem. with respect to ongoing negotiations, it is me. i'm leading the effort. it is an interagency effort. we have teams that stretch from our tenantlieve the fourth of the agreement that was signed in singapore had to do with returning the remains of americans still missing in
action from the korean war. in newmy constituents hampshire runs a nonprofit that seeks to repatriate the remains of americans who are missing. i know the president has made , sayingts recently they're in the process of making and sending back the remains of our heroes. but it is my understanding that anyave not received remains. they have been, fraught with difficult challenges. can you tell us the status of those transfers and are we expecting any remains to be repatriated in the foreseeable future? i am optimistic that we will begin to have two opportunities.
remainso receive some but there is a great deal of wek with the companies that .id to gain access we are intent on denuclearization. , for all the obvious reasons, intent on getting back as many remains for americans or other foreigners as well. other countries have asked to his fate in this as well. we are dogged in participating in this. >> just to be clear, we have not yet received? >> that is correct. >> i know that syria has come up already. the situation there. are you aware of any plans to
withdraw forces from iran member which? in the immediate future? >> correct. conditions based. there is an outline for what the objectives are and how it would be undertaken jointly by each of the two countries. doin the immediate future, do we see this in weeks or months? >> we are sustaining those in the future. >> great to see you again. i turn on the news, you have to take on another egg -- another big issue. a grateful nation sees a lot of the issues around the world and sees that there are many issues
around the world. thanks for taking those on because you have become the tip of the spear and i appreciate you doing that very much. central america is near and dear and i having engaged with people in the northern triangle. they are exceptionally important in the northern hemisphere and this congress has committed dollars to the area. vice president biden had an alliance for prosperity. we have done this two more times with $500 million going into the region. are we doing this well? 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.s.e. or d.o.d. and we need to stabilize that to reduce the immigration issues. >> the 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. >> coming up, there is a lot riding on our southern partner and what is going on in those elections. what engagement do we have or are we in a wait-and-see mode? >> 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 -- and we have met with counterpart several times and i expect to go that way not too long after the election to meet with the current government and, perhaps, the next.
they are an important country for our country. >> let's turn to ppg and voice of america. they are a forward-facing 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. >> my counselor had a chance to go out there and there are pieces of this that work. well -- that work well. we have a public diplomacy operation. there other places that have been described as "disconnected"
and not well done. there have been issues with the bbg. i hope to return to this viable tool. >> we have three different forward-communicating tools without real coordination and occasional not-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 and assad? >> no. >> strategically, is this where we are going as we negotiate
with the russians, the turks, and the jordanians? >> 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. the gulf states are helpful. the europeans share our common understanding and the israelis, certainly. the assad 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.
the administration has requested removing funding. what is the strategy? we are not walking away from the palestinians, but this model is not working. and hasn't worked for decades. i want to know the strategy of where we are going now. thank you. >> thank you for being here. charts are fair game and i will begin with one of my own. this is a short inventory of trump's insults to allies and partners. i know you cannot read it and i cannot even read it. the type has to be so small to him include all of the things that the president has said about allies over the course of
the last 1.5 years in this concerns democrats and republicans. it is not that allies should not be subject to criticism, but the vitriol all of the criticism is harming, in real time, the u.s. national security interests and the latest is a tweet that seems to cheer on the the political opposition to the german chancellor. this elevates the right and the 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 "hold-harmless" harbor from
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.s. does $300 million of trade with iran. germany does $3 billion. i wanted update on the progress being made are not being made to reapply the sanctions. this is the foundation of the administration's plan and it seems like a particularly rough treatment of european allies that is pushing us further from the new sanctions regime against iran. not closer.
>> it has been a difficult discussion since we decided to withdraw. the europeans have a different path forward and they would have chosen 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. this is something they want alongside with us. we have teams that are fanned out across the world and they would ship with that looks like.
my recollection is that they 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 with iran present 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. so, your answer to lankford, is the suggestion to take a course that rids iranian 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 country and uderwriting with financial assistance, terror will be influence when we all operations, support of the sunni regime. they have increased their military capacity in a way that was different than 10-15 years 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 into the g-8 without preconditions. has the position change? are we willing to allow russia to rejoin if they have not implemented the minsk agreement? >> the 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 wide 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 that 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 toolkit for 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 structures that can be achieved in the act accomplishes giving us a flexibility to identify a development need and bring that to bear over the time to measure the outcome. >> i look forward to working with you to implement the new tool. when trump signed the executive order to end family separations, it didn't end the crisis in central america, which is the source of people fleeing.
i ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the vice president, joe biden, who said that we need to address the root causes. any efforts on border protection would be insufficient and the administration has repeatedly proposed slashing aid to central america, and it has fallen 20%. 750 million to just over 600 million. do you agree that we need to focus on the northern triangle countries of central america which, together, represented overwhelming amount of those crossing the border, and will address that?it
when the vice president travels to guatemala this week, as you plan to revise diplomatic aid effort's? >> the answer to the second question is yes and the answer to your first question -- senator lankford has asked a similar question and i don't the the region lacks for -- i don't think the region lacks for american financial support and i think some of this has been effective. i do not know what the right number is for financial assistance and i think we need to make sure that there is an outcome we can deliver. i 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 application for asylum at embassies, rather than having families risking lives to take this dangerous trip. senator murphy suggested that trump is planning to meet with vladimir putin. dni coates said that russia is trying to divide the trans-atlantic alliance and says that russia has meddled in france, spain, ukraine and has tried to divide the nato alliance. will the russian interference in the united states be a focus of
that summit with putin? >> here is what i can say. as far as the nato summit, every conversation that has been had between the united states government and the counterparts, like mr. lavrov, i raise the issue and i am positive that donald trump will raise the issue that meddling in the elections is unacceptable. >> i hope our president will hold putin and russia accountable for the aggression towards ukraine. for the interference in our election and others. thatconcerned by reports in syria, the assad regime is on the march.
and i wonder if, in closing, i could ask, that i 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 have sent a signal that we will not lock advances in southwestern syria that might create an opportunity for iranian influence to advance closer to jordan and israel? >> 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. >> isn't 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 be between the president. >> are they listening to what they say -- to what we say and do they care? >> uh, i will answer the first and cannot speak to the latter. they are listening and they are not just listening to us. it is the voice of the israeli and jordanian's who have made it in a that we find moving way that is inconsistent of the agreement signed off by putin himself is not acceptable. >> this 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. >> chairman, 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. i have been there twice in 90 days. the growing influence is readily apparent and i believe that it is critically important that we, as a nation, avoid complacency and that we are clear about the challenges and the opportunities that china brings in a relationship with the united states that i see as the most consequential between any two countries in the 21st century. we cannot just view this as a trade dispute, but it is important we keep in mind the
goal of becoming a superpower, both 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 allies to mitigate actions in the south china sea, with i.p., human rights abuses and unfair practices. this is important as china is now engaging with our partners and 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? >> secretary 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. with respect to diplomacy, we will come next year and ask for resources in the region and i 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 secretary mattis himself has truly reconfigured the way the department of defense is thinking about it in the south china sea and even through the indian ocean. in the effort to improve the capacity. >> thank you. i am elevated to more of a strategic level, versus somewhat tactical in the past. along the strategic lines, i anieve the tpp presents opportunity to strengthen ties with allies who market access for farmers. vacuum creates china to
come in and fill it. would you support efforts to reengage with pp nations in an effort to improve? >> i do. the president prefers bilaterally. i do believe that improving 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 united states. from crimea and interference in the u.s. elections, this has been a problem. there is the nordstream pipeline that would allow russia to
monopolize the energy supply and undermine european allies' abilities to counter. >> we are engaged in a "all of u.s. government approach" to convince countries that increased energy relationships with russia is not consistent with what we're trying to do. the nordstream example is one of those that we think is the wrong direction and allows rush to have the capacity to influence in germany and all around europe. >> shifting back to the asia-pacific and north korea, should they not commit to the
process, would you commit to walking away from the negotiating table? >> yes. the president has made that clear. >> is there a risk in china using north korea for leverage in other negotiation, trade or otherwise? >> is the question of "what 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? >> a modest amount, yes. 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 first place and we should have a line of defense. >> we will provide you the feedback to the legislation and give you real thoughts. >> i ask committee members to submit questions for the record friday. than well done, mr. secretary. the subcommittee stance in recess.
>> here is that we are covering thursday. at mina clock a.m., live coverage of the u.s. house begins. to continueected work on the 2019 defense spending bill. on c-span2, the senate works on the farm bill. on c-span3, christopher wray and rod rosenstein testify at a house judiciary committee hearing on actions surrounding the 2016 elections.
>> in about half an hour, we will talk to a congressman about immigration and a hearing on the clinton email investigation. congressman henry cuell >> it is not just a moment -- it is not just in fulfillment of my constitutional duty, but with myat pride i am announcing nomination for united states circuit judge anthony kennedy to be a justice of the supreme court. host: that was november 11, 1987. 30 years later, justice kennedy announced that he will be stepping down from the high court at the end of july. this morning on "washington journal," we went to your from you on justice kennedy's legacy, what the court will look like without him, and the nomination and expected confirmation battle