tv Secretary of State Pompeo on 2019 Budget CSPAN June 29, 2018 11:11am-12:31pm EDT
graham: the subcommittee will come to order. we are pleased to have mr. pompeo with us. you got to leave at 4:30. we got a hard stop. timell run the train on 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. you have the president's confidence. you have my confidence and i appreciate you and your family willing to do this. if you don't want to be an -- let's talk about account and
then we will get into that questioning. senator leahy and i have been doing this for a while, but for if you don't-- want to be endless wars, you want to have more tools than dropping bombs, it is essential that our diplomats under your command serve safely. and to the public, i often talk about the military because they deserve it. but don't talk enough about the state department usaid 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 oyu will be a good voice for their needs.
as to the president's budget request. this is 20% below what we wound up doing. because we have time constraints, these are the threats that we face. nonstate 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 you face. north korea, iran, and isis is a pretty good challenge. then you go to syria, yemen, 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 just don't see how it make sense to cut the budget by 20% given your portfolio, and i will ask you one question in a minute, if we give you more money, can you wisely spend it? you will say yes. if you don't, we will have a
problem. having said that, i want to turn it over to senator leahy, and i appreciate you coming today, mike, because you are in demand. but the subcommittee needs to tell you what is in our mind, and you need to tell us what we can do to help you better do your job. senator leahy? senator leahy: 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 whether republicans or democrats have been in charge. senator graham and i have swapped seats on this over the years. we have always worked together. in this last week the committee , unanimously reported the fiscal year 2019 state foreign
operations bill is hard to get a unanimous conclusion that the sun rises in the east, but we did it. we rejected cuts proposed and so many americans have sacrificed over these decades and generations. it means 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. we have to support policies and programs and enhance our reputation and credibility. i will put my whole statement in the record, but i will close with this, i think we have two choices. one is to cut the budget by 25%, slash our contributions to the united nations, withdraw from international agreements and treaties, close our borders,
bully our neighbors, ignore the fact that our strongest competitors are methodically expanding influence as we pull back. the other approaches to be a leader and the world's only superpower thanks to sacrifices of generations of americans who came before us. that is the approach the subcommittee has taken. we credit the chairman because he committed at the beginning, we did it together, to make it bipartisan, and we tried to have a unanimous vote. and we did. so -- senator graham: we like ourselves if nobody else does. [laughter] secretary graham:
the floor is yours, mr. pecretary. secretary pompeo: thank you very much. i look forward to our conversation. distinguished members of subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the president's budget. the list you showed there is long and i'm sure you could add a couple others and you could add more as well. i want you to know how much i appreciate the fact you have operated in a bipartisan manner. i talked to many of you on the phone, had productive conversations, and no i am always available to understand your priorities and the way you are thinking about the world is helpful to me. it is not just something i do as a courtesy. it is something i value extraordinarily. you are all very short with your statements and i will do the same. you see the overall budget reflects an effort to manage dollars wisely. we met substantial progress on next year's budget. i look forward to our teams working together to achieve
america's foreign policy objectives. i have submitted my written statement and i'm happy to close their and to questions. graham:y -- senator thank you, mr. secretary. we will do the six minute rounds and get on with it. let's start with afghanistan. you know general miller? secretary pompeo: i do know general miller. senator 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? senator, for my point of view, i would be concerned about isis and al qaeda's ability to merge because another want to and they are consistently looking for that opportunity. do you agree with that assessment of afghanistan? secretary pompeo: i do. senator graham: do 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?
secretary pompeo: i do. senator 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. in terms of north korea, if we achieve an agreement with north korea, would it be wise to send it to the congress? secretary pompeo: it do. senator graham: senator leahy and others sent you a deal with what it would look good on an agreement with north korea. any agreement must the built on the current nuclear test suspension and the removal of all nuclear and chemical and biological weapons from north korea. completemust be the denuclearization of north korea. must continue its ballistic missile suspension, or program, and north korea must
submit to anytime anywhere inspections and any agreement with north korea must be permanent in nature. is that an outline of a good deal? secretary pompeo: i said i do three times, it is starting to sound like my wedding. yes, that is an outline the kind of deal of what president trump is intending to do with our discussions of north korea. senator graham: how we get bipartisan support, we will do our best. i think you are the right got to try. i hope we succeed. because if we fail, it will be very bad. syria -- we have about 2200 troops in syria, is that correct? secretary pompeo: yes, sir. senator graham: the state department's plan for syria, can it be achieved? secretary pompeo: we are looking to achieve the political resolution since the uprising in
syria. we not in a position where we have sufficient leverage to achieve the political outcome that is the best interests of the united states and the world. senator graham if we withdrew : from the north without thinking about the turkey-kurdish conflict arriving -- secretary pay oh: 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. senator graham president erdogan 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. secretary 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 and a real mix. so progress. 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. senator 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 the force of nato and u.s. forces, is it in our interest to leave that force behind? secretary 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 watched closely as the election took place and as government efforts have begun . 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. we are doing our best to 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. senator graham: speaking of iran and yemen, and you think it is important that iran not be able to dominate yemen to the houthis? secretary pompeo: i do. we see enormous iranian influence. senator graham: do you trust the russians to drive the iranians out of syria? secretary pompeo: that is a specific question.
i can generalize. with respect to the russian capacity to do that, it is an open-ended question. and if they could achieve that, if the russians could get the iranians out of there, i would applaud it. senator 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 me more ammunition. do you agree with the general concept? secretary pompeo: conceptually, 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 harm's way. senator graham: this subcommittee 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
. successful. senator leahy? senator 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 2018 request. the fy 2018 request would have slashed funding for each of the programs substantially. that was rejected by republicans and democrats alike in congress. now, the president's fy 2019 request compared to the fy18 is -- compared to the fy 2018 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 fy 2019 budget request? secretary pompeo: it did happen before my time. i will get my swing on fy 2020. 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. senator leahy: would you be horribly upset if we did like we did in the last budget to restore the cuts? you have to answer that. secretary 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. senator leahy: my question is as much rhetorical than anything. we are restoring them. you have been asked to do a
briefing about north korea. it has been rescheduled a couple of times because of your request , we understand, for travel. the president said the north korea the longer poses a nuclear threat. we are concerned about that. we want to ask you, 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 sitting in front of all senators? secretary pompeo: i do. yes. i am happy to provide that briefing. senator leahy: thank you. before the iran nuclear agreement was signed, the prime
minister netanyahu and others said it was only weeks or months away from building an atomic bomb, and that is why many supported the agreement being weeks away from having an agreement. you recently give a speech and you listed 12 conditions iran must meet in order for the trump administration to agree to it, a new deal. iran immediately rejected the 12 and chief said there was no alternative to the earlier alternative to the earlier you will hurt agreement. or rewrite our if president are your rotor toward netanyahu, in the next three or true netanyahu, in the next three or six months, iran resumed full speed ahead for and will nuclear weapons, what will do we do?
in they rejected the a a ministration's request for a ministration's request for a new agreement -- the administration's request for a you almagro is who we administration's request for a new agreement read what do we do are now -- agreement. in your what now -- agreement. what do we do now? to reject the world sec. pompeo: will all are in the book i will orders with you to describe the a wall path forward as we see it. you refer to the 12 structural andyou refer to the 12 structural changes we helped the iranian leadership hope to undertake. the think anything we asked belgium and others. you are 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. you are with allies in other parts of the world. or 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 is a government held member counterparts to develop a path 112 one hundred and forward. forward. sen. leahy: was mr. netanyahu 12 right that they were only bristow group gold resource pursuant to work on right that they were only health alert. report and have in cuba we were told that they failed to take you told that they failed to take a you a you help or will you are you are and who will appropriate steps to
go bill to the protect the report diplomat. of the what is the difference? or the and isn't that the same shape event in both china and of event in both china and the people and who will cuba? at all sec. pompeo: that is a the benefit of good question. the capable medical and legal good question. i don't know if they were the same event. of medical and what happened to our it's the case of the medical " it's the case of the medical condition to date and china, as the medical folks would say is consistent with what is happening with cuba. what happening with cuba. we're up to two dozen plus. we don't know the source of youwe don't know the source of either of these. we are continuing to investigate and who will thewe are continuing to investigate in both places. a both places. we have received better initial responses from the chinese government than we did on the will you government than we did on the cuban government on how to deal with them. neither of them has led to a satisfactory outcome leading to determine how to keep officers in the state department officials in those two places
say. sen. leahy: we have chinese for yousen. leahy: we have chinese for diplomats out of the united states for virtually the same kind of attack. sec. pompeo: the scope, consistency, time. are different. senator, i'm deeply aware that we weresenator, i'm deeply aware that we face a similar situation to you there, and you can expect but in the there, and you can expect the response our government would take is the same as other officers. sen. leahy: my time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for being here. i'm glad you hear -- you are ini'm glad you hear -- you are here. i have a lot of confidence i have a lot of confidence i could have met to admit that the case of the year to embarrass i 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 it is democracy have many without a ally and mentally it is not enemies and the stated a surrender that the enemy he stated the policy is the destruction of it. one enemy is hezbollah. enemy had forone enemy is hezbollah. how would you describe the relationship between iran and relationship between iran and hezbollah? and have sec. pompeo: hezbollah
is a fully funded client told her glory and terrorist organization active along will wondering organization active along what her borders and multiple dimensions. the small arms and rockets capable -- 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. lebanon border will syria. you will you has below also has will enter the has below also has active efforts for extra budging including places like the united states. >> the have the appropriate theater at the appropriate amount of resources to carry out the policy on their stability? amount of the area hardly the policy on their stability? sec. pompeo: i believe we do. a blip we do you >> what are the areas of cooperation the united areas of cooperation the united and they were in the area and states needs next with israel?
about the same a month of time. and about the same a month of time. thank you very much. >> thank and mr. chairman. mr. secretary, think you for being here. you being here. mr. secretary think for me is accurate and i note that the administration is committed to that administration committed an agreement with north korea on to an agreement with north korea agreement with north korea on their nuclear weapons and i weapons that i think think has had been tried at the best buy that will been described as
use in the event that agreements complete and verifiable. in order is that the term you to get back in the agreement is use?the term you hopefully you sec. pompeo: yes agree with sec. pompeo: yes this that we know the health of their nuclear weapons 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 and you probably have we were what some north korea the scope and what of their nuclear their response to never went of their nuclear weapons program so we need to know how many weapons we need to know how many weapons to the appropriate beautiful quarters will go to the they have, how much nuclear material facilities, that thing. rebuild the country to the facilities, that thing. have we requested that kind of list from north korea, and what popular regular classroom 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 that he will approach thei think it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to achieving
work you 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 elements you laid out. we would refer you to elements you laid out. their material on hand, their capacity to develop that material, weaponization efforts, supervision material, weaponization efforts, engineering, physics efforts, and and weapons and missiles half they would deliver. they would deliver. at 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 the leaking 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? the are those negotiations ongoing? where they taking place? sec. pompeo: with respect to your first point it is the case group of rapidly but we your first point it is the case that previous efforts have not been overlook able to achieve that's complete declaration of north korean systems. some small pockets they were able to achieve, it has not been done. i do not think i've spoken to all of the folks going at this problem previously. with respect to ongoing negotiations, it is me. i'm leading the effort. it is an interagency effort. we have significant teams stretching from our organization, multiple pieces of the organization, our experts, our korea and asia experts, because this is a korea and north korean issue at the end of unpredictable limited monopoly the day. good of a blago
and that flipping open the ======================= >> yes. their ongoing>> yes. with respect to your point, it is the case that previous or efforts have not been able to the achieve the complete agreement declaration of the that and poor declaration of the north korean system and some returning the remains of lord theand rom the he will be on their small pieces and it's my understanding that we have not yet received any remains from north korea and in the past the efforts to repatriate those people who died in the korean war have been fraught with difficult
challenges. status tell me what the is of those transfers land are we expecting any remains to be repatriated any time the foreseeable future? [laughter] >> this is a great deal of work for nonprofits who have been at this. we will need to gain access for this -- we are intent on denuclearization but we are also for all the obvious reasons intent on doing our best to get back as many remains of americans. there are foreigners there as well. in trying to get this as quickly as we can. received --ot yet
>> we have not yet physically received them. upi know that syria has come in the hearing this afternoon and i think it was senator graham who mentioned the situation. are you aware of any plans to withdraw our forces from iran --? immediate future? outline for how we will execute this and that would be undertaken by each of are we talking end-of-the-year, next year >> it is conditions-based and we have political processes that need to be sustained on the ground.
>> secretary, it is great to see you again. 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 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. what 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. 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. >> 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 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 will 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? will 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 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 relations committee yesterday 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 president, joe biden, who said that we need to address the root 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%. do you agree that we need to focus on the northern triangle countries of central america which, together, represented overwhelming ammount -- overwhelming amount of those cross the board. does the president planned to will add to the diplomatic aid efforts? >> 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 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 not etc..
>> i hope that they hold them ike countable -- hold them accountable. i am concerned 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 will not block advances in syria that would great opportunity for 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? >> 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 those moving in a way that is not consistent with the agreement that was signed off by vladimir putin. it 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 toy first century. we cannot just view this as a trade dispute, but it is important that we have this 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., and 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? >> secretary mattis, mnuchin, and 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 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." i believe that tpp resented -- presented an opportunity to put pressure on china because the vacuum allowed china to come in and fill it. would you support efforts to reengage with the tpp nation's? >> 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 interference in 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 oil 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 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 question mark >> yes. the president has made that clear. >> is there a risk in china using north korea for -- >> 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. >> do you believe that nato is obsolete? >> i do not. >> when 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 lived up to their own 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 oppose russian sanctions and one 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? >> i am hopeful that we will 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 we accept 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 poland 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. would you agree with me that it 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. in do you see the connection? the number now represents $100 billion. do you think we are doing enough? i believe that 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 do and our effort to support the 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. what role is china playing in shipping fentanyl to the night states? >> a significant amount. 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 president maduro said that a sham election 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
continue our -- what is the next step to put pressure on him? 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 tools have not proven sufficient to date. >> there is one tool we have not used and you know it is. would you consider imposing oil 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.
we are reviewing the points of if we need to suffer the negative ramifications to get the outcome that gives the venezuelan people a chance. you have refugees leaving 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 and the foreign adversaries when it advances interests and imo opposed to those when it provides a propaganda windfall to 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? >> i need to be clear-eyed. intended there was that we did 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 about with president xi and in a press conference after, trump
said they were weakening the sanctions and "that is ok" and he said, "i think the border is more open than what we started, but it is what it is." >> i want to answer this with two points. it is the case that we have observed china not enforcing controls over crossing the border areas over areas 6-12 months ago and they have been enforcing sanctions in a way that we have never seen them do before. we were singularly effective in
this. so, they are still on-sides, and it is the case that the sanctions remain a priority of the administration. i remind them of the importance of doing that. i am glad to hear that placing impact on north korea in place. senator toomey 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
i know that the syrian kurds have been an important ally. give me an assurance that you will not be bullied by ergodan to throw them under the bus. >> there is no impulse to hurl yellow objects. >> with turkey acquiring the f-400s and the f-35s, would that pose a national security threat? i know you have testified over the house that you are imploring the 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. we want the turks to get the f-35, but can we get a pledge that they will not get that until they agree to not acquire the s-400. >> we have been cleared on the 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. there is a ceremony in texas the same day that we took action.
the more turkey think they can pursue this, the more it drags out and we should end this and make it clear that they have to you are a nato ally you should not be doing something that puts other nato allies at risk. but i've spoken to my counterpart in the last several days about not just the f-35 and the s-400, but pastor 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. what is happening in syria is 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 as a bargaining chip 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, as is what they did with the foreign nationals who worked for our embassies. >> those are separate and we are not linking them. >> we are just about done. just a quick rap and -- wrap. in terms of staffing, are you making progress? >> yes.
not as rapidly as america needs is to. if 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. i think 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 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
senator graham was there, too. a normal contribution is somewhere between $350 million-$400 million. in jordan, lebanon, the west bank, gaza. the alternative, the u.n.r.a. schools, they are schools run by hamas. instead of the blue flag, we would see the black and green flag. what do we do here? 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 refugees. we have others there. what do we do about education for these kids? sec. pompeo: when the king was here, i spoke with the president on this very issue as well. there were a couple ideas on how we might do it and how the united states along with others might provide funding to those schools at the end of august. those kids are not doing something we don't want them to do or we don't have the wrong folks underwriting it. you know the challenges with that have frankly been mismanaged and poorly led and corruption for quite some time. we are trying to find a mechanism with the objectives you dese.