the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. >> c-span's newest book the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, provide insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historian. export the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they face in the legacies they have left behind, published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be on shelves april 23rd but you can preorder as a car -- hardcover or e-book today@c-span.org/the presidents or wherever books are sold. >> secretary of state mike pompeo was on capitol hill for the second day in a row to testify on the president's 2020 budget request for the state

department. the senate foreign relations committee asked him about asylum claims at the us southern border, relations with saudi arabia and the administration's recent decision to label iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist group. this is just under 3 hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will come to order. good morning, everyone, thank you for being here and we obviously have a distinguished guest here today who will help us through the dialogue, our topic is the state department's fiscal year 2020 budget request and our witness is the right man to answer questions about that request, mike pompeo. one thing many americans may not realize, the state department is part of the bedrock of our national security, it's diplomats our eyes and ears on the globe, they are the tip of the sphere for advancing us interests overseas.

our first line of defense against malign influences and a vital lead in negotiations to make sure our relations with friends and foes abroad don't go off the rails. civil servants work every day to keep the us economy strong advocating american exports and jobs back home and states like mine, idaho with 24,000 job supported by exporting just agricultural products. the state department provides billions of dollars to strategic allies like israel to protect their security interests and help preserve peace around the world. as the old adage goes the state department is so indispensable if it didn't exist we would have to invent it. for all these reasons and more i believe we need a vibrant state department that takes care of our national interest and its own people who do a great job serving the american people.

we need a state department for today, not for 2001, 1991 or 1975, the world has changed a lot in the past two decades and we need our diplomacy to reflect that. we need to make sure our diplomats are getting the support they need to get outside the role of the to dramatic post to do their jobs. we all know that the chinese, russian and iranian diplomats don't have trouble getting off their embassy compounds. in 2019 the stakes are too high to hamstring national security in this way which limits us engagement in a number of places. we need our people out there working with security partners, advancing human rights and rule of law and pushing american business. these are things we cannot do well enough sitting at a desk behind several layers of security and an embassy. on the state department's but i recognized like any federal agency there are areas for improvement, reducing redundancies, increasing efficiencies. i believe the department should

see these efficiencies first to consider cut second. i look forward to hearing mike pompeo address these issues. first and foremost the department needs to be fully staffed. we are far too into a president administration for so many unfilled positions. how do we critique the performance of an administration that is not allowed to field its own team. i'm optimistic that this week we will see confirmation of the ambassador to saudi arabia but there is much more work to be done especially for a number of important senior roles in the state department in washington and i know the secretary shares my view as we have had several robust discussions regarding that. i think the secretary for appearing here today and expect this will be far from the last time we see him here in this congress. that relationship is strong between the state department and our committee to open dialogs just like diplomacy.

and the more we talk the less i disagree. on a personal note let me say mike pompeo, i have said publicly and will say again, the right man for the right job at this time. we appreciate that. myself like other members of the committee meet regularly with heads of state with high ranking officials and uniformly you get high marks from those people in dealing with them so thank you for what you do. >> thank you, welcome, mister secretary, we appreciate you being here. it is something of a cliché to say we meet at a critical juncture and consequential time for america and the world but never in my 3 decades of service in congress have i seen so many complicated challenges, russia, china, north korea,

afghanistan, climate change, rising authoritarianism, saudi arabia, migration crazies in central america, africa and southeast asia. none of these are easy, nor are they all of our making but with all due respect, the trump administration has not demonstrated a deep understanding of or capacity required to meet these challenges. confronting china is not the same as being competitive with china. squandering alliances and alienating partners while cozying up to dictators is not prudent at precisely the time we need like-minded democratic freedom loving friends to confront a rising china or emboldened iran. threatening to cut funding that supports the institutional capacity of our partners in central america to deal with the root causes of migration including grinding poverty and the violence of ms 13 is not an effective way to manage that challenge.

undermining unity at the wto, when we should make it clear china, not the united states, is the outlier in international economic architecture. high-ranking partners about the dangers of huawei's architecture, a concern that i share is not a successful approach to develop a consortium of like-minded partners to develop a safe and cost-effective alternative. failing to develop a dramatic strategy to support peace in malley while jihadists and ethnic militia attacked 2000 lives in the last 5 months alone leaves us vulnerable to global terrorism and in saudi arabia the administration of violation of the global ethnicity law failing to respond to my request for a determination under the law as to the complexity of the crown prince send a global message to authoritarians that you can kill and violate human rights with impunity. i am disappointed to be having what i feel is a recurring bad

dream. this administration's a bit the budget request that demonstrates either no understanding of the value of us diplomacy and foreign engagements or has an active desire to see us retreat from the global stage and seed ground to our adversaries. i'm pleased congress in exercising our constitutional prerogative as a separate and coequal branch of government has appropriated funds to protect our citizens. i agree with your national security a strategy assessment that russia poses a threat to get democratic partners across europe yet you propose cutting those funds to support democratic institutions. i applaud the administration's continuation of the obama era policy strategy working with cortical partners that has led from physical territory. and the urging of congress that secure our interests. but the fight is far from over. your budget does not contain the sustained diplomatic and developing resources we need to

combat this evil. the world faces a truly accidental crisis with climate change and a defense department continues to warn about the series global implications of famine, migration and conflict yet your budget seems to pretend the problem does not even exist which i agree with this administration's assessment the china presents new and evolving challenges across the indo pacific in the world, challenges we must confront with a robust diplomatic and economic agenda. your budget proposes a cut of close to 20% from the fy 17 actual budget to meet our commitments. at your own department this administration's sustained civil servants and the value experienced professionals we can the foundational component of us foreign policy. dramatic and development professionals, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the state department.

finally on the matter of oversight i would like to flag for your attention a classified matter the committee agreed to yesterday the details of which i won't and can't discuss where we raise an important issue that had not previously been shared with us, would not have been shared with us had we not raised it with you and may have made the difference in how senators voted on a particular matter. that is simply unacceptable. if the committee is to function congress has to play a constitutionally mandated role, the department needs to do a better job engaging with us, briefing us and responding to our requests. the situation is not acceptable and i would be happy to discuss this further in a classified setting and i'm sure many of my colleagues would. when you were confirmed as secretary i hoped you'd be empowered and committed to promoting core american values

and interests on the global stage but we see the admitted station undermine our values with saudi arabia, massive pressure on north korea whittled away one tweet at a time, we see the administration pursue illogical misogynistic policies against the mystic reproductive rights politics for political ambitions on the backs of the world's poorest women. the challenge is twofold, congress is a coequal branch of government, check on power in the white house, helping form the american people why that is important, restoring the state department and usaid is a starting point but we must be more effective to hold the admitted station accountable for its foreign policy shortcomings and reminding the american people about the importance of core american values like democracy, governance and human rights. it is these fundamental values along with america's unparalleled strength on the global stage that military second to none, vital economy

driven by a vision and technological ingenuity, a reservoir of goodwill with allies and partners that provide the opportunity to define a new role in the grand strategy for the 21st century. i said i was skeptical of the demonstration of stability to be equal to this moment in history. i want you to prove me wrong. opportunity remains to take hold of the moment before us, face the new challenges of this more competitive era and replenish our vision, reinvigorate our diplomacy, revive our partnerships, restore american leadership for a new era and i look forward to the questions to pursue. >> with that we hear from mike pompeo. is a graduate of west point you are qualified for this job but more importantly, as ranking member referred to a classified briefing yesterday i think the time spent as head of the cia qualifies you for this job.

we on this committee, i have the advantage of being on both committees. we had a stark reminder yesterday of the tremendous amount of information that is out there in the classified setting. senator menendez is correct that there are items that we need a closer bond on. this isn't your fault. it is the way to make a separate foreign relations and intelligence committee and the volume of what we deal with in intel is staggering and it affects what we do here so as much as we talk about here. mike pompeo, a warm welcome. >> thank you.

in my testimony to the appropriations committee i took a few moments to describe the administration's greatest foreign policy challenges and what we have done to solve them and how we benefited the american people by doing so and i want to talk about the same set of issues with you this morning. when we took office, we had a complex set of threats the united states is faced since world war ii, we face china turning towards authoritarianism, turning away from market liberalization and turning the screws on its order populations in a truly orwellian fashion. we face an iranian regime flush with cash from the nuclear deal set about ceding care from yemen to syria to lebanon and beyond. we face a russia that felt no compunction about invading ukraine, meddling in our elections and breaking arms control treaties. we face in north korea continue to pursue nuclear and missile

proliferation threats to the nation and a terror threat that was more deadly and stretched across by far wider geography. what did we do? first, the trump administration recognized and faced reality. we can't make sound policy based on wishful thinking, can't lead from behind. we leveled with the american people and our friends and partners about the threats we face individually and collectively. we have bipartisan consensus about the need to confront chinese aggression and unanimous consensus in nato that arms control agreements like the inf treaty are worthless if only one party adheres to their terms. and international support for the brave people of venezuela. facing policy unreality we recognized a slim is his relapse capital, we recognize his relapse sovereignty over the golan heights. why does the start department designate the revolutionary guard corps as a terror organization on monday, a simple recognition of reality. we create diplomacy to build

coalitions to confront our enemies. we know we can't nor should we do everything ourselves. we convinced our nato allies to spend more on their own defense. we rallied to defeat the isis coalition to dismantle the caliphate and syria. we convened over 60 countries in warsaw to discuss common threads and opportunities in the middle east and that included both arab and israeli leaders talking to each other. we are getting the middle east teacher goliath off the ground and building and a specific strategy to do a troop of it to asia. we support him spread partners in the lima group as they worked as a preventive line people and the global coalition of the united nations to impose the toughest of her sanctions of the democratic people's republic of korea. what did we get? what are the outcomes? this administration promises to

disable the caliphate and we have done it and china's unfair trade practices in, not on human rights violations and that too. we promised to exit the pressure on iran to change its murderous ways. still more work to do. we are working to protect our citizens at home and abroad. our allies and partners overseas. when i was secretary of state i promise to put diplomacy at the forefront of defending us national security. to give the state its swagger back. we have made a lot of progress. here's what we have done. it has been 11 months in a couple weeks. i lifted the hiring freeze on our team and employees and family members, this was a no-brainer. that put people back in the workforce. we instituted promotion rates for certain -- foreign service officers by the end of this calendar year than ever in the

history of the united states of america, the notion we have been hollowed out is not factually based. new foreign service specialists are admitted, 50 senior leaders confirmed by the senate. i appreciate that. small group events when i'm traveling to embassies, washington and other places where the state department meeting directly from our team. more importantly i get to hear the things we are doing well and things they wish we were doing better. i learned a great deal from these professionals. back in the states i traveled a bit, traveling around the country talking about the importance of diplomacy and doing some recruiting work to make sure we have america's finest joining our team. my recommendation, donald trump and the senate recognize four individuals to the rank of career ambassador. david hill, bill goldberg, dan smith, our foreign service institute, the rest of our team

knows they can look up to these diplomatic professionals. a lot more to say but i look forward to discussing the administration of foreign policy and $40 billion budget request for the state department and usaid for fiscal year 2020. i look forward to your questions. >> we appreciate that. i'm going to reserve questioning as we go down the pike. to cut all us aid to el salvador, guatemala and honduras appears to be to stand out as a self and fitted wounds to our national security and national interest. just 6 months ago vice president pence said the united states, quote, has never been more committed to strengthening our partnership with nations in

the northern triangle. to address the drug trafficking gangs and, violence forcing people to flee their countries he said, quote, must confront them at their source in the northern triangle so let me ask a few basic yes or no questions. do you believe us foreign assistance advances our national security. >> are you speaking the northern triangle countries and its effectiveness? or broadly as -- what start broadly. >> if done effectively it certainly can. >> do you believe it is in us national interest work with countries around the globe to combat drug trafficking and transnational, organizations? >> to do this effectively, need partners around the world. >> you believe us national security is advanced by terminating funding from on enforcement cooperation with central american countries? >> if i may explain the decision we made and why the president made that decision it begins with the fact that there is an enormous crisis at the

southern border, the united states has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build out solutions and in these three countries, el salvador, guatemala and honduras. you can see a fact of this crisis what has not been effective so we are endeavoring to change that. we deal in reality. not enough to take taxpayer money but is ended there. and the leadership in these countries, we want to make sure every dollar, taxpayer dollars we spend in the northern triangle is effectively used. >> every taxpayer dollars spent anywhere in the world to be effective but to believe that long-standing challenges, the vice president had it right only 6 months ago when he made the statement that he made. us national security is not advanced by terminating funding

for law enforcement, they are not advanced by terminating funding for programs that strengthen will of law. why are people fleeing? because of violent crimes, their choice is stay or directly or have a chance of living or stay and see my daughter raised or see my son put into a game. we need to fight that. the essence of that is not in the border but in central america. i don't understand how the usa id programs that stabilize central american countries by promoting economic development and helping people find opportunities, the administration had it right when you are involved with central america and getting to the root cause. all this will do is create greater instability and drive more people in fear and hopelessness to the border and exacerbate the situation. i urge you to recalibrate that

because it is a fundamentally wrong policy. let me switch to something we do agree on, venezuela. along with marco rubio and 10 members of the committee we have introduced legislation reinforcing several elements of the administration's strategy and dramatically expanding humanitarian response with $400 million in new aid but i have two questions in this regard, number one, what is the department doing to internationalize our sanctions and try to get the european, canadian to let american partners to join us and why haven't we convened an international donor summit where you consider doing that? >> we will absolutely consider it and see who the right leader is to convene that. it is a central part of the data that we are successful in support the venezuelan people to achieve democracy in the way they deserve with resources required and we will find partners around the world that will be part of that and donors conference will be an element

of that. your first question, we are working with 50 plus nations that recognized the new government, the leadership under the new president to sanction the same way we haven't continuing to push countries across the world. we are trying to bring more to the collision and get those 54 to impose sanctions that match the ones the united states composed. >> last question, january marked the 1-year anniversary of agreement between us and cutler regarding subsidies to cutter airways, state-owned airline. in addition to committing to financial transparency in the filing to the agreement, the qatari and government indicated there is no intention to launch freedom flights from cutter but picking up the path to europe before flying to us destinations but at the same time the agreement was negotiated cutter airways acquired a 49 state stake in italy, a struggling regional

italian carrier rebranded as an international carrier with lights to 5 us destinations from iran. that is counter to the 1-year agreement. are you aware of this and what efforts are underway to enforce this? >> i personally engaged on this issue and we are working to make sure every party to those agreements complies with every element of those agreements. i will engage again tomorrow with several parties. we are working to put this agreement, we think it is a good agreement as we are trying to make sure it is enforced. >> the less people think we are totally divided on things, the last two issues, this committee is uniformly in favor of discrimination against carriers that is taking place by the middle east carriers and secondly the support of the one

quite go administration that is so important to us and we sincerely appreciate the administration's efforts in that regard and we will support a 100%. >> thank you for your service. last monday i met with the nominee for undersecretary of management, second time i have met with them but normally the way this process works i meet with the nominee, we go to the confirmation process, the nominee gets confirmed and we start talking to those people in hearings like this so the fact such a qualified individual, with point graduate who served in the private sector and most recently chief operating officer of the cia has been languishing for 9 months is a disgrace. particularly with senator menendez talking about the hollowing of the state department which was rarely disputed. can you speak to how crucial it

is to get him confirmed as chief operating officer of the undersecretary of management to carry out your vital mission? >> i've known brian for 35 years. more importantly we haven't had an undersecretary for management, the chief operating officer at the state department for two years now. the gentleman who is filling that role is a great officer and civil servant but we need to confirm leadership in that position to execute all security issues and administrative issues, the enormous bureaucracy of 92,000 people to administer falls under the undersecretary for management and the absence of having someone confirmed that position has made each of those tasks more difficult. >> are you aware of any legitimate reason for holding this nomination up other than your partisan politics? >> i'm not aware of anything that relates directly to his qualifications. >> i urge this committee to

confirm him. i also want to pick up on the situation with the northern triangle, the humanitarian crisis at the border, in 2014 we had 120,000 unaccompanied children and family units president obama called the humanitarian crisis, the first 6 months of this year, over 240,000 primarily people coming in as family units and i will dispute with senator menendez said. there is no doubt people are fleeing violence. there is also no doubt those individuals are coming here for economic opportunity and family unification which i'm sympathetic with but it is not a valid asylum plea. the truth is 85% of those filing claims are denied. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars in development but until we crush the drug cartels i don't see developing dollars doing a lot of good and it will do nothing to solve this

problem in the here and now of individuals coming here completely exploiting us laws. the ball is in congress's court. we have to act, we have to change the laws to first and foremost reduce if not stop the flow of illegal immigration the majority of which is economic migration and family unification. in your former capacity or current capacity i met with the mexican ambassador twice and i think they are genuinely interested in working with us to solve this problem but they were talking about development dollars. there is a long-term solution but we are whistling by the graveyard if we don't address and talk about effective strategy for crossing the drug cartels. talk about how difficult that is and the challenge that presents to america. >> it is a long-term challenge. we've had time to make progress and it has gotten worse or regressed. the complexity, the money,

these are powerful organizations inside mexico with huge incentives to continue to deliver these drugs whether that is cocaine or opioids, it is a lucrative undertaking so every moment of american power needs to be deployed and we need partners like the mexican government and china to do what president xi consented to. there's lots of work streams to pull it off but the risk it presents to america is enormous. an important foreign-policy problem often masquerading as a law enforcement problem. the foreign minister has been a good partner in his time in leadership in the mexican government. i'm convinced they want to help us. we need to help them do it. >> this is a multinational effort was one thing we found out this weekend last week is the southern border is totally controlled on the southern side

of the border by the cartels. nobody passes without a fee. this is a highly organized effort exploiting our laws and we will need through diplomacy, that's what the administration is trying to do, get the attention of central america nations and mexico. we need your help to solve this problem. thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you senator johnson. next we have senator cardin. >> thank you for your service and for being here. this is a hearing to review the budget for fy 20 and budget speaks to priorities. i want to give you a chance to respond to the visual concern a 30% cut in state department budget looks like we are cutting back diplomacy.

your statement about promoting american values you just mentioned, democracy programs are reduced by 50% in this budget. in july there was a conference in copenhagen that pointed out we've seen a decline in democratic states around the world and we are being attacked on democratic institutions by russia, china and other actors so what are we doing to promote democracy with such a dramatic reduction in the tools that are available in the state department if the budget became real? i would also say one of the real opportunities to promote american values of democracy, governance, human rights and anticorruption are on the bilateral and multilateral meetings we have and yet there has been silence in regards to north korea, lamborn's treatment of his own people

being the human -- worst human rights record of any country in the world and we still have not gotten a response to a full accounting of what happened in saudi arabia on the tragic death of jamal khashoggi. explain how your promoting american values of democracy, good governance, human rights, anticorruption in light of the fact budget cuts, we have not seen the visibility during highly important moments with other countries, these issues being raised? >> i disagree with everything you opened with. >> the budget? 30% cut? >> this administration has been active but more importantly incredibly effective promoting democracy around the world. we are engaged, you mentioned a couple particular items, happy to talk about those in great detail but our engagement the building up coalitions around the world, part of democracy

promotion. you don't think about the work to defeat isis as an element of that, to create the stability inside syria to get a political resolution, the work we are doing in venezuela, the fact we are fighting for the people of the islamic republic of iran and informs across the world my team is in the field working to promote the values you just described. >> facts are facts, budget submissions are budget submissions. let me go in response to the last questions. our involvement in the northern triangle is important for many reasons. these are countries that have significant problems with corruption and the united states participated with the international community to root out the corruption in the northern triangle. are you committed to working with this committee, looking at additional legislation to get additional tools in regards to identifying issues so that in

our bilateral and regional relationships the issues will be front and center in the debates, do you agree with that approach? >> i do. >> we will have some legislation as i talk to you earlier, to work with you on. i want to talk about north korea if i might. the two summits between the leader of north korea and the united states, have we reached an agreement with the denuclearization of the korean peninsula will look like? >> i can't answer that question yes or no. we have had extensive conversations with nuclear -- north korea, what it will look like with the international community. it would look like will be denuclearize north korea. that is what it would look like. >> with kim jong on the leader of north korea agreed with that

assessment with denuclearization to be involved? >> he made the commitment to me more than half a dozen times and made the commitment to the president of the united states and it is in writing. >> has he given you a declaration as to their current nuclear programs and the way they move from the current nuclear programs to total denuclearization? >> there is a great deal of work to achieve the ultimate goal. >> we had hearing for this committee that indicate that is the first step on denuclearization, understanding the program and having a commitment to end it in a roadmap that could lead to that commitment. that is usually the preliminaries. you had two summit meetings and we don't have that in place. >> i wish we had gotten that from the iranian's. >> i do believe we have. >> it was a total fraud. the declaration the iranian's

made was fraught with errors, intentional and otherwise. we understand you need a baseline to begin with. we are determined to get there. >> i appreciate the answer to my question. i am trying to focus on north korea. in iran there are -- we have people, international community, looking at sites. do we have international inspectors in north korea? >> we do not. >> senator romney. >> thank you, mister secretary, an honor to see you. appreciate your service to our country. you are a man of extraordinary capacity. word to the private sector having served the cia and other parts of the private sector. i appreciate your capacity to consider the challenges we have.

no surprise china has ambition to -- it would be a very different world indeed, the ability to do that. the imbalance of trade, and theft of intellectual property and forced transfer of technology as companies move into the chinese market but i wonder whether we are really addressing and confronting in a holistic strategy, what china is undertaking and i don't know whether we have plans afoot to deal with them piece by piece or whether we need something more expensive. one is the fact that china has an industrial policy or a form

of free enterprise where they subsidize industries of the future, whether that is 5g, telecommunication systems, artificial intelligence, and welcome them to world where we believe in free markets and they participate in a nonfree way and that presents a challenge. they are also reported to buy american and other western companies, small companies with good technology, steal the technology and take it back for domestic purposes. we have an extensive propaganda program, the confucius institutes, high schools, elementary schools and universities in the country the don't understand by accepting the confucius institute they are participating in chinese propaganda in the country. there is the extraordinary oppression of human beings we

are seeing with them in their own country. then there's ambition in the south china sea. do we have a robust strategy to counter the entire chinese effort. are we considering those or do we need to take a deeper dive into confront what is in my view the great threat which is an authoritarian regime bent on dominating the world which would be bad for free enterprise, for freedom and the prosperity of america in the world. >> the most important question i will be at today. the world was slow to recognize the challenge china has begun, we are much further along the way than we were two years ago.

the first step is to recognize the challenge in front of your the second to chart a course to confront each of those challenges, talk about a challenge from the orwellian nature of the absence of human rights inside china. it is christians and it is broader than that. you see stories of this apps being used, the little red book brought to your iphone where they had people put in their phone numbers and names and get points for answering questions about xi's policies. you have seen the technology space. other agencies have a bigger part than some of them. 180 and the seas, talking to our partners sharing with them the risks, identifying the information to take this challenge seriously with respect to predatory lending and technology transfer telling

these countries what will happen, it may feel good for a year or two but the legacy, the overhang will be enormously bad for the people of your country. there is a significant undertaking more broad than that of the united states government to make sure these technology challenges, making sure america remains in the front on ai and the next wireless wave 5g, all the issues that will dominate commerce and rule of law in the decades ahead. we confront an enormously difficult challenge, they take their big companies and make them subservient to the government, we don't roll that way and shouldn't roll that way but i believe ultimately will prevail with rule of law transparency as long as we are serious and focused on this set of issues. >> thank you, senator romney. i agree with almost everything you said except i know there are at least three members, three people in this room who

are graduates of the college of law that would take exception to the law school. >> didn't get into harvard, did they? >> they didn't. thank you so much. >> thank you, mister secretary. we had a hearing in the armed services committee ten days ago with secretary carrie who was in on an annual to talk about doe programs that support the military, primarily nuclear reactors and i asked him about news that had broken in a day at the hearing about part 8-10 authorizations that are in his ballot work where he would authorize transfer of nuclear know-how, not technology but know-how from american companies to foreign nations. he indicated during the hearing he had 7 such approval authorizations for transfers of technology to saudi arabia. my understanding is the process requires there be a state department sign off.

is that correct? >> we are aware of these issues. >> he had kept these private in a way that was counter to earlier practice where the authorizations, the fact of these operations were made public. he described it as necessary to protect proprietary information. i asked him, you can keep proprietary information but what about the authorizations? did the state department have to sign off on the doe keeping this private? >> i don't know the answer to that but i will get you an answer whether we release that information or more broadly if we were involved in the decision. >> that would be helpful. i also ask about the date of the authorizations. this hadn't occurred from inauguration day 2017 but i asked if you know about the

dates. did these occur after october 2018? >> i do not i -- i don't know. i am sorry, senator. >> another question on saudi arabia. referring to an article in the national interest date, september 2018. which references earlier reporting by newsweek. and something to introduce for the record, saudi arabia are it has a ballistic missile, with a little help from the cia. it is a summary of saudi purchases. a set of purposes and purchases that were done. and the timeframe the cia helped broker the reporting by newsweek in 2013 at the national interests about the scope of the saudi ballistic

missile program including purchase of missiles from china. this piece was written in september. there's a lot of issues with saudi arabia right now. we are grappling with the eminent human rights concerns. .. grappling with these authorizations, we are trying to get more information. what should this committee or what concerns should this committee have about the development of ballistic missile programs question mark the iran andare pointed at israel. that is in the national interest case that i introduced. what concerns what concerned should we have about the development of a saudi ballistic missile program and particularly acquiring of missile technology from nations like china? >> two thoughts. we we should absolutely be interested in that. we should know the fact they are purchasing the from china, i think they're been those of urge the united states to take a

different posture with respect to saudi arabia, not to sell the technology. i think you see the risks that are created. it would be better at the united states were involved in those transactions that if china was. i can't, to protecting the reporting publicly as well. much about it here. i'm confident the intelligence community can give you full briefing but missiles in the middle east is an increasing threat. franklye missiles more broadly throughout the world continued to be an increasing risk. technology is gotten cheaper. information is much more widespread so capabilities are growing and lots of countries, some which are from the part of the country today but may not be five, ten, 20 years from now and some of which are adversaries even today. these threats of we think about nuclear proliferation, s threats of nuclear proliferation is verbal and something you should look into. >> nuclear proliferation and middle piece, missile proliferation in the middle is, these are things this committee and of the committees you to take their search with?

>> yes, sir, absolutely. >> senator isakson. >> i want to given the chairman of the record number of about the qatar such which was at once. as i understand integrated on over skyscrapers provision or one of the parties including us, if there's concerns over the good behavior of both parties on the airline. would you get us into situation where you could call with those consultations? doing it up consultations? >> i don't know if are quite there yet. there are lots of consultations taking place, not to the mechanism for describing. it may be that ultimately required. you know the history of this, this challenge. we thought we put together a truly good deal that was good for his domestic businesses and other commitments that have been made. without with a very good place. were looking very closely at this recentlo decision by qataro take on 49% of the airline. we understand the risk of the

efforts to circumvent and working to makets sure everyones complying with agreement that they had entered into. everyone is complying. >> it is very important and aviation and manufacturing -- you are everyone is complying. pe doing what you can. and there was a meeting with the people who survived the iran hostage crisis a number of years ago. there are a number of people who are alive although some of them have passed and some are in conditions that pe are conditiod to loving a normal life. as their time runs out, so does the opportunity to collect on the rewards that were made to them from the funds that were available. the first release they got, they releaseand the last that went from 14% to 4%, not because they reduce the amount of money from the funds they

took out. 3000 other people were added. i am worried about them not getting what they should have gotten. these people went to as better torture, as better treatment as any american ever did. it was in formation of the nightline tv show. i am concerned about them and i want to do everything we can to see they get their money and they are spoken for. have you talked with attorney general barr about the situation? >> i have not had a chance to do that read it is an important issue. 52 hostages, 44 days. held by the the same people who are leading the republic of iran. i am aware of them with respect to getting the money they deserve. >> i would appreciate it. i think about it every day. i would love to see the families

get the money that was intended. i want to talk about new start. i swear the start treaty when we ratified it, it comes up in two years. they -- the prillaman are he talks that went on are not correct. >> a lot of people, some of those nuclear treaties have been canceled, and there are some people who have misperceptions of different nuclear agreements. the thing i liked about start treaty and the reason i've -- i spoke for it is because it had a unique identifier system which we never had available before the russians so we could count their weapons. of counting. no notice inspection provisions, you had russians who could be in the u.s. and have access to our facilities and we put americans and russia to have access to theirs. having that kind of elevated accountability that was good for the country.

are we going in the right itection and do you think has serviced well so far? >> new start different from the inf treaty, there is large compliance with the new start area there are arguments on the edge of each but they have been compliant. with the begetting of conversations about renewing that. if we can get the deal right, if we can make sure that it fits 2021 and beyond. president trump has made clear if we can get a good, solid arms could -- agreement, we ought to get one and we are the start of having those conversations. >> thank you and thank you for the work you're doing. >> thank you. i agree that new start will be an important tool and we are living in a different world from when the start treaty was put together. there will be a combination for that for the powers in the world who are not members. thank you.

>> thank you. you said that the renewal depends on fitting 20 nest 2021 and beyond. what are the two or three key things that need to be addressed to make the new start fit 2020 and beyond? >> technology has moved. the central idea of the strategic the currents underpin the new start deal, we would need to make sure it still fits. some may be more important. it may be different. soneed to make sure it fits there is to deterrence. we have to make sure the deterrence regime fits the technology and we need to make sure that we have all the parties that are relevant as a component of this. those are tough challenges. >> are you referring to other countries? >> other countries besides the u.s. and russia. we -- it may be we end up

working with the russians on this. if we are talking about the nuclear capacity, nuclear capability that presents risk to the u.s., it is different today than the world that it was. >> you are referring to china? >> yes, sir. certainly china has large numbers. muslims are being in reeducation camps, industrial production, have been taken off the streets. there is a weaker human rights policy act. i believe marco rubio is the lead. it is bipartisan. do you support congress taking a strong stand, america taking a strong stand in regard to this persecution of the uighurs? >> i do. >> thank you. china has taken the proceeds from the imbalance in trade and they have brought their

infrastructure from bicycles to bullet trains and 25 years. i was on the first bullet train out of beijing. there are 16,000 miles of levitated magnetic bullet trains running over 200 miles. we have zero miles. they are buying up minerals around the world, they are doing prestige projects to expand their influence in country after country. they are engaged in debt policy so the projects can lead to huge leverage going forward like the poor they have taken control of in sri lanka. they are attempting to buy a huge chunk of the southern coastline in el salvador to extend their influence in central america. they are on the move in a comprehensive elton road strategy while we are sitting here, our infrastructure has been the same the last 25 years. i am concerned that we are slipping behind. what are we going to do about

it? >> with respect to u.s. to mastic infrastructure, it is a bit out of my lane as secretary of state. in terms of pushing back against the chinese, it was in a response to a question from senator romney. i am happy to walk through them whether it is to build back the dsc, our diplomatic efforts with asean. there is the u.s. effort to make sure that companies and non-us companies, non-chinese companies have an opportunity to continue to compete on a transparent basis where we can ensure that we do not have chinese values, chinese systems controlling our information space 10 or 20 years from now. >> a lot of members of the committee have a lot of concerns that china has a conference who strategy is in fomenting is connected to international

affairs because the proceeds come from their trade relations with the u.s. let's turn to north korea. i think of the challenge with their nuclear program is like a baseball game. first base is a freeze on their missile tests and their warhead explosions which is where we are right now. second basis of full inventory of nuclear assets. third is an agreement on how to wipe those out or eliminate them verified. we are stuck on first base. how are we going to get off first base? coalition the largest in the -- and the strongest sanctions enforcement in history on north korea. it has created this opportunity for diplomacy. we have not moved as far but we always knew this would be a long discussion. we are not stuck on first base. accurate.gy is not there remains an awful lot of work to do but we have moved to where you described, there are

not missile tests, they are not nuclear explosions going on. our diplomatic team is engaged in painting a picture trying to convince chairman kim that there is a path forward that will make a brighter future and reduce the rest. we have japan and south korea am a we engage with the russians and chinese. it is a broad effort to lead a diplomatic undertaking to convince chairman kim to deliver on what he promised in june of last year. >> i will summarize by saying the economic sanctions are weakening. north koreans are finding the as around the. they have developed their program even while freezing this testing and warheads. we're not incomplete and safe. >> did you want to respond? that it is always important to remember initial conditions. in january 2017,

there was nothing going on. we are in a far better place than we are today both from a sanctions and management. -- sanctions and diplomatic sense. they often don't go together, but in this case, we have achieved both. atorenator, paul -- sen paul. the 2001ieve authorization to go to war with tose who attacked us applies iran or iran's revolutionary guard? iran or iran's revolutionary

>> it was not part of the decision-making process. the designation was a simple recognition of reality. these were terrorists who killed 600 americans. families grieving. we recognize them as terrorists in the same when we do other terrorist group. when we see them, we try to call them out as best we can and as quickly as we can. >> but you are unwilling to state unequivocally that the resolution in 2001 that retribution and stop them, that iran had something to do with the attacks on 9/11 or the nationalth iraqi, you know, revolution guard at something to do with 9/11? you asked a factua.

the factual question with respect to iran's connections him to al qaeda is very real. no doubt there is a connection between the islamic republic of iran and al qaeda. some would argue the iranian government is not real happy with sunni extremist, they have in their country but is not like they are joining forces to find the west and they would just as soon eradicate sunni extremists. i don't think that all caps very well. but i'm troubled the administration cannot actually say that you have been given power. i can tell you explicitly that you have not been given power or authority to have war with iran and any semblance of a sane world you have to come back and ask us.

arguing whether iran's revolutionary guard are youorists, my argument is do not have the permission of congress to go to war in iran. if you want a war, yet to come to us. it is the way the constitution was written in it needs to be clear here and saying the lawyers, no, this is our history. this is an explicit question. only congress can declare war. you do not have our permission to go to war in iran and that should be very explicit. the reasons we are having this debate is that we have been a war years in afghanistan, even you have admitted there is no military solution. it is a mess. president, like myself, complains endlessly about the $50 billion we are wasting every year. i worry about the lives we are wasting. there is no mission there.

can you give us any kind of summary or hoped or update on the negotiations currently happening? >> i can give you a brief summary, and your point about the lives and the we had three americans killed just this week in afghanistan, at least the taliban claimed. president trump wants to be clear to and what he calls this endless war and our team is working diligently to do that. we have people in delhi or kabul working with the afghan as with theas well taliban, to great conditions so we can deliver on what the president has said, which is to reduce american lives and dollars but also the root -- risk for americans. he also told us to do that in a way that reduces the attacks and there is a path forward to achieve each of the two goals. >> thank you.

i think we have the greatest military in the world, we can do anything, but i'll tell you what a navy seal told me. said we can go anywhere and kill anyone, complete and emission, but the mistake is when you ask us to stay and plant the flag. where not good nationbuilding, act soldiers don't want to do it. let's learn how to declare victory, and i commend the president for tried to declare victory. senator markey. -- murphy. >> let me just associate ourselves quickly with the remarks of the ranking member regarding the importance of inflation -- information flows. i understand there is a lot of classified data we will never see, but there are some that rises to such level of importance that it affects decisions we are making on this committee and senate. i anchor my comments in those made by the ranking member.

second, a quick push back on your opening statement. you noted we are at record numbers of foreign service officers, suggesting there is no hollowing out of the state department. i would remind the committee that is because we have rejected the request of this administration to dramatically reduce the budget of the state department. happy enacted at the request of this administration, you would be on a glide path to record low numbers. again, they've never been of the mind that this is the budget you would write about mr. secretary, but it is a reminder that we are holding the line because we have stayed together. i wanted to come back to the question of chinese technology. i was in dublin a couple months ago and the embassy there noted the chinese embassy was exploding with personnel. that was not coincidental to the open tender of the new

high-speed network in ireland. the country is very important thoughts because we have a lot and it struckta me that we are vastly outmanned on it comes to the contest. we generally have one state department officer who is handling technology, energy, and health care, and military attaches that, by and large, are not technology expert. you have talked in previous hearings about leveraging access to the national security apparatus. one of the other ways in which we can get on the right side of the site. i worry we are losing this fight badly, in part because the chinese have stepped up and we had. i wonder if this is an opportunity to leverage u.s. companies. we should be sensitive to american data that they hold.

being, at some point, a matter of national security interest. what are additional tools that we can give you to try and contest this fight over the global buildout of 5g? that is an important question and i will take the second part first. department, have to do a better job of making sure that american companies, not chinese companies, we will , but theght for hours technology system being put in place have american values embedded in. all of the central things that we want. as well as private entities contemplating major entities understanding the risk.

on 5g, we are behind. show difficult show -- to up with a sweet and we will always have a direct his advantage. the chinese will subsidize in ways we don't, so your point about the private sector is very real. it is true that we have just a handful of officers around the world, we have a big department for economic affairs. i hope we will get them confirm before too long. he comes out of that very space. and hadwe are close shop with our full team. when there is competition, we have to make sure the opportunity is available. it is the fight of the next 20-50 years and we are fools if we don't step up the state department with the

technological expertise that can win this battle. i looking at a washington post article from january of this year entitled "can saudi arabia produce ballistic missiles? satellite imagery raises questions." policy of thee united states to oppose the proliferation of ballistic missile technology? >> yes, we are concerned in the middle east and elsewhere. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> welcome, mr. secretary. >> i want you to know that i along with any members of the committee like to confirm more of the nominees to the department of the state as quickly as possible. to nominees happened before my home state. they are exceptional and need to move forward quickly. stephen acord is the nominee to be the director of the office of

four should. monthsbeen more than 12 since the president first nominated him. that is to move forward. many people do not fully understand the position. nominated, he is the top human resources officer. i commend you to operate the short stuff. the second nominee i want to mention is tom, i've known him for a number of years. agriculturee about than i will ever aspire to know, but he has been nominated as the u.s. representative for you and agencies for food and agriculture over eight months. and for farmers in indiana and other states, i know it is critically important to have at the united nations, speaking on behalf of our farmers and ranchers.

the good news is that both of these nominees were reported favorably for this committee. both of these nominees remain among more than 60 outstanding nomination. i just heard my colleagues and senate leadership to confirm both of these highly qualified companies. -- nominees. i like to pivot to venezuela and begin by indicating that i know this crisis is deeply complex and you are following it incredibly closely. it is right more challenging by i describe myems position in a letter that i sent to you in the vice president, but i wanted to bring it up directly. there are americans we know are suffering at the hands of the bureau regime. majuro -- maduro regime.

since 2016.n held many questions remain over the due process afforded to him, but my concern is that in november of 2018, a san cristobal court ordered his release. yes the venezuelan authorities continue to detain todd. i am in regular contact with his mother, she has concerns for his welfare and his very life. there are drinking water shortages, severe sanitary conditions and other medical concerns. let's just say they are concerned about todd's welfare. and while the diplomatic process is being worked on, i want to know what specifically you are going to bring americans held?

, i want to see what members of this committee can do to assist you. so that we can help todd and others be brought home safely and quickly as possible. committee, weis spend a lot of time working to get americans that are wrongly detained home and with a big group of them visiting, it was remarkable to hear from these families. them still have folks detained, some still have lost loved ones. it impressed upon me how essential it was that we are doing. those of you who voice the concerns, it is important in their right. as a think the policies with respect to venezuela, we should keep in mind there are many concerns.

second, with respect to particular cases, it is more difficult today we have with john our diplomatic staff from caracas. so our ability to engage in consular activities of both times, i regret we had to make that decision. but now that we're still having conversations with a broad range of venezuelans working diligently to make the case to get every american return home. >> lastly, do you feel you have sufficient resources to deal with the crisis? i know the administration has requested $500 million. with the also deal situation that i just spoke to? and if not, tell us what else you need. i do not think we are lacking in resources. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

secretary, north korea remains a significant threat to we know that after the two summits, it still has been no tangible progress towards denuclearization. isknow that kim jong-un expanding his nuclear weapons program and that he continues to exploit overseas slave labor. he is conducting a heist to enrich himself, but they simply cannot get kim jong-un by relieving pressure upon him and his whole regime. should i set the trump administration has put more sections in place then at any time in world history. however, the experts warn that there are severe deficiencies in the global pressure campaign. they state that there has been"

a massive increase in a legal ofp to ship transfers petroleum products and coal", they have rendered the majors -- and quote they have rendered sanctions ineffective. the list of sanctions is down, and 83% drop, mr. secretary. sanctionhat you and resolutions are only a strong as member states. the world follows america's lead. trump sanctions to china-based companies on twitter asking for those listings to be , we refuse the very allies and partners we need to help solve this problem. , kim mayorspective

merrily along -- rolls along. our sanctions regime is criticized by experts, and from my perspective, i see kim jong-un just trying to play and to the end of the administration with absolutely no results that can be pointed to in reducing the nuclear threat of that country. >> i agree with some of what you have said, but not much. 83% decrease in our increase in sanctions, and you may think the enforcement regime is ineffective, you should move to the outskirts of pyongyang, because those folks think it is very effective. i concede there is more that can china hashat

imperfectly enforced those sanctions, concede there are still ship to ship transfers taking place. you should know that every one of those dimensions -- >> there has been an increase in illegal ship to ship. and i know that massive, but i assure you there is less: fewer resources than when president obama is in office. >> is not effective if programs are expanding. the ship to ship oil transfers are increasing, it's not effective. >> there is an enormous undertaking to take down these transfers. you should know that the rogue regimes are difficult. it's a big ocean, but your united states government is working diligently to get our partners in the region. the chinese and japanese help us enforce those sanctions.

think we need to continue to keep the pressure on december. >> the panel says it has been effective and the president undermines the very effort we are trying to put in place. they say they're going to get tough and hold you accountable. the president is tweeting out we are not going to have additional sanctions put in place. it just sends the wrong signal to russia and china, and anyone else we're trying to get cooperate to tighten the pressure on kim jong-un. so i have a big problem with understanding the strategy, ultimately got to get kim to make concessions on his nuclear weapons program if, in fact, the sanctions regime is being relaxed. it is ineffective. we will not sanction you if you violate those sanctions. how can that be effectiveness?

>> senator, the north korean economy will shrink this year. well, will it result in actual concessions that are made? >> this is a long process. we took over a place with their limited sections, no effort to greet a coalition. >> we were leading from behind. we refuse to engage against this threat, and we have taken the seriously, we will continue to take it seriously. we got them to stop missile testing, nuclear testing, we will keep at it. >> the economy may be going down, it's just not going down enough. the aren't tough enough, not sending the right signals to russia and china to cut off. , but might be going down it is affecting kim in terms of making concessions to us or the present that reflects the we have been successful.

so we have to make it stronger, we have to be realistic. in a year and a half, the job administration will have been depleted there will be no reduction in the nuclear program of north korea. that is the bottom line. the sanctions have to be tougher . >> thank you, secretary. thank you for your service. you mentioned meeting with i thank yout week, for staying in touch with them, they appreciate them. i'll be in korea next week talking among others to our investor. south korean officials about

what is going on and continuing to hold up their human rights beaches. to expose for everyone what happened. they percent on top that issue and worse, type sanctions. i want to talk about the global engagement center. you have started working on encouraging states to not just establish the center, but to properly funded. there is a 30% increase from last month. i know you have a tough budget and are asked to find cuts elsewhere. this is encouraging to me because it is undeniable that the propaganda disinformation 's withn around the world

state actors, and we're going to learn a lot more about russia in the next two weeks. we cannot talk about some details, but the reality is that it is such a huge threat. role at the cia probably afford to better than other secretaries of state. that that having recognize , this budget increase is reflecting your concern. having said that, one thing we have is this d.o.t. transfer -- dod transfer. for fiscal year 2019. confirm that you have requested 60 million? >> do you see this process going more smoothly? last year, we got at the 11th hour. any sense of where we are? >> we are working on it. it'd take is a longtime lester

where doing it more quickly. we have done it once, so i'm hoping there is a mechanism in place. the defenseo go to department they have got to work with you. you feel the agencies are working well? >> we have made strides. in place tosomeone leave the organization and it has approved a dramatic. they for the gec help. then finally provided help to the ukrainians to be able to defend themselves. they can defend their own sovereign territory. child authorization bill two years ago, we authorized naval assistant -- assistance for the

first time. the russians are being increasingly effective. can you speak to sending these class cutters to the ukrainian navy? >> i encourage it, but i do not know the status. >> that seems to me that is one of our pressing capability gaps. concerns youther might have about what is going on in ukraine? >> we are frozen at best, still fighting along the control. everyone is staring at the , they willlections engage closely with whatever leader it is.

i appreciate that and i think we are at a critical time i plan to meet with the new government after the election, but i have been on the contact line, and on don't to hand, we change the dynamic. perhaps you can send a written response, but i have a question about the sanctions regime. some folks that they are having a tough time sanctioning certain individuals because the treasury department indicates that our legislation is too restrictive. in other words, as legislation relates to specific things like ukraine and crimea might not relate exactly to a particular individual otherwise involved in the line effort. what it be helpful to have a broader sanctions regime that this body could send you to ensure the individuals could be

sanction? -- sanctioned? on the of it could be treasury said. the broader scope would need to be for treasury sanctions, but i would love to see that. we should evaluate and make sure we do it in a thoughtful way. >> if you could provide us further information. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i talked to senator portman. for your information, i've talked about this exact issue on sanctions. they were able to talk about that with the banking committee on so a joint effort. thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary for being here. you mentioned in terms of other questions that it was still a policy of the united states to

prevent missile proliferation in the middle east. want to ask based on what was said earlier and articles put in the record about the chinese selling missiles to saudi arabia. have you spoken up and told saudi arabia we don't appreciate their aggressive acquisition of -- missiles?le is >> there are very few questions i have that i do not make clear that we prefer they purchase american systems, not try systems. whether it is -- chinese systems. whether it is telecommunications or otherwise. >> many of our former policy folks are very worried about an arms race. is this indication of the chinese penetration into saudi arabia, is this an indication we

are headed down the road to an arms race? and what we doing about it? >> i think it is a little more complicated than that. the middle east has had arms issues for an awfully long time. this particular set of issues around we haven't talked about turkey and their purchase. anti-aircraft e, systems. this is certainly something that we all need to keep an eye on, i tell you that most of the folks working to build missile the ms are doing because islamic republic of iran was continue their program. others are doing what they need o do to create a deterrence tool for themselves. it's just a fact. i very much hope that the administration will push back in happening in s

missiles across the middle east. pompeo, our southern border increasingly looks like a zone, like germany with the d.m.z. on the the korean peninsula, separating and caging children, members of the military with a emergency. the u.s. border communities are just as safe and often safer unitedywhere else in the states. this is reminiscent of how we, one another. is mexico the enemy of the united states? en. pompeo: there were 20,000 apprehensions last week of into our trance country. this is a real crisis. these are numbers that i think the numbers office, were, i'll have the numbers wrong, but 20,000 last week, working closely with the

mexican government to create the will stop there which this. i worked with the foreign minister, a great partner. have not yet effectively been able to stop what is mostly their country from those folks coming into the country. tosident trump is determined protect sovereignty and protect our border. >> do you believe the u.s. should close the southern border in response to the asylum seekers you just spoke about? sen. pompeo: with the laws as we today, i worked on an agreement where we would allow proper asylum claims to wait for their asylum, the and we are overwhelming, had a court fundamentally misread the law and deny us the that.y to do we need your help. we need congress to change these rules. of the folks ome that come across have legitimate asylum claims, but the system is and we need congress to change the laws so that we can protect our southern borders, just, it's not just people who are coming in, it's drugs,

weapons, the stories you know them about human trafficking that is taking to e, what is happening women as they move across mexico is truly tragic. our southern re border, we will improve the lives of those people, i'm convinced of it. believe our country is quote, full, as the president as said and we should not accept any more asylum seekers or immigrants to the united states? sen. pompeo: this is the most generous nation in the history civilization. that's the case as the president, as the president -- >> answer my question. sen. pompeo: the president has said repeatedly, talked about lawful immigration. do is along the southern border to prevent people coming in here illegally. it's the mission set he set out, i'm working with the triangle as a ies and mexico foreign policy matter to take care of and i th, the reality is

onnk a lot of policy experts the northern triangle saying it's a bad policy to cut off oreign aid to the three countries down there where these olks are originating from and that that's one of our levers to keep them there and to keep the countries more stable. i'm out of time, mr. chairman. chairman risch: you are. thank you for and the courtesy and i will yield back. chairman risch: thank you, senator. senator gardner. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary forou your service. a couple questions and i'll try to doo this quickly here in your testimony he stated the united states future secured a prosperity and leadership depends on maintaining a free, open and secure indo-pacific to advance the strategy, the budget request nearly doubles your for assistance resources targeting this crucial area compared to the fy 2019 request. you are committed to fully implement the initiative act we

discussed many times? >> it makes great sense of will do our level best to fully comply. >> i was going to talk about the report, the report on association of southeast nation, the report on approaching surges as it relates to denuclearization of the north korean -- >> we are closed. >> thank you for that. could you quickly identify these programs to build up to prioritize under, buildout or prioritize? >> goodness, that i let our team -- we have racked and stacked to think about this. i'd love to the team committee get your feedback as well on the way it with the right metrics for our prioritization. >> thanks mr. secretary. today april 10 marks the 40thet anniversary of the enactment of the taiwan relations act, 40 years ago april 10 taiwan relations act was signed into law. which together the president tht come with president reagan's 1982 assurances, taiwan travel

act to become the cornerstone of relationship. a little over a week ago for the first timee in 20 years there appears to been an intentional crossing of the meeting line of the taiwan straits by chinese jets. 50 plateful implement the taiwan travel act and the initiative act a to further strengthen our partnership with taiwan? >> yes. >> we commit to sendd high-level delegations to taiwan in a future to demonstrate this. >> was a lot of work going on our center there. we're going to keep -- we see the increase in china's activity both political information warfare and then as you described actually on the real estate we see them to be more aggressive with taiwan. we talk with the chinese of the conversation i have with chinese begins with this discussion. i think they understand america's policies constant and hendrick. >> both japan and taiwan scrambled jets to push back the

chinese incursion? >> i believe that's correct as of. >> on china, quick aside, there's no extradition agreement to withkon has agreed china or is in discussions on china comes your opinions day as one journalist of this new extradition it could face extradition to china and perhaps face jail time in chen over this new extradition law. has the state department made decisions relating to hong kong's new extradition discussions with china? >> i'm aware ofio this. we are reviewing it. i believe we've made any decisions yet. >> what a possible warning to u.s. journalists or so society activists, with the possible warning come from state department as ant result of that extradition law? >> i know the team is reviewing what took place and 92 92 if accidents on american citizens traveling in the region including the occupations you just described. >> thank you. your testimony state department efforts towards final fully

verified the negotiation of the most successful undertaking to we remain committed goal. provides for diplomatic outreach to continue enforcement sanctions until we achieve our objective. the commit to the fullll enforcement of existing sanctions under u.s. law including all of those mandated by the north korea sanctions policy enhancement act? >> yes, senator. >> be aha great no sanctions against north korea should be lifted until north korea demonstrates a commitment to complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization? >> i want to lick global space there. from time to time their particular provisions that if we were making substantial progress that one might think that was the right thing to do to achieve sometimes it is visas. i want too leave a little room but yes, your point is well taken, the enforcement regime, the core you and security council resolution speed remain in place until the verification of the new commission has been completed. >> what you support sanctions legislation by congress, the lead act we have introduced?

>> conceptually, yes. i'm not familiar with that legislation. >> when it comes to china, just a we had a hearing subcommittee of east asia will be heard from witnesses who were discussing the situation that week are spaced in china -- uighur -- chinese approach to tibet as well as hearing from a witness testifying about the genocide in burma. could you talk about how we approaching these human rights violations and what we would do specifically to address the weaker situation and what we further doing in burma? >> i don't want to get out of front of decisions where we are working on with respect to other policies we may take but we have been incredibly candid about what's taking place inside of china, not only tola the uighurs but kazakhstan, christians. this is a store, the numbers are staggering. it's into the hundreds of thousands of people.

again information management, this orwellian state again and tibet has been expanded. this is a very serious matter, serious human rights violations. state department and, frankly,at other elements of the train companies are working diligently to make clear this is not acceptable behavior. >> yesterday the dalai lama was taken to hospital or health concern. i think everything is all right but with the united states ever consider legitimizing a secession, a leader following the dalai lama was anointed by china? >> senator, it doesn't seem likely. >> i hope the answer is no. >> i want to -- is a complicated question. i'm happy to talk to about it. weto understand the history. witness to what china is trying to do and you should know there has been an administration that is taken on china in way that

this one is determined to take on on every dimension, military, diplomatic, traden, agreement, intellectual property theft. it is a bus, human rights included. we are serious about this, making sure china behaves in a way that reflects american values. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. the president recently expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of cocaine being produced in columbia. i thought it was an important point, the migratory situation coming from venezuela into colombia is an extortion or trait of that nations resources. you have yelled at and other groups operating openly and within impurity with the support

of all of the venezuelan government officials. the migrants either way are very vulnerable people, some of whom are being actively recruited and efforts to get them to join some of these gangs on the border, the drug fight to come out of venezuela heading north many of those planes right in the northern trying to countries with a pastor to trafficking organizations that are fueled by the drug proceeds and, of course, our key part of destabilizing senator merkley migratory crisis. on top of that in venezuela you have an active and growing russian military presence, , azucena open-source reporting. yesterday open-source reports about the direct flight from iran by the airline that our nation has sanctioned for support with irgc and adding to all of this fun and games is the fact that we know that they purchased a series of man pads and russian-made systems which in a place where you've got

gainsh acting with integrity in the street, links to drug organization, link to guerrilla groups on the board, always concern that these man pads could bee sold or transferred for profit. their involvement of some of the legal traffic imaginable. i guess that leads to the question, could not the argument be made or is it our position that the maduro regime basin all of this outline represents a direct threat to the national interest and national security of the united states? >> senator, i don't think there's any doubt that's the case, that the maduro regime resents the threat to the united states of america. you mentioned iran, hezbollah has been in south america. this risk is very real. the drugs can something the spin around for a long time, that is not a new problem. another russian footprint, couple that with a connection to the cubans and there, the cuban inner circle that is rather maduro and it is clear in the case the former leadership of venezuela maduro regime is a

true threat to thehe united stas of america. >> the broader point is of course we care about human rights and democracy especially in our hemisphere and will be supportive of it, but beyond that there's a national security interest for the united states and what is happening there. >> senator, we agreed. >> one more point of thesein gangs. as we've seen, the normal argument you hear outth there is the military is sticking with maduro. there's truth to that, but really what he's using no is to control the country and suppressed the 50,000 members of over 500 gangs come literally street gangs that is often actually openly called upon tope take to the streets and suppressed people, it would be my dear i think the white house and the statete department would share, that is military officials come high-ranking military officials who in the past in venezuela have openly discussed at his groups are unconstitutional and operate outside the law. it would be incumbent upon them to step forward and confront

a minimum.s at they may not do a coup d'état, but they must confront these armed groups inro venezuela who are basically running streets. >> senator, we agree and to the extent without the capacity to talk to them directly we have shared they needd to do that. it's a bit embarrassing to be a venezuelan senior leader.r. you got cubans protecting maduro and others keeping themm people inside of the country. we hope they will make decisions that are very different from that. we've also spoken about this publicly and it's a real threat. these will roving gangs are doing in enormous harm inside f the a country. not only tond water shortages ad food shortages but they're not convince whatever being observed and her behavior is inconsistent with what maduro would wish under the thumb of these roaming gangs. >> one side note. these gangs, they will be repressing people in the street and attacking them, and spot some walking down the street and snatch a person go back to

repressing. they are criminals. i suppose the designation of the irgc. i think that was the right decision. has to be administered to to every channel that if, in fact, now as result of this, u.s. troops in iraq are targeted? not just designateed terrorist groups but targeted whether it's by shia militias, the irgc or a combination of thereof, about who us in iraq from that shia militia or the iranians, that we will hold iran directly responsible for any harm that comes to our personnel in the region, even if they do it to a third-party circuit? >> senator, we have made clear iran cannot escape responsibility for any harm that comes to the united states interest in you in the world doing through a proxy for. >> they understand president trump's policy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you.ecretary, thank

welcome. let me start out by thinking you and the administration for designating iran's islamic revolution regard as a foreign terrorist organization. as you know, that's a a step i have long advocated and introduce legislation to move it forward and award ask you to explain to this committee and the american people why designating the irgc at the a terrorist organization is number one justified on the merits, and number two, but thebe consequens of that designation are, specifically for financialal institutions or corporations doing business with irgc affiliated entities. ..rl

>> this was a kind of easy decision, affecting reality. and so i'm happy that we were able to announce that decision yesterday. a second, with respect to its impact. the irgc has another component which i'll call the kleptocracy component. it runs a significant piece of the iranian economy. 20, 25% of the iranian economy has resources that transfer to the irgc itself. if you're the general counsel of an asian bank or a european bank, your world changed when that designation came out yesterday. if you're thinking about doing business or providing material support in any way to any company that might be connected to the irgc, the sanction will cause you not to do that from our goal, what that will do, it will deny them the resources to continue their terror campaign around the world. >> thank you for that answer. you and i worked together as

there was an interagency debate within the administration about whether the president should pull out of the iranian nuclear deal. i think the president made unquestionably the right decision. as you know, there were significant voices within the state department that resisted that step, and that i believe continue to resist that step and i want to talk to you about two different aspects of implementing that decision to pull out of the iran deal. namely, the nuclear waivers and the oil waivers. on the nuclear waivers, as you know, we have waivers that allow iran to continue with supposedly nonmilitary nuclear research. if you look to the extraordinary results that the israeli raid seized from iran, that that debunked what we were told by the obama administration and the international atomic energy

agency, and made clear that there were entire parts of iran's civilian nuclear program that were built in order to create nuclear weapons and that it was little more than a sham, i want to ask your view on should we continue to grant nuclear waivers, as i understand they're up for renewal next month. should we continue to grant nuclear waivers, given the rather significant evidence that doing so could further iran acquiring nuclear weapons? >> senator, i think this administration -- i think it's hard to challenge the fact that we have been tough with respect to sanctions with iran, with respect to particular waivers, both this and the crude oil, i have no announcements to make today. we have to make sure that they wind through. and the state department, 90,000 employees probably have that many opinions. make no mistake about it, we

will-- and nonproliferation waivers, i'd like to talk to you in a classified setting, they're complicated, but president trump, i can assure the americans people and the world that he'll ratchet up and their behavior were change. >> and there are concerns about the oil waivers, and that there's currently an interagency dispute between the state department and energy department whether to grant those waivers again. right now, iran is producing roughly 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, that's generating billions of dollars that it's funding the ayatollah and i believe endangering our security. what are your views on whether allowing iran to continue to produce 1.2 million barrels of oil a day and sell it on the world market, is that in our

national interest? >> i think the state department, i think we've been clear about our objection of getting iran to zero as quickly as we possibly can and we will continue to do that. >> well, let me urge you and urge the department unequivocally not to grant the nuclear waivers and not to grant the oil waivers. i think that maximum pressure should mean maximum pressure. you've been a strong voice for that and let me encourage you to continue that strong position defending our national security. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much, and i just wanted to add, thank you very much for being here, mr. secretary. >> yes, sir. >> i want to add my voice to that of senator cruz's, 21 of us sent a letter to president trump last month on iran oil sanctions, as you were just saying. 80% of iran's revenues come from oil exports and the more we can do to shut that down as quickly as possible, the more important it is, especially with the new waivers, perhaps happening as early as next month. so thank you for that attention to that issue.

i wanted to switch to turkey and the s-400 and issues going on. you and i talked about that a couple of weeks ago. i'm concerned about turkey obtaining the s-400, surface to air. in jump. and a u.s. missile senator by senator risch, menendez, the ranking chair of the armed services committee. turkey's with the s-400, and we were visiting with nato countries, a great concern over that. and the secretary-general who celebrated nato with us in

joint session of congress has a similar concern. on april 2nd of this year, the department of defense announced it would halt all f-35 equipment transfers to turkey unless this abandons plans to acquire the s-400. i'd like for you to give an overview of the risks to nato and u.s. security as a result of turkey trying to integrate the s-400 system in our fighters in the air defense. so ill. >> i'll leave the details to the experts, but as i have been briefed by the department of defense team, it's not possible to fly the-- the s-400 is operable. the two cannot co-exist, we've made that clear through foreign ministry channels, made it clear to the general through the department of defense channels. this very challenge, this technical challenge it presents. we now have provided an opportunity for the turks to buy american system that will provide them with the air

defense capability that they want for their country. that offer is on the table, it's been-- the details are being worked through and we've made clear to the turks as plainly as we can, you know, they build a significant component of the f-35 as well and purchasers and customers. >> producers. >> they're part of the supply chain for the f-35. we've made clear that none of that can exist if the s-400 is purchased by them. >> and are there consequences in mind that turkey should have if they go ahead. >> i think the statutory matter. the lawyers will have to sort through the details, but the s-400 is a significant weapons system and we've shared with them and asked them to take a look at what that might well mean for them. and it's just, i think, acting secretary shanahan said it best yesterday, we can't continue to have the f-35 operable in space with the s-400 is also sitting. >> and one of the other topics you and i had a chance to discuss with nord stream 2.

it came up when we were in the defense conference and it continues to come up with discussion. to me, it's putin's pipeline, it's a trap for-- a russian trap, the germans are seeming willing to enter into. and your thoughts on, are there things that germany has done over the last year to even, to ensure that nord steam 2 would not proceed without guarantees that russian oil will be able to continue to be exported through ukraine? because the questions were raised earlier about ukraine and the stability of that country and i think senator portman is heading thereafter the election, some of us were there right before the first round of the elections. >> so, we're working-- so president trump made clear, nord stream 2 underwrites the russians. and most of the nato countries see that, and the germans are intent on continuing to build the pipeline.

we're working with them to see if there's a path that we can at least ensure there's energy that transfers through ukraine. there may be an outcome there, we have done just about all we can to secure the europeans, primarily the germans from building nord stream 2. >> and the military success against isis, are there things you can share with us, now that the cali fate has been defeated, to rid the region of any additional extremism with intention of doing damage to the why u.s. >> we have military teams on the groundworking to see this there are ways for the global community to underwrite stablization and reconstruction efforts in iraq so that there's less likelihood that we'll get the next variant of sunni terror in anbar and in the west of iraq. the iraqi government is in full

support of this. and the iraqi forces, military works closely with the security institutions so that the risk of the next variant of sunni extremism and sunni terrorism doesn't march on baghdad again. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> senator menendez. >> mr. secretary, this administration has still failed to provide the legally required determination on the role of the crowned prince in the murder of jamal khashoggi and despite determinations from the treasury department this week you're still not in compliance with the law. nor mass the administration provided justification for its lack of respect for the law. so my question is, have you discussed with the president or the white house whether to make a determination about the crown prince's responsibility for mr. khashoggi's death? >> senator, i'm not going to talk about conversations i had with the president. i'm confident that we are in compliance with the law. we simply disagree--

>> let me read the law to you, let me read the law to you and the author is sitting next to me. not later than 120 days after receiving a request that meets the requirements of paragraph 2, which is when the chair and ranking member of the relevant committee, this committee, previous chairman and i, made such a request, the president shall, shall-- not may, not could, he shall determine if that person has engaged in such an activity and which is an activity in violation of the global human rights act, and submit a classified or unclassified report to the chairperson and ranking member of the committee that submitted the request with respect to that determination and includes a statement of whether or not the president intends to impose sanctions with respect to the person. shall. i mean, i know you've graduated from a great law school. shall is shall. i didn't graduate from harvard, but graduated from rutgers law school. shall is shall and means you

must. and yet, you refuse to get-- even if your determination is that he hasn't, but you refuse to give us a determination. and the message that that sends globally, for example, we have president al-sisi here. if he believes that you can do anything with impunity because you have strategic interest with the united states or any other actor in the world, then you have a dangerous precedent. how is it that the cia, according to public records, can conclude that the saudi crown prince ordered the killing of mr. khashoggi and yet the administration has taken no action regarding a determination, not sanctions on other people, a magnitski and determining the ranking member of this committee. >> senator, i would never refer to a public report of something that the cia had determined. i just wouldn't do it. i don't think it's in america's best interest for officials to second what some reporter

thinks they'll gotten from classified information. >> and tell senator graham that. >> i would tell anyone that. >> there's a whole house of public reports that speak to things unfortunately the government doesn't tell us, even as members. senate as we found out yesterday. >> senator, you know the -- well, i don't want to get in a debate. there are jurisdictional issues between the intelligence committee and this committee that you're deeply aware of. >> can you give me the legal just-- has the counsel of legal advisor provided you with an opinion that says you don't have to do this. >> i'm confident that we're doing everything we're required to do. >> that's not what i asked you. did the office of legal counsel advise you you didn't have to do this. >> senator, we're in compliance with the law. >> you didn't answer my question. >> i'm giving you answer that i'm prepared to give this morning. >> and let me give you since

senator johnson invoked my name in disdain. i wasn't going to speak to this, but since he opened the door, nominees, i hope that senator johnson is considered about political firing and the retributions at the state department as he is about some of the nominees. after removing the prior undersecretary for management, pat kennedy, a career foreign services officer who knew the department well, the trump administration have failed to nominate a replacement for 142 days. then the president dominate add candidate with zero experience managing a large organization whose nomination languished for a year because republicans and democrats in congress did not believe he was fit to move forward through the process before the administration acknowledged that and took him out of the job nomination. 509 days after pat kennedy was fired, the white house finally submitted a second nominee to the committee. now, this nominee is ready to go forward if the department

gives us the critical information that we have been asking, that has already been provided to an inspector general, and a special counsel on information that's critical for this administration-- this committee's oversight of the department. but it's failed to do so a year later. now, i know many of my colleagues, including you, mr. secretary, when you were house member, i could read you the quote, speak elegantly of the responsibility of oversight. you deny you're stonewalling this committee from getting that information and finally, talk about characterizing nominees is excellent or outstanding candidates. we have nominees with restraining, temporary restraining orders to failed to disclose lawsuits to this committee, who have #metoo issues and basic knowledge of their postings. and some nominees have written or retweeted some vile things about senators and their

families and their judgment as someone who is going to represent the united states and the world. do you think it's appropriate for a to nominee to retweet a that george soros, hitler, and the jews. that heidi cruz, the wife of senator cruz is an architect of the northern american union who goal is to destroy the sovereignty of the united states and retweet attacks on senator cruz of being a whole host of other things i won't get into or do you think it's important for that same nominee to retweet a picture of senator romney with the words "dumb ass" on it and -- is this the nominee? i could go through a host of others. and i left this with general

a abesad e.on the and i think some are incredible and yet, this were renominated. we have some vetting issues so i hope we can get to a better place because i want to you to be staffed, but i'm not going to rubber stamp many some of these and if i can get the information that the committee has on oversight, senator johnson can have him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i'd like to talk a bit about russia and latin america. last year on the senate armed services committee, i passed bipartisan legislation adopted as part of the ndaa that requires a defense intelligence agency to report on russia's security cooperation with venezuela, cuba, nicaragua. the report that the administration submitted is

extensive and it's worrying. it shows that russia is building a security infrastructure in our back yard with cuba, with venezuela, with nicaragua. cuba supports russian naval operations in exchange for credit, military equipment. and russia and cuba signed a loan agreement for the purchase of russian military hardware and replacement parts. in nicaragua strengthening agreements with russia and over the past year hundreds of russian troops participated in training with the nicaraguaen army. and the strongest partnership is with that of venezuela. russia is the regeemd largest arms supplier with upwards of $11 billion in arms sale in the past two decades. last year, russia deployed two nuclear capable bombers to the venezuelan military along with

ten attack helicopters the previous year. mr. secretary, what is your assessment of russian's strategic objective in its major investments in latin america? >> sure, i think your factual repetitions are almost spot on in terms. announcement i've seen as well. the threat is real. they're here in latin america because they want both proximity, so some of what they do in cuba, some of what they do in venezuela gives them access to the american southeast and allows them to operate their ships, vessels, two bombers that you described, and gives them logistical hubs. it also gives them space from which to conduct cyber operations and access to networks they can't access from other places in the world. so there's a real reason for their physical presence in these places and that's why it's so important that the venezuelan people are successful in overthrowing maduro and getting their democracy back and a government that understands it's in their best interest to have at rule of law and not operate with

cuba and russian thugs inside of their country. so maduro's regime in venezuela is being in very significant ways propped up by both russia and cuba and indeed, cuban thugs play an integral part in keeping maduro in power even though his regime is illegitimate. in my view, the pivotal piece for whether we have a legitimately elected government in venezuela is going to be whether the roughly 3,000 generals in the venezuelan military choose to remain with an illegitimate dictator, that is maduro or instead stand with the legitimate and constitutional leader, juan guaido. from the u.s. perspective, i think we should see a combination of sticks and carrots for those military leaders. in other words, each of those generals should know if they stand with maduro against the venezuelan people they face

sanctions directly and their families face sanctions directly and that's the reason it's on the wrong side of history that will haunt them for decades for their entire lifetime. on the other hand, if they make the decision to stand with the people of venezuela and with the constitutional government, that will be a decision that will benefit them. what are your views on both the carrots and the sticks that we can be using and we should be using and what more can we do? >> senator, i agree with youment and we have done each of those. you should know that special representative abrams and the story both have lots of traffic from venezuelan generals looking to see what the bid offer spread is. many conversations are taking place. it's interesting from our side to see, we don't think they're having conversations with americans trying to figure out if they can get a passport and a free home someplace. we're confident that this combination of making clear to them, look, it depends exactly

where they sit in the command and actions they've taken. there's a set of leaders part of the maduro regime. if they come to the light, if they come to the right side of venezuelan history we're happy not to take action against them and support them continuing to exist inside of venezuelan successfully, but those who don't, we will hold them accountable when the day of reckoning comes and maduro leaves and the venezuelans get the democracy they deserve. >> good. final question, shifting to the other part of the world, china. if you look at wawei, it's troubling to see our government and others considering partnering forbe 5-g infrastructure. that raises concerns for us and our allies. how is the effort going to make the case to our allies and what is the response you're getting. we're making real progress. i would hope we'd getterer

responses. we've made clear, risks to their own systems and the privacy of their people. and the risk, even if you're outside of 5 i and we still share intelligence with you, or co-locate or work alongside you, we've made clear you jeopardize that. we may not have to not be there with a dod system or a state department system because we need to protect our information. so we've made clear moving down that path presents at least two very significant risks and we've urged them to stay away from the technology. there are other alternatives that offer them better security and better relationships. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you. mr. secretary, this morning i had in my office a special immigrant visa recipient from afghanistan, he had been a translator. he was tortured, missing a number of fingers on both hands, almost killed by the taliban. and he raised the question with

me that i couldn't answer. he said, why do we we believe we can negotiate with the taliban today since we have not been able to do that in past years? and why, why is the government not at the table for these negotiations? during the time that the negotiations have been ongoing seven americans have been killed by the taliban, so can you -- can you answer his question for me? and tell me how we're responding to the taliban's violence against americans that has happened during the negotiations? are they paying any price? have we asked them for any accountability for what's happened? >> yes, ma'am, i think i can answer his question. so we are -- his statement that we're not talking to the afghans is not true. we have extensive daily conversations. >> i'm sorry i mischaracterized that, i said the afghans aren't at the table for those negotiations. >> they are, to the extent there are negotiations taking

place, they're part of the table as anybody else. we're talking with-- the government of national unity, speaking with the taliban, we are working to get the two of them in the room together. we think we're closer than any anytime in the last decade of achieving this and ultimately be a resolution that the afghan people will have to achieve and the reason we're talking to the taliban, they control an amount of resources and reconciliation we need to take down the violence level and the taliban-- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. again, i didn't mean to indicate why are we talking to the taliban. why do we believe the taliban will be honest with us any more today than they have been over the last 17 years. >> oh, yes, ma'am, it's a fair question. trust, but verify. it will be about actions on the ground. we understand that it's not only a deep level of distrust with the taliban, there's a deep level of distrust with many in the afghan area. it's a nation with a sad history with respect to truth

telling and corruption. so the americans, we have our eyes wide open. this will need to be an agreement if we can receive one that gets reconciliation that takes down the violence level, but it will be the actions ult ultimately. negotiations will get a frame work, but actions on the ground will ultimately deliver the confidence that we can do what president trump directed us to do to take down the enormous commitment and risk to american soldiers every day. >> what are we doing to ensure that afghan women are at the table during the negotiations. as you know, we passed the women's security act and the president signed it into law that women should be at the table in conflict ending negotiations. >> i think that the ambassador said this pretty well the other day when he was asked a similar question. we've made some real progress with respect how women are treated in parts of afghanistan today. without a doubt. >> it's been uneven to be sure. we want to do everything we can to make sure that as

afghanistan moves forward we don't retrograde, we don't go backward on that and they should be part of the discussion, pretty clearly. >> i had a chance to ask the ambassador that myself several weeks ago and i was not reassured by his response that we have made a firm commitment to ensure that they are part of any negotiation, so i hope you will commit to that today, that that is part of what our effort is in afghanistan, as we're looking at ending this war. >> well, remember, the afghans will ultimately decide. right? i mean-- . >> now, i appreciate that, but we also have, as we are doing the negotiations, we are putting pressure on the afghan government. what i'm asking is that we put pressure on the afghan government and the taliban to ensure that women are part of the negotiations. >> senator, we're -- there are lots of issues that we're working our way through. >> i had that, but this is half

of the population of the country. >> yes, ma'am, and i hope they'll make their voices turned. i hope they will turn to their leadership that they will demand of the folks if they're in kandahar. >> time to do that. >> i hope the women of afghanistan will demand that of their leaders and not -- we'll do-- we've always done our part there. america can never be criticized for not doing enough for the afghan people. i take great umbrage to suggest we're doing anything different so i'm urging the afghan people-- >> and i have done that, too, and their response to me has been we hope that you will also put that kind of pressure on the government. and that's what i'm asking. it doesn't sound to me like you're willing to commit to that though. >> and we're working on every front that make sure that we continue to move forward on he ever element and every woman's voice to be heard. >> and i hope that you will and our government will put pressure on the taliban and the afghan government in the same way. so, we can agree to leave it at

that. i would like to just add one more comment that's a separate matter. i have a constituent who is medically evaluated from china and through him our office has been engaged in an effort to better understand what happened to some of the chinese officials who have been medically evaluated. i understand that there is a report about what happened there. would you be willing to -- would you agree to come before this committee to share with us the information that's in that report? >> i'm happy to share everything we've done for every state department official who we believe had as been harmed by the kind of incidents that you're describing. first in cuba and then one in china as well that have been confirmed to date. >> and that's in part of the report? >> i'm not certain of the exact report. there have been lots of work. many reports. i'm certainly happy to share what all of the united states government, including the state department has done for the officers harmed and some who believe they've been harmed and still being medically evaluated.

>> we have to do that in a classified setting? >> no, sir, not for most of it. there may be some, there may be some that ask to be classified in terms of the vectors or the methodology to figure out how these health incidents took place, but the work that the state department has done to take care of its people we could certainly talk about. >> we've all had a real interest in that for a lot of different reasons. thank you, senator shaheen for raising that. >> thank you, mr. chair and thanks, mr. secretary for the testimony. >> yesterday you were before the appropriations committee, subcommittee about the department budget and you had a discussion with senator van holland about israel and the west bank. i think he asked you if israel annexes all of the west bank, what would you do, i'm not going to ask you, it's a hypothetical and might be above your pay grade, but i want to ask you about what u.s. policy is. tell me what u.s. policy is right now.

would we support an annexation of the west bank are we opposed or indifferent. >> it's a longstanding policy. the president has talked about it. we are now working with many parties to share what our vision, how to resolve this problem. you, senator, you would concede that for decades now, there have been all of these wonderful experts that have tried to resolve this crisis in the middle east, a conflict between israel and the palestinian people and they've each failed. so the old set of idea aren't worth retread, they have not succeeded. we're hoping our vision, how we might proceed to do that will create the conditions where the israelis can resolve this. so-- i'm not going to get out in front of what is in there and this bears on the question you're asking. i don't want to get out in front of it. >> do you think that a two state solution is an old idea whose time has gone? >> it's certainly an idea

that's been around a long time, senator. >> do you talk about old ideas you have to set aside? is the u.s. policy so satisfied with the two-state solution at the origin of the united states recognition of the state of israel? >> i would argue that millions of man hours have been spent to try to build out a two-state solution. it has not worked to date. it may work this afternoon, but-- >> is that still a goal of the united states? >> you can probably ask me 15 different other ways, too, senator. i'm going to allow the process we have, we're engaged with the partiesments how about if i say it this way. it has been a policy of the united states, i agree with that. i think it should be the policy. do you agree or disagree with me? >> i think ultimately the individuals in the region will sort this out. we want good things-- >> the president said the beginning of his term and said, one state, two states, whatever. whatever is agreeable to both israelis and palestinians, so let's look at that. would a solution in order for the u.s. to accept it have to be acceptable to israelis and

palestinians? >> you imply that somehow the u.s. has veto rights on a solution that the israelis and palestinians achieve. >> are we indifferent? >> we're going to work with-- we want a better life for-- >> i don't think that we have veto rights. do we have a policy? would you suggest is using the president's formulation that if israel israelis-- and you said that israelis and palestinians have to work it out. to find that acceptable would both the israelis an and palestinians have to find it acceptable? >> yes, i think for there to be a peaceful resolution for the palestinian people, are the right-- we've seen what happens, we've seen intifada's, we've seen protests and what happened in gaza. i think that israelis accept the fact that what the ultimate resolution is would be something that palestinian people are going to have to acknowledge makes sense. >> then i won't follow up on

the hypothetical whether this administration still accepts the notion of a two-state solution. i'm kind of shocked that that cannot be stated clearly, but if the-- your answer is, the united states' position is we will accept a resolution, but for that resolution to be acceptable, it has to be accepted by israelis and palestinians. i can-- i can accept that. let me ask this question. i've got two virginians, one a virginia resident and one a u.s. citizen, youssef and her son, her son, who have been in prison, i think youssef is out of prison in saudi arabia, largely for activism around women's rights. women's ability to drive and in saudi arabia to lift that. tell me the status of any dialog you're in with your saudi counterparts about either these individuals or others who are in prison because of

activism for women's rights? >> i personally and my team have spoken it the saudis about every single american who we know to be wrongfully detained and we've urged them to make better decision, saying that those folks need to be released and need to come back. there are too many inconsistent with the relationship between our two countries. we don't think it's in the saudi's best interest to do this either, but we've made clear our expectations. >> and you'll that they're illegally detained? >> if i not comment on particular cases, i'll not do that. >> i'll assert that they are he will l illegally detained. >> and i don't remember that a state nine miles at the narrowest points have faced the array of threats that it faces

to. the north, hezbollah operating, north of the border in syria it looks northwest into lebanon and see hezbollah more capable with munitions now precision guided. it looks at what is happening in gaza repeatedly not just with hamas about with other subelements who are the ones behind the recent attacks we've seen over there. it sees iran continuing to advance in its missile capabilities and on top of all that, it's my observation, sure, it would be great if we had the solution to this problem with the palestinians and israelis, but the problem from israel's point of view when you take that into context is, anytime it's ever-- any territory it's border throughout history has been used to target and attack israel. secretarily, who would they negotiate with? it's not clear who has the ability or authority to deliver on a deal at this point. in fact, some of the deals that are discussed now are not

nearly as general raws as the old ones that have been rejected in the past. so i guess my first question would be, isn't it fair that anything we do with regards to talking about israel and talking about solutions to the palestinian issue take into context all of these other threats that are currently weighing on it, recognizing that some argue that by dealing with that these other issues go away. but it's fair to take that into consideration. >> it's not only fair, but necessary. israel has a right to defend itself. create a situation on its borders that provide security for it and its people and i'm confident the united states will continue to support that. >> if tomorrow the issue with the palestinians were resolved and that would be great if it were. would it in any way in your view lead iran to be less hostile toward israel? >> unimaginable. >> would it lead hezbollah or those elements to be less hostile to israel? >> no chance. >> and i believe it's still the case, that some of these groups

that israel is being asked to cut a deal with, have stated objective that the destruction of israel is the jewish state. >> that's true. i would imagine it is in that vein that the administration has requested 3.3 billion in security assistance to israel and i just want -- if i may, ask you to further comment. because one of the interesting things about it is -- and i say this, i hope i'm wrong, but i don't believe i am, that a future israel-hezbollah war, even though neither side seems to want one certainly at this point, they may wind up in one anyway. in essence, as israel is forced to defend itself by targeting certain elements, it could trigger a response from syria, for example, that israel would have to respond to, it could rapidly escalate. the situation in gaza could quickly escalate at any moment. particularly if attacks resume inside, for example, suicide attacks in jerusalem, they will respond to things very strongly.

any of these responses could rapidly trigger escalation that could lead to a war. so the truth of the matter is that there is a hair trigger threat that at any moment an open and very severe conflict can open up with any one of these threats that they now face. i imagine that was the thinking behind the administration's commitment on this year's budgeting for securities systems? >> that's absolutely true. we believe that is money well spent for american security in addition to israel's security. you described the threats. they're very real. almost every one of them is connected to iran. the risk that iran will decide to put missile systems to the side of lebanon and israelis will feel compelled and it's so enormous, and the risk of escalation, it's very, very real. >> one last questions on the houthis in yemen. i remain concerned they will

acquire from iran -- and i imagine the iran would be the only one that would supply them, anti-ship missiles that would directly threaten not just saudi shipping, but inadvertently u.s. shipping or perhaps directly as a result. i know there's debate here in yemen and the u.s. role in that, but often lost in the debate the houthis in yemen pose, particularly as they have increasingly become, it seems, surrogates and agents on behalf of the iranian regime. >> the risk is not only the ships at sea, but missile systems inside of yemen that are iranian missile systems that land in big cities in saudi arabia and extended to the emirates, gulf states and transit there on trips. and these risks to u.s. interests are very, very real. they're not just providing the equipment and hardware either, they're providing training that houthis can actively use and implement these weapons systems.

uav's as well. the technology rate transferred from iran to the houthis, presents a real risk to southeast saudi arabia, but to the broader gulf states and america as well. >> thank you, for members the vote was just called and with that. senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just follow up quickly in regards to the israel-palestinian process. the israel elections are now over. we know that they have not formed the new government, but expect that that will occur rapidly. and there was a comment in one of the morning papers that may be putting forward a peace proposal between the palestinians and israelis. particularly in response to senator cain's point with veto rights. can we say that the united states will have a parameter in

the future-- >> we've been working on a set of ideas we hope to present before too long that i hope with will sufficient force of election power that they'll see there's value there, things that neither of them like, but things that the gulf states make sense. all of those who have an interest in resolving this conference will make sense. i'm sure there will be critiques as well, but a foundation on the discussions could advance in a way that they haven't been able to do for the past several years. >> well, it seems like over the last umpteen years it's never been the right time to move forward with peace and peace must move forward so i just would encourage the united states to not give up on peace between the palestinians and israelis. it's critical, not only for the israelis, but for the region and the future of that region.

i want to get back to a human rights agenda and i'm trying to find ways to work together on advancing the human rights and american values, and the global is one of those efforts that was strong bipartisan, just about unanimous effort here in the united states congress, to get additional tool for the u.s. to lead against human rights violators by making clear we don't want you in our country and don't want you to use the banking system. many allies in the world have had things such as global matnitski, and the weaker area with china and others where we would use sanctions on the chinese in clear violation of international standards. i guess my point is this, the matnitski law was focused on

russia and it's now global. we want to use it as a global tool to show that america is concerned about rights globally. can you advise us whether it's activity considered in china with regard to the areas-- >> we're trying to find the right pattern and the right place and that's what we've done every place in my year of secretary of state. >> and the person was to have them working -- and you have use it had, the administration has used it in many cases that have been very much in consultation with us. i would urge us to get a closer relationship in regards to how to implement this. and senator udall may have

questioned this, we're not naive that there will be arms sales -- but we expect to advance u.s. values, democratic values, can you assure us as you look at arms sales that we use that as a way not only for the military issues and defense, but also to advance american values in the country we're doing business with, to let them know it's absolutely essential that these arms be used consistent with american values? >> we certainly doing that, indeed, when recommendations come up as we discussed arms sales, discussed them with both the elements of the united states government as well as the legislative branch. that's always a component of how we think about it. indeed there are arms sales we haven't proposed and it doesn't make sense given what's going on with respect to human rights or extra judicial killings, we

certainly take a close look at those as a component whether we think an arms transfer makes sense. >> i would suggest, here is where congress, particular will i -- particularly this committee wants to work with you. it's how we feel in advancing u.s. values in our bilateral arms sales. in regard to burma, i know that question was asked by senator gardner. the holocaust museum determined it was ethic cleansing. i would ask if you can share with us, how we're responding to the crimes against humanity and war crimes take place. we can never let an episode like this go without the united states weighing in directly and openly as to how this cannot be tolerated and that those responsible need to be held accountable. >> i think that this administration has done that.

we're continuing to do it. i had a conversation yesterday on this very issue, we're looking at are there other sanctions, are this other tools that we have where he can go after other military leaders that engaged in inappropriate behavior inside of the country. i met with a leadership of bang di bang-- bangladesh talking about the difficult conditions they're in and how we can help, the season for monsoon is once again upon us. it's a long process to get them returned so we all have to be mindful making sure there are the resources there. we have not forgotten what's taken place in burma. >> thank you, senator markey. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you made early reference to chin kwan-go. the oppressor of the tibetan people and now he's moved over to a new job, which is to owe

press the weaker, and the same guy, the same attitude towards minorities inside of china. your administration has yet to sanction him. are you intending on doing that? >> we're constantly evaluating appropriate sanctions. you're right, he got a promotion. >> he got a promotion? >> yeah, it's a promotion in repression responsibility, however. so-- >> we take this threat incredibly seriously. we called this out in ways the previous administration refused to do. i'm proud of what we've done around the world and including in china. >> but you have yet to sanction this guy who is in charge of the repression. so are you going to charge him? are you going to sanction him,

particularly, so that the whole world knows that we are holding this man responsible for the harm which he is doing to human rights of the uighur? >> i made it a practice not to air sanctions at senate hearings. >> let me move over to burma, where your administration has yet to sanction the commander-in-chief of the burmese military who is also responsible in that country for the repression of the rohinga. which is an ongoing crime against humanity. are you going to sanction the commander-in-chief of the burmese military for his activity in harming? >> our diplomatic team is confronted with complex issues in burma. we're trying to do our best

which tools to use. our goal isn't to sanction people, but to get changed behavior and then to hold those responsible for the acts that took place accountable and our team, both in theater and here in washington that works on these issues is constantly evaluating the right tool mix. >> yeah, i know what you're saying, mr. secretary. that it's complicated, but at the same time, i think it's very clear, i think it's very clear that there is a genocide. theres a crime against humanity which is being committed and the united states has a responsibility to be the moral leader of the world. and here we actually know the military leader, the commander-in-chief who is responsible for this crime and we expect you to do something about it, mr. secretary. we expect you to sanction him in the same way we expect you to sanction the leader in china who has been designated to owe

press the uighur in the country. and i want to follow up with questioning with regard to the saudi nuclear program and the recent revelation that it does have a nuclear power plant, but it's not under international atopic energy agency safeguards, which is a lot different than the program inside call inside. what i'm concerned about, and senator kaine has made reference to this is the non-public 810 authorizations for companies to pursue nuclear cooperation with saudi arabia and i have repeatedly asked whether 810 authorizations have been granted and to see them. i've received silence with a dash of obfuscation from your administration and i recall that you, yourself, over in the

house you passionately spoke about secret side deals and how much you were opposed to them when you were a house member. so, will you commit to sharing the applications and the authorizations you have granted for companies to pursue nuclear cooperation with saudi arabia? >> senator, i remain passionate about the important oversight that both the senate and house engage in. i think it's incredibly important to keep executive branch acting consistent with the laws that this congress or previous ones have passed. let me take that under consideration. i can't make at that consideration, there are other agencies that have a voice a and-- >> i think it's important for you to be transparent and toward that goal i'm going to introduce legislation with senator rubio, senator kaine, and senator young later on toed to mandate those disclosures.

there's bipartisan thought on this committee we don't have enough on the potential nuclear deals between the united states and saudi arabia in an already volatile area of the world. again, the sunni-shia tension is already at a fever pitch. adding this nuclear dimension to it will only make it worse. so i think it's important for us to be in on the ground floor or whatever planning you have for the transfer of nuclear material to saudi arabia, and transparency is key. we are the oversight committee and we have to make sure that we're working to make sure these countries live together and understand each other and not try to put together programs that will wind up annihilating each other. so, i thank you for any information which you can give us because the middle east is about to get a lot hotter. i'm not talking about climate

change. if a saudi is allowed to continue down the pathway with ballistic missiles, with nuclear materials that will only exacerbate and not reduce the tension in the region. thank you, mr. chairman. >> for that, thank you senator-- or secretary pompeo. this is-- we appreciate your patience and i know you agree with us that these spirited discussions are really important for development and carrying on of diplomacy by the united states. we're all americans. we all have the same goals. how we get there sometimes we disagree on, but it's important that we continue these lines of communication, keep them open both in open session and privately and you've been very kind to me in that regard personally and i sincerely appreciate that. in any event, for the members, the record remains open until the close of business on friday and we'd ask the witness respond as promptly as

possible. and your responses will be made part of the record. with a thanks to the committee, mr. secretary, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the complete doc congress has details of house and senate for the current senate and congress. contact and bio information about senators and representatives. information about state governors and cabinet. 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral-bound guide. order it for 18.95 from the c-span store. >> book tv has live weekend coverage of the los angeles times festival of books from the campus of the university of southern california starting saturday at 1:30 eastern. featuring igor volski, author of "guns down at 2:30", roxanne with her book "not that bad,

dispatches from rape culture". at 5:30 beth macy with "dope sick". benjamin donovan with "shoot for the moon", coverage at 1:30, with former secretary janet napolitano "how safe are we", actor justine bateman with "fame", and at 7 conservative talk show host larry elder, author of "double standards." be sure to watch our live coverage of the los angeles times festival of books starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern saturday and sunday on book tv on c-span2. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start its day. lawmakers are expected to continue work on the nomination of david bernhardt to become the next interior secretary

replacing ryan zinke. he's been the acting secretary since mr. zinke resigned in january. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty savior, the way, the truth, and the life, shed your light today upon the pathway of our senators.