we are pleased to have secretary of state, mr. pompeo here with us. we have hard stop. we'll accommodate that. have six minute rounds. number one i'm pleased that you were chosen by the president. i think you're the right person at the right time. you understand the world for what is it, a complicated place, and being a former cia director you tuned threat. you have the president's confidence. you certainly have my confidence and i appreciate you and your family willing to do this, and we will not pay you by the mile because we can't afford that. let's talk about this account and we'll commonwealget into th questioning. foreign assistance is sometimes hard to fill domestically but if you don't want to be in endless

wars you need more tools than dropping bombs as we have a robust foreign assistance account. it's imperative those under your command serve safely. i talk a lot about the military. i don't talk enough about state department members who serve in dangerous locations without the security footprint that we would like but they take risks on behalf of this nation every day and they are very much heroes and i think you will be a good voice for their needs. now as to the president's budget request, 20 something percent below what we wound up doing and because we have time constraints these are the threats we face. nine state actor challenges and state actor challenges really since 2011 when we implemented

sequestration. everything on that chart is in your purview. north korea being one of the easier challenges you face. so, north korea, iran and isis is a pretty good challenge. then you just keeping going to syria, russia, ukraine, on and on. here's what we're trying to prevent. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and you're a part of this. i don't see how to cut the budget over 20% given your portfolio and i'll ask you one quick question in a minute, if we give you more money do you think you can wisely spend it and you will say yes. okay. if you don't we're going to have a problem. so having said that i want to turn it over to senator leahy and i really appreciate you

coming today, mike, you're in demand but this subcommittee needs to see what's on our minds and you need to tell us what we can do to help you better do your job. senator leahy. >> thank you. your no stranger to the congress. i know you know that this committee has had long bipartisan support from the democratic. whether the republicans are in charge or democrats. whether it's a republican administration or democratic administration. senator graham and i have swapped seats on this over the years. we've always worked together. in this last week the committee unanimously, new hampshirely reported the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill. hard to get a unanimous conclusions sunrise in the east but we did it. we rejected the cuts proposed by

omb. our goal was to make sure the united states remains a global leader that so many americans have sacrificed for over the decades, over the generations. we have to lead by example. we have to stand up for our values and principles and pay our fair share to support international organization alliances to protect our interest, support policies and programs and enhance our reputation and our creditability. i'll put my alcohol statement on the record but i'll close with this. we have two choices. one is to cut the budget for the state department and usaide by 25%. slash our contributions to the united nations. withdraw from the international agreements and treaties. embrace despots that trample the rights of citizens. close our borders. annoy our neighbors. ignore our strongest competitors methodically expand influence as we pull back.

the other approach is to be a leader, still the world's only superpower thank to the sacrifice of generations of americans that came before us. that's the position that the subcommittee has taken. lion's share of the credit is the chairman because he committed at the beginning and we did together and made it bipartisan and we tried to have a unanimous vote, and we did. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, chairman, senator leahy. i look forward to our conversation. distinguished members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to talk today about the president's budget and issues that are on your mine. the list you show there, senator graham, are long and i could add a couple of others and you could add a couple more as well.

i appreciate the fact that you all have operated in a bipartisan manner. we've talked on the phone. had productive conversation over a wide range of topics. i'm available to listen and understand your priorities and the way you're thinking about the world that's thoefl me. not just something i do as a courtesy but something i value extraordinarily. you all were very short with your opening statements. i'll do the same. you should see the overall proposed budget reflect an effort to manage dollars wisely. we already made substantial progress on working on next year's budget. i look forward to each of us and our teams continuing to work to achieve america's foreign policy objectives and with that i have a written statement and i've submitted and happy to close there and take questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we'll do six minute rounds and just get won it. let's start with afghanistan. do you know general miller. >> i do.

>> i asked him point blank what would happen if we withdrew in the next six months in afghanistan. he said he thinks it would lead to a lot of disorder and chaos. would it be any different than iraq when we left too soon. from my point of view i think it would similar. i would be concerned about isis and al qaeda to interject operation. they are consistently looking for that opportunity. do you agree with that assessment of afghanistan? >> i do. >> do you agree with me if we left without conditions based withdrawal you could not do much without security in terms of the state department, usaid your people would be sitting ducks? >> i do. >> i just want you to convey that to the president that we'll keep the aid coming to average, make sure its metrics based, make sure we're not wasting our money but i don't see how the depth can operate if the security department doesn't fit and if we withdraw too soon it

will fall apart. that's the way the world is. in terms of north korea if we're able to achieve an agreement with north korea do you believe it would be wise to send it to the congress? >> i do. >> senator schumer and leahy and several other democratic colleagues sent you a letter about what a good deal would look like with north korea. any agreement with north korea must be built on the current nuclear test suspension and ultimately include the dismantslement and removal of chemical and bowlingical weapons. must be full and complete demarchization of north korea. third north korea must continue its currents ballistic missile test including any space launch, disma d dismantling program and north korea must submit to inspection and any agreement with north korea must be permanent in nature. is that the outline of pretty good deal?

>> i do three times i sound like my wedding. yes that's the outline of the kind of deal what president trump is intending to do in our discussions with north korea. >> i'm encouraged to find there's bipartisan support for what a good deal should look like. how we get it, we'll do our best i think you're the right guy to try. if we fail it will be very bad. syria. we have about 2,200 troops in syria, is that correct? >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> and thesyria, can it be accomplished without any military part on our soon. >> we're not at a place yet. we're taking the leave to achieve the political resolution that's proven elusive since the uprising in syria. we're not yet in a position where we have sufficient leverage to achieve the political outcome that is in the best interest of the united states and the world.

>> if we withdrew from the north without sound thinking do you worry about the turkish-kurdish uprising. >> we worry about the north. al qaeda, nusra front, hosts of terrorists i'm concerned about. >> president erdogan was just re-elected. how can we help the administration make turkey a better partner. >> in my time in this administration it's been difficult with the turks. it was difficult before that. our decision to work closely with they were not happy about. we've made progress now three weeks ago and came to an understanding about how our force would work together to resolve a very complicated issue between kurds and arabs and a

real mix. so we're hopeful we can build on that. they will ultimately be part of our political resolution there and an important part and we need to recognize that and do our best to work alongside with them. now that the election is over i hope we can begin an even more productive conversation with them. >> iraq. can you give us an assessment of the political progress in iraq, some of the challenges and if you could answer this question, if the iraqis would accept a residual force made up of nato and u.s. forces do you think it's in our interest to leave that force behind? >> that's the current administration plan. there is work, some work that will advance i hope at the nato summit here in a few days to develop that nato force. we watched closely our ambassador there and our team on the ground watch closely as the election take place and government formation efforts have begun to achieve a government in iraq was a iraqi

national unity government with as little iranian influence as we could possibly achieve. we're doing our best to facilitate that work. it's appropriate. ultimately the iraqi people will decide the formation of their government. i hope it's one where we can reduce the influence of iran. i think most of the iraqi people want that as well. >> speaking of iran, yemen, do you think it's important that iran not be allowed to dominate yemen? >> we do. we can see even as recently today enormous iranian influence how they are reacting. >> do you trust the russians to drive the iranians out of syrian. >> reporter: the answer with respect to the russian capacity to do that is an open ended question and if they could achieve that, if the russians could get the iranians out of there i would applaud it.

>> i trust them about as much to do that as police chemical weapons. your counterpart, secretary mattis -- when he was commander he said the following. paraphasing. if you cut the state department's budget you better buy me more ammunition. >> diplomacy is and ought to be at the center of dispute resolution around the world and keep our young men and women out of harm's way. >> this subcommittee and full subcommittee is top you 24 hours a day, seven days a week to help you. we may have our differences, but i'm really pleased with the leadership you've shown early on and we want to help you being successful. senator leahy. >> thank you. secretary, in earlier testimony you highlighted four areas of budget, security assistance, funding to counter isis, military need, global health as

priorities of the administration to sustain tore increase compared to fy-'18 request. fy-'18 request, of course, was funding those programs and that was rejected by republicans and democrats alike in the congress. now, the president's fy-'19 request compared to fy-'18 enacted level is global health to be cut by 23%. humanitarian aid would be cut by 17%. security assistance to be cut by 19%. anything to change about the - yry fy-'19 budget request? >> it did happen before my time. i'll get my swing in fy-2020.

i know when the budget was put together the president has a lot to consider not just the state department's consideration.incr things that impact national security we are looking forward to our conversation with you. >> would you be horribly upset if we did what we did in the last budget, restore the cut? >> the answer is i'm looking forward to the conversation so that we can get it right. we don't have resources that we don't need a we have others that we do. >> my question is more rhetorical you understand we are restoring them. you've been asked to do a briefing by about north korea. and has been rescheduled a

couple times. the president has said that north korea no longer poses a nuclear threat. we are concerned about that. we want to ask you, what if everything -- anything, north korea has done to expand -- disband its nuclear arsenal. i know these are questions you cannot answer but will you commit to a senate briefing in a classified setting, in order to discuss exactly where we are with north korea? >> i will. i do . yes. i'm happy to provide that briefing. >> thank you. before the iran nuclear agreement was signed, prime minister the yahoo iran was only weeks or months away from developing the atomic bomb. it may be illicitly give a

speech on the rand paul policy. you listed 12 conditions in order for the trump administration to agree to a new deal. iran immediately rejected the 12 conditions. the un policy chief so if others are telling the truth. next month or six month ryan resume full speed ahead to develop nuclear working, what do they do? they may reject the administration's request for a new agreement. netanyahu and others just a few weeks without the agreement.

they rejected it we have no agreement. what are they do. >> all describe the path forward as we see it. if you refer to the 12 structural changes, we hope the iranian leadership will entertain i think a fair reading of any of those more than asking the ron -- iran to be a normal country. the kind of think we ask of belgian and others. >> but yes if they rejected, what do we do? >> we put pressure on them the same thing we do with other countries that create prolific nation -- proliferation risk. we've got allies across the gulf states we've got other alleys across the world. we will be meeting at the political minister level. a week from today i'll be weed -- meeting with the foreign minister cowher -- counterpart. >> was netanyahu right when

they were only weeks the gay from building a new we are weapon? >> i don't want to get into intelligence but i think what we probably said before. they have a breakout capacity in a number of months, 12 months to be poor -- more precise. >> thank you very much. with health questions involving cuba and china. the administration has referred to it as a tax . in china the same thing happened it's called incidents. in cuba level iii travel advisory was triggered by the order of departure of embassy personnel. in china they issued a health alert and departure. ms. china is what we expected the way they respond. in cuba they take appropriate steps to protect the diplomat. what's the difference? was this the same event in both

china and cuba? >> does a very good question. i don't know if they were the same event. it is the case that the medical condition, single medical condition to date in china as the medical folks would say is consistent with what's happening in cuba. we're now up to two dozen plus and cuba. we do not know the source of either of these. we are continuing to investigate in both places. it is the case, we have received better initial responses from the chinese government that we did from the cuban government and had to do with them. but neither of those has led to a satisfactory outcome so we can determine how to keep foreign service officers and state department officials and foreign commercial service officer serving in embassies in those two places, safe. >> we haven't thrown chinese foreign diplomats out of the united states as we did cubans, for virtually the same kind of attack. >> at this point the magnitude, scope, consistency, time . are different.

but i'm deeply aware that if we determine a similar situation there you can expect the response that our government would take would be commiserate with the rest of our officers. >> my time is up, we will speak further about this at some point. >> senator . >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for being here. i too am glad you are here and recognizes serious of everything we are facing and i have a lot of confidence there. thank you for serving. mr. secretary, as you are well aware israel is the closest ally in the middle east in a democracy surrounded by many yemenis. who stated enemies are its destruction. hezbollah, how do you describe the relationship between iran and hezbollah? hezbollah -- >> hezbollah is a fully funded

quiet regime from a run. they have small arms and rocket capable, very capable intelligence force, active not only in the region, and the west around the errors really, lebanon border. but now also active in supporting iran and asad in syria as well. i should add, hezbollah has active efforts for external plotting including in places like the united states. >> do you have the appropriate amount of resources to defend israel? >> i believe we do, yes ma'am. >> what we need next to do with israel? >> my experiences eight weeks here, my previous role, we have no better partner along many dimensions than the israelis.

not only in the work we do to help keep them secure but the work they do to help us push back against terror threats against united states as well. there may be other opportunities to do more and do better. but we have a really solid working relationship across, diplomatic military and intelligence agencies in each of our two governments. >> i know you have been very busy and we have both been in the job about the same amount of time. this two months. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary thank you for being here this afternoon. i know that the administration is committed to an agreement with north korea on their nuclear weapons that i think has been described as complete and verifiable, is that the term you use in talking about that agreement? in order to get the kind of agreement, i think we need to know and hopefully you agree

with us, that we need to know the scope of the nuclear weapons programs. we need to know how many weapons they have. how much nuclear material facilities that sort of thing. can you tell me, have we requested that kind of a list from north korea? and what is their response to that request? >> yes ma'am i'm confident i'll get a handful of questions like this i'm going to answer them each the same way. i'm not appear to talk about the details of the discussions that are taking place. i think it be inappropriate and frankly counterproductive to achieving the end state that we are hoping to achieve. know that it is unmistakable that things that we know, that the north koreans know, not only from the president summer but from previous encounters i have had there were a significant number of working level meetings that took place in multiple places including and run-up to the singapore soma. the north koreans understand

the scope of the request we are making to denuclearization of the elements that would be required. one of those elements would obviously be a thorough understanding of each of the elements you laid out. there material on hand, the pat -- capacity to develop that material, weaponization effort, engineering, as well as the weapons and missiles that would deliver them. we have been pretty unambiguous in those conversations when we say complete denuclearization. >> my understanding the past, negotiations is that north korea has been unwilling to provide that kind of an inventory of what they have. can you at least tell us, who is leading the continuing negotiations with north korea? is there agency groups that are doing that are those in negotiations ongoing where they are taking place? >> yes ma'am, it is the case that previous efforts have not been able to achieve a complete declaration of the north korean

systems. some small pieces, some pockets that we are able to achieve, i now think i've spoken to most all of the folks who have got this problem. some just this past week. with respect to ongoing negotiations, with me, i'm leading the effort. it's an interagency effort. we have significant teams that stretch from our organization and multiple pieces and proliferation expert karen asia experts this is not just that u.s. north korea issue at the end of the day but a broad range of state department excellent departments. i'm going to forget somebody. they're going to come after me. it is a broad range, energy officials, serving and helping us as well . but the effort in negotiations at the working level are being led by my team.

>> and those negotiators are ongoing? >> yes ma'am. >> i believe the fourth tenant of the agreement that was signed in singapore, had to do with returning the remains of americans to -- who are still missing in action from the korean war. one of my constituents in new hampshire runs a nonprofit that seeks to locate and repatriate the remains of americans who are still missing. i know that the president has made some statements most recently they have already sent back or on sent -- are in the process of sending back. but it is my understanding we have not yet received any remains from north korea. and in the past, the effort to repatriate those people who died in the korean war have been fraught with difficult challenges, let's put it that way. >> so can you tell me what the status is of those transfers

and are we expecting any remains to be repatriated anytime in the foreseeable future? >> i am optimistic that we will begin to have two opportunities. one is to receive some remains in the not-too-distant future. but then there is a great deal of work with companies like the one you described, nonprofits and the like who have been at this previously. we will need to gain access for the process to begin. we are intent on denuclearization, and make no mistake about it. but we are also, intent on doing our best to get back as many remains american or other foreigners there as well. we have had other countries asked to participate too. we're trying to facilitate this as quickly as you possibly can. >> thank you and just to be clear we have not yet received any? >> that's correct senator, we have not yet physically receive them. >> i know that syria has come

up in the hearing this afternoon already. and i think maybe it was senator graham who mentioned in the situation there. are you aware of any plans to withdraw forces? >> no ma'am. let me back up. >> in the immediate future? >> that's correct, there is an outline for how we are going to execute this and what the objectives are. that would be undertaken by each of our two countries. >> i said immediate future, how do we define that? are we talking weeks, months, end of the year, next year? >> there are no timelines. it is truly conditions base. we believe was set up political processes that can sustain the conditions on the ground that affected the status factory to each of the two sides.

>> thank you for taking those on you have become the tip in the spirit of diplomacy. without some very difficult issues i appreciate you doing that very much. let me bounce three with several different comments. central america is very near and dear to my heart. guatemala, honduras, el salvador. they're exceptionally important not only in the western hemisphere, immigration issues, this congress has committed over and over again dollars to that area. vice president biden was a major effort. we follow through with the end of the obama administration and we found that two more times another five and half million plus going to the region again.

my question is, are we doing this well? can you track some of the metrics there, do you see any impact? or is there something we can do better and what we are doing that will have a greater impact and engagement with that region. -- >> i don't know the answer to that. i will say we have devoted a great deal of u.s. resources, not only the money you speak of, they're having conversations not too different that the ones vice president biden had . there would suggest that we either it would be worse absence of us having done that we haven't made sufficient progress. is something i have asked my team to come back and describe to me. which programs work and what we what don't fall into prm, others through pod, u.s. our income we need to figure out which ones work and so we can stabilize that region and improve their chances of democracy and reduce the immigration issues that bedevil

us today. >> the metrics we require the method that we distribute any issues or concerns that you have? with how we are distributing the money in any requirements to receive it. for instance, honduras is receiving a greater amount based on certification, is that working, not working, what is your suspicion? >> i suspect the the conditions in place reduce our flexibility in a way that sometimes reduce our ability to be effective. i can't answer that anymore specifically. >> mexican elections are coming up this weekend. there is a lot riding on our southern partner. and what happens of those elections. what engagement we have right now or are we are in a wait and see mode, see what happens in how are we going to engage? >> we are not in wait and see mode. there's too much going on. we deal with them across the broad range of issues. we see that our trade negotiations as well. those are ongoing.

i've met with a number of times the course of my first eight weeks i expect i will head that way before too long after the election. to meet with both the current government and perhaps whoever is elected. they are an important southern nation. they present lots of opportunity lots of challenges for our country . >> i agree. there is a b bgn voice of america, i'm interested to know and our cooperation of them because they are the forward face around the world of the united states. what kind of cooperation do we receive is the messaging that you would see as valuable to be able to put out as a face for america and messaging for the american message. much of the world guess or view of america from voice of america and pbg. where is that immigration right now and how can that be better. my counselor has been able to

go out there. he sought them are working well. they stink with what we are trying to do at the state department. some were working really well others were broken. disconnected, not well functioning. there's been leadership challenges at the be bg. i'm hopeful we have turned the corner what can we begin to use what is a credible a valuable tool for american diplomacy. >> i agree we seem to have three different communication tools that are out there. occasion without good leadership in areas . that's an area think we need to do greater oversight here on this committee. and we would like your participation. >> the only thing i would add to that, good on you. i agree. is not an absence of resources. actually we have ample resources to conduct that mission. it's on me and our team to execute them. >> let me ask you a hard question.

can we move forward and syria long-term with iran present and with a sod present? >> no. >> strategically as at how we are going with the russians and turks virginians are especially important. we have >> i've spent a fair amount of time before he took office a couple months prior to that. the gulf states are all very helpful, jordanians are all helpful. the european union shares a common understanding as is really small certainly. it is the case that the assad regime has been enormously successful , coming up on seven years since the beginning. from america's perspective it seems iran presents the

greatest threat to the united states and this is where we should focus our efforts is regards to resolution. stock -- >> what's a strategy and what to do with that because we are not going to walk away from the palestinian people. clearly the model is not working i want to know what this drug strategy is where we go now. inc. you. >> this is a very short inventory to our allies and partners. i can't even read it. typeface has to be so small because we can't even include all of the deleterious things

the president has said over our historic allies this concerns democrats and republicans. not that i think our allies should be subject to criticism but the pace and the degree of this vitriol could be harmful to national security. the latest was a tweet to cheer on the political opponent of political opposition to the germans chancellor, especially in europe. this difficult and harsh treatment of our allies in a very impersonal tone elevates the right and the nationalist the very people who are trying to destroy nato and any you. i guess it wasn't surprising to many of us. that the germans in particular, have been so far, very hard case in the effort of this administration to try to reapply sanctions to iran. they are not looking to us to reapply the regime they pass

legislation, doing the opposite they give their companies attempted safe harbor, hold harmless harbor from u.s. secondary sanctions. it's hard to imagine how we will put together sanctions regime against iran. in your words would be the strongest ever if we are creating the space between the united states and our allies in europe. we should all remember that the u.s. does $300 million in trade historically with iran, germany does 2.5 billion, china does 23 billion. maybe i'm just asking for update on discussions with europeans and our partners with respect to progress being made are not being made to reapply sanctions. thus the foundation of the administration's plan and it

seems that this particularly rough treatment of our european allies is pushing us further away from that new sanctions regime against iran rather than closer to it. >> it is the case, they have been difficult discussion since the u.s. decision to withdraw. there is no doubt about that. the europeans have consistently talked about a different view, different path forward that they prefer. we chose differently. i would say of the handful of weeks is increasing recognition that we need to find a way forward together. when i talk about building tougher sanctions in history, i am still intend optimistic that i can do. remember it's not just about three european countries, there are many year. countries that are prepared to assist us in this. there countries throughout asia. we have our goal state partners as well. this is a broad coalition, sometimes a focus is up being on france and britain and germany. not to underestimate their

importance are crude they are critical partners and i want them alongside us for sure. but global sanctioning requires effort all around the world. we have teams all across the world and begin to work on shaping what that would look like. my recollection is when the previous administration talked about the ability to build us up they talked about it in terms of years. i'm hoping to put -- beat that substantially. >> i want to return to a previous answer he asked if there was a way for in syria with iran present. your answer was pretty definitive. your answer was no. iran had influenced their well before the civil war started . i think most everyone has watch the country over time doesn't foresee a circumstance in which the end of the civil contract, iran wants to have a significant presence or influence. your answer to's the senator's question is a suggestion that u.s. policy is to take a series of actions to pursue a course that ritz iranian presence or

influence in syria? because that certainly seems to require heavier left of american involvement both in the military and diplomatic side than this administration is willing to put in. >> perhaps i was too definitive. your factual observation that there was iranian influence before the revolution is absolutely accurate. it is my guess there will be iranian influence there when we all pass. when i'm thinking of iran, and talking about units and formations and command structures. passing through the country, underwriting importantly with financial assistance, tear operations and forces in support of the syrian regime. thus when i say iran. and talk about their military capacity in a way that's very different today than it was when you were referred to 10 to 15 years ago. >> lastly, we were all very

surprise when the president announced his interest in bringing russia back into g7 without preconditions. is a very leasee certainly didn't enunciate any conditions upon the invitation that he made getting ready for the g7 conference. has the position change? do we have an invitation open to or are we willing to allow russia to rejoin the g7 if they have not fully implemented the manske agreement? i think the presidents comments speak for themselves the president deeply believes that having russia be part of these important strategic conversations is inevitable. we have about his poor relationship with russia as i can recall in my adult lifetime. we have been harder on rush in this administration that has been the case in many previous

administrations. the president is looking forward to an opportunity to find those handful of places where we can have productive conversations that lead to improvements to each of our two countries. i think eyes wide open that space is pretty small. they don't share our values the same way as european countries do. but i think the president is hopeful that we can reduce the temperature, reduce the risk for americans and find a handful of places where we can perhaps get a good outcome in ukraine. >> it sounds like the president is open to allowing them to come back and if the manske agreement is not fulfilled if he can get concessions somewhere else. >> i couldn't tell you how we will make the trade-offs. it will ultimately be his decision. i couldn't say which set of trade-offs there will ultimately be. i'm confident we can identify better trade-offs for you for you to agree that will be the right outcome as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you chairman graham.

thank you secretary. great to be with you again. as you reference in your written testimony, there is an important opportunity to put together, build and develop finance into station with a build act which actually pass out of the senate foreign relations committee by 20 to one vote . has drawn bipartisan support and has been welcomed by the administration and in a late revision, the secretary of state will be the chairman of the board of the new institution. please tell me if you would, how this new international development finance corporation will be a tool in the tool kit for the state department, usaid, government overall to pursue development in the world and how you see it as a component part of advancing our values and interests in the

world. >> it doesn't replace anything else is not intended to eliminate other actions other humanitarian assistance other development assistance that we are providing. it does fundamentally reshape how we think about how our organization thinks we have to rise to the occasion to . it won't be the first time. but it will be first time in a strategic or coherent way. we worked to bring the capital there alongside the government assistance. certainly u.s. resources these resources from other countries as well we strategically identify targeted needs for development we develop the kinds of capital they need, not always not always the case is lots of different structures that can be achieved. i think the build act accomplishes, gives us the flexibility to identify development need, bring to bear the right resources. and manage it away and effectively measures the outcome along the way.

>> i look for look -- working with you should be enacted. when the president signed the separation of families of the border it did not deal with families fleeing from three countries in south america. i want to ask this be entered into rector, former vice president lays out, let's we address the root causes of migration from central america, any solutions focused sorry solely on border protection, immigration and enforcement will most likely be insufficient. repeatedly the administration has proposed, flashing aid to central america, it has fallen nearly 20%. do you agree mr. secretary a renewed focus on the triangle countries in central america

and will next year's budget reflect that increased priority? and when the vice president travels to guatemala this week does he plan to revise diplomatic and aid effort to support the u.s. strategy for engagement in central america? >> the answer to the second question is yes. the answer to the first question is i think senator langford asked a similar question. i don't think the region has been lacking from american financial support. i think we provide an awful lot of financial support over the past years. i'm not certain what the right number is to ask for financial assistance. what i think is more important is that we ensure that there is an outcome that we can deliver. i'm not convinced today if you

got two times or three times as many you can spend the next year that we could effectively deliver an outcome what you would achieve are describing. agree your question is right if we don't resolve those issues in those three countries, were going to have challenges lung our southern border for years and years to come. >> i think it's important we continue to meet our legal and treaty obligations. and if possible by having a better access to opportunities to apply for asylum for refugees at our embassies in these three countries. rather than having families risk this very long and dangerous trek. i hope we make progress on that. let me ask you last series of questions. i know senator murphy was also asking about a recent press statement. the strongly suggest president trump is planning to meet with putin. on june 8, warrant russia is attempting to influence our 2018 midterm elections this coming november and to divide

the transatlantic alliance. he pointed out russia has meddled in elections in france, germany, spain ukraine and overly try to divide the nato alliance and interfere with our allies. will russian election interference in the united states in a way that has harmed our key lehto -- nato allies will be a focus of the summit with putin and a focus of the upcoming nato summit? >> this is what i can say. as far as the nato summit, i've seen the agenda it will be there. every conversation has been that we've had between the u.s. government and counterpart with russia, two or three times i raised the issue in each and every conversation. i'm confident when the president leaves putin -- meets putin he will make clear that meddling in our elections is completely unacceptable. >> i hope our president will hold putin and russia accountable for their aggression in you cane --

ukraine and support of a assad . i'm concerned that the assad regime is on the march and taking aggressive action. i agree with the proposition advanced by the chairman at the beginning that we need to remain on the ground. we need to remain engaged in syria in order to have the opportunity to shape any negotiations that might resolve this horrible conflict. is it your understanding that we have sent some signal to assad and to russia that we won't block advances in southwestern syria that might create now an opportunity for a running influence to advance closer to our vital allies, jordan and israel? >> the forces, u.s. forces present their don't have the ability to reach to the region that you are describing. the russians have flown

missions through southwest syria in past weeks as well. >> is of that violation of our agreement? >> yes it is. we have spoken to them indicating exactly that. >> i seems to me a important item in the summit vote with her allies. thank you. >> are they listening to what we say and do they care? >> i'll answer the first, i can't speak to the latter. they are certainly listening . is not just our voice, the voice of the israelis and jordanians as well who have made it clear that we find moving in the way that is inconsistent with the agreement that was signed off by vladimir pruden himself, is unacceptable. >> this is a defining moment i think for our president in the mideast. russia is trying to take advantage of a vacuum that has

been created. both administrations. i hope they not only listen to what we say and take seriously but clearly they are not. >> chairman graham thank you for holding this hearing and i want to thank senator pompeo for your service today. senator i spent more than half a decade in china and the private sector. i've been over there twice in the last 90 days. china is growing regional and global influences readily apparent. i believe it's critically important that we as a nation count on freedom and the rule of law, avoid complacency and that we are clear eyed about the challenges as well as the opportunities that china brings, especially to this relationship united states. relationship i see as perhaps the most consequential relationship between any two countries in the 21st century.

we cannot just view these ongoing negotiations as a standard trade dispute but it's imperative we keep in mind, china's very strategic approach in -- and a long-term goal to become a world superpower. both economically and militarily. secretary pompeo, it's my view there's only could be so much that can be done. i strongly believe that we must critically work with our allies, china's neighbors and to mitigate china's malign actions weatherby south china sea, outright theft of ip, unfair trade practices, human rights abuses. this is especially important, they are engaging many of our allies with the at comprehensive partnership. 's secretary pompeo what is your strategic goals to engage

with our allies in the indo pacific region to proactively counter china's efforts to expand its influence. >> we have spent a lot of time working on this problem. you do find it pretty well. our toolset, are relatively new in the sense that it is the case it is a challenge to identify that the world has been very complacent over the last five, 10, 15 years. we are working through multilateral organizations to develop strategies in each of the domains that you describe. tray domains we are looking diligently to figure out how we can develop trade relationships in a way that are fair and reciprocal for the united states but don't benefit china at the same time. you can see what the president is doing with respect to china. with respect to diplomacy, we

will come next year and asked for increased resources connected to this region. i know that they did two years ago as well. we need to be in each of those countries, making clear the case that you are far better off with united states is your partner and ally than you are with china. i think many those countries didn't see the negative ramifications for moving closer to china over the last 5 to 10 years as well. and then secretary madison himself has truly reconfigured the way that the department of defense is thinking about the challenge, not only in the south china sea but also expansion even into the indian ocean, his effort to improve its capacity to do harm to u.s. interests. and frankly the globe it -- global trading as well. >> thank you i'm glad to see the more strategic level. along the strategic lines, do believe the tpp strengthen our

ties and allies, improve market access for you -- u.s. farmers and ranchers. with substantial pressure on china, a u.s. vacuum creates china to fill it. would you support efforts to reengage with tpp nations to improve the agreement? >> i would, the president strongly prefers doing these things bilaterally between each of the nations and asked that each of those nations. i do believe having improved trade relationships in northeast asia, and southeast asia is not only good for the united states economy but also important for national security as well . >> i show that i view as well. i want to talk about russia for a moment, another adversary to u.s. interests, clearly. from the illegitimate annexation of the crime era to interfere with u.s. elections, something you know a lot about.

their behavior is completely unacceptable. in particular very concerned about continued development of the pipeline that has the potential to allow him russia to monopolize much of europe's energy supply and undermine our european ally inability to counter russian influence. when you use every tool a male -- available provided by countering through sanctions act or otherwise to impede the development of this pipeline? >> we are actively engaged in all of u.s. government approach to convince european governments and businesses alike that increase energy dependence on russia is inconsistent with what it is we are all trying to do and pushing back against russia. it is one of several examples that we have made clear, we think goes in completely the wrong direction in terms of allowing the russians to have political influence. not only

in germany, but all around europe. >> i want to shift back to asia, pacific and north korea. should north korea not commit to a complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization process, would you commit to walking away from negotiating table? >> yes the president has made that very clear. >> leslie, in your set assessment what rest of china, utilizing a nuclear or unstable north korea as leverage from negotiations would be trade related or otherwise? >> i'm sure he -- i'm sorry, what is the evidence? >> what is the rest? >> i met with the president after the singapore summit he assured me that they would work side-by-side with us. at this point i'm going to count on the fact that he has that shared objective with us. we are certainly watching to make sure that every country

that has committed to helping us achieve that is actually doing it. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> very briefly, do you see any backsliding on china's part when it comes to sanctions on north korea? >> a modest amount. >> thanked mr. secretary. do you believe nato is obsolete? >> no sir i do not. >> when you go to the nato summit in brussels in a few weeks and you meet counterparts from other countries, how do you explain that our president has that repeatedly that nato is obsolete? >> i don't have to wait till i get to brussels i found that the conversations about nato. present has been completely unambiguous about his view. when he spoke in warsaw, he made very clear his expectations for how we would achieve a strong united, atlantic unity. having said that, we have been very clear to them as well, it is time for them to care about pushing back against russia as we do.

so we have push them, increase their willingness to support nato voice -- forces as well. progress has been made. but today they have not even lived up to their own promises. >> is my understanding that in the next few months, european union will have a meeting and vote again on whether to continue russian sanctions . is also my understanding that the new italian government has made a part of the platform other government that they oppose russian sanctions. one nation can veto the sanctions regime of the european union. is suggests unless something we can't predict happens, that the european union will lifted sanctions on russia in a short time. is that your understanding? >> i am more optimistic than you are. i am very hopeful that as we continue to engage with europeans and italians a particular we can convince them that this sanction regime is important to achieve outcomes in the best interest of europe and italy in particular. >> i hope you can .

>> we are hard at that effort already. >> i sincerely hope you can. but i would have to say, when you look at our foreign policy today, is a true or not true . that we reject the russian abdication, invasion, occupation of crime era? >> we reject that occupation. >> and we reject the russian invasion, occupation of eastern europe? >> of course are. >> and georgia? >> yes her. >> and we believe we have friends in the baltics and poland to be spending increase sums of money for advance role and presence. >> this administration is increased the advanced forces there in your. >> you think this suggested the present of rewarding russia with a membership in g7 is consistent with what you just said? >> i think this administration has been unambiguously tough on

russia. i think it is indisputable. >> i might raise that question about the g7 conference . but let me ask about another topical interest on immigration on our border. would you agree with me that is no coincidence that we are having border challenges at the same time we are facing the worst drug epidemic in the history of our country? >> i'm not sure i'm prepared to put the correlation between those two precisely. >> stick with me for a second. the drug gangs in central america, drug cartels in mexico have made many parts of those countries virtually lawless. the gangs are threatening innocent individuals who, in desperation rest their lives to come to our border. the reason the drug gangs are prospering is because of the appetite for narcotics in the united states. the fact that we launder millions of dollars back into those cartels and gangs from

our country. do you see that connection? >> i do. i believe the number now exceeds $100 billion. back to mexico as a result of the drug trade. >> do you think we are doing enough with the comes to laundering the money back to these drug gangs in cartels? >> i believe that for many years we have been effective with respect to movement of money back and forth between the two that has supported cartels of the drug trade of the demand cited here in the united states we have an awful lot of work left to do. our efforts to support the defeat have also fallen short. i think it all -- all three dimensions we have a great deal of work to do. >> can you address the new insidious which is coming into the united states and threaten synthetic opiate to be a nightmare we can't even imagine in our future but -- what role

is china playing in shipping thumbnail in the united states? >> a significant role of the past years. they have agreed to work with us. i think we are in a better place than we were, congress has been fantastic providing resources to executive branch to push back against this new truly grave threat. >> i visited venezuela a few months ago. met with the president, told him he had a sham election, it would be recognized by any country in the world. and he would continue a resume which is created a state of collapse in the venezuelan he common in -- economy. and a credible negative outcomes in public health. now that he's gone through with the election, what is our next step to put pressure on him to change. >> we will put additional sanctions in place against the regime . will continue diplomatic efforts, we return the favor to them as well.

but we are continuing diplomatic outreach to try and create some conditions where the country has some hope of returning to something that looks more like a democracy that the world, i'm hesitating because it's a enormous challenge. our tools have been proven insufficient today. >> there is one tool we haven't used in you know what it is, we are major suppliers of oil to venezuela. it is critical to what remains of their weakened and failing economy. would you consider imposing sanctions to stop that trade of oil between united states and venezuela? >> the administration has looked at this a number of times and we continue to review. there are second and third order ramifications of doing that that make it a little more complicated. i know you are aware those two. i didn't mean to i know you get that too. where certainly reviewing whether they comes a point we have to suffer never -- negative ramifications to

achieve an outcome to get the venezuela people a chance to avoid the humanitarian crisis. you have almost 3 million refugees leaving venezuela. we are talking about almost 10% of venezuelan population. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome mr. secretary. thank you for your service. i'm in favor of summit meetings between the president of the united states and foreign adversaries when it advances our interest. i am opposed to the summit meetings when it simply provides a propaganda windfall to our adversaries. that said i think the jury is still out on what happened in the summer between president donald j. trump and north korean leader, kim jong-un. what i do know is there is a report in the lot wall street journal, headline is north korea is rapidly upgrading nuclear site despite summit tao. i understand -- anderson we have to deal with that in the

classified city with is a very troubling report. you would agree that north korea poses a nuclear threat united states? >> yes her. >> i think it's important the president not engage in puffery on this. because, because after the summit meeting, as you well know, he sent out a tweet saying just the opposite. he says there is no longer nuclear threat from north korea. and i just think, we need to be very clear eyed as to the past history of negotiations with north korea. would you agree? >> i absolutely need to be clear. what the president intended there, i'm confident, what he intended there was, we did reduce the threat. i don't think there's any doubt about that. we took the tension level down. if i had been having this hearing several months ago you would have been demanding that we reduce the threat. how do i know? well i watch them.

>> i understand your interpretation. >> i think his point was a fair one. for the moment. we have reduce risk and we are endeavoring to do that over. >> i understand your interpretation of what he said . what he tweeted was, quote there is no longer nuclear threat from north korea. that was his statement. he didn't say we reduce the temperature we reduce tensions, i would point out he reduced tensions on the point where he took them to a boiling point brought them down. engage in that. i just want to get a clear statement from you that you did agree that north korea poses a's nuclear threat united states. i want to follow up on a point there was raised to and the chairman mentioned about the chinese sanctions by north korea. because in a press conference, right after the summer, president trump said that china was weakening its enforcement of the sanctions and then said,

quote but that's okay,". i went on to say i think over the last two months the border is more open than it was only first started. but that is what it is. are we still pursuing a policy of maximum pressure on north korea until we achieve our goals? >> i will answer this with two points. one of them i responded from senator graham. it is the case that we have observed china not enforcing control over their cross-border areas as vigorous as they were, 6 to 12 months ago. it's important to note, that comes from an all-time high. they have been enforcing sanctions that we never see them in for some before despite a previous administration efforts to do so. we were singularly effective to get them to resent level of enforcement. there are violations today, there are things that do not

violate but they are still on site . to the second point, it is the case enforcement of existing sanctions remains enormous priority of this administration. no matter what country therefrom i remind them of the important of doing that. >> thank you. i'm glad to hear that placing maximum economic pressure remains in place. i agree. i think i'm on a bipartisan basis we supported that. in fact we have a piece of legislation that would further increase the sanctions and reduce flexibility further. we think that's an important message you send. but i do think it's very troubling that at the summit, it was discovered that china was reducing the level of sanction it had in place before. let me ask about turkey. i know you agree the syrian kurds have been important

allies in our fighting forces. just give me your assurance that you're not going to be bullied by turkey into throwing the syrian kurds under the bus. >> there is no administration tension to any large yellow object whatsoever. >> thank you. let me ask you about the f 35. we've had a lot of testimony before congress from defense officials and the administration and other lines. that turkey's acquisition of the russian s 400 in combination with the f 35 would allow russia to detect and expose potential vulnerabilities with the f 35. and i would present a national security threat. i know you testified over in the house that quote you were imploring unquote the turks not to go forward. i think we want a more definitive statement. this committee just asked last

week legislation saying it's one or the other. we want the turks to get the f 35. but can you tell us today mr. secretary that we will not deliver the f 35 to turkey until they pledge they won't acquire the as/400. >> we have been very clear with the turks about the rest facilities associated with acquisition of the as/400. >> i dunno what you say by risk they will only understand a very definitive statement. we sent them one. i think it's the poor that the u.s. government beyond the thing page. some asking you to make a definitive statement, if not right now, which i think would be helpful. but very quickly. as you know there was a ceremony in texas, the same day the committee took the action, here . and i think the more turkey things that it can proceed down this path without a very firm statement from the

united states, the more this will drag out. you have to make it clear, you have to choose, you are a nato ally, you should be doing something that puts your fellow nato allies at rest. >> very complex situation we are certainly reviewing it. we have spoken to turkey and great legs. i spoke to my counterpart the last handful of days. not just this issue but the list is long. is paramount, i could go along with the challenges that we face we are hopeful the result of this election will put us in a place where we can have a set of conversations. i think would please everyone on this committee. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate there is a long list, there is. syrian kurds is one, pastor bronson is another. but let's be really clear, turkey has just unlawfully taken pastor bronson and so i also

would like your commitment that the pastor will be used as a bargaining chip with turkey or cooperation with the turks you know in throwing the syrian kurds under the bus or somehow we will say okay you can go ahead and get the f 35 and me as/400. what they have done with the pastor is outrageous. and with the foreign nationals by the way that work for our embassy for years. >> you have my commitment. that's the best description. we are not linking those issues in any way. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you, we are just about done, you've done a marvelous job. just a quick wrap up here. in terms of staffing, are you making progress? >> yes, but not as rapidly as america needs us to. >> is there anything we can do to lp