>> well, one of the initial things i agree with you, congressman, is there should be consequences to members of congress who make repeated anti semitic remarks that are false, in addition to being insensitive. when there's no consequences, it all emboldens others to continue that. and also when it comes to campuses where there's been constant verbal violence against jews, there has been no consequences. the universities refuse to publicly name those people who have made -- >> and we're going to leave this recorded hearing, take you live now up to capitol hill, where secretary of state mike pompeo is about to testify about his agency's budget priorities. he's also expected to get questions about iran and north korea at the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing. live coverage now here on c-span3. >> katherine jackson, sari

sarita vanka. i hope i said that right. so your written testimony, mr. secretary, will be accepted into the record. i'll make a short opening statement. and the floor will be yours after senator leahy. so it's going to be really short. your budget proposal is 21% below the fy-2019 enacted level. ain't happening. so this is the budget. the biggest reduction is in state -- is in our account. i think you've done a great job, mike, as secretary of state. i've been to iraq and afghanistan 54 times. you've been there a lot. one thing i've learned, you're never going to win this war against radical islam by dropping bombs alone. count me in with what secretary mattis said. years ago, if you cut the state department's budget, you need to buy more ammo. the best thing to do to defeat this radical ideology is invest in the lives of others.

a small schoolhouse in a poor region of afghanistan, iraq, syria, you name the location, africa, can do more damage to radical islam than imam. giving a woman a say about the future of her children is imperative to win this conflict. developmental aid has proven to be a wise national security investment. petfar alone has saved millions of young africans from certain death, from aids and this goes on and on and on. i'm a pretty hawkish guy, but i believe in this account, and i really do thank you, mr. secretary. and i think you've done a wonderful job dealing with complicated issues, all over the world, giving the president sound advice. it's up to him to take it. i appreciate the president listening. sometimes we disagree, but i've never had anyone as president of the united states reach out and talk to more people than

president trump. sometimes that's good, sometimes it's not. but he's subject to changing his mind, and he is, in my view, done a very good job of being a better friend to our allies and put our enemies on notice. and secretary pompeo, thank you for the job you could do, the time you spend away from your family and representing our country exceedingly well. senator leahy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i'll say my former neighbor, for the times of the week when i'm in virginia. i was tempted to submit my opening statement from last year's hearing, because very little has changed, as we see, in the president's budget request. like last year, we're still presented with damaging funding cuts. i don't see any explanation for them. we have therefore heard the same vocal opposition to this request

from the private sector. the national security experts. and from a lot of democrats and republicans in the congress. mr. secretary, on a positive note, i appreciate that you've lifted the hiring freeze at the state department. you've begun to address the vacancies created before you took the job. which actually you couldn't have lifted that hiring freeze if we had accepted the president's fy-'19 proposal. but not much else has changed. we have been asked to consider the funding levels not compared to operations in progress, but to the previous years' requests. as though nothing has happened in the world since then. those comparisons are irrelevant, and that proposal was rejected by republicans and democrats alike in the congress last year. many of the initiatives throughout the administration is

touted, which i think are good initiatives. women's economic empowerment to the indo pacific strategy. the president's touted those, but they're made possible only because we rejected the cuts in the previous budget. we need to face reality that not only does the request cut most of the programs highlighted by the administration and its own priorities, but the cuts total $11.5 billion, virtually every program funded by this subcommittee is negatively affected. and i would note that in my years on this committee, both as chairman and as vice chairman, the bill usually comes out with unanimous votes or nearly unanimous votes. that's because you have programs like fulbright scholarships, security, law enforcement, countering russian influence,

reducing poverty and human trafficking, assisting refugees, empowering women. these are important programs. but the president will use slogans like america first. but the budget says the opposite. now, the administration has highlighted support for programs like pepfar, as we all do. but you can't explain how if you cut pepfar and other programs that combat hiv/aids by $1.7 billion, it's one thing to say you support these programs, but then you cut it. i don't know how that advances u.s. interests when the administration talks about having to make choices, is it a choice that benefits -- is actually a choice that is what this country wants to make, knowing it will mean countless lives lost that could have been saved? i mean, i like to think we are

in favor of saving lives, not losing them. the administration talks about preserving u.s. global leadership. so please explain more than a talking point about burden-sharing. refusing to pay our assessments at the u.n., costs that we're obligated to pay. how does that enhance u.s. leadership? when the administration talks about curbing migration, explaining why cutting the funds that we appropriated to address the causes of migration makes sense. and when the administration talks about standing up for american values and rightly calls -- i agree with the administration when they call nicolas maduro a tyrant. but then how do you explain why a dictator like egypt's president el-sisi, a dictator, is at the white house. russian's president putin, north korea's kim jong-un.

turkey's president erdogan are praised as strong leaders. and the saudi crown prince, who everyone knows was involved with the murder of an american citizen is treated as an indispensable friend and ally. so every year we have an opportunity to reassure the world that the united states, as i believe it should be, is defender of the universal rights of free expression, of free and fair elections, applying the rule of law to the rich and powerful. but words are not enough. i've traveled to a number of these places with senator graham. he's a good friend. and we've seen you can't condemn some tyrants while praising others. and if you cut programs that reinforce american values -- american values -- it sends the opposite message. so i hope to once again, mr. chairman, that the congress can

try to be the conscious of the nation. provide funding for international diplomacy and develop what we know is so important, and remembering, as you said, as secretary mattis said, you're going to cut this by more. >> thank you, senator leahy. the floor is yours, mr. secretary. >> thank you. i won't read my entire statement, but i have a few minutes. i'm going to walk through, two years of the administration, i'm now nine days short of one year of my time as secretary of state. >> the longest-serving member of the government, right? >> when -- reclaiming my time. when the trump administration first took office, the united states of america faced a series of threats. we faced a china that wanted to spread its model of economic corruption, increase its military power. based in iran, a revolutionary

regime that wanted to dominate the middle east and had a guaranteed pathway to nuclear weapons following a truly bad nuclear deal. we faced a russia that had invaded ukraine and captured crimea. we faced a north korean nuclear missile proliferation threat. and we faced petty dictators in the world like maduro in venezuela and asaed in syria. the trump administration has recognized the challenge and we responded. i would like to take a few minutes to talk about how we have approached this. we think this is truly benefited the american people and their security. first, the trump administration sees the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. we have loveveled with the american people about the threats we face. this honesty has created consensus on capitol hill about the need to confront chinese aggression. it produced a unanimous consensus inside nato that arms agreements like nafta are worthless if only one party adheres to its terms. it produced broad international support for the brave people of

venezuela. basing policy on reality, we recognize jerusalem as israel's capital and sovereignty over the golan heights. it's why the state department dedicated the terror organization on monday. we must recognize reality. second, we created diplomacy to build coalitions to confront our enemies, because we neither kno knorr should do everything ourselves. we convinced our nato allies to spend significantly more on their own defense. we rallied the defeat isis coalition, a coalition of over 80 countries to dismember the caliphate in syria. we discussed the common threats and shared opportunities in the middle east that included arab and israeli leaders talking to one another. we're getting the middle east strategic alliance off the ground. we built the indo-pacific strategy to do a real pivot to asia. we supported our hemispheric partners as they work to support the venezuelan people.

and we forged a global coalition at the united nations to impose the toughest ever sanctions on north korea. third, we're focused on outcomes. this administration promised to dismantle the isis caliphate and we have done it. we promised to confront china, and call them out on human rights violations. and we have done it. we have promised to exit the iran nuclear deal to exert pressure on tehran to change its murderous ways. we have done that too. we're working every day to protect our citizens at home and abroad and advance american prosperity and values and to support our allies and partners overseas. finally, when i first became secretary, i promised to put diplomacy at the forefront of defending u.s. national security in advancing our interest. i think i have done that too. here's what's happened in my 11-plus months. we lifted the hiring freeze for family members, as well. this was a no-brainer. we brought 2,000 family members who are eligible for employment back on to our team. promotion rates in the foreign services, which were cut.

in 2017, across the board by 40 or 50% are now grogan. new foreign service officer, foreign service special classes are beginning. 55 senior leaders have been confirmed by the senate since my first day. thank you for that. more to follow, i hope. i'm holding a small group of events all across the world, including here in washington. i call them meet with mike. my team can hear from me. we listen to many, many voices directly. and back in the states, i've traveled some to tell the state department's story here in america to convince americans why diplomacy matters. i've also been recruiting. and in my recommendation, the president and senate recognized four individuals to become career ambassadors. david hale, phil goldberg, michele sa san, dan smith. the rest of our team knows these are people we can look up to. there is much more to say, but i'll end here. i look forward to discussing foreign policy and the $40

billion budget request for state department and usaid for 2020. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. we'll do six-minute rounds. we have a hard stop at 4:30. do the math. we'll have time for a second round if possible. thank you for coming. if the committee restores the funding -- if we reject the budget and go back to the last year's budget, could you spend the money wisely? >> yes. >> thank you. outcomes. i love -- one, i think you're doing a great job. morale is better. you're spending a lot of time explaining to the state department, the people here at home. i think you should travel more in the united states. that's hard to ask a guy who spends his life on an airplane. but it's important to tell the state department a story. and i think you do it very well. afghanistan. the outcome is peace with dignity for women in afghanistan. is that correct? >> that's correct. also making sure that america's counterterrorism interests are protected, as well. >> so we have two goals.

make sure that people like isis and al qaeda types who will never come to the peace table, they do not recapture, take over afghanistan, correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> and if we reintegrate the taliban back into the afghan community writ large, we do so on our terms, not theirs. >> that's correct. >> thank you. syria. the stabilizing force that we're talking about will have more europeans and our numbers will go down in terms of boots on the ground, is that correct? is that the proposal? >> that's the discussion that's under way, yes, senator. >> do you agree with me that having a stabilizing force is the best insurance policy against the return of isis? >> we have to do -- we do everything necessary to ensure there is not an isis 3.0 or the disasters don't follow. >> right. do you agree with me having a stabilizing force in northeastern syria will prevent iran from coming down and take over the oil?

>> it is an important part of our overall middle east strategy, including our counter iran strategy. >> so containing iran would include having a policy in syria that would keep them from benefitting from our withdrawal. >> that's right. one piece of it, yes, sir. >> okay. so there's a small contingent of forces down at tannis? that interdicts the flow of weapons from beirut to tehran, is that correct? >> it also performs important counterterrorism mission, as well. >> okay. so i think keeping that contingent there is a good outcome for america. because we want to protect israel against an increasingly armed syria. when we go to turkey, their nato ally with plenty of problems, have you told turkey that if they deploy the s-400, they can't be part of the f-35 program? >> yes. >> okay. when it comes to africa, are you familiar with the fragile state report issued by the united

states institute of peace? >> i am. >> in terms of outcome, do you believe when it comes to the sahal and other regions, you pay now or you pay later? >> it is a difficult place. and i've seen legislation that's proposed fragile state legislation that's been proposed and the objective there is something the state department agrees with. >> thank you. when it comes to north korea, the objective -- the outcome is what? >> the outcome is a fully verifiably denuclearized peninsula. and greater peace, less risk in conventional means. and hopefully a brighter future for the north korean people, as well. >> and venezuela, what's the outcome? >> we will continue to support democracy for the venezuelan people. along with our partners in the region. >> what's the prospect of that happening any time soon? >> i try to stay out of the prediction business. >> fair enough. >> the things i can control, the efforts that we're making, i

think are working in the right direction. i think we have supported the properly designated leader, juan guy know. >> when it comes to iran, the revolutionary guard is a terrorist organization. do you think that's justified? obviously you do or you wouldn't have done it. >> i do. >> give us 15 seconds. why. >> continues to raise the cost for iranian terror around the world. it rinses a basic reality, it's a terror group. we should not forget, i had a group of a handful of folks who were held in 1979. it was originally 52 folks. 444 days. they reminded me that many of the iranian leaders today are the very individuals that beat them, blindfolded them, handcuffed them, and the american embassy in tehran. this is a long-time challenge, pushing back against iran and the designation we made yesterday will further restrict their access to wealth to spread

terror around the world. >> do you agree with me that iran is near the top of the list, if not top in terms of being destabilizing and destructive? >> absolutely. >> so the outcome that we seek against iran is what? >> laid out 12 things we asked the iranian leadership to do. and we are supporting the iranian people and helping to change the desires and the actions of the iranian government. >> when it comes to israel, the outcome we seek is what? >> senator? >> when it comes to israel, what is the outcome? >> great partner, great ally. premier democracy in the middle east. they are a great partner and important for american national security and a great partner more broadly, as well. >> thank you for the terrific job you and your folks are doing in very difficult circumstances and in dangerous places. and to me, the state department people and usaid and other places are risking their lives for a noble cause.

thank you. senator leahy. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you were quoted in the press referring to him as a tyrant after blocking the entry of humanitarian aid. i think you will find every senator here, republican, democrat, would agree with you. but i think we also have to be consistent if we're going to be taken seriously. would you agree the description of maduro also applies to north korea's leader, kim jong-un? >> sure. i'm sure i've said that. >> what about egypt's president sisi? >> you know -- >> uh -- >> i would not use that characterization. >> okay. even though he locked up political opponents and claimed victory after a sham election? >> senator, there's no doubt that it's a mean, nasty world out there. but not every one of these leaders is the same. some of them are trying to wipe

entire nations off the face of the earth. and others are actually partnering with us to help keep americans safe. there's a difference among -- of leaders. you might call them tyrant. you might call them authoritarian. but there is a fundamental difference and there are a fundamental difference in the way the united states should respond. >> i just want to make sure i got it straight. maduro is a tyrant. kim jong-un is a tyrant. sisi is changing the constitution, locking up thousands of political opponents and dissidents, trying to stay in power, holding others. he is not a tyrant. >> we have not been remotely bashful. you need to read the report about calling out human rights violations everywhere and always. we're entirely consistent with respect to that. and we use tools at america's arsenal to push back against that wherever they can. different tools, different places, different challenges. >> of course, the president calls him a great friend.

is that a tool to push back on him? >> the president gets to choose his own words, how he speaks about these people. there is no doubt, the egyptians have been an important security partner, helping us take down terror threats in the cyanide that have reduced risks to the united nations of america. no doubt about that. and for that i am deeply appreciative to president sisi. i had a chance to travel and see it. he has been a remarkable beacon in the middle east for religious freedom. >> does he do the same for press freedom? >> we've called out the places where president sisi has not treated the press in the way that are consistent with america's values. we're unabashed about that. he's here today. i met with him yesterday. we talked about these very issues yesterday. asking him to do better. asking him to certainly with respect to americans, do better, as well. >> do you think he will? >> i hope so. we certainly placed it squarely on something that we're demanding. >> i think the thousands of political opponents and dissidents he's locked up hope he'll do better.

>> i'm sure they do, senator. >> the career officials of opec determined that the major league baseball could enter into an agreement with the cuban baseball federation so that they could have safe entry of cuban players into major league baseball, so to stop the human trafficking of players up here. i think the final agreement was entered into under the trump administration. but now the trump administration has torn that up and said that they won't. what changed? >> we gained additional information which made very clear that a beneficiary of these details were people that weren't advancing democracy, weren't investing in the human rights that i know, senator, you're so concerned about. and we wanted to stop that.

we wanted money not to go to those individuals. that's why we changed. new data, new facts, new policy. >> are you going to do the same with egypt, saudi arabia? >> we'll use every appropriate tool to try and change behavior every place we find it inconsistent with american values. >> let me go to one of those. chairman graham and i and counterparts on the foreign relations committee, i think 18 other senators, requested the president -- this was last october -- to make a determination on the imposition of sanctions under the global magnitsky act with respect to the murder of jamal khashoggi. he's not done so. even though magnitsky act explicitly requires him to. are we in violation of that law? >> no. >> why? >> we are continuing to pursue facts, just as with the other individuals that we sanctioned under global magnitsky. we, the united states government, sanctioned under

global magnitsky. when we find the facts, we will apply the law appropriately. we have done so consistently during my entire time as secretary of state. >> well, the facts i remember, without going into classified things here. i remember coming out of one of the meetings of it -- what was it that you said -- wasn't a smoking gun. it was a smoking saw. >> yeah, that was pretty good. it was a smoking saw. >> you applied a law explicitly that the secretary of state has credible information -- not proof, but credible information of a foreign official has committed a gross violation of human rights, they are ineligible to enter the united states. you denied entry to 16 saudis for their involvement. if the crown prince ought to travel to the u.s., and you read

the same intelligence that senator graham and i have, would you deny him entry? >> my commitment -- president trump's commitment from the first time we learned of the murder of jamal khashoggi is we would apply the facts as we learned them to the law as it exists. to every place in that we would continue to pursue the facts, as well. so we got to the right answer. >> okay. but you didn't answer my question. >> that's what we'll do. if he seeks to come here, that's what we'll do. >> so my other question -- >> absolutely. >> i hope this time when i submit questions to the record they actually get answered. >> absolutely. >> you didn't last time, but thank you. >> senator graham. >> secretary, welcome. thank you for your service and your presence with us today. travel with me, if you would, around the global. let me start with the democratic republic of the congo, for a home state issue. michael sharp was assassinated, was a u.n. worker in the democratic republic of congo. he comes from kansas.

that occurred in march of 2017. there is evidence to believe that the assassination was conducted by the security forces of the previous president, joseph josephca bella. we have had conversations with the u.n. secretary, i and others are dissatisfied with the u.n. investigation. what if any role has the state department or will the state department play in the attempt to provide justice for mr. sharp's family? >> so if i may speak without talking about the particular case, i'll tell you what we do in instances just like this one. i'm happy to give you a briefing on exactly what we have done in this particular instance. but the state department is always involved when there is an incident like the one you describe. we work with the local law enforcement as to other elements of the united states government to try and get the facts, where there is a u.n. investigation, as you described here. we work to push the u.n. to get it right ask to make sure too they have the resources they

need in the theater, in that space, to get it right too. we work to help them develop relationships, carry out conversations so that we can get answers for the american people, in this case, a kansan. >> mr. secretary, if you would, or someone on your behalf visit with me about this specific case. >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you. mr. secretary, let's go to saudi arabia. we know they have detained american citizens in the past, have done so as recently as last week. this is behavior that i would put at other countries that we would find very objectionable. would you agree that these actions are unacceptable and warrant consequences? what's the plan? >> yes. any time someone wrongfully detains an american citizen, there has to be an american response. >> and we have had that response or that response is occurring? >> i have spoken to the senior leadership in the congress dom of saudi arabia from the king on down about every instance where we found human rights abuses, wrongful detentions or even the

fact we believe one of those events may have occurred. and every conversation we continue to do that. >> mr. secretary, have you seen any evidence of changing behavior or hope for changing behavior? >> i'll give an example. the work that we were doing in yemen to try and get a decrease in the violence in stockholm, the saudis were instrumental in getting that agreement completed. it was good. it created opportunity for there to be food stuffs in medicine, could move through the port of h hudida. the saudis have invested and the crown prince himself has tried to implement that agreement as an example of something that the kingdom of saudi arabia has been doing to reduce violence, be protect the americans and keep us all safe. >> mr. secretary, let's go to the middle east. there needs to be a focus, in my view, on promoting good

governance and economic opportunity in the liberated areas from isis so as to deny ongoing support to the groups that would compromise isis. what's the current status of rebuilding those areas that were liberated from isis? >> senator, not much progress has been made to date. but not -- only the united states but european countries and others have lined up resources to begin to do that. there is still not a whole lot of real estate in syria where it's possible to begin to even stabilization, let alone reconstruction. still pretty difficult. but our team, state department team, is on the ground working to create the conditions where we can begin to do the things we need to do. first the stabilization operation so we can prevent the resurgence of these terror activities, both in eastern syria and western iraq. >> how about egypt. the administration is -- what is the administration doing to stop egypt from purchasing russian

su-35 jets? what sanctions as required by law will state implement against the egyptians if they carry through with that purchase? >> we've made clear that those systems were to be purchased that statute would require sanctions on the regime. we have received assurances from them they understand that, and i am very hopeful they will decide not to move forward with that acquisition. >> that's good to hear. mr. secretary, venezuela and our own hemisphere i assume will need billions of dollars in reconstruction assistance to repair its infrastructure. there is a request for authority to transfer $500 million, but i assume more money will be required. what are your expectations and what are we doing with our friends and allies in regard to venezuela's future? >> yes. once we're successful in supporting venezuela and democracy, there will be billions of dollars of investment. the maduro regime coming on now, years and years, has destroyed

the infrastructure, including the oil infrastructure, the capacity of great wealth for their people. i have seen numbers that range from 10 to $50 billion worth of investment. it will come from the united states. but largely from other countries around the world too. the europeans are anxious to participate in that. i'm convinced that each of the some 50 countries that are with juan goido will participate in that. and they won't have their equipment people nationalized yet one more time in venezuela and they can return to make the real investments that it will take to ultimately stand up to venezuelan economy. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thought my more senior senator on my left was to be next.

but i appreciate -- >> i got the list. i'll change it. >> i appreciate walking in first. thank you. >> it was a photo finish, but we looked at the tape. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i am puzzled, however, because you talked in your opening remarks about the threat from china, and you also talked about the importance of diplomacy, which i very much appreciate. i think, as you point out, you have refocused on the importance of our state department employees and the great work that our american diplomats do around the world. and yet the state department's proposed budget, as the chairman has pointed out, requests the largest drop for any cabinet department by total dollars, and by percentage, it's 24%. and yet at the same time, we have seen over a period of the

last few years an increase in the chinese diplomatic budget. so from 2011 to 2017, china nearly doubled its budget. i know you know these numbers. their spending increased by 12.3% in 2018. just last month before the chinese parliament, beijing presented a budget for 2019 that would increase foreign affairs spending by another 7.4%. american diplomats are already outnumbered 5 to 1 by chinese diplomats doing economic and commercial work in africa and elsewhere, and we hear from ambassadors of many of these countries who say to members of congress, they would rather do business with the u.s., but they can't find us. so i just wonder if you can talk about how this soft power dynamic is influencing our ability to win our competition with china. >> so it is the case that the

chinese use multiple tools of soft power. their diplomats are a small part of that. but they don't as neatly separate their private sector from their diplomatic sector. frankly, from their military, as well. and if you looked at the

department. i think this committee feels differently about the need to support diplomacy and the state department budget, and i hope, as you said to the chairman, that you will make good use of whatever dollars we fund. i want to switch topics, if i can, to the expansion of the mexico city policy. i know that you and i disagree about women's reproductive rights, but i thought we agreed about the importance of ensuring that people could get access to health care. yet what we've seen from the expansion of this mexico city policy where we have reports about the impact is a real negative impact on maternal

health, on families. we have, according to marie stokes international, they currently have a funding gap of $50 million as a direct result of this policy, and that translates to 1.4 million fewer women with access to contraception services, 6,000 more unsafe abortions, 4600 avoidable maternal deaths. the association for family development will lose 60% of its budget next year. 20 of its health clinics will close and 20% of its staff will be laid off. and swaziland has lost its funding and will only be able to serve four towns out of 14. botswana, about 60% of funding is under threat. while one health clinic has closed, another one has scaled back to a bare minimum. despite some of the previous testimony that i've seen, the data is unmistakable. this is having a huge impact on

the health of women and families around the world. and so how can -- i mean, i think we can all agree that we want to ensure that the united states policies support health care for people in this country, and yet this policy is undermining that for women. can you justify why you think this is, in fact, helping and not hurting? >> senator, the policies that i announced a couple weeks back don't reduce funding for health care by a single dollar. not one dollar. there was not a budgetary announcement in there. every single dollar that was program spent appropriated will continue to be program spent appropriated. what i was seeking to do was close loopholes in the policy that was producing end runs in the policy that went to abortion-related services. it preserves all the resources

that are there for health care. >> but, in fact, that hasn't been the outcome. as you point out, you are, as the secretary of state, focused on outcomes and the outcomes of this expanded policy is very clear. it's shown up in every independent study that has looked at what the impact of the policy is. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator blunt. >> thank you, secretary, for being here. let's go back to venezuela and talk about impact on columbia. probably in columbia the two biggest problems right now would be refugees and economic impact of the refugees and the increased production of coca and drugs. let's talk about that a little bit, and if you want to work that in to what we're hoping to do with peace colombia, i'd like to hear what those dollar figures might look like on peace

colombia as well. >> so, senator, the challenges in venezuela are absolutely moving their way in and through colombia. it originally began as a border set of issues and have now moved even further. you identified the cost of the folks who have fled venezuela. now some -- 10% of the population of venezuela, our best analysis is there will be another 2 to 2.5 million people flee in calendar year 2019. it also makes security at the border more difficult. groups like e.n., the remnants of the fark, now have more people who are subject to their influence. and lastly, it's very difficult for accounting for narcotics as these folks cross. it makes the colombia burden that much greater. so our efforts in venezuela to support the president, i'll be there on sunday this week to go

visit. they are things we have to revisit as this problem continues to grow. we think we have enough money in the budget to help colombia with what they're dealing with this fiscal year, but if it continues to be a number of people leaving venezuela for colombia, that problem increases and we might need more resources. it's possible. >> i think we need to watch that closely, and there is a point here to where if you're going to reverse what's happened in the last couple years in the increased drug trade and poppy growths, the opioid poppy growth, it's where we need to be committed financially as well as with our other resources. colombia in many ways is important to us, in south america maybe jordan is. in the middle east i think there is a lot of similarity between they can do things that we would do better than we do them in both cases because they're doing what we'd like to do instead of

us being in there giving the directions. so the other refugee, what are we doing with state department programs to help with the syrian refugee problem, particularly as it relates to jordan? >> we have significant refugees remaining still in turkey and lebanon as well as in jordan. we're working with the jordanians to try to create situations around syria in certain pockets where there can be a safe and voluntary return. we're only a fraction of the way in being able to actually demonstrate that at a volume that matters to the jordanians. in the interim we're providing resources and participating in forums where the arab states are also contributing significantly to ensure that jordan has the resources to take care of those refugees in what is now a multi-year problem. you have kids who were born in some of those camps who are now, by american standards,

kindergarten age. >> what about lebanon and turkey? the same issue? >> same set of issues. e each of them has treated the refugees slightly different. there aren't big camps inside lebanon as there are inside jordan. each of those three countries has burdened an enormous burden from the conflict in syria. >> what are you do in this budget for embassy security? >> we think it is numbthe numbe proposed is more than accurate for embassy security. >> how does that compare with last year? >> i don't know. i would have to get it. >> maybe someone back there has that number while we go to another issue. while they're looking for that, i'd like to know this year's proposal versus last year's number. on the religious freedom issues, officer brownback has taken an aggressive role there and a broadview of the world in his travels and his efforts. >> he has. we've been working on this all across the world.

we've been speaking out recently about the challenges in china to religious freedom. not just the wingers but even more broadly than that. the absence of religious freedom there is of historic proportions. >> and i think ambassador brownbeck really has taken a position on religious freedom versus the more narrow freedom to worship in these countries where they allow freedom to worship but don't allow them to express their religious freedom beyond that. i think that's an important thing for him to do. i don't know if you have a number beyond that. >> it doesn't look like i do just yet. increasingly, in looking at our embassies, we've been doing that for over 20 years now trying to make them more secure. i think also more concern about security of people -- where people live that work in the embassies that are u.s. citizens and part of the state department family.

anything you want to say about that? >> i'm sorry. would you repeat your question? >> just also the concerns of people who are living in countries that we're concerned about in that part of the state department family. >> so we've done a handful of things through my 11 months to put in place programs that will improve lives on some disability issues, for our officers who have disabilities it's proven a challenge in some of the places around the world. i think we are in a better place today. you all have been very generous in providing the resources to be able to do that. each time i go to the embassy, i have a chance to get down and talk one on one with embassy officers and i always ask them how are the schools, how are the medical facilities here? do you have the ability to get to your place of worship? for the most part, we're in very, very good shape. some of them are just in difficult places to serve and we have shorter time on station as a result of that. i do have the number for you, senator. this is listed as worldwide

security protection request versus 2018 enacted, the change is up 6.8%, and from fy 2020 requests to fy 2019, up 2.2%. >> i want to talk more about that later. chairman, i think i'm out of time right now. >> thank you, senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. >> yes, sir. >> last year at this time i was in cacacus, my only visit to venezuela, meeting with maduro during the course of that trip. little did i realize at the time what 12 months would mean in terms of venezuela. i saw firsthand, and you undoubtedly have heard incredible reports, how miserable life is for the venezuelans. they face basic deprivations of food and medicine and things we take for granted, and the political situation has become much more volatile there. it's my understanding that cubans have been sending in security forces to support the

maduro regime. i'm also told the russians have sent in some type of new group such as we saw in eastern ukraine to play some role in support of maduro. it is not a healthy situation. won guaido's wife came and saw me last week. she talked about the danger to her husband and those who supported him. that's why i wrote to the president two weeks ago and said this is the time to protect venezuelans who are here in the united states. they should not be forced to return to the dangerous conditions in venezuela. they should be given temporary protected status. i have yet to hear. can you announce today the good news that these venezuelans can stay here in the united states? >> i cannot. >> why? >> we are still evaluating how to handle that situation. there's been no decision made by the administration yet. >> i don't get this. it is so dangerous the united states has intervened on a foreign policy basis.

we have made it clear we have no use for maduro and we believe the venezuelan people suffer under his leadership. i just sense, mr. secretary, that this president's aversion to refugees and immigrants are stopping him from doing the obvious. come to the rescue of venezuelans in the united states on a temporary basis. don't force them back into a dangerous, deadly situation. is there any other explanation you can think of? >> i think this administration has done more for the venezuelan people than the previous administrations combined. i'm very proud of what we've done. i think to suggest we've short-changed the venezuelan people is inconsistent with our activities. >> well, you should come to my office and meet with the venezuelans who are here with their visas expiring. perhaps you could see there is more we could do without a great problem. for the record, america is not full. we have room for these venezuelans and others who desperately need the united states at this moment in their history. let me ask you the question. i was just handed a note that

the u.s. voted 18-9 to recognize guaido's initiative, so the aos not always in your good favor. i hope you think positively of them at this moment. do you believe we should have a two-state solution in the middle east? >> the administration will roll out the plan that mr. kushner and mr. greenblad have been working on before too long and you will see president trump's vision how to work on a problem that's been going on for decades and decades. the previous administration couldn't solve it. we hope we have some ideas that are different and unique that will allow the israelis and the palestinian people to come to a resolution of the conflict. >> draw a historic parallel for me between the decision to say to israel that they could claim sovereignty over the golan heights, a territory that was seized during the 1967 war from syria and the russians can claim

crimea because they happened to invade it as well. >> senator, the two situations could not be more starkly different. >> i would like to hear. the israelis ended up with golan heights as the result of having been attacked. they were on the defense. they were at risk of the very nation being overrun during the battle of the valley of tears and they defended themselves. >> and they were -- >> they retained that terrain to continue to defend themselves from the murderous regimes in syria. russia, on the other hand, wasn't on the defensive. russia chose at their own moment in time to go seize land from a people that posed no threat to them whatsoever. >> so our diplomatic position is land seized in the course of war is then the spoils for those who happen to occupy it? >> i'll say two things about that. so, there's international law doctrine on this very point. we don't have time to begin to

go through it today. but happy to have a team go over and walk you through that element of international. but the second thing, it's just a practical policy matter. if it's the case that there is absolutely no cause for aggression, that is, if you attack and you have some of your land taken as a result of an attack that you undertook and you get it back just because you didn't succeed, that's a bad insens ive system to set up. >> i guess we could claim iraq under that theory? >> we could go through dozens and dozens of examples. you asked me to compare and contrast the situation of golan heights and cry mere yeah. >> i strongly support our relationship with israel. i believe the palestinians need a homeland as well. two sovereign states, not a threat to one another. and this departure we've made under this administration, i'm afraid, puts the future of israel as a jewish democracy in doubt. i don't think the administration is thinking clearly about how

this ends well. perhaps the people of israel in this election today will see a different way in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thanks. secretary pompeo, it's good to see you. >> good to see you. >> i want to thank you for being here today. i want to thank you and the administration for your unwavering support of israel. it is much appreciated. secretary pompeo, i want to shift gears to china for a moment. as you know, i spent over five years living there as an expat for procter & gamble. had two kids born in hong kong in the '90s, visited china, its neighbors and continue to see china's regional and global influence. it's very apparent. i think it's we as a nation are clear-eyed about the challenges and the opportunity that the u.s./china relationship brings. we cannot view these ongoing negotiations as a standard

straight dispute. it's impair tifr we keep in mind china's strategic approach and the long-term goal of being the world's super power. secretary pompeo, china has dwomd developed an advanced ecosystem. it's remarkable. i led a group of five senators, we saw guangzhou, tencent, ally b ail youly bab by, quantum computing, 5g and others. this comes with risks to international secretary as well as our economic well-being. with the latest findings of the uk's national cyber security center by huawei can cause for telecom, this is the risk this agency has been stating for months. france, germany and uk keep

testing and planning to install h huawei. >> it's fairly technical. i'll summarize. our security leaders don't believe there's a technical mitigation technique available today. that is, we may solve the riddle but the risk of having equipment co-located with huawei's and china's systems. our solution is not to co-locate or not to share american information with countries that used to put this technology in their systems knowing that the risk that it will wander to china's government is too great. so, america will have to choose to -- another method. we won't be able to share information or participate along with some of our important national security partners if they chose to go down this path of installing this technology.

>> mr. secretary, i want to talk about religious freedom. it's a fundamental human right. whether it's china's pervasive surveillance, the destruction of thousands of churches and mosques or the detention of hundreds of thousands and re-education camps with those in shing zing province is we founded on freedom, the rule of law bring our advance to bear to human rights to china and around the world. you state china, i quote, is a league of its own when it comes to human rights violations. what work is your administration actively doing to protect the human rights of the uighur people and ongoing discussions with the chinese government? >> so, it is in a legal of its own. the work that began in tibet now being perfected in chongqing is

well in nature. our efforts are diplomatic. we identify this as something the chinese can't continue to do. i had a group of uighurs in my office. it's probably been two weeks ago now. indeed, just after they came an aunt and uncle of the one of the young men that visited me was approached by the chinese government. i'm sure in worse conditions than they were in before. he had a meeting with the united states secretary of state. our whole team akrors the world is focused on this issue in china. >> as you know, turkey has become one of the few muslim majority countries to condemn china's treatment of the uighurs. what is done to address these human rights problems in xinjiang provence? >> nothing yet. i hope we get muslim nations

that share our view. this is a gross violation of the human rights of muslims in china and they will begin to work in the same way we are working to convince the chinese not to continue these practices. there's a lot more work to do there, senator. >> in my view, there's probably only so much we can do unilaterally as it relates to confronting the challenges we see in china. and i think it's critical we work their allies and china's neighbors in the region to mitigate china's maligned actions whether it be in the south china sea, human rights or unfrar trade practices. as you think about your strategic goals in engaging with allies in the endopacific region to proceed actively counter china's efforts to influence, tell me what you think about that right now with our allies in that part of the world? >> this is the area i think we have made progress. i think the first challenge is to identify the threat, to make clear to them -- sometimes we had information that was

important to share with them about risk. sometimes they had information to share with us about risk as well. so, i think pooling understandings of the threat is important. i think that's been socialized in significant ways. now you see partners. you see partners in australia, partners in vietnam, you see partners -- work that's done through other parts of southeast asia. i think that threat is beginning to be identified in other nations too. middle east countries where china is moving out full force. our indo-pacific strategy, i'm convinced, will raise the cost for this chinese maligned activity. >> thank you. i would like to thauf for the outcomes of the leadership and this administration. i'm grateful for that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. >> hello, sir. >> i want to associate myself with the remarks the chairman made with respect to the foreign affairs budget at the beginning of the hearing. i have to beg to differ with you on the president's meeting with

cici. the president walked out of that meeting and said, quote, be i can tell you he's doing a great job. you indicated that part of your responsibilities as secretary of state was to, quote, work to protect american citizens abroad. i don't think anybody that's detaining and putting in prison 20 american citizens is doing a great job. let me ask you about turkey and f-35s. general commander said recently, quote, if the -- if the russians get the s-400, quote, it's best military advice we don't then follow through with the f-35s. as i understand your response to the chairman the clear and resolute decision is if turkey gets delivery of the s-400s, it will not get delivery of the f-35s?

>> i have delivered that to them privately and i will do so again here publicly. >> thank you. if would you agree if they go through with that $2.5 billion transaction, which is what the s-400 purchase amounts to, that that would trigger the significant transaction requirements in the catsa legislation and require the imposition of sanctions on turkey. >> if i can make a legal conclusion, that's a very big transacti transaction. >> i want to follow up on senator durbin's questions. you would agree you can be pro-american if you don't agree with all the policies of the trump administration, right? >> yes, sir. >> you can be pro-israel and there's a bipartisan pro-israel sentiment in this congress if you don't agree with all the netanyahu policy. we have a democratic process,

too, and we disagree with the president and that still makes us good americans. so, let me ask you this. is it still the policy of the united states to oppose israel's unilateral annexation of any or all of the west bank? >> here's what i can say. i'll give the same answer i g e gave. we are in the process of laying down our vision for how to resolve a problem that is -- >> mr. secretary, if i could ask you. i asked about unilateral acts, right, annexation. that by itself indicates no agreement with the palestinians. so, my question is, are you -- it sounds like you've already abandoned what has been a bipartisan foreign policy of opposing the annexation of any or part of the west bank by israel. is that what you're telling us today? >> i think we've seen -- i think

it was senator durbin that critiqued our decision on golan if he would characterize that -- >> i'm not asking about you get on -- about the golan. i'm asking you about the west bank. >> you would see -- >> the polls are closing right now. right now. in israel. and things could move very quickly. as you know, the prime minister is a candidate, said he would annex all or part of the west bank. he said settlements and he said including outposts. today you cannot tell us what u.s. policy is on this issue. >> i think i answered the question the way i'm going to answer the question. >> do you believe palestinians should be extended basic human rights? >> yes, of course. our proposal will absolutely have as one of its core undertakings making life better for people that live in the gaza and west bank. >> if you had a one-state

solution, since you haven't affirmed solution for a two-state solution, would you agree in one-state solution palestinians should have full and legal rights with other citizens of that state? >> i'm not going to engage in this conversation. ultimately the israelis and palestinians will decide how to resolve this. we'll propose -- >> you just talked about, we were expecting the deal of the century. and you said the israelis and palestinians would have to agree -- >> that's right. >> so i asked you about unilateral annexation. that means there's no agreement. and you can't tell me today whether that's something you support, even though that is, as you know, compromising the ability -- >> senator -- >> -- to have a two-state solution -- let me ask you this. do you think you can preserve a state that is jewish and democratic and observes the rights of all its citizens without a two-state solution? >> senator, you're trying to get us to lay down what our proposal is going to be. >> i'm trying to ask you about what our policy is, mr. secretary. >> which will be america's

policy on these very issues. you've seen our policy to date. we made the decision that, i think -- i don't know how many -- who voted for the move the embassy to jerusalem. finally president trump did it. >> which would -- as you know, mr. secretary, would have been part of any final agreement. you didn't get anything in exchange with respect to the goals of u.s. policy. presidents bush, presidents clintons -- both bushs, obama. let me ask you this. do you think it advances the peace process to cut off all humanitarian assistance to palestinians? >> you should know -- >> that's a -- do you think it advances the peace process to -- >> may i answer your question? >> yes. >> each of the presidents you identified didn't solve this problem. >> right. >> so, whatever policies they chose failed. >> i understand. and a unilateral solution is not going to do it. i would just leave you, mr. secretary, with the example of turkish occupation of northern cypress where turkey would argue they came in to help

the turkish cypriots at the time and mr. erdogan is going to love what you're saying about the ability to take lands that were occupied through force. it is a dangerous and slippery slope. and when it comes to the west bank, it will undermine any effort of any peaceful two-state solution. >> senator lankford. >> secretary, great to see you. you've been across a lot of miles for a while and had a lot of meetings and conversations. so, thanks for continuing the work. >> yes, sir. >> can we shift to central america for a moment, which is anticipationally important to us, not only in this hemisphere and economically with our trade there but we're finding out rapidly with immigration. you go back to four years ago, joe biden started leading an effort called the alliance for prosperity to greatly accelerate investment into central america. it was my impression after the first year, four years ago, that

once the state department pushed out funds, they seemed to just push out funds to as many federal entities as we had in central america to get the money out the door. but it didn't seem to be very strategic. there seemed to be some learning from that after that. and then the third year of it, it still seemed to be forcing money out the door rather than being as strategic as it could be. the administration now has said, we're going to try to end foreign assistance and then it became, we're going to review foreign assistance. but i just want to be able to ask for some clarification of purposeful of this. it seems to me the alliance for prosperity was very focused in on how do we help develop security, economics improve in areas where there's stability and safety and ending government corruption. in that zone to be able to help with whatever we could with mayors and police chiefs and military leaders to be able to help in that corruption. give me a quick update of where we're headed on the alliance for prosperity and guatemala,

honduras and el salvador, in specific. >> the president concluded -- this is something i saw when i was in my previous role as well as director of the cia. the president concluded, in the same way you just described, these resources weren't very effective. they may well have been thought out but they weren't getting the outcomes. >> it was tough for us to get metrics at all. >> i think that remained the case, even for the last year as well. so, the first year of this administration, too. the president seeing that and then combined with the challenge of we have not yet been able to convince el salvador, guatemala and honduras this need to control their own borders and to keep their people from moving into mexico and ultimately across our southern border. we should take time out. we have done that. we ceased allocating new funds inside of those three countries. and we will present to each of those three countries a set of requirements.

these are the things that are ee expeculiar tagss. when we get to that point, we'll return to consider how much and what means and what tools will we use to start providing assistance to each of the three countries in the northern triangle. >> they've been tremendous partners with us and interdicting drugs in the past. that builds corruption in their own government as those drugs pass through south america, central america and come north. are we able to continue to help them protect us from some of the incoming drugs? >> senator, they -- it's been hit in misses. in places it worked. i don't mean to suggest nothing came from this. it was entirely wasted, but it certainly wasn't the case there were good metrics and i'm convinced we can be more effective. >> we look forward to being -- working together on that. and to be able to help fix that.

because we need both them as partners and we need to be able to help them actually step up and engage in the areas that are essential. we want them to be solid economic traders in the days ahead on it. you made some recent comments on assad and syria. as i visited with some refugees in lebanon a few weeks ago, it was pretty clear from the refugees that i talked to there, they're not going to return until assad is gone because they are concerned their children will be con scripted into his army and they'll never see him again. so, they're more concerned about assad than they are of isis. how do we help this in the days ahead as more and more arab countries are starting to back-channel in diplomatic relationships with assad and try to re-establish diplomatic connections there to be able to help manage what's going on there and have assad not as leader because many l millions of people won't return if he is. >> it's a challenge. step back half a step. assad is there.

it's still the case he controls a fraction of his own country. there's no clear means by which he will achieve anything other than prior state status. certainly from the united states or europe. our effort has been to engage in a political process where there can be a path forward for return to something akin to democracy in syria under the u.n. resolution. that's what ambassador jeffries is engaged in each and every day. the refugees, i can't remember if i was there just before you or after you in lebanon, i saw the same thing. the lebanese government is struggling mightily to continue to school, educate these refugees and to take care of them to house and clothe them. but i heard the same thing. if we're looking for safe, voluntary return, we're not yet in a position where we can deliver that for several million refugees. not only the million and a half in lebanon but in jordan and turkey as well. i can't tell you we have a clear path forward other than the political process that the

iranians and russians continue to foil. >> the pipeline between russia and germany, do you have any progress report on that? is germany continuing to lean forward to buy their gas from russia? >> they are. >> one last comment is on burma. burma has been an ongoing issue for a while. we listed them as a country of a particular concern. thank you for your work on religious liberty and continuing to focus in on that. that is a growing genocide that's happened there for a while. how is state engaging to bring some stability to burma or to be able to help? >> our team on the ground is applying pressure every place that we can. i met with my bangladeshi counterpart. there's no quick term fix for that. i don't know if you've ever traveled to coccis bazaar.

we're using the potential karats in burma but telling them what the united states can do for them will stop. not only with respect to religious liberty but restoring basic freedoms to their people. >> thank you. >> senator kuhns. >> thank you. thank you for this hearing. thank you, secretary pompeo, for your testimony, your service and congratulations on being a day away from a year, if i heard -- >> a few more. the 26th. i agree with many of my colleagues, i think the proposed cuts in the president's budget would handicap america's ability to secure interests at a time of unprecedented challenges. i broadly agree with your identification of the threats and challenges we face. in some cases we have differences in strategy, others we don't. but i am fairly certain that a 24% cut to the count would not help us meet these challenges. i don't believe in spending for

spending's sake but i think investing in diplomacy, humanitarian aid can save us money in the future. this february the united states instituted peace task force commissioned by this panel with senator graham's leadership published a final report of strategies to prevent fragile states from becoming failed states. they talked with department of defense, usid and recommendations include a new coordinated governmentwide strategy and innovative funding system with metrics, with required performance metrics. and i think it underscores the need for targeted development and diplomacy assistance, in addition to security to address the root causes of fragility in places like the northern triangle we talked about. senators graham, merkley, young, rubio and i have introduced the young fragility act. i'd be interested in hearing from you if you think this is

the right strategy to allow us to act and think more strategically about preventing fra guile states from becoming failed states and if a coordinated investment strategy across development diplomacy defense is the right way to go in trying to learn from the last 18 years and $6 trillion we've invested in combating extremism? >> i do think that strategy is right. i didn't read the whole report. i read the executive summary. >> is it makes for compelling reading. >> compelling in that it's the right plan and the most cost effective way to tackle this, as i think you referred to. >> i look forward to working with you on that. in the last congress the bill to act created a new finance agency. china's going to be holding its annual conference in beijing next month where it will highlight more press announcements of massive investment. i think the reality of chinese investment in infrastructure to secure both strategic advantage and economic opportunity is not

as rosy as they portray it. and i think a number much our allies and of their potential partners are learning that there are hidden costs and hidden challenges to chinese investment. as the secretary of state, you're the chairperson of the new development finance cooperation and i was pleased to see the budget request say you would rely on this new agency to help add to prosper africa, the indo-pacific strategy, countering russian maligned influence, the women's development and prosperity initiative. could you share for a few minutes how you plan to use this new agency as a tool of u.s. foreign policy and how the build act and our partnering with our key allies in development finance projects could provide an american facing or an american values based alternative to china's belten road niche ty. >> i think you captured the most important element of this. it's want america trying to do this with just fax pair dollars.

we have private partners that are very excited about this throughout parts of the world. i think you mentioned prosper africa as part of this, maybe you didn't, but many places the development and finance cooperation will have real outcomes to what china is doing. we're almost certain to show up with fewer dollars than they'll show up with. the terms of our deal from a pure economic perspective probably won't compete. your point about belten road issuetive not wearing well over time and the interest of countries all around the world with the risks of taking this chinese financing or chinese projects is ever increasing. i think our effort there with the dfc and build act is very timely and i'm convinced we'll have real success as a result of it. >> i'm intitd excited to work w on it. i worked with ambassador haggerty in japan. i think it's a way to work with key allies and strengthen those

alliances. i have a few quick points, if i could. i agree strongly we should have a force in syria to contain iran. i recognize the president has focused on ending the caliphate on the ground, but i was encouraged by your comment with directive to prevent isis 3.0 rising but i, frankly, see independent value in preventing iran from gaining, stain sustaining, holding a role in syria. i think that's well worth our continued edge gaugement. i agree with senator shaheen. i'd love to work with you on making sure that impact on maternal and child health is not large and negative. that's something i spent a lot of time on. in particular, in africa. and i think there's a gap between closing loopholes and having a real impact on maternal and child health we could work on.

prn, my understanding is, directed the closing of the only refugee resettlement site in delaware. a faith-based organization that had done a on the lot of good work. i'd love to review that with you at some point. let me close with three quick thoughts about concerns in africa. i'm sorry, i also wanted to mention. i agree with expanding investment in the indo-pacific and was encouraged to see a 90% increase over fy19, $1.8 billion in economic and security assistance for the indo-pacific strategy. i thought that was encouraging and would, frankly, like to work on that. there is right now in sudan an impressive widespread, ongoing, largely peaceful protest against one of the longest-standing strong men in africa. and i hope that in countries like algeria and sudan, like in venezue venezuela, we'll find ways to encourage peaceful transitions

of power. i'm worried about cyclone day and its impact on mozambique. with help from usaid and the state department, but i want to encourage you not to let that slip off the large radar screens of threats we have to take into account. i think the region is looking to whether or not the united states continues to be the sort of leading humanitarian relief partner that they have long counted on us to be. >> senator, i think i agree with everything you said there. i'd add as challenges that are there today and emerging in africa, the ebola outbreak is continuing. it's something the usaid and world health organization and other elements of the usg as well are continuing to be very, very focused on. it's a difficult situation. the security situation there is a real challenge. but it's something that the world, i don't think, has focused on significantly and the numbers i see each week don't show we have our arms around it yet. >> they're going in the wrong direction. if we did not have a sack sevac

this would already be dramatically out of control. we learned from the last big outbreak, invested in vaccine. you're right, i agree with you. that is one of the most concerning developments on the continent. i look forward to hearing more from you and working in partnership with the chairman to try and tackle that. forgive me for going over my time. thank you for your answers. >> senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for spending time with us today. a couple quick comments and squeeze in a few questions. let me associate myself with the comments that have been made already about this budget. listen, i just -- i think it's bananas. i think there's celebration happening in beijing and moscow every time that we telegraph our withdrawal from the world. i don't know that this budget is the one you would write, mr. secretary. but cutting democracy aid by 50%, cutting exchange programs by 50%, global health programs by $2 billion. just provides this increasing vacuums for others to fill.

my second point -- interesting exchange with senator van holland about the upcoming plan the administration is going to present. i think that would be a satisfactory answer if we were in april of 2017. but we aren't. we're in april of 2019 and the idea that the world doesn't know 2 1/2 years into this administration whether america still stands for a two-state solution or we still stand against the unilateral annexation of the west bank is what makes people's heads spin. i get you're not going to go any further in your answer, but we aren't three months into the administration. we're two years and three months into the administration. and that is, in part, what drives a lot of unsescertainty the region about what america stands. on a subject maybe we can find some agreement on, i just came back from belfast and dublin. we may disagree on the right

prescription for britain moving forward with respect to whether or not they stay in the european union. but with we likely don't disagree on the importance of protecting the good friday agreement. and there is great uncertainty as to what the impact of brexit would be on the ability to keep that agreement together. it seems like a moment when we should be standing up, republicans and democrats, and telling our friends in london that whatever they do the existing fragility of peace in northern ireland and the importance of protecting that peace process no matter how this agreement with the european union turns out. i wanted to get your thoughts on that. >> you did find a place we agree. it's a -- to make light of it. it's an incredibly important agreement. one that's been proven vep effective and one that needs to be sustained.

>> second, i want to thank you for the investment you made for peace negotiations in yemen and we talked about when the right moment is for the united states to play a more active regular role. i think there's a sense in the region that secretary mattis was engaged on a daily basis. i have great respect for the u.n. envoy. it seems we're having trouble keeping the stockholm agreement together it's time for the united states to play a leadership role in a way we've thus outsourced to the u.n. your thoughts on if it's time for a change in the u.s. leadership in this process? >> we might disagree about this. i think we've played a very constructive role. i guess we could disagree if that's a leadership role. i certainly think it has. there's places we're best fit for purpose to achieve the outcome that i think you and i share as our desire to end state there. there's places we're probably not the best face to put in

front of that. we tried to weigh in where it was and stay out where it isn't. i'm very worried about the stockholm agreement. i spoke with the u.n. envoy, three days ago now. there's still hope a lot of pieces to it. i'm happy to give you long, sorted details. but there's lots of pieces. it's not hopeless to think it will still be implemented but the houthis have disagreed on certain parts. >> i agree they're clearly much more at fault with respect to the implementation of the agreement. i just think we continue to be the only game in town with respect to the ability to bring the saudis to the table and the ability to convince the houthis there will be an honest broker to comply with the agreements they make. staying on saudi arabia, a couple points of clarification.

you are testifying that you believe the administration is in compliance with the that minute ski act because you're still gathering evidence. but the maniski act doesn't give you the unlimited ability to gather evidence. in fact, it states very clearly that not later that 120 days after receiving a request from the chairperson and ranking member of the appropriations committee you need to submit a response. how do you square this very clear requirement that you have to respond in 120 days with your contention that you have unlimited time to collect evidence? >> they did submit a response, indeed. i submitted two responses. >> but the response has to determine if that person is engaged in the activity. not defer to a later point. as to make that determination.

>> i think we fully complied with the statutory requirement. >> lastly, on the two american citizens that are in custody, these are new disclosures of dual citizens in prison, german intellectuals, activists. you mentioned we can't -- there has to be some response but the only response you mentioned is asking about them with the saudis. some things they don't answer our requests for release, would we expect some more consequential response from the administration? they're holding americans pri n prisoner for their political beliefs and the reports suggest there's some really awful things going on. deprivation of sleep,

electrocution, malnourishment. what's the next step here? >> i'm happy to talk to you privately about the range of things under consideration. we take every american citizen who's wrongfully detained as a burden, as a duty, as something we know we have the responsibility that weighs on us and we work to achieve their release. >> asking is not the beginning and end of our policy? >> we have lots have lots of tools, lots of different ways to get those outcomes. we don't always succeed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we're going to get you out of here right at 4:30. senator van holland, three minutes. >> mr. secretary, on saudi arabia with respect to the transfer of u.s. nuclear technology to saudi arabia. i gather you signed off on the department of energy's authorization of 810. >> i did. we were part of that conversation. >> can you tell us when that was? >> i'll get you the answer.

>> as you know, saudi arabia has talked openly about acquiring a nuclear weapon in addition to many of the transgressions we've discussed today. as you know the uae adopt the the gold standard. would you agree that it should be our position that before we move forward with any kind of nuclear deal with saudi arabia, even if we made the decision, that that was a wise move, that at the very least they should have the gold standard? >> it's certainly what we've been pursuing. that's what the administration has been trying to get. that's our goal. >> i understand, mr. secretary. but you, of course, will be able to make the decision about whether that's an absolute condition or not, assuming people move forward on the merits. and i would hope it would be american policy to require that as a condition, if the decision is made to move forward. let me briefly just mention, two bipartisan bills that have been

introduced and ask you if you could take a look at them and get back to us. one is on -- it's called the brink act, senator toomey and i introduced it. is it your position, the administration's position as we continue negotiations with north korea we should maintain maximum economic pressure? >> yes. >> because there was some confusion recently, because the president made a comment and maybe walked it back. but i'm glad to hear that answer because that's exactly what the brink act would do. would apply the same sanctions regime with north korea that we did with iran, that helped bring iran to the negotiating table, applying secondary sanctions. there was a report today about how china had, you know, opened another crossing on the alou river with respect to trade which undermines the economic pressure. i hope you will join with us in that pressure. the other measure is the deter act, i introduced that with senator rubio. it's designed to make sure we

deter future russian interference in our elections. and unlike other measures here, which are just adding new sanctions now, it's a perspective sanctions. i think sanctions should be designed to try to influence behavior. the idea is simple. if we catch the russians again interfering in our elections, they will face swift and severe sanctions. so, if you're putin trying to make that calculation going forward, you know you'll have a very heavy price to pay. we introduced it last year but we're going to be reintroducing it. i think you were very supportive of the concept. would you support going forward with something like that? >> i would. i know the outlines of the act and conceptionally, i think it makes sense. >> i appreciate that. >> 30 seconds. you've been great, by the way. turkey, important ally, a lot of problems. do you support increased economic integration between the american economy and turkey? >> i do. >> when it comes to afghanistan, can you assure this committee and the world that the afghan

government will be a meaningful participant in any peace deal? >> more than that. they will be at the center, afghan-led. >> going to italy and tunisia next week, what should the message be about libya? >> so, we've made clear our expectation that the process -- the political process there will be allowed to come to its fruition and that there shouldn't be blood shed and violence to resolve this. there should be a political resolution there in libya. >> thank you. you've done an excellent job as secretary of state. i personally appreciate all the effort you put into your job, the counsel you've given the president and appearing before the committee today. we will -- we have a statement from the department of state's oig we'll introduce into the record. special inspector for afghanistan, reconstruction be made a part of the record. any questions the subcommittee would like to submit no later

than friday, april 12th. our next hearing will be on april 30th at usaid, administrator mark greene, subcommittee stands adjourned. >> thank you, senator. thank you.

treasury secretary steven mnuchin testified on the current state of international financial systems. that's coming up at 7:00 p.m. here on c-span3. william barr was on capitol hill today testifying about the justice department's budget request and the mueller report. we'll bring you that house appropriations subcommittee hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a reminder, you can watch our coverage online at c-span.org and listen with the free c-span radio app. once tv was simply three giant networks and take government-supported service called pbs. then in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all

to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape has clearly changed. there's no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage of washington is provided as a service by your cable or satellite provider. on television, online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked

these buildings down will hear all of us soon. >> c-span's newest book "the presidents: noted historians ranked the best and worst chief executives" provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and 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 your copy as a hard cover or e-book today at c-span.org/thepresidents or wherever books are sold. coming up, a conversation on climate change. we hear from congresswoman kathy caster of florida who chairs the house select committee on climate crisis which held their first meeting last week. the world resources institut