Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the FY 2021 State Department Budget Request, in Washington, DC. Part 1 of 2.

Subscribe to Dr. Justin Imel, Sr. by Email

Transcript

Give me will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Today we have with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the State Department’s fiscal Year 2021 budget request, though if history is any judge Secretary Pompeo, you will face a wide variety of questions that extend beyond the department’s budget, which I know you can handle. The United States and our allies and partners continue to face serious foreign challenges that will test us for decades to come. China, under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, is our chief competitors. Russia to remains a key adversary. The efforts of these two nations to sow discord, wreak havoc and undo the free and open international order upon which shared prosperity and security or built have reached new heights. They have stepped up this information and missin, manipulated international institutions, suppressed the voices of freedom and democracy, propped up Penis dictators, coursed and invaded their neighbors and denied millions of people access to life saving humanitarian assistance. We have a long road ahead of us. In this new era of great power competition, we need sustain political will. These challenges require nothing less. On top of all, of this were confronted by a new and acute challenge. Ah, biological animal enemy that we still do not fully understand an enemy that in six short months has inflicted levels of physical and economic harm upon the world that we have not seen in more than 100 years. Here again, China especially, but also Russia has played a destructive rule from a holding vital global health data to spreading disinformation and actively stealing back seeing research, China and Russia have again chosen to be and proven themselves to be adversaries. Sanctioning bed actors will never be enough to confront these and other challenges the department will need to rely upon a vast array of tools. And resource is, our diplomats must be backed by effective and efficient assistance so they can help partners help themselves and contribute to the growth of healthier, more stable societies. We are eager to support a budget that will advance these critical interests it and support the State Department’s most critical resource is its people. As the Corona virus emerged from China and accelerated across the globe, you were forced to pull back thousands of our diplomats and their families, but you just you didn’t just pack up and go without a thought of your fellow Americans. Instead, the department launched an unprecedented mission to help return more than 100,000 Americans safely home. All of us who participated in that are greatly appreciate, appreciative of the department’s work in that regard. In some cases, this involved convincing countries to reopen their airspace for flights and roads for transport in other places. You even chartered planes to get our American people home. There are lots of folks who may never come in contact with the department yet. Now more than 100,000 Americans who can personally attest to the tremendous work that the department does for people every day at the challenges get more numerous and complex. We want to support a State Department that is up to the task fully funded, staffed and equipped to advance US national interests on all fronts. And at all times, we obviously have threats than impedance being health or security. What is the same goes all politics are local. Our adversaries understand this all too well. We need our diplomats to be local, too. On a personal note. In closing, let me say I want to publicly. Thank you, Mr Secretary, for, ah, your accessibility that you’ve had as secretary as you know, and operating this committee, it’s essential that I have instant access to facts and information. And at times when I haven’t been able to get that through the usual intelligence channels, you have always made yourself instantly accessible. And I sincerely appreciate that when I’m asked for advice from other second branch entities or individuals or even allies of ours, it isn’t. It is absolutely imperative that I have this information. You have always provided that. And when you answer the phone, sometimes I never know where you are in the global what time it is. But you’ve always made it happen and for that have been and remain very grateful with that sermon in this. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you for joining us this morning, Mr Secretary. Been a while since you have joined us, and I appreciate your enthusiasm for fulfilling this part of your constitutional responsibilities. But if past is president, I don’t imagine we’re going to see you here any time soon. So while this is your opportunity to defend your stunningly ill conceived requests to slash the budget of our foreign policy instruments. I’d also like to take a wholesale look on how your department has represented the American people and American interests on the world stage over the past year, and unfortunately, that view is not good, to say the least under your watch. The United States has faced setback after setback on the world stage, seating leverage and influence to our stated adversaries. Today, Iran is much closer to a nuclear bomb than when you came into office. And despite your maximum pressure campaign, Iran on his proxies continued to create problems throughout the Middle East. While the 2017 national security strategy details that quote, Russia wants to weaken US influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners and undermined the legitimacy of democracies. Close quote. The president and your administration has at best not seriously addressed this threat. You have never fully used the tools we provided in cats, um, and at worse. Simply embed it. Pay Putin’s efforts withdrawing forces from Germany, failing to take action when evidence emerged that Russia was paying bounties to kill U. S. Troops in Afghanistan and twice redirecting funds from the European Deterrence Initiative to pay for President Trump’s wasteful border wall September of 2019 and April 2020. Meanwhile, the administration’s confrontational bluster against China has not stopped China’s march in the South China Sea in Hong Kong in suppressing and oppressing its own people on North Korea. Diplomacy, which you assure this committee you’d have wrapped up within a year about two years ago, appears to have flatlined, leaving North Korea with a more capable nuclear and ballistic missile program across Africa. The State Department has been woefully absent on issue after issue after issue most recently and its engagement on negotiations related to management of Nile waters in the Western Hemisphere. The entirety of our approach seems to be xenophobic anti immigrant hysteria in bullying, all while gutting our institutional capacity to deal with the root causes of migration. There is bipartisan support for Venezuela policy. Yet your approach has left millions of Venezuelans still suffering, and the administration won’t even support those who are already exiled here. And even as we struggle with an opioid epidemic, you propose cutting our international narcotics and law enforcement on climate change. Your department has not just failed to be part of the solution but is becoming part of the problem, actively undermining international efforts to safeguard our planet’s future. Our allies in Europe, in Asia in the Middle East routinely wonder out loud whether we can really be counted on and our values have been denigrated. President Trump’s reported green lighting of concentration cramps in Xinjiang to the revisionists in that time, sometimes repulsive use exposed by your so called Anay Legible Rights Commission and in the face of a global pandemic, when our scientists, our technology and our diplomats should be leading the global response, we haven’t said taking a back seat and are witnessing the collapse of leadership both home and abroad rather than putting forth a real strategy. Our leaders point fingers at China and the World Health Organization, are absent from critical global meetings and refused to be straight with Congress and the American people on the public health threat. All the while, infections and deaths surged across the country. Of course, as we all know, the strength of our diplomacy starts and ends with the strength of our diplomatic corps. Earlier this week, I released a report, Diplomacy in Crisis, the Trump Administration’s decimation of the State Department, and I have a copy here, just in case you haven’t seen it, and I’d ask you now has been consent to enter into the record, Mr Chairman will be entered. The report found a State Department at risk of catastrophic failure, with career diplomats describing a quote complete and utter disdain for their expertise and even quote a contempt for career employees. Many asking quote if they’re service is still value. And even as President Trump refers to our diplomats as the quote deep State Department, you have student his shoulder and said nothing exemplified by your refusal to stand behind Ambassador Marie Ivanovich. The result is an exodus of expertise. 7% of the department staff left in the first year and 1/2 of the administration. And while I realized that you were not at the department during that time, the department has continued to suffer persistent vacancies without Senate confirmed nominees and a response, the administration’s repeatedly puts forth candidates who do not possess the qualifications, the demeanor nor the temperament to serve in leadership positions and represent the American people abroad. When you send us qualified nominees, Mr Secretary, we act. We have confirmed more than 190 nominees, and dozens have advanced quickly and without incidents. Would you continuously send US nominees who have misled Congress, who have made offensive for racist statements, who have sexual harassment lawsuits and allegations against them who have supported torture and whose conduct would disqualify them from service in any other administration. The administration promised us quote the best people, the very best. Terrific, tremendous. But Mr Secretary, the best people don’t seem to want to work for you. Finally, let me just touch on a few oversight issues, which I know you were passionate about. As a former member of Congress at your direction, the president recently removed the State Department’s inspector general, who was investigating, perhaps, among other things, last year’s emergency declaration of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, about which I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, raised serious concerns. Additionally, we have learned of allegations of your using your office to promote your own personal domestic political agenda. Hosting lavish dinners of this department and creating at least the appearance of using taxpayer resource is to impress high profile political donors. While this hearing is ostensibly convened for the president’s F Y 21 budget requests. You and I, and everybody on this diess knows that the president’s wish to completely gut our international affairs budget by a shocking 34% is dead on arrival. That said, I have to say I must say, I’m I’m tempted to provide you with the budget requests and see how you could actually operate under it. Even if this budget hearing were not months after the fact and four too late in the legislative process, let me just say it’s fundamentally misguided, unsuited to the needs of safeguarding our nation’s security. Now I recognize you’ll take issue with much of what I’ve said, Mr Secretary. But facts are stubborn thing. When you entered office, I offered a hand to work with you in areas where we could build riel agendas with bipartisan political buying. Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, and indeed I’m disappointed. But as I look at your tenure in office and at the track record of this administration, I’m disappointed that instead of making America first among the nations of the world, you have instead of relinquished our leadership to the applause and approval of China and Russia that makes America last. Thank you, German Azzawi. Proceed for first, let me say obviously those views, er the views of Senator Menendez individually, not those of this chairman or the majority of this committee. Um, we, uh, for the members of this committee, we have an 11 30 hard stop that will give us time for a round of questions. I’m gonna take a short break about halfway through. Aziz. Usual. We would stick with what has been a long standing commitment of this committee for civility. And when the witness is asked a question, we’re going to give the witness full opportunity to answer that question and not interrupt his answer simply because he’s doing so well in answering the question. And I will, uh, enforce that strictly with that Secretary Pompeii before German. If I am at parliamentary inquiry, you just disguise the procedural process. Um, if we’re gonna have answers that are filibusters, I don’t expect that we’re going to allow that either. Sir. Menendez, I’ll run the committee, and I’ll do it. As I’ve indicated. We’re not gonna interrupt answers from the from the witness with and Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, Chairman. Rush, Ranking manner. Menendez. I have a full statement in the interest of of time. I’ll just read the first approximately 1/3 of that. If I could get you agreement to put the rest statement record. I appreciate that. We’ll do that, Mr. Thank you very much. Today I’m here to present the and testify about the president 2021 budget requests nearly $41 billion for the State Department and U. S A. I d. Enabling both agencies to protect U. S. Citizens, increase American prosperity, advance the development of democratic societies and critically reflects a commitment to the strategic efficient use of resource is to provide better results for the American people. That’s the top line analysis. But I want to make a broader point that our diplomatic expenditures will reflect America’s values. Two weeks ago, in Philadelphia unveiled the report of State Department’s Commission on Inhalable Rights. A message that day was simple. The Trump administration places our founding principles at the very core of American diplomacy. I don’t talk about how we’ve done that in three areas. First, securing the American people’s freedoms against authoritarian threats, securing American lives during the pandemic, and helping friends across the world secure those very a nail herbal rights on authoritarian threats. We’ve evaluated the world with the same realism that the American founders did. We see the Islamic Republic of Iran for what it is. An aggressor, not a victim. We’ve gone full board on our maximum pressure campaign. Since May of 2018 we’ve slashed the vital oil revenues the regime uses for terrorism and illegal nuclear activities by 90%. We rally nations to our side through diplomacy. Witness the designations of Hezbollah from European and South American countries. Then we bolstered our military readiness. PCB Tehran There’s more work to do. Security Council must renew the U. N arms embargo against Iran before it expires on October 18th. Iran already mind ships in the Straits of Removes, launches missiles at Saudi oil facilities and ships arms to the Houthis. Should the Security Council failed to act around, we’ll have a freer hand to sow destruction across the Middle East and indeed the world. Russia to is a destabilizing, authoritarian force in Ukraine, in Libya and Syria and inside of Western democracies. This administration is active to protect our interests and our friends. We’ve issued the Crimea Declaration. We’ve supplied Ukraine with lethal military hardware. We’ve sanctioned more than 360 Russian targets for everything from human rights abuses to supporting the murderous Assad regime, operating mercenaries and proxy forces around the world. In the State Department’s F Y 2021 requests for the Global Engagement Center is $138 million more than double its current level. We won’t tolerate this information another propaganda directed by the Kremlin or any of our other adversaries. Further on Russia. Two weeks ago, the State Department removed North Stream twos exemption under cats, and in December, the administration, swift in mint implementation of pizza and important bipartisan endeavor effectively halted construction of the pipeline were the toughest administration ever on Russia. Most importantly, on China, we see the Chinese Communist Party also for what ISS, the central threat of our times. Our vigorous diplomacy has helped lead an international awakening to the threat of the CCP senators. The tide’s turning 30 plus countries and territories have become five G clean countries, banning untrusted vendors from their networks. When we talked about this some year ago, number was in the single digits in our hemisphere. Canada has stood firm against the Chinese Communist Party’s hostage taking. Its three major telecom carriers have also banned untrusted. Bender’s believes in Haiti of denounced Beijing’s national security law targeting Hong Kong. Denmark has rejected the ccps attempted censorship of Danish newspapers. Sweden has closed its Confucius Institutes that the waning intelligence services identified China as a political a potential threat for the first time and in the region in the Indo Pacific. Australia declares China’s South China Sea claims unlawful and illegitimate That’s have way and we’re proud to have stepped up maritime maneuvers in that body of water alongside our friends from Australia and Japan. In the United Kingdom, India has been 106 Chinese applications that threatened its citizens privacy and security. Our diplomatic efforts are working and momentum is building to mitigate the threats that the Chinese Communist Party presents. All 10 ASEAN nations have insisted that the South China Sea disputes must be settled on the basis of international law, including unq loss. Japan led the G seven combination of China’s National Security law targeting Hong Kong, that you condemned the law to and also declared China a systemic rival just last year, we’ve agreed to start a dialogue channel focus solely on China. At the EU’s request, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg is called to make China a greater part of that. Alliances focus as well. We let a multilateral effort to ensure that the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization elected to director from a country that actually gave a darn about intellectual property rates on our quad. The United States, Australia, Indian Japan has been reinvigorated. We’ve worked hard at this. Our diplomats have done wonderful work. I’m very proud of the progress we’re making. In addition to these multilateral efforts, the Department of Justice is cracking down on Chinese I. P I p threats. We sanctioned Chinese leaders further brutality Eri brutality in Xinjiang, imposed export controls on companies that support it and warned U S businesses against using slave labour in their supply chains. We’ve terminated special treatment agreements with Hong Kong in response. The CCP is actions to deny freedom to the people of Hong Kong and we closed our consulate in Houston because it was a den of spies. Our budget reflects its efforts the reality on the ground, the requested nearly 1.5 $1,000,000,000 for four assistance to the end of Pacific region, a 20% increase from the 2020 request. We want that part of the world to be free and open and property prosperous. And with that, Mr Chairman, I’ll close, uh, and happy to take questions. Thank you, Mr Secretary. I appreciate that we’re going to do a questioning on a seniority basis, since it is the Secretary of Cabinet level A supposed to the usual first come role. And again, I’d ask each member to be respectful of other members and stick to the five minutes your allotted And once we’ve gone around, we’ll make a determination where we’re gonna go from that from there with that Senator Menendez chairman, seven minutes on the clock. Is that what’s gonna be your way? I intended to do? I intend to. A five we can do. Let’s let’s do a seven. Because that will just about take up the time. But we’re gonna have to stick right to the head seven, because otherwise people are gonna get a chance. So thank you. We’ll do seven. Mr. Secretary, As I outlined in my opening statement, Vladimir Putin’s investment in Donald Trump prior to the 2016 election, clearly continues to pay off handsomely. Withdrawing troops from Germany troops in Germany is not about Germany troops and Germany’s about our own national security interests redirecting funds from the European Deterrence Initiative. That’s a initiative, as you well know, to deter Russia to pay for the president’s ineffective border wall and refusing to follow the law imposed meaningful sanctions under cancer. But perhaps most shocking you while we have own known for some time that Russia has provided support to the Taliban, both arms and resource is imposing balances on the heads of U. S service members is an outrageous escalation. President Trump astonishingly admitted in an interview on Tuesday that he’s never raised the issue with Mr Putin, even though he’s spoken to him about seven times this year alone. The secretary do you consider how you would react to such behaviour from a Democratic president? If you were sitting in your old house seat, would you be okay with the president who abandoned our troops but not even raising this with the Kremlin? Mr. Chairman, you ranking member, you’ve identified four items where you’re concerned about our actions with respect to Russia, like to address each of them. That’s what I think about it. I only asked one question. Yes, I don’t spend much time thinking about what I would have done. Where I still in the House of Representatives, very focused on my job as secretary of state today. Would you be OK? All right, let me ask you this. Have you raised concerns with Russia? Its foreign minister? Lavrov, with respect to Russia reportedly placing bounties on the heads of service members in Afghanistan, well, I want to be very careful about what’s public record and what’s intelligence based. But yes, I can assure you and the American people that each time I’ve spoken with Foreign Minister Lavrov, I’ve raised all of the issues that put any American interests at risk. Whether it’s our soldiers on the ground in Syria, soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, uh, the activities that are taking place in Libya, the actions in Ukraine each and every one of these that potentially threaten American interests of things that I raised in my conversations with four. Minister Lavrov and I speak with him with some frequency. I appreciate that answer. Ask you specifically. Have you raised Princeton? This is in the public sphere class last year. Senator, have you raised their public reports? Very well Documented that the Russians were supposedly paying bounties to kill our service members. Have you raised that issue with Foreign Minister Lavrov? Senator, I’m going to be more careful than your being with respect to the intelligence. I’m gonna I’m gonna tell you that. Make no mistake about it, the proper people have been aware of every single threat to our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Whether that was General Miller or my team at the embassy there in Kabul any time there was a tactical threat on the lives of the health of the safety and security or our assets in place. We have raised this with our Russian counterparts, not only at my level but him, Ambassador Sullivan and every one of our team that interacts with the Russians. We’ve made very clear our expectations. Let me turn to readiness in Afghanistan. Let me turn to a few other questions. Maybe you can answer these just simply yes or no. I think they’re just factual in nature. Did Turkey purchased the S 400 system from the Russian Federation. Yes, I did. Turkey pay approximately 2.5 billion for that system. I’m not aware of the amount of the transaction, but they did pay them whatever the amount is. Right. I believe that’s correct. Just although, Senator, just apologize. I am not certain that the cash has been exchanged. Does the Turkish government currently have the S 400 in its possession? It has an S 400. Yes. Did Turkey test the S 400 radar in an American build F 16 in November of 2019 as was publicly reported? No, I’m not gonna answer that question. I’m not gonna discuss classified information in this setting. Has the president raised the S 400 with the president? Erdogan, I don’t talk about things that the president speaks about with foreign counterparts. Uh, what? The White House is free to do that if they choose. But I’m not gonna let me ask you a simple question. You sent me a responses on Monday. Saying that you take your responsibilities under cats is seriously that you fully intend to comply with the law. Well, all of these elements clearly are in violation of Kasa. So over ah year. Since all of these fax have attach, when will the administration follow the law and impose cats or sanctions on Turkey? Senator response to the Turkish government’s acquisition of the S 400. We’ve taken significant actions that have had a real impact on Turkey. We pulled out a very significant weapons program that they were building significant pieces of inside of Turkey, the F 35 program. And we continue to evaluate how to apply sanctions in order, achieve our end objective. Our end objective isn’t to punish. It’s to ensure that our NATO partner acts in a way that’s consistent with American national security and the security of our NATO partners as well. Our diplomats, Ambassador Satterfield, other ground are working diligently. I had a very pointed question. I know that you’re Harvard graduate West Point graduate. You know what my question waas It’s not about everything else is about Castle. But you decided not to answer that. So let me go to the final question. Uh, you had the Inspector General of the State Department? Mr. Linen ultimately fired. Is that correct? I recommended to the President that he be terminated. Yes, and you recommended it to the president. He be terminated. Why? Because he was conducting investigations that may affect you. Center. At the time I made the recommendation to present, I was unaware of any of the investigations. There were ongoing that he had ongoing at the time. With one exception. I was aware of an investigation that he had asked me to provide testimony provided that testimony. Other than that I was unaware of any investigation. It’s not remotely the reason. Was your undersecretary Mr Bullet Tail aware? And didn’t he speak to you about it? He did not speak to me about it. Well, you said that the I G was not performing in the way he should have because he wasn’t following in essence, what you wanted to. Well, Inspector General’s aren’t supposed to follow what the department had wants to. They’re supposed to be independent in pursuit of their mission. Thank you, Senator Johnson, Mr Secretary. Welcome. Thank for your service. Um, I think we all now is the world’s complex and messy place and is the ranking member said facts are stubborn things and administrations have track records. Just a quick review you came into Office Press and Trump came into office with a big mess. A lot of messes you had to clean up. Let me just go through in Libya, a failed state, because President Obama’s actions a Serie had gone from a few 100 dead over his administration to basically genocide about 1/2 1,000,000 people killed in Syria. What I consider is one of the historic blunders in foreign policy. The removal of troops from from Iraq allowed Isis to rise from the thoroughly defeated ashes of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Crimea had been illegally annexed, eastern Ukraine invaded, and President Obama did not provide the lethal defensive weaponry on a unanimous basis that Congress authorized him to do. North Korea was rampantly testing missiles and their nuclear weapons. Iran, through that agreement, change their behavior for the worst. It embolden them. And, of course, illegal immigration, primarily the form of a family and it’s exploiting laws that weren’t being enforced in this country was exploding. So President Trump came to office with a lot of foreign policy masses. By the last time I looked under this administration, we started no new wars. Uh, we’ve destroyed the physical caliphate of Isis uh, General Sulamani el Baghdadi are off the field. President Trump actually provided those lethal defensive weaponry the javelins, which helps stabilize the situation in Iran and, quite honestly, done a pretty good job reducing that out of controls, illegal immigration from the southern border by diplomacy with Guatemala’s. One of one of the things that occurred there. So I think we have to put those track records and compare them and talk honestly about these things. Now the ranking member has been pretty brutal. Regarding the firing of Inspector General Linen, I was copied on a letter that Undersecretary Management too little wrote to Mr Horowitz. I’ve read it. It’s somewhat complex. I just want to give you an opportunity to talk about what happened. And by the way, I’m very sensitive two inspector generals or trying to push Inspector General’s to investigate the leaks of these departments. Um, there were 126 leaks haven’t do with national security in the first time in 25 days of this administration that needs to be investigated. And I’m not if you could describe leaks that you were concerned about exactly how Inspector General Linen didn’t handle that, the way you thought it should be handled? Sure, but so Thank you, Senator Johnson. Let me just say I value inspectors general as well. I had a great relationship with the Inspector general at the C A. When I was there, he did his job. He took care of the team. He was critical of the agency when we got it wrong. I know what I know. What a good I G can do. Inspector General, in it wasn’t that The incident do you’re referring to is that we had a very sensitive Inspector General Port. When the final draft was prepared, it leaked. The political reporter, I think, said it came from two people close to the investigation. That point was basically the I. G s office and a couple others that actually knew about it in the full report, which had a real impact on senior fish, State Department officials lives. When we confronted the inspector general, he was defensive. We then asked him to undertake a process. He ignored that request to inspect that a separate i g common investigate. It’s it’s pretty complicated, but suffice it to say he didn’t comply with the instructions about how we felt that we needed to be investigated so that we could have an independent investigator do it. And then he wasn’t candid about that process either. He didn’t act with integrity throughout the process, in a way that inspector generals have to be counted on to behave. Well, I had my own issues with Inspector General Linen. I won’t go into those right now. I’m being falsely center. Grassland are being falsely accused of, uh, pedaling in Russian disinformation. Uh, because of acting director of national intelligence canals efforts to declassify four footnotes in the Michael Horowitz’s I G report. We now know that the Russian disinformation that was involved in the 2016 campaign was bought and paid for by the DNC. The Clinton campaign was in contained in the Steele dossier that that that is the truth. That is the Russian deserve. I haven’t heard no outrage on part of our Democratic colleagues about that Russian disinformation, but we are still under undergoing our investigation, and we’re trying to see documents out of State Department involved in that steel Bassey. And let me just ask you a specific question. October 2016 former State Department official, Jonathan Winer, arranged for Christopher Steele to provide other State Department officials the anti trump dossier he compiled for the DNC in the Clinton campaign. That same month, Mr Winer gave Mr Steele information collected by Clinton supporter supporters, which Mr Steele then passed on the FBI. This conduct raises serious concerns under the Hatch Act Gotta Records Act of the department policies. Although, although then I G. Linen acknowledged conducting your view of this conduct, he has not published any of his findings and admitted that the I G did not interview any of the key players. Are you aware of these issues and can you commit to to commit that the department will be responsive to our request from center grassland myself? We need these documents, Senator. We’ll do our best to be responsive. We understand the requests were working through it on. Yes, I’m familiar with the information that you set forth there with respect to the behavior that took place in October 2016 in the State Department. Were there any other specific incidents that caused you to ask you remove of Inspector General Linen? Yes, There were. There were several hook at the end It’s about the core mission accomplishing the core function. We one of the central functions, to make sure that we can represent to you all that the financial statement for the State Department is accurate. But we haven’t audit team to do that. Inspector General Lennox screwed that up. All read from the investigative reporters that oversight by the org was demonstrably ineffective, ultimately placing the department’s information as well. If the reputation human capital operations at considerable and unnecessary risk. That’s an enormous failure for one of the most important task that the A. G s office does conduct the audit of the State Department’s books. There’s a handful of others. He refused to take care of his team in important ways. Um, there were 10% fewer audits of our posts around the world, one of the most important functions aside from the auditors to travel around the post and conduct honest, make sure they’re conducting business corporate. We were down about 10% and I must tell you, morale inside the A. G s office of all we have 38 assistant secretary level level bureaus by the I. G s office was the worst survey results of any of those 38 didn’t take care of his people either. He also did not investigate the improper use of personal emails and State department, which was rampant under the previous of Mr Castration. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Secretary, thank you for being here. America’s strength is in our values. We are the global leader for democratic values we have been so recognised on. We’ve worked with the international community of Azat, leader of the free World, with other countries that share our values. And we lead in that. One of the best examples was the passage of the Magnitsky sanctions. The global Magnitsky, which was not just bipartisan. It was pretty much universal here and supporting promoting US values cleared to work with the late Senator McCain on the passage of that legislation and now kind of Europe. Australia, following our leadership to enforce universally recognised democratic values. So when the United States isolates itself from our traditional allies, it affects our credibility, is a global leader of the free world and promoting democratic values. So when we put out of the climate agreement when we isolated ourselves on Iran when our trade policies have been mawr bilateral, rather than working with other countries in order to try to advance our cause is against non market economies or government controlled economies. All that affects America’s credibility. So when I look at your budget, I see a decline of 35% in democracy funds to me, I don’t understand that cut 35% if we’re gonna be the leader in democratic values. But then I was pleased to hear you mentioned as the first order of yours your remarks today. Human rights and values, American values. But I was disappointed that to use the commission available rights as the example, and I say that because in my conversations with human rights advocates, not just here but globally they look at the United States trying to promote a political agenda on rights rather than working with the international community, the free world, on democratic principles of human rights. So tell me how this commission has engaged the activist globally that are fighting every day for human rights when it is very much tied towards a particular political view rather than a universal view. When human rights I said, I appreciate the answer to talk a little bit about the commission and the objective I set out now, just over a year ago with respected, I urge everyone toe, take a look at it, read it. I think they did phenomenal work. I don’t agree with everything that’s in there. I don’t think any of the 10 members that came from broad religious backgrounds block broad political background. I don’t think any of the 10 of them agree with just everything in there, but what it set out to do was take on what is an enormous crisis in the 20th century human rights project. We’re in a really bad place all around the world, and it was my view as I watched the State Department are depart RDR l. All the folks who work on this who are great and amazing people. I watched as they were unmoored. They didn’t have a founding, and so I wanted to go back and talk about how do we, Maura, American foreign policy in American human rights policy and the traditions of the United States? And so that’s what the commission was. But I guess what I don’t understand is, what were you trying what was the problem that you’re trying to solve? There’s There’s been a great deal of debate in establishing universal values of human rights, which has been the core for democratic states. And now all of a sudden we’re picking winners and losers. But it looks like it’s done on a political basis. Let me move toe. Second subject of I might on arms sales, we have, ah, proud tradition of making sure that when we supply arms to other countries that they’re not used against our human rights values. And we’ve seen in recent years that arms provided by the United States has ended up in the hands of actors that we do not want to see get those arms. What oversight are you deploying to make sure that arms that we make available to other countries are used for the intended purpose and do not end up in the wrong for the wrong use There? We have an elaborate process to do our best to verify that that doesn’t happen. It’s not that we don’t that we don’t have escapes, that there aren’t failures. It’s certainly the case that’s that’s been true for an awfully long time. But we have an elaborate process to validate and verify. We require representations. We do verification with the inspections we have Big teams in our both in multiple departments have responsibility for doing their best to ensure that American Weapon systems air used for their intended purpose when we sell them or provide them to our partners and allies around the world. Let me make this offer. I think this committee can help you in that regards. And the jurisdictional battle between defense and state sometimes presents challenges. States has the principal role for a good reason. There’s some legislation that I’ve authored that would help in that regard. I would hope that you would engage us to give you the tools you need to take on it. Sometimes the military aspects of the Defense Department that may not be a sensitive to these values, that Senator, I appreciate that very much. I do think the State Department is the proper place to lodge the primary responsibility for that activity, so I welcome your effort there. The G A O recently issued a report that I had requested in regards to diversity on the reports titled State Department. Additional steps are needed to identify potential barriers to diversity. And they point out that from the period from 2000 to well before your time to 2018 we’ve seen a decline off minorities in positions within the State Department. And it’s particularly pronounced within the higher ranks. What steps are you taking to implement the G A o concerns? So, Senator, I’ve seen that year report I’ve seen the internal work we’ve done. I would characterize it over the last that you were about from 2000 to over the last decade. Roughly, it’s flat. That’s not good enough. That’s multiple parties is not partisan at all. We won’t want to get this right. We’ve we’ve undertaken a number things we have about 1/3 today of our members who are minorities. Excuse me. About a 44% of them are women. Uh, we’ve developed picking Rangel program to bring more people, and we had double the applications. This year we have a big team that works on diversity. Inclusion were almost finished with a major study that was begun. Now I think 13 months ago, run by Carol Perez or di Jgr toe look, a look at what The failures have been a lot of money and effort on diversity. Inclusion over this last decade with, to your point, relatively good outcomes for acquisition of new, talented people, but less so with senior levels trying to identify why why we have. I hope we could work together on that last point, just the point of Western Hemisphere. On ranking. I would just urge you to evaluate working with us on the aid to the Northern Triangle to make sure that they have to help from the United States to deal with the economic issues which takes away the pressure of migration from the Northern Triangle. Thank you, Mr Thank you, Senator. Garden Center Garden, I think, Mr Chairman, Thank you, Secretary for your service and being here today. Over the last several years on the Asian Sub Committee, we’ve been working together on this committee to shape a new policy toward the Indo Pacific. The region, obviously is burgeoning population promising commercial growth, and it’s critical for global security and economic stability. But North Korea continues to seek nuclear weapons and to threaten its neighbors. China is emerging is an emerging global power that’s intimidating its neighbours brutally suppressing its own citizens and attempting to remake the world order in its own image. In Burma, the military is committing grievous human rights abuses against the minority Rohingya population. It’s more important than ever that the United States maintains a presence in the Indo Pacific region, reaffirms alliances, encourages economic cooperation and promotes human rights and the rule of law. The administration in Congress must be united on implementing a long term strategy that will benefit American national security interest, promote American businesses and create jobs through trade promotion and opportunities, and project American values of respect for the human rights and freedom in the Indo Pacific region. This includes countering China’s growing militarization of the South China seas and increasing the line influence in Southeast Asia as well as ensuring that complete, verified and irreversible denuclearisation is achieved on the Korean Peninsula Peninsula. As codified in U. S. Law, United States has always been and will always remain a Pacific power and legislation like my Asia Reassurance Initiative actor aria ensures that the U. S. Government will speak with one voice to reassure our allies and to deter our adversaries in the Indo Pacific region. In 2018 the age of subcommittee held a three part hearing. Siri’s. We talked about democracy, human rights and rule of law. We found that mass concentration camps for weaker Muslims necessitated a serious response from the U. S. And international community that crackdowns in the Tibet Autonomous Region are intensifying while Beijing continues to refuse negotiations with the Central Tibetan administration that human rights defenders in China are routinely jailed and tortured. I was obviously pleased to see that several Chinese officials were sanctioned for abuses against leaders and even in the 11 Chinese entities implicated in similar abuses were added to the Commerce Department’s entity list. But what is the administration doing to address Mawr? Further global Magnitsky sanctions and other remedies for these abuses? Senator Gardner, Thanks. And we’re familiar with area. It’s great work, and I want to thank this committee and and frankly brought a group of senators for the bipartisan legislation that we had with respect to the Uighurs in respect to Hong Kong democracy as well, a very powerful when I can talk to my counterparts around the world and say that I have not only the sport of Congress but artist in almost unanimous support on a policy with respect to securing freedom against the threats that the Chinese Communist Party is presenting. As for what will continue to do in western China with respect to the horrific human rights violations that are taking place against the ethnic minorities there, I don’t want to get in front of the final decisions, but you can rest assured that there are further actions, including further actions with respect, human rights violations that the Department of State Department treasure are working to complete. Mr Secretary yesterday, I don’t know if you had a chance to see some of the hearing in the House of Representatives regarding some of the tech companies operating United States, and I’ll read you some of the comments they made. When asked whether or not China is stealing information from them, Apple CEO Tim Cook said he had no personal knowledge about Chinese technology theft. Um, Jeff Bezos has no first hand experience beyond knock off products. A Google CEO has said that they didn’t have an experience later had clarified that remark. Can you talk a little bit about a tech and China and what you see what’s happening is is it true that there’s no Chinese technology theft of U. S companies or they need to get out more. I mean, there’s a long history, decades long history of Chinese intellectual property threat, including against technologies. And I hear it. It’s sometimes the case you hear privately because there’s continued threats made against their businesses that are operating not only in China but threats the business. So there are actually working in other parts of Asia and Southeast Asia as well. The Chinese Communist Party is completely willing, the bully and to threaten to get companies. Do you work with these tech companies that State Department on intellectual property theft, cyber attack, those kinds of things we do? We work closely with him on the side of on the side of protecting cyber. We’ve actually had some good work where we’ve worked alongside each other on important projects where we have reduced risk. And so I thank them for that. But but the idea that anyone in in the text based could not know of what the Chinese Communist Party is attempting to steal, and the cyberattacks they’re making seems incredulous. In March of this year, as related to some Chinese misinformation and spread dissemination of misinformation. When it came to theme the covert 19 propaganda China was spreading, I suggested the National Security Council set up a task force at the White House to counter that disinformation. Are the tech companies doing enough to combat Chinese disinformation? I know that there’s always more that they could do. There’s more we can do as well on that particular front, I must say, I actually think the world mounted a very effective counter campaign against the Chinese disinformation as I as I have traveled and as I spoke to my counterparts, I think the world understands that this virus emanated from China from Wuhan in particular. And I think the world understands that the Chinese Communist Party showed up with PPE that didn’t work and covered up what they knew about that when they could have prevented this spread. So I think I think the Chinese efforts of disinformation, they’re actually failed in this case, the Taiwan situation. I wanted to just ask question about bilateral trade agreements and opportunities for Taiwan. Yesterday I sent a letter to U. S Trade Representative Lighthizer Ambassador Lighthizer, asking for the US to begin engaging in a bilateral trade agreement with Taiwan. Can you talk a little bit about the administration’s pursuit of such an agreement? I’d prefer to leave that Ambassador Light Hauser, to talk about that. We’re aware that there’s great interest in this State Department will have its part in that. But our primary work with respect to Taiwan is is different from the trade piece of this we’ve We’ve been diligent about making sure that we honor the commitments that we have made to the people of Taiwan, including approving arms sales. They’re important so that the Taiwanese can engage in the activities that they need to do so they can protect their democracy. And the administration’s goal of complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remains. It does true. Thank you. Someone says she Thank you, Mr Chairman. And thank you, Mr Secretary, for being here today. Were you involved in the decision to withdraw troops from Germany? Yes, according to Secretary s for 6400 of those troops. So over half of those who will be removed from Germany will be coming back to the United States. They’re not gonna be going Teoh parts of Europe to deter Russia to parts of Asia to deter China. In fact, the only country that has publicly supported the removal of U. S troops from Germany to date has been Russia. So can you share with us whether the impact of this decision on our efforts to counter China and Russia was taken into account? And, um, was there any sort of strategic assessment done to support this decision? Senator Shaheen, Thanks for the question. Of course there was, and we were very involved at the strategic level, obviously the troop level decisions and liker primary department offense in the president, you characterized the folks who were coming back to the United States as somehow being off the off the field. That’s not the case. These units will participate in rotational activity that before deployed, they won’t be stationed a garrison. But make no mistake about it, they will be fully available to ensure that we can properly prosecute the challenges we have from the global powers. Well, Mr Secretary, I assume that all of our troops who are in the United States are available to be forward deployed. Now, I recognize that there are certain training that needs toe be part of them before they’re deployed. But But I guess I don’t understand. And was the effective, diplomatically alienating Germany, who is the largest and wealthiest country in the U, who has been historic strategic ally? Was that also taken into consideration? Maybe this is personal for me. I fought on the border of East Germany when I was a young soldier. I was states. I’m aware of that and your unit is coming back to the United. I know it had been back once before the Fort Polk. Then I went back to Germany. When I was there, there were six figures of soldiers there. Germany is no longer a frontline state. As for as for our strategic effort, General Secretary Stoltenberg, NATO commander, was very much in the process of helping us think this through. I saw comments out of Russia this morning that are different than you describe that view the actions that we took as threatening because we will have soldiers that are deployed closer to the Russian border. Yes, we This was a thoughtful process. The military piece of this run out of the Pentagon, largely but State Department’s Pulliam involved in the strategic pieces of this, and I am very confident that our mission to deter Russia the NATO mission to to Russia were still fully capable of executing. The precise number was 200,000 early, about a 100 some 1000 when I was there. Conditions have changed around the world, and our forces need to be repositioned to appropriately confront today’s challenges. Well, I I would just read from a report in Bloomberg that quotes Dmitry Peskov, who was the press secretary for Vladimir Putin, who says that and I quote the fewer American soldiers on the European continent. The comrade is in Europe, Peskov said, answering a question on planned US troop reductions in Germany. That doesn’t sound to me like they think that this increases the threat from Russia. But I’d like to go on to another issue because I want to follow up on the question that Secretary Menendez raised or Senator Menendez raised about, um, the reports on bounties that Russia has put on our troops in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and there was a report last night that said that state officials have secretly warned Russia against bounties on our troops against killing our troops What more do you think we should be doing? Toe address that to prevent the Taliban and Russia from tryingto murder our troops in Afghanistan. So there were many things and we have been engaged in them consistently. There’s intelligence collection so that if it happens, we can identify stop it, make sure that the actual tactical event doesn’t take place. That’s the task of not only D o D intelligence services, but our broader intelligence services are diplomats to make very clear our expectations and set a set of red lights. And then we have our larger Afghanistan policy. It’s not just Russia that has been underwriting the Taliban for all these years. I know there’s an awful lot of focus on that in this down. But let me tell you, at the State Department apartment offense were worried about Iranian support to the Taliban. Were Gulf money coming to the Taliban were Well, I totally agree with you. We’re working diligently against every one of those threats, both diplomatically and from a security perspective to protect our soldiers and then finally, to protect our soldiers Further, we’ve been working diplomatically get peace and reconciliation. Afghanistan. We have a ceasefire that began at the start of Dada. We’ve now had a significant prisoner exchange since February 29th Agreement enter into We haven’t had a single attack against an American soldier. This is the finest in American diplomacy, and I’m incredibly proud of what my team has done. My State Department team is done to protect American soldiers. Um, so do you think it would be helpful for President Trump to talked to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he needs to back off in terms of pained the Taliban to kill American troops Always leave to the president what he wants to say to other leaders. I don’t think there’s any doubt in the mind of every Russian leader, including Vladimir Putin, about the expectations of the United States of America not to kill Americans. And I can promise you that the 300 Russians who were in Syria and who took action that threatened America, who are no longer on this planet, understand that, too, when you were here, Um, last time we talked about the potential for negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, that was before an agreement was reached and there was an exchange that you and I had about the role of Afghan women in any talks with the Taliban. And you said that Afghan women should fend for themselves. Well, we’ve seen the outcome of our reticence to support Afghan women. The agreement between the US and the Taliban failed to mention the rights of Afghan women, and it contains no guarantees for their continued constitutional protection. Is the policy to have Afghan women think for themselves consistent? Do you believe with legal mandate for the US to support them? And I quote the meaningful inclusion of women and peace talks is directed by the Women Peace and Security Act that was signed into law by President Trump. I would have to go look and see what I said. No. We were doing our level best to make sure that we protect every Afghan male and female. And I have seen the at least tentative composition of the Afghan negotiating team, and, uh, I think he’ll be pleased with it while I’m out of time. But the fin for themselves is an exact quote from your statement when you were before this committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, sir. She, uh, Mr secretary. People always say actions speak louder than words. Do you think the specific action the United States of America took against General Suleimani sent a message to every country on this planet of what would happen to people who targeted United States soldiers on the battlefield? Thank you, Senator. Ah, Romney. Thank you, Mr Secretary. It’s a pleasure to see you and appreciate you appearing before this committee. I’m I’m one of many who applauds your recent dresses with regards to China. In these, you have called out their predatory behavior economic, military, geopolitical, geopolitical. And you note that we have to confront China with our friends and allies if we’re going to be successful in diverting them from their course of predation. Um, it’s a very welcome assessment, a very clear eyed evaluation of China’s intent and their actions and a statement of what our mission must be with regards to China. It’s also a welcome departure from the president’s fawning praise Aziz Jinping and and celebration of agreements that China hasn’t honored. It’s also my view is inconsistent with actions that we’ve taken that have offended our allies at a time we need to be drawing them closer to us. Um, and one, of course, is the steel and aluminum tariffs against our friends and allies that I thought were misplaced. I would have rather focused our entire ammunition on China. The other courses most recently is, as Senator Shaheen has just indicated, that withdrawal of troops in Germany on doing so, while expressing at an attempt to punish Germany for the fact that they spend approximately 1.5% of the GDP on the military as opposed to the 2% NATO target, even though they’ve indicated that they are on track to get to the 2% number. I have heard from highest levels of the German government that this is seen by them as an insult to Germany. And I can’t imagine at a time when we need to be drawing in our friends and allies so that we can collectively confront China, that we want to insult them. My question is this, however, which is what actions will the administration take to read to bring our allies together in a way that’s different than what we do in the past? I mean, I know that it’s always let’s talk going on in any administration could talk about all the things happening. But what are we gonna do that’s distinct? That’s different. That’s dramatic to bring the the nations that follow the rule of law together so that we can hopefully reach some kind of a common approach or common strategy and how we’re going to deal with China economically, militarily, geopolitically, and then collectively confront them with the intent of dissuading them from pursuing the course that they’re on. We obviously don’t want to, you know, go to war economically, militarily or otherwise. But we do want to dissuade them, and and and I think that could only happen when we are at a zoo, have pointed out. When we can do that with others, I would note something you you said at the Nixon Library. You said, quote. Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like minded nations, a new alliance of democracies, and I think that’s a good idea. But I’m interested in what, what actions of a new and dramatic nature are you considering, or are you willing to take in order to accomplish the objective you described? Senator, it is absolutely the case that confront the Chinese Communist Party’s gonna take a global effort. That’s absolutely true. It’s why I talked about this idea, perhaps, of a new alliance of democracies what shape that would take. There’s lots of discussion about at many conversations with friends in the region. Step one center. To be honest with you has been to awaken the world to this threat for an awful long time, not just the United States but the whole world. I saw that there were lucrative opportunities in China, and that was that was basically foreign policy. Sell as much as you can outsource jobs, build supply changed. So I spent my first year and change traveling the world trying Teoh raise awareness of the threat S so I think that’s new and different. You may say it’s not enough, but it wouldn’t happen before. Uh, and I went through the list of things that have begun to turn the tide. I will say there are still nations who understand this threat but don’t feel like they are empowered, that they’re in a position where they can withstand the threats that come from the Chinese Communist Party. So we’re working for diplomats trying to build out a set of relationships. Whether that’s a part of a formal organization or not. I I’m not sure I know the answer to yet. But to convince them to convince them that America is prepared to elite and pushing back against the Chinese can record, and when they do, we will be there to support them. And so I could list you. We have some 26 lines of effort of the State Department, probably equal amount of the Department of Defense. All aim central, building out this old set of alliances in Southeast Asian more broadly, with our five ice partners and with the quad to build out a set of commitments that can robustly communicate to the Chinese Communist Party. That enough you have to behave on the global stage. If you want to be able on the global stage, you’ve got to do it under a set of rules that has created so much prosperity around the world. That may be on satisfying Zina Romney, but there still is still a real working progress to get everyone fully aligned. I mentioned the EU dialogue very important. Foreign Minister Borough High represented. Burrell asked me if we would have a dialogue with them on China. That took a lot of effort to get 27 EU nations to say yes, this is something we’ve got to confront, identifies a systemic rival. There’s lots of spade work that goes into what seems pretty simple. I suppose I think is the most important work that we will be doing is as a country and as an administration’s. We face this challenge. Ah, just parenthetical comment that comes to mind as you’re speaking. And that relates to a discussion that was held earlier with her goes to tech companies that Senator Johnson raised. I know there’s great interest, sometimes politically, to go after some of the big tech companies Google, Amazon and so forth and Facebook and and be rate them for their market power. And if they violate American and a trust laws, why that’s totally appropriate. But I would note that we’re in a global competition and China has been successful in driving a lot of Western companies out of business. They’ve not been successful in driving companies like these out of business. These are thriving and succeeding, and the last thing we ought to be doing is trying to knock down businesses in the United States that air succeeding on a global stage. Uh, so we need to be careful, not Teoh flex our muscle that berate those those entities that are successful and are beating China. I mean, Ali Baba would like to replace Amazon. Tic Tac would like to replace Instagram. Eso is just an area of concern. And I hope that you’re able to point these things out to other members administration who care deeply about that. Finally, Were you surprised by the fact that what was it? 57 countries supported China. 53 countries supported China’s crackdown on Hong Kong. Did that shock you? As it did May. I was surprised and dismayed. Thank you, Mr Secretary. Thank you. Send around me, Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ranking member for holding this important hearing today. Thank you, Mr Secretary. Let me just start with two specific issues, if I can that I think are important. I I want to certain want to associate myself with a number of other areas that have been explored. But let me touch on these two. I’m working with members of this committee and you’re department to resolve terrorism related claims against Sudan, which is in the middle of a critical democratic transition to provide justice and compensation for over 700 terror victims and their family members, and to move our bilateral relationship forward after 30 years under the brutal dictatorship of Omar el Bashir. I just want to urge you and the administration to do everything you can to support Prime Minister Han Duck and to make sure that we seize this opportunity to bring real justice to the victims and their American families and foreign nationals involved in to build a new Democratic partner in the region. Have you personally engaged on this issue? And can you commit to working transparently with Congress as we I’m trying to find a solution urgently. Thank you for your work. This is this is really important. We’ve proposed that there’s a legal peace resolution that would be in legislation that will be before Congress here in the very near term. We think it’s the appropriate time to both bring justice to those from the 1998 bombings on get real opportunity for Prime Minister Hendrick. I talked to him a handful of times. I’ve talked to other of the leaders there in Sudan, this is an opportunity doesn’t come along often. We all know the history of Sudan and the tragedy. There was just not only for democracy Teoh begun to be built out, but perhaps regional opportunities that could flow from that as well. I think lifting the state sponsor of terrorism designation there, if we can get if we can take care of the victims of those tragedies, that would be a good thing for American foreign policy, and I appreciate your assistance in that regard. We have a number of members of this committee with strong interests, and it’s my hope that we can move in a way that respects those constituent interests and also makes progress and doesn’t miss this moment on the Global Fragility Act. It’s legislation that was bipartisan, that I lead here with Senator Graham and President Trump. Signed into law last December, it requires a long term whole of government strategy to address extremism, instability and fragile states. The first delivery ble under this legislation, the global fragility strategy is due September 15th. Congress really isn’t looking for old wine in new bottles. Eso we just urge you to look at the G f A as a tool to rethink our approach to these challenges and improve the way that state A I D and D o d work together. How are you using the tools Congress provided in the GF A to address the consequences of this pandemic on development, governance, security? And can you commit that you’ll look hard at and resolve a technical issue on the creation of the Prevention and Stabilization Fund, which was designed to replace and improve on the rapid response fund in the statute. I’ll get back to you on the last question that you asked. I’m familiar with it, but not enough to answer your question. But I’ll get you an answer briefly. You’re right. I’m tracking the first deliverable. I will say. I saw the first pass at this. You characterized it about right. It was There wasn’t much that was original in there, and I’ve asked the team to go back and take a set of fresh looks tax for outside views. But folks, folks on Capitol Hill, people who are experts around the world to see if we can’t use this tool that you provided us on a bipartisan basis to actually deliver on the stated objectives of that law. It was important piece of legislation, and I don’t want I don’t want to miss the chance to develop the strategy that can then underpin all the actions we can take when, once that strategies, that is not something we I intend to put on the shelf and admire. But something we hope creates operational opportunities underneath that strategy. Thank you. Today is the funeral service for a friend and former colleague, Congressman John Lewis, and I was struck by a comment made by your former colleague, former Secretary of Defense General Mattis, who wrote following the weeks of protests after the unlawful murder of George Floyd. General Mattis Road I’ve watched this week’s unfolding events angry and appalled. The words equal justice under law are carved into the pediment of the Supreme Court, and that is what the protesters are rightly demanding. Do you agree with General Mattis? And I’m concerned about the general direction of the most senior levels of the State Department. This has been raised before. I won’t go through the G A O report, but of 189 ambassadors representing us abroad, only three or African American, four Hispanic, and I recognize that diversity in the department has been a long term challenge. But I’d be interested in hearing both. Um, do you agree with General Mattis? Is comments. And what do you personally doing to mentor the next crop of senior leaders and to diversify the seventh floor leadership team? I actually think the seventh floor leadership team, my entire communications, seem undersecretary for management. My intersection of political affairs were all part of diversity groups. I’m proud of what our small team has done, but that doesn’t That doesn’t begin to accomplish what we need to get done in the State Department. To make sure we get this right. By the way, it is diversity inclusion that is broad based. We need to make sure that we have people from all across America with all viewpoints, every every idea from all crust maker. We’ve been very narrow in how we have recruited from a certain set of institutions and certain universities, and we don’t get a full spectrum of understandings of America or of the world if we are too narrow and how we think about diversity inclusion, so were working hard at it. We’ve built out a set of programs, your point about not having sufficient minority representation in our ambassadorial levels. It’s absolutely true. It was three days ago, the set of about 23 that will be coming to you shortly. We had more than half of them that were female. First time that’s ever happened. So we’re making progress. But I would agree that the rate of change is insufficient. How do you think our own failure to address structural racial inequality impacts our diplomacy overseas and impacts our ability to advocate around human rights issues? Well, it’s important that we get it right at home. There’s no doubt about that on. I would tell you that we are a beacon for that around the world, I think, and I think you can see it. People who want to come to the United States of America because it’s freest nation. It’s a place that you have immigrant from all across the world that want to come in, and I’m a believer that people vote with their feet. They see America still as this greatest, most exceptional nation. We are not without flaws, but I think is our diplomats travel the world. They can be very proud of our progress. Mr. Secretary. Want to ask the last question about our election? President Trump has just tweeted that we should delay it. I’m interested in whether you were able to vote by mail when you served abroad in the Army. Whether you vote by mail in your home state of Kansas, whether, like many of us who serve in Congress, in both parties, you’ve avail yourself, as do virtually all of our diplomats and development professionals and armed forces members of the opportunity to vote securely by mail. Have you done so? And do you have any concerns about the security of our election this November? Because I believe I have voted by absentee ballot. I think while I was a soldier and I also think when I was a member of Congress, I did a couple times a swell. Uh, the State Department has some role in making sure we have election security. It’s not our primary focus. I’ll leave to others those who have that primary centered focus. But is there any reason for us to be concerned that those votes were fraudulent or somehow ineligible to be counted if cast by mail or by absentee ballot by our diplomats. I must say having a small group of people vote by absentee ballot is very different than deciding that you’re going to conduct a full in mail balloting in mail balloting program. Those are two fundamentally different beast. I’ll leave to the professionals to identify the level of risk associated with that. But I also know, and I saw this in my home state of cancer. When you change the voting rules in close to an election, that difficult task. Thank you, Senator Coons. Sen. Rubio. Thank you. Good morning, Mr Secretary. Thank you for coming in and being here. I know election security is not your area of expertise, but I think you can’t comment on what I’m about to ask. I’m I’m sure you’re well aware of influence efforts on the part of the Chinese and Taiwan to shape Taiwanese policies. The policies of their government, I’m certain, is most people on this committee, I hope, are where the how they pressure political figures that they’ve You are opposed to there to their interest. And I think we’ve all witnessed I think you’ll confirm this worldwide, that China has engaged in efforts of disinformation, particularly, for example, about the Corona virus. I’m not ask you to comment specifically about our country. I think I’m or anything else asking if China ever decided they wanted to do those kinds of things to us. Would you assess? They have the capability to conduct disinformation, campaign to pressure American political figures, potentially even members of Congress, the way we’ve seen them do it Taiwan and Australia and in other places, if they decided they wanted to do that, this is second largest economy in the world. Uh, pretty significant capabilities. If they ever decided they wanted to come after us that way, they have the capability to do it. Would they not, Senator taking the If I have just a second to respond to this, they certainly have the capability. I’ve talked about this. The United Front. The Chinese United Front is working here in the United States today. They’re they’re meeting with state legislators, meeting with governors there, running one of the things that was taking place out of the consulate. Houston Well, influence operations conducted by their diplomats. And this isn’t I don’t know. We have diplomats from all across the world to come to our offices, members Congress and talk to us about policy. This is this. What I’m talking about is fundamentally different from that s so they not only have the capability but the intention of conducting influence operations in the United States. I think we’re pretty resilient nation. I’m confident it will push back against that. But the world needs to understand that when it’s happening here in the United States, happen all across it’s happening in their countries to Well, one thing’s almost interesting yesterday is the four CEOs of these tech companies appeared believe for House Committee yesterday. If I’m not mistaken and they were asked a very simple question. Do you believe they were asked, Do they believe that China steals technology from US firms? They were asked this question. I think there’s pretty strong consensus across the board, in both parties and in the media and elsewhere that the answer that question is yes, the CEO of Apple said they haven’t experienced it. That was his answer. Uh, good to see you of Google said. Neither have we. And the CEO of Amazon says Oh, I’ve I’ve read that only the CEO of Facebook said yes, Absolutely So Apple, Google and Amazon answer that question by saying either they hadn’t experienced that they’ve read that somewhere but wouldn’t comment further. Why would corporations such as this, some of whom, by the way, take it upon themselves to censor truth versus what’s not true and what they believe some people should be saying and not others on the basis of what they judge to be true? Why would three of the four CEOs of four largest tech companies headquarter in United States be afraid to answer that question? I can only speculate. I mean, it’s it’s patently clear to anyone who’s watching that the Chinese are engaged in intense efforts of intellectual property threat, including to technology. Um, where would it be fair in your mind to speculate that they try to influence remember people even in the business community? Absolutely. Huh? Okay, One more question. I think I know the answer. This is well, but would you agree with the belief? I think again, That’s pretty widespread, that China has systematically identified industries and technologies that they believe will be key to the 21st century, they actually wrote it made in China 2025 and have undertaken a systematic effort to dominate these industries while destroying our capability. They’ve done it. That’s what the I P theft is about. The forced transfer of technology subsidies to their firms blocking access to their markets. Let there. There is no doubt at this point that they have a very carefully crafted plan to dominate certain key industries for the 21st century and toe wipe out not just our capabilities in those industries, but everybody else’s. That’s that’s a fair assessment. Yes, I wrote, and they’ve not been covered about this right. They’ve spoken openly about how they’re approaching their commercial interest. The only thing that they don’t speak about is that rather than build these industries inside, the tools that they used are fundamentally different than the way western democracies do right. We train our people, we build our businesses, we invest capital in the market. They run state sponsored enterprises. They steal intellectual property on then they and endeavour to undermine the companies and threaten and bully countries around the world into buying their products. My last question is unrelated to China. directly. But as you’re well aware, there been press reports, speculations, commentators and the like that have made much about recent, you know, allegations. And in one case of the interview the president gave in which they took from it, the President be willing to engage in negotiations with Maduro and the Maduro regime in Venezuela. As you understand our policy being in the position that you’re in, could you envision? As long as this administration is an office, we would ever negotiate with the Maduro regime for them to remain in power. Absolutely not. Uh, there are policies not to negotiate with them for anything other than his. His departure from ruling that country. Thank you. Thank you. Next, after the next question, we’re gonna take a 10 minute recess. But right now said it, you’d all the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr Chairman and Secretary Pompeo. Appreciate your time and and testimony today. I wanna start with an important subject. Democracy promotion. Earlier this year, you call for free and fair elections in Venezuela and Nicaragua. If free and fair elections air held in the current occupants of power lose the State Department then strongly encourages those leaders to step down from power. And I think that sort of thing is an important pillar of our foreign policy on a bipartisan basis. Correct? Yes, sir, but I am hearing growing concern in this country about whether we’re going to set a good example in our November election. In a recent Fox News interview, Chris Wallace, as President Trump whether he would give a quote direct answer that you will accept the election unquote in November. In response, President Trump said, I have to see No, I’m not going to just say yes. No, I’m I’m not going to say no. I didn’t say last time, either. During a 2016 debate, he stated. I will tell you at the time I will keep I will. I will keep you in suspense and, uh, and he’s also called voting by Mail. As you know, one of the major ways Americans vote, especially in a pandemic, he said. Over and over again. The election’s rigged if it’s vote by mail. So Secretary Pompeo at President Trump refuses to accept the upcoming November election due to his lack of faith in voting by mail. Will you respect the results of a certified election, as the State Department typically does throughout the world. Senator, I’m not going to speculate yet about 15 ifs in there that I you should you should know, I have said repeatedly list committee. I will follow the rule of law. All the Constitution have endeavored to do that and everything I’ve done, and I’ll continue to do that every day. The president has made this a legitimate question in Americans minds through his own statements of former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Republican is, you know, says on I quote here, I think it’s very sad and very disappointing that with almost five months to go, the president seems to want to try to de legitimize the November 3rd election. It just seems to me that this may be an indication he’s more worried about the outcome than he’s worried about the fraud. In quote, this is a serious domestic and foreign policy question. We need to set a good example about the peaceful transition of power or else we undermine our entire foreign policy, George Kennan wrote in his long telegram that in order to counter the Soviet Union quote, much depends on the health and vigour of our own society. I think that is just Astrue today about Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and other authoritarian regimes that we have challenges with. And I can imagine ah, few scenarios that would endanger our society. More than a presidential candidate who refuses to accept the outcome of an election Secretary Pompeo. This year, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a report on the harm this president is caused to journalists First Amendment rights. In their summary, the committee states and I quote, the Trump administration has stepped up the prosecutions of news sources, interfered in the business of media owners, harass journalists crossing US borders and empowered foreign leaders to restrict their own media. But Trump’s most effective ploys been to destroy the credibility of the press, dangerously undermining truth and consensus. Even as covert night DeKoven 19 pandemic threatens to kill tens of thousands of Americans. That’s the end of their quote. Are you concerned that in instead of promoting press freedom abroad, America is now providing moral support to authoritarians efforts to crack down on critical media outlets from Russia to China, to Venezuela and beyond? No, I’m not remotely concerned about that, and over 100 and 50,000 Americans have now died from Cove in 19 and we mourn their loss. Like most tragedies, this is one that could have been prevented. Like the president’s response to Hurricane Maria and other disasters, the federal government’s response has been nowhere near up to the challenge. Instead, this administration is now trying to change the narrative by attacking its own citizens at home and weakening the United States. Abroad. Across the world are allies in New Zealand, Japan, Australia, South Korea and many in Europe have taken the science and the threat of covert 19 seriously. The result is that they’re beginning to return to normal. Even countries with very different systems in our, such as Communist Vietnam and Cuba, are beginning to re emerge from this deadly disease. Secretary Palm Pale. The best practices of these countries is simple. Isolate, track and trace quarantine and wear a mask. We don’t even know if the national security adviser has spent with you or other members of the National Security Council lately. The US has not done those things sufficiently, and here we are, Secretary Pompeo U and the White House seemed to want to blame China for our inability to respond to this pandemic as well as to our allies. Is it true that they’re handling the virus? And it’s true that they’re handling the virus at the early on set was problematic, but we are responsible for our own response. Do you think the president should look to Europe? South Korea, Japan and other more successful nations? Toe Learn about how to better contain this pandemic an awful lot to unpack their senator. First, I would tell you that some of the countries that you identified you’re looking at the data that they’re putting out. It’s worthless. So when you’re comparing it to data from other countries or not, not in a Senate hearing put that data forward. Is dis positive about the conditions on the ground in those countries? It’s silly. I mean, just the fact that they’re just they’re not tracking, they’re not. They’re not counting cases, so we need to make sure we have ah shared factual data base. Yeah, we should We should look everywhere to get best practices about how to respond to this, and I know that our doctors, Dr Perks, who works for May. It’s now over the White House working us. They’ve done that. We’ll continue to make sure we protect the American people in an appropriate way. Thank you. Thank you. So you don’t with that, uh, the committee is going to be a tease subject to the call of the chair for approximately 10 minutes.