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 2 of 2.
Transcript
Committee will come to order. Next up. Sambora’s so thank you, Mr Chairman. Welcome back, Mr Secretary. Good to see you again. I appreciated your comments opening statement specifically related to Nord Stream two. And when it asked a little bit more about that because we know energy security is essential to national security. North Stream two threatens European energy security increases Russian monopoly over the region. To me is the This pipeline is a Russian trap. Strongly support your recent announcement aimed at stopping this dangerous pipeline. As you know, Congress is working to quickly provide the administration with additional tools to prevent North Stream two from ever being completed. The last few weeks, both the Senate and House passed their own versions of the National Defense Authorization Act. Includes new bipartisan North Stream two sanctions. Could you talk about the administration’s commitment to opposing the North Stream two pipeline and applying sanctions against those companies aiding in the completion of this Russian trap? You know, the act guarantees that this administration, accused by some of not being tough on Russia and this President Trump personally took on this. He saw that this was a threat that this pipeline being threat created enormous leverage for Russia, not only against Germany and broader Europe, but Ukraine as well on. So we set about him with good support on Capitol Hill, and we got legislation that was appropriate to now have delayed this project significantly. We need further tools, were prepared to use those tools should you provide them to us. Uh, and we’ve also used our diplomatic capabilities toe make clear to countries that we’re gonna do the other end to We’re going to make sure that American Alan G can be sold in this country. We want Europe to have a secure, stable, diverse set of energy opportunities, and our Department of Energy’s worked alongside of us to do that on our in our department, says the secretary fan, and are working to make sure that Europe has really secure stable, safe energy sources that cannot be turned off in the event that Russia decides they want to do so. We think North Stream two is dangerous in that respect. We do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline doesn’t threaten Europe Mistake. I like to move out to the Iranian arms embargo. The international arms embargo on Iran, as you know, is set to expire October of this year. To my great astonishment, we’re having to persuade the international community of the importance of preventing Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, from purchasing advanced weapons. It will dramatically increase the ability of Iran to arm terrorist proxy groups across the region. We’ve seen that more weapons likely flow to Hamas, Houthis Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite the terrible consequences, many experts believe that any extension of the Iranian arms embargo would be vetoed by Russia. By China. What Russia and China want Iran arms embargo? Why would they want it to expire? And is the Chinese Communist Party really willing to betray global security in order to be Iran’s arms dealer? Well, I hope not, but I expect so. We’ve been working to convince the Russians still permit this arms embargo to be extended, who were talking to the Chinese for months and months and months. We’re working with our E three counterparts as well. We will submit a U. N. Security Council resolution in the near future where we will offer to extend this. This was one of the central failings of the JCP away was to have only a five year ban on the training capacity of both purchase weapons systems. Build out air defense systems, the capacity to protect ah nuclear program should they continue down that path, but also to sell weapons around the world and become again, as they were before one of the world’s largest arms dealers were gonna do everything we can? We believe we have the capacity to do this, that the United Nations we hope that the U. N. Security Council will conclude that extending its arms embargo is the right thing in the event they don’t we’re going to use every tool that we have in our fingertips to make sure that that arms embargo is not lifted on October 18th of this year, we think it decreases stability in the Middle East. We think that would threaten Israel and we’re confident reduces American security as well and, uh, one to religious freedom. Sam Brownback, a former member of this body ambassador at large for international religious freedom, recently wrote. Humanity is why religious freedom will always win out against governments and non state actors seeking to repress and control it. But we have seen around the world, authoritarian regimes continuing to attempt to restrict religious freedoms and the rights of individuals. Could you discuss efforts by the administration you’ve taken to promote international religious freedoms? So we have raised the priority of international religious freedom inside of the State Department. I think that’s happened, I think, under President Trump and Vice President Pence. That’s happened all across the administration. We use our diplomatic tools to encourage it. We build resilience. We work with religious communities in many countries to provide them security. The work that we’re doing in northern Iraq today is a good example. But there still lots of challenges. What’s happening in Nigeria to Christians today happening to Muslims in western China? Your point about the threat to religious freedom in the exercise of conscience for people of all faiths, Eyes under attack in too many places, State Department has an important role to decrease or increase the capacity for people to exercise their rights of religious freedom and way held these two minutes tears. We weren’t able to do it this year because of the virus, but we brought people from all across the world the world’s largest human rights gatherings in all of history were held with State Department twice around. The central idea that people need to be ableto exercise this important right, just have their own faith and earlier today only moved to China. I think you said you called Chinese Communist Party the central threat of our times. We had your deputy here a couple of weeks ago, had a chance to talk about the issues related to China. To me, they’re working to expand their military capabilities to advance their global ambitions. They want to dominate globally. The last few months we’ve seen them increased military aggression near Taiwan, the South China Sea, Japan have seen incursions, what they’ve been doing in Hong Kong, what they’ve been doing at home. Can you talk about the recent confrontations by China, what that taught us about China’s military ambitions as well as their capabilities, because when we go to secure briefings, we asked lots about their capabilities, not just what they might do but what they can do well, there, won’t they? Can they or can’t they? So I think these actions and when you say recent the last 24 36 months, I think the actions are entirely consistent with what they have been signaling to the world for decades. You might even argue since 1989 but certainly since Central General secretary she came to power. It’s a desire to expand their power. Their read their reach. They talk about this right to talk about bringing socialism with Chinese characteristics through the world and whether it’s you identified some but claim that they’ve now made for real estate in Bhutan. The incursion that took place in India. These are indicative of Chinese intentions, and they’re testing the probing, the problem the world to see if we’re gonna stand up to their threats in their bowling. And I’m more confident that I was even even a year ago, that the world is prepared to do that. There’s a lot more work to do, and we need to be serious about it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Good morning, Mr Secretary. Let me say at the outset I am very grateful for your proposal to double the budget of the Global Engagement Center. This is, of course, a center to counter act propaganda outside of United States. That was established to legislation written by myself in Senator Portman, and I’m glad that you have recognized the importance and the good work of that center, though we have spent a lot of time in this hearing talking about many of our concern regarding our adversaries desire to use propaganda not outside of the United States but in fact inside of the United States to influence the 2020 election. And so I want to begin by asking you a question about that. Russia in particular, has sought to weave together stories about U. S persons and Ukrainian persons over the course of the past year in order to both try to sow chaos and dissent in the United States, but also to try to screw with Ukrainian politics as well. It’s kind of a double whammy for the Russians on Did you could see those efforts ramping up is we head into the 2020 election. Probably the most active foreign individual pushing narratives about the United States in Ukraine is a Ukrainian legislator by the name of Andre Dirk Koch. He was the individual that magically came into possession of secret audio recordings of Vice President Biden Theun President Poroshenko. He’s maintained his retains Government Relations Council here, and I would expect that he’s gonna be a pretty active presence in, uh, US politics from here to the election. So just a simple question on behalf of my constituents and my colleagues as well. Should we view Andree Dure Koch as a credible source of information? I’ll answer questions. Let me just say GC real quick because I think that’s important. Thank you for the compliment. I want to make sure that the only thing I’m worried about with asking for a doubling of the money is to make sure that we can deploy it in a way that we’ve been pretty successful. It’s it’s grown. But when you expand something at 100% year on year, I have a team driving to make sure we don’t misuse or our waste those resources. Look, I don’t want to comment on any particular individual like Mr Durkin. I will say this. We’re taking seriously the threats that Russia will try to engage in disinformation campaigns, that there may be oligarchs to try and engage in this that may be born actors, not just Russian. We were pretty successful at this in the 2018 election. I say we not the State Department, love, but all the United States government. I’m confident we will be in this one as well. Why wouldn’t you be willing? Teoh opine on a specific individual if you had information to suggest that the source was not credible? It seems as if that is, in fact, a core function of the U. S. Government. If it has information, Teoh that that would suggest malign influence. Toe let Congress and the American people know. So if when it’s appropriate, I will. When there’s still work on going and they’re still unsettled intelligence around these things, I’m going to try to be just a little bit more careful. Center. Let me turn to China for a moment. China’s clearly seeking to use the United States is failure to control cove it, as it means toe leapfrog us in our traditional leadership position when it comes to global health center. Romney referred to this earlier. I think we’ve given to big gifts to the Chinese since the beginning of this outbreak. The first was the president’s. You’re just remarkable fawning over China’s early response to the virus 47 different times. Hey commended China for their response in their transparency. But I think China also is pretty happy with our withdrawal from the WHL on bond. I understand that you believe, as I understand it, that our withdrawal from W. H. O is a lever to try to seek internal change, and I would disagree. But it also seems to allow for China to step in and occupy that vacuum. And so, as you step back and try toe, articulate this sort of broad strategy to counter act China’s growing influence in the world. How does withdrawal from the W. H O counter act the growing influence of China? It’s a good question. These air close calls sometimes, right? We left the U. N Human Rights Council. The same argument was made better to fight from within than to try and reform from outside. I think there are reasonable arguments that can be made on either side. The decision that the president made and I concurred with this decision, um, we won through multiple rounds of reforms at the World Health Organization. Our team in Geneva fought for years and previous administrations to each time we got reforms, there was no capacity to make that a science based organization and not a political one. And there comes a point where you’re spending half a $1,000,000,000 of U. S taxpayer money year on year that goes to benefit political actors inside the World Health Organization. And we ultimately made the conclusion that we were more likely to achieve the global health security issues that the United States cares about deeply. If we did not participate any further, the World Health Organization, I am not at all convinced that it will be China that benefits from that. I’m convinced that the world will benefit. We saw it with PEPFAR Senate with Gabi with Senate, Other places When the United States leads and we will absolutely lead, good things can happen in the international health room. It won’t surprise you that I would dispute your characterization of the W H. O. It is an international body that there’s no way that there will be some level of politics infecting the decisions that a body made up of historic adversaries. We’ll go through, but it is a science based organization. On it is one that is indispensable to the continuation of our efforts to try to prevent the next disease, and I really shudder to think about our ability to stop the next cove it if we’re not back into the wh oh, finally, in the remaining time I have. This is a complicated question. But again, back to center Romney’s line of questioning about the capabilities that we should be developing with our allies to try to counter act China. I just don’t think it’s sustainable for this administration or any other administration to try to go around the world, bullying and shaming our friends and sort of half friends in tow, not doing business with China. We’ve gotta have an answer for the things that China is offering. And on the technology front, we don’t have a great answer for five G, and we may not have a great answer for whatever China’s gonna put out there on a I or advanced battery technology isn’t this essential toe are counter China strategy not just a shame other countries into forsaking Chinese technology but actually to work with our allies to develop our own alternatives? 1000% have absolute center Murphy Davis term Thank you summer Senator Portman Technics German. Appreciate your having the opportunity to let us talk to Secretary of State today. This is this has been very helpful, very informative, I will say, with regard to China and developing technologies with our allies. We have a lot to do right here in United States to get our own house in order. So we’re pretty good at pointing fingers of China, and it’s usually appropriate. But we also aren’t doing much here to protect ourselves. And I want to thank you because you have provided some great help from your career professionals with regard to our efforts to push back against China, taking our technology and in particular China, as these programs you mentioned Hamadoun it for a while, diminutive for two decades where they come over here, they find promising research and researchers. They systematically target them, and then they take that research over to China, and it is military. It is economic, it’s health care is everything. And, uh, over the last couple years, we’ve worked hard on this with an investigation, a report and now legislation called the Securing American Innovation Act. But with regard to the State Department piece of this your career. People come and testify before us, said that they need more tools to be able to stop folks who they know are coming here to deal with export control technologies who were coming over here to actually take steal our stuff and take it back to China. But they are unable to stop those people from coming in despite affiliations with the People’s Liberation Army affiliations with the Chinese Communist Party and in many cases, you know, a history of taking research. So we worked with one of your person fellows. You told me about the person fellowship, and I took advantage of it the last year. Mark Weevils has been working with us. He’s a consular affairs officer, done a terrific job on. We have put together some legislation that’s very balanced, says Hey, we want research. We want American research enterprise to benefit from international cooperation, but we don’t wanna have this US taxpayer funded research being being stolen. So I thank you for that. I would just ask you, Do you agree that these new these authorities we have in that legislation or helpful to protect taxpayer funded research and intellectual property from our adversaries including China. They definitely are. And we need We need an expanded tool set to make sure that we get this right. We’re making progress. Our teams are working alongside, um, the FBI to identify these risks are working hard on the set of issues. I’ll say this. Do we all need to be candid when we go back to our home states and we talk to the universities in our states? The education industrial complex is alive and well. We need to be candid with him about what’s taking place in some of these institutions of higher learning all across America and be thoughtful about how we respond to this, its influence and theft operation that’s been conducted. That’s that’s absolutely right. And you know, there are five different provisions in the legislation. One of them relates directly to our universities and research institutions and to their credit, the number that worked with us and we work with them. Senator Carper and I have taken the lead on this and this legislation to bipartisan bill bipartisan supporters, but there are universities and associations that are pushing back hard, and frankly, I think they’re naive and aren’t willing to face up to the threat that that it’s out there and it’s a national security threat. I’m glad that over the last couple of weeks that we have had the opportunity to confirm some good nominees from department steak, and I’m concerned the backlog build up to the point where you really had a tough time running the department and there’s more to go. We have more nominees coming up next week. Understanding may have finally the nominee for ambassador to Japan at a critical time. One of when I asked you about, though in particular is Ukraine. Hand up. You know, Senator Cartons not here today. But, you know, back in 2014 we we went over to Ukraine right after the Revolution of dignity and those six years intervening, a lot of good has happened in Ukraine. A lot of bad has happened to, and we see it right now. We’re once again at a tipping point. The cease fire is not holding. I understand there’s been about 100 violations of it recently. The Russian aggression continues. Ukraine made a decision six years ago to turn to us in the West and yet way still have a situation where they’re not getting the support that they need. So two questions for you. How important is that to get Lieutenant General Dayton confirmed as the ambassador in Ukraine? Number one? I think he’s highly qualified. I’m really pleased with that nomination. And number two, Do you agree with what we just did in the national Defense authorization bill, which was to have a record amount of Lee’s leg going to Ukraine? We’ve gone from roughly $50 million.225 million dollars in that legislation. Do you support that? Increase funding for lethal aid for Ukraine to deal to defend itself? I do. The administration does support the increase in lethal aid. It’s important to get the general out there, although I will say are charged. A on the ground there today is doing a very, very good working, but it’s important to get a confirmed ambassador in that position. If I might just add this to we’re still thinking we was a real loss when Ambassador Volker departed. The work that he was doing was important to the State Department’s overall effort in the region, and we’re hoping to get open to get that position with just the right person filled as well, so that we have a full on effort there to help the Ukrainian people maintain their democracy. Well, we’ll have a chance to talk to the general dating, at least remotely when he comes. But he’s done a good job in my view of modernizing their military and and, you know, knows that Ukrainian issues inside and out. And he’s the right person at the right time and I’m pleased he’s going to step up and do it. It was a good choice with regard to Germany, just my point of view for what it’s worth asking you a question here particularly. But I think moving troops out of Germany is a good idea if they stay in Europe and in particular Poland has been asking for years now, you know, to allow US troops to come to Poland and even offered us a base. I was there several years ago where, where they agreed. Teoh, you know, pay for the base and that’s still an offer. But the Baltics, Eastern Europe in particular, it seems to me that’s the appropriate place to move to move those troops, and I agree that Germany is not the right place for the number of troops that we have. Rather should be closer to where the action is on the and, frankly, the countries that are at most risk right now. So I don’t if you have any comment on that. But I would hope that they will be able to stay in Europe. Just nothing, I’ll add. I’ll leave to the barn defense to talk about exact dispositions and numbers in particular countries. But with Specter Poland, we don’t yet have our defense cooperation agreement quite done. So were worked. The State Department’s working diligently with R D o D colleagues to get that done, so that in the event the department offense makes that decision, the president concludes, it’s the right thing to do. We can put those forces in their in a way that protects them as well. Finally, just on Globalization Center, thanks to Senator Murphy for raising those issues, he have same kind of questions that I would have asked Leah Gabriel on my views, doing a terrific job with trying to re order and take the d o d money is now gonna go directly to you and use it more effectively. We, of course I agree with you that that used to be well spent. There is a timely example on this. The United States, under your leadership, has provided $2.3 billion congressional appropriated money to help other countries combat covered 19. And I think we’ve gotten very little credit for it, and I hope that weaken doom or insurance of talking about what we’re doing. That’s helpful. But what’s happened is instead, China and Russia are spreading disinformation. And we’ve heard about it here in this committee, saying that you know the virus was created in a lab by Bill Gates or that Kobe, 19 was brought to China by American soldiers. Other false narratives. Global Engagement Center is the perfect place to push back on that now. Hope we’re doing that. I don’t have any comment on that, sir. Where we are working on that, it’s important, actually. Think with respect to the cove it I think the world gets it. Think they know who the bad actor here Waas. They can’t all say it publicly, but I’ve convinced that the efforts not only that the United States has made but other countries to to push back against this. This information have been powerful and effective. Thank you, Senator King. Thank you, Mr Chair and Mr Secretary. Welcome. Thank you. The context in which we have this hearing is very, very complicated, and it’s almost just almost too much to talk about. In the last 24 hours, we passed 150,000 deaths in this country to Corona virus. And in my view, and I think in the view of many a sizable percentage of those were preventable. Had the United States handled the pandemic better This morning, the Department of Commerce indicated that the economy, because of covert shrunk at the greatest rate ever in recorded history in the second quarter of the year and then this morning, the president is suggesting at the presidential election should be delayed. I started. Want to start there? This is not something either you or I were prepared to talk about today because I think it happened in the middle of the hearing, the president sent out a tweet that said, quote, delay the election until people can properly, securely and safely vote question marks, not saying it will happen, but raising a question. Can a president delay the November presidential election? Mr. Secretary? Senator, I’m not gonna enter a legal judgment on that on the fly this morning. Mr. Secretary, you are an honors graduate of West Point. You are a graduate of Harvard Law School. You were on the Harvard Law Review. I was at Harvard Law School and I went to a lot of Red Sox game that went on the Harvard Law Review. You were very kind of. You are one of the most highly trained and accomplished lawyers who were part of this administration. Can a president delay a presidential election, Senator that the in the end, the department justice, others will will make that legal determination way All should one I know you do to Senator Kaine. Want to make sure we have an election that everyone is confident in? It’s not only for you. Are you out different to the date of the election? It should happen lawfully, right? Yeah. It should happen lawfully. So So for the for the record, because you may not want to comment on it, but I do think it’s important a president cannot delay election. The date of the election is established by Congress. It was established in 18 45. There’s no ability for a president to delay on election. And I don’t think it’s that hard a question or one that should lead to any equivocation by somebody who is fourth in line of succession to be president. United States. So rely me and let me ask another. Was Marie Ivanovich a talented public servant? I’m not going to comment on that personal matter. Was she a valuable part of the State Department family thunder again? The president made the very clear decision that he preferred that she not be our ambassadors fully with his right that completely I have every one of us that takes this takes on these jobs knows that at any minute we could be gone. I’m not asking that this is not a question about the president’s power. Yes, I’m asking about your opinion of her as a public servant and I didn’t interact with Ambassador Ivanovich. You did not know that significantly. So you do not really have you. Don’t consider that you have. No, I’m not. I’m not gonna talk about this. There will be a place in the time for me to talk about this, and I am looking forward to that. It is not the case that I talk about personnel matters. Wait. You You were very willing to tell us what you didn’t like about the inspector general. That’s in every sense toe. Senator Menendez. I waas very different situation. A very, very different situation. There have been accusations about misconduct and malfeasance and assertions that I fired someone because they’re investigating me that it demands a response. There’s going to be a public report. I want to get this thing. This is a different estimate, and I’ve been steadfast in this. So you’ve asked me about other ambassadors before, too? I haven’t talked about them who were great doing wonderful things. I didn’t do that either. You’ve been. Instead, I’m trying to determine whether you’ve been steadfast or not since I have so many State Department employees that live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yes, we’re very, very concerned about whether or not a secretary of state might have the back of a career professional who is a valued person. You were on a phone call with President Trump and President Zelinsky of Ukraine when the President said about Ambassador Ivanovich. She’s gonna go through some things. You know what the president meant when he said that I don’t but that you were on that call. That’s been your started. Yes, I waas when he said that about Marie Ivanovich, Did you ever follow up and asked President what he meant when I’m confident every action we took with Ambassador of Honor, which was completely appropriate, That’s not the question, but it’s That’s the truth. Well, that may be the truth, but how about answering my question? Not gonna talk about I’m not gonna talk about internal discussions at the State Department. You wouldn’t want me to, neither with your constituents, Senator came. They wouldn’t want Secretary State to come up here and talk about internal conversation about personal matters. You know that. That’s not a program. Can you just listen to my questions? You’re on the phone call. You heard the president say that about Re Ivanovich. And my question to you is did you ask what the president meant about that? Yes or no? The answer is I’m not gonna talk about either. I guess that you’re asking Did I ask the president? Yeah, but I don’t talk about commerce. You told me you don’t know what he meant. Yeah, I I just asked if you I appreciate your question and I hope you can appreciate why I don’t talk about conversations with the president here. Here was some testimony we heard in this room the other day from your I believe it’s executive secretary uh, Lisa Cannon, who is here for a hearing about her nomination. The Ambassador Peru, she said in her work with you, the work that her office does. They get correspondents for you someday open, sort of categorizing mice five before they deliver it to you. And then, she said, there’s a second category of correspondents that they don’t open if it’s personal to you, if it’s for your eyes only if it’s you know, something from another Cabinet member. They would not open that, but they would just deliver it to you. But she said, there’s 1/3 category of documents That was documents delivered by Rudy Giuliani to you, which didn’t go through the process of being opened. And it also didn’t you go through the process of coming to her and having it delivered to you. It came directly to you. Um, what was your response to Rudy Giuliani’s effort to sack Ambassador Ivanovich? Did you say it’s not your job? This is my job. The United States has the unconditional right to have the ambassador’s complete stipulated for the record, but it’s what we sent your interaction with. I appreciate this. Don’t don’t go into great magical effects with respect to how a package came Itt’s. It’s all silliness. You should. You should know, for the record, that that package was delivered to Capitol by the former inspector general, who ran frantically to Capitol Hill and made a big news. My time is up. I’m just going to say you might think this is silly. You might think these questions or silly. But when somebody works for their entire career for the State Department and their slandered with lies and sacked for no good reason, that sends a message that could not be clear to other State Department officials. And it may be just a big joke. I mean, hey, look at you, smiling and laughing. I’m silly. I don’t think it’s silly to Maria Bonaventure, the people who work for you. I don’t think it’s silly to the United States Department of State to understand that every ambassador, every political pointing, nos the president of states finds that they lacked confidence in you. The present has the right to terminate them. It’s that easy. Includes May Senator Paul straightforward. And you should note I didn’t slander anyone I did. This was handled appropriately and properly. Senator history demonstrates that wars are easier to start than they are to end. That’s there. We have agreement. We have agreement. I think the Afghan war is a great example of that. You know, after nearly 20 years of war, many are questioning the mission. In fact, many have been questioning what vision is in Afghanistan for a decade or more, including President Trump. Um, I traveled with him to the sad duty it at Dover, receiving two of our soldiers home, and I know it affects him personally. I know he’s been very public and very consistent, and, I think very sincere in wanting to end the war in Afghanistan. Army Lieutenant General Dan McNeill put it this way. When asked about the mission, he says, I tried to get someone to define for me what winning meant even before I went over and nobody could. Nobody would give me a good definition of what it meant. Some people were thinking in terms of Jeffersonian democracy, but there’s just not going to that’s just not going toe happen in Afghanistan. This statement was 13 years ago. When asked about our mission, General Douglas Lute said. We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan. We didn’t know what we were doing. What are we trying to do there? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were doing. This is from five years ago. How long is it going to take? You know what? What is our current mission? Why why are we in Afghanistan? Do we have ah, cogent military reason to be in Afghanistan right now? The president, given two missions, one is to reduce our force posture. But the risk to our young men and women who are fighting their second is to ensure that there is not a terror attack that emanates from that space. We said about conducting a peace and reconciliation process. We’ve now reduced forces there by about half since their most recent peak. We’re on our way to reduce even further hopeful that we will get the Afghans to begin their negotiation because President Trump has made very clear his expectation. We’ve entered into agreement that will go to zero. We’ll get our forces out of there. I think it’s May of next year. We’re looking to do that in terms that make sure we protect America from a. Would you agree that Afghanistan is just one of probably hundreds of places that we potentially have? Terror threats or radical Islamic threats on may not even be the no longer the primary hundreds. If you give me dozens and dozens. Yes, sir, Absolutely. And um, do you think that maybe it’s, you know, we talked about in Europe that we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany because there was the Soviet Union and they had, I don’t know, 2,000,003 million people in there are me, and we had this sort of Cold War standoff. But it circumstances have changed, and maybe even your opinion has changed over whether or not we need so many troops in Germany. And I applaud that. I think the same is in Afghanistan. It’s certainly changed over 20 years. The war on terror is now and always has been sort of a global one. But I think it may be 1/20 century idea that we have to occupy territory so much that we have to have acres and we have to have large bases, particularly in countries that are in prolonged civil war. But the other question is, is really is our is our goal in these in these locations around the world, our national security, or is our goal sometimes muddied by the idea that may sickly, You know, we’re in Afghanistan for for the Equal Rights Amendment or for women’s rights. So we’re there for, you know, democracy or making a country out of Afghanistan. Are we there for building roads? You know, we built a $45 million natural gas gas station in Afghanistan. They have no cars that run on natural gas. We bought them cars that ran on natural gas. They have no money, so we gave them a credit card. My understanding is that the gas station was supposed to cost 1/2 a 1,000,000 cost 45 million and is no longer functioning. So I mean, is our goal. National security or is nation building part of what we should be doing as a country president Trump’s made it unambiguous our missions that there is American national security, plain and simple. I had only this. There are times in the world where we are better off if there are democratic nations. The State Department is designed right toe to provide, to build resilience, to do this kind of thing. But I do think our foreign policy sometimes has been overly ambitious about what it is we can accomplish through the use of military force with respect to getting other nations. Teoh. I think encouraging democracy and being part of supportive of democracy doesn’t mean we have to pay for trying to institute our image in some other country because it just doesn’t frankly, were, um when we look at trying to end the Afghan war, I think in some ways we’re stuck in the sense that people have decided we can only leave with a some sort of treaty with the Taliban, some sort of agreement with the Taliban. I’m sort of of the opinion that in some ways it might make it worse because I think that the Taliban aren’t necessarily trustworthy. And if we leave under the agreement that they have to meet certain parameters, which is what we’re looking towards, and then they break those parameters were right back in, you know, with the threat to say in I think it’s almost that the threat has to be. And maybe the threat should have been this 20 or even 30 years ago. The threat should be that if you harbor terrorists that are organizing international terrorism, that you know there will be military repercussions. But those don’t have to be landing 50,000 troops. It might be landing 50,000 bombs, you know, And so I think we need to think about what are and I think we haven’t escaped. We’re still stuck in this idea of We have to. We’ve occupied this acreage and we have to do something with it, you know, and we can’t leave until it’s perfect. It’s never gonna be perfect there. And the only thing I would just exhort you is that let’s don’t base it completely on. You know that we have to have a perfect deal toe leave. I think there’s always the threat that we can come back and people say, Well, we there’s 10. There’s 10 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan they might be plotting right now And, um, you know, the president has admit you’ve said there are shadow of themselves, the president admitted. Have been reports that there are. You know, now we are talking dozens, not hundreds. We’re talking dozens, not thousands. Same with the Islamic state. General Lute came and spoke to one of our committees recently. He said he couldn’t name any group there they thought had the capability to attack the United States. He said there was no evidence that the so called Islamic state presents a threat to the U. S. From Afghanistan. So I think we do need to be mindful of that. But we do have to work towards finishing it. And the only thing I would say in the end, because I don’t want to finish this without mentioning that it takes friends of the president, the president, as policy people have to try to fulfill his policy. And I think for a long time for several years John Bolton was trying to thwart that John Bolton was an enemy of the president’s policy. So I hope the people who are remaining will try to fulfill the president’s policy and get us out of the war in Afghanistan. Thank you. If I may just take one second arrest with your permission, your point center center Paul, about the about the global spectrum of terrorism and the fact that there are dozens of Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. I think that’s the central thing that the American people need to understand wherever we were 15 or 20 years ago is not where we are today. And our resource is whether it’s our decision in Germany or decision about force posture and in Asia, Africa or in Afghanistan or Syria or any place else, we need to make sure that is updated for the actual threats presented to the United States of America. That’s what that’s what President Trump is driving us to do. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Merkley. All thinking, Mr Chairman and thank Secretary, want to start with the events that have have occurred in Hong Kong and what I really see is a violation of the agreement made with with with Britain between China and Britain and now that these events this new Chinese law that really, uh, exerts enormous violations of civil rights in Hong Kong has occurred. Should we extend asylum and visa opportunities to those who are being persecuted by the Chinese and Hong Kong IT work were reviewing that we’re considering the British have made a good decision. Australians have made a decision they’re gonna accept. Um, up to hundreds of thousands of people were looking at how best we might accomplish is in consistent with making sure that, um, well, we always want encourage people to try to work from within to the extent they can as well. And so it’s it’s important that we get this right on. The president is actively considering how we ought to treat those who seek asylum coming to us from Congo to grant a visa program that’s surrounds that. Well, it sounds like you’re open to the opportunity and are reviewing it. And I do feel like there are folks who will be highly targeted on, and they are concerned about being locked up for the rest of their lives. Young folks 18 20 years old in China, Chinese prisons Do the events in Hong Kong change our perspectives on Taiwan or make us think about ways to be more supportive of Taiwan. We obviously do a lot of arms sales and so forth. But should we be more active in supporting time? We Taiwanese participation in international institutions, all right, that they are different situations. There was an agreement with Hong Kong. Taiwan is that they’re different. But I think it’s fair to say that the Chinese Communist Party views them as the same right. If you ask the Chinese Communist Party, they would both view them as as part of their territory on. So that requires diligence and your question about international organizations. Not only the team that I have assigned to that, but the regional bureaus as well are working on multiple fronts. We we took a run at this in the World Health Assembly, now a couple of months back, and we’ve taken taking this on at the United Nations to make sure that Taiwan is represented in every place that it’s appropriate that they be represents part of formal and informal international gatherings. There’s a long standing convention that the president, United States should not. We would meet with the president of Taiwan because it would offend China, do you agree with that long standing convention center? If I made it for that, I’m happy. I’m happy to have a conversation with you about it. Here’s what Here’s what I’ll say with respect to Taiwan, there are Siris of understandings that have been long held, multiple administrations, multiple parties. We intend to continue out of that. We now understand the Taiwan Relations Act on the obligations that the United States government has with respect to that. We’re working to recognize the changes the general Secretary she has made with respect to this. And we want to make sure we get this right. Saudi Arabia has been abetting the flight of Saudi nationals who have done horrific crimes in America. And so really two questions. Do you agree that this effort, Teoh sweep people out of our country who have done or charged with doing horrific things before they could be tried is unacceptable? And do you agree if it continues to occur, the U. S. Should use significant diplomatic consequences for Saudi Arabia. Yes, to both questions. Something Thank you. So there is the report that well, we’ve done several things in in regard to the situation in Xinjiang. and the Chinese incarceration basically a slave camps of of a 1,000,000 of Uighurs, and we’ve done some recent things, and I applaud those recent steps to impose sanctions Teoh block exports that we’re done with forced labor in China. Um, but I also feel like there’s another narrative that has undermined kind of the effectiveness of off this. And as we we’ve heard about the president’s comments in November 2017 trip to China, where he indicated that president she should go ahead with building concentration camps and then again in June 2000 19 year and 1/2 later, the president’s our presidents president Trump’s conversation with President Xi saying again, basically should go ahead, building the camps and the right thing to do. I think it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do, and we have done some. As I noted, some steps that suggests that’s but should should we be more robust at every level in condemning the Chinese enslavement of the Uighurs? I’m actually I think the answer is yes. I’m proud of what we’ve done, the way that the United States has responded not only the responses we’ve taken directly, but the work we’ve done around the world to convince the whole world. Uh, what’s taking place there? Uh, I’ve been disappointed to see Muslim countries not respond when they’re often significant. Muslim populations being impacted there in Western China were urging them to take this on on a serious way on. Then I guess the last thing I’d say is, I think the with the objective of changing the behaviors that are taking place there. This is an important economic region, and so the things that were endeavoring to do It’s important we get the human rights piece of this right. It’s important that we get the individual sanctions piece of this right, but it is very important. And I’m I’m really happy with the work we’re making to convince businesses, not just American businesses, because it’s an international place of business that they should really look hard at their supply chain. It’s not just their direct employees, but their supply chains and what’s taking place there. I think if we get that right, we have the opportunity to change what’s taking place there. A quick point of the in a final question, some running out of time. The U. N fact finding mission on the rowing of the U. S. Holocaust Museum, a lot group engaged by the State Department to investigate atrocities have all found strong evidence of genocide by Burma. I really hope the United States will declare to be genocide because it is on and and it would. It would strengthen our representation and advocacy for human rights in the world. But I want to turn to Ah, Honduras. In my final question, the State Department human rights report talks about extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention, violence against indigenous Hondurans, violence against the LGBT communities. And in addition, we had in October Ah, US Federal court find that the president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, was implicated as a co conspirator and widespread drug trafficking and money laundering. And there’s huge reports of systemic corruption and human rights abuses in the context of all of this. Is it time to reevaluate our relationship, which has been quite cozy with the president of hundreds? They were constantly demanding that leadership and undertake this. The set of facts on board were well aware was taking place. And like in too many countries around the world, um, we’ve not had the effect that we desire. We’re working on Syria. Okay, Mr Secretary, Welcome. Good to have you here. In response to media coverage over the last few days in The Washington Post, NBC News, The Daily Beast in my hometown newspaper, The Indianapolis Star. I’d like to bring up the situation of Peter Casey and three other Americans who lost their lives. The hands of Isis. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to request the following columns from The Washington Post, Indy Star, NBC News be added to the record that be included, Mr. Secretary, You may recall meeting with the Kasich family last year, but is brief refresher. In October 2013 Indiana native and former Army Ranger Peter Kasich was on a mission of mercy. He was delivering humanitarian aid to suffering people in Syria. He was taken hostage by Isis and sadly, after months of torture and incredible hardship at the hands of these Isis terrorists, and in spite of his embrace of Islam, he was brutally beheaded. Sadly, three other Americans James Foley, Steven Sotloff and Kayla Mueller also lost their lives at the hands of vices, murderers. I know each of their stories air familiar to other members of this Committee. Since that time, some of the murders known as the Beatles have been killed in US led drone strikes. But others remain at large, and I know you agree they must be brought to justice. I believe that the United States government should work tirelessly, independently and with the cooperation of allies to hunt down the killers of these Americans and bring them to justice here in the United States of America. Mr. Secretary, do you agree with me? I dio and you should know that the President of States agrees as well. What efforts can the State Department and our missions overseas take to bring this about? So it’s a broad effort. I think we’re making progress. Uh, department defense, their intelligence assets, the broader set of U. S. Intelligence assets all aimed at making sure we understand and then working with important partners to who, um, who want justice but have a different set of rules about how to think about that. So working to convince them that proceeding to bring them to justice is the right approach. I am very hopeful that we will, in the coming weeks, ever Ah, good outcome here. You alluded to different perspectives that exists out there would precise obstacles stand in the way, and what can you do to overcome them? So so an example and stay away from this particular is. But an example is when we make a decision from time to time to bring someone back from from someplace else, either through extradition and through, uh, another legal process. Um, countries say, because we have the death penalty here because of a certain set of rules we have here. They won’t either permit that to happen or share the information that we might need to complete a successful prosecution. And one of our roles is to make sure that those countries will permit us to do that. I do want to interject, and it’s important to know here, though you were just using a new example. It’s my understanding that the four families are no longer pursuing the death penalty for these terrorists. Their hope is, is that the shift will alleviate any challenges whatsoever that we’ve encountered with the British government and their justice system and allowing the prosecution to move for in the United States. I appreciate that, senator, and that that’s important. Yeah, I’ll leave it at that. Yes, I am committed to working with you on. I suspect there are other members of this committee who will join me in that effort to ensure that justice is delivered and delivered here in the United States. Will you commit to working with me in this committee to ensure that, um, we perceive this matter accordingly? Of course. Yes, sir. All right, Thank you. Id like toe move to the United Nations and how? Over the past several years, Mr Secretary three US has lost ground in its engagement with a number of U. N. Bodies and programs. Most recently, the administration formally submitted paperwork to withdraw from the World Health Organization. At the same time, the role in influence of other countries, particularly the Communist government in China, has been growing at the U. N. It’s expanded its role in a range of U. N. Agencies with Chinese nationals currently holding the top job and four of the organization’s 15 specialized agencies. Three. International Civil Aviation Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, the International Telecom Union in the U. N. Industrial Development Organisation. For comparison, a French national leads to specialized agencies. The I M F and UNESCO. Uh, the UK Leeds won the I A low in the US leads just won the World Bank, although U. S National does lead the U. N. Children’s Fund and the World Food Programme, which are large and prominent U N organizations. So building on Senator Murphy’s earlier line of questioning, Why don’t we look beyond the World Health Organization? And I ask you, Mr Secretary, what implications does this this losing of ground within U. N. Bodies and agencies have on advancing U. S. National security interests and other foreign policy priorities that we might have in the U. N. System? Yeah, it’s very significant. And it is a at least 15 year long slide that has taken place and growth of the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in these institutions and organizations. Um, we’ve done a couple things to turn this around. We had really success in the world. The National Property Organization Chinese thought they had the fast track to that we put up again. It wasn’t an American candidate, but it’s the candidate that we believe has an understanding of intellectual property the same way that freedom loving democracies do, and we crushed them, and it was a amazing diplomatic effort. We built a coalition with the Indians, the British, the Australians and then built it out all across the world, were asking for about $20 million in this budget to take the team that we built there and make it a permanent team that is focused on these major elections for these 15 institutions. And then there’s another set that are slightly different but still very important. And then we have a second set of operations, which is it’s not just the leaders that matter at the U. N organizations, they have big bureaucracies underneath. Um, and we are sadly, inadequately represented at every level inside of these international bodies. And it matters. It matters that there’s someone there. It matters that their American, but it matters that they, if they’re not American, that they come from the nations that understand the rule of law and how the world ought to be conducted a way that we do. And so I’ve actually worked closely with about seven other countries to build out an effort that is very focused on exactly this. Sometimes, frankly, we’ve had opportunity, just didn’t put it, but We were offered a place and didn’t put anybody forward. The that’s not the right way to go. We need to make sure we get it right. I’m confident that in a year and two years will be in a better place than we are today, and I hope we’ll have. The resource is to do that. It’s a little bit of a resource that you but it’s a lot of a focus issue, and I’ve I think I’ve cleaned that up materially. Samper do, Um, I want to correct the record on a couple things here that have been said this morning. First of all, I believe that Secretary Tillerson’s two predecessors oversaw probably one of most major withdrawals and foreign policy from the global stage in America is overseeing, ever seen and create a power vacuum that allowed Iran, North Korea, Russia, China to step into that vacuum and actually, during that period of time, created a caliphate physical caliphate that allow the rise of Isis in Syria such that in January 2017 Secretary, I believe that the world was more dangerous than any time in my lifetime. We faced five threats across five domains. Iran North Korea, Russia, China and terrorism across air, land and sea. And all of a sudden we woke up and realized that are our would be adversaries have been developing capabilities in cyber and space that the prior administration had not really warn us about? So we woke up and we I think we’ve all now figured out in the United States. I think this consensus on both sides for the last 50 years, with all good intentions we got China wrong. I think there’s a general awakening that you have had three other Cabinet members along with yourself make tremendous policy speeches here just in the last month. And, um, I’d like to I’d like to quote some of that that you that you wrote about But you had Secretary O’Brien, our national security adviser. O’Brien, Talk about ideology. FBI Director Ray talk about espionage. Attorney General Barr, talk about economics and you talked about the warning here. I’m gonna quote this is your court. We had a very clear purpose in those four speeches. A real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China. The massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades in the Chinese Communist Party’s designed for hegemony. It’s interesting you chose that word because the Chinese love to quote Confucius and they quote one of his famous sayings, Is just says There can’t be, too. And they do this recently. Just is. There can’t be two suns in the sky. There can’t be two emperors on the earth, and the word they use for Emperor is not benign Dictator, which is the most common use of that translation. It’s Hedge, mont. They want to be the hedge mind that they feel like they were for 4000 years, You said further. Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established. You want on the same later in there and closing this out, you said securing. And I think this is the most important sentence in the streets. In my opinion, um, securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned toe lead it because of our founding principles. Give us that opportunity Tremendous statement that that will go down in history. In fact, it’s only 6% of Chinese popular. China’s population belonged to the Communist Party. Mr. Secretary, I would argue that our fights not with Chinese people. It’s with the Communist Party. There’s a statement from the administration here dated May 26 2020. It says we do not seek to contain China’s development, nor do we wish to disengage from the Chinese people. Can you articulate what the threats the Chinese Communist Party threaten our makes or represents to our democracy and our freedoms here? And what are we doing? Is the Chinese strategy, as we try to manage during your administration here as we try to manage this turn in our relationship with China, to confront them, to stand up to them, but also to protect our freedoms here? Home, there, there, there. There are multiple fronts to this, and these aren’t created by the Department of State. They’re created by what the Chinese Communist Party says Teoh. To your point, President Trump recognized that I talked about in this campaign 4 to 2015. Um, we gotta get this imbalanced corrective, and when we do, there will be costs associated with that. We’ve got the largest increase, our military buildup that President Trump has led. We’re very focused on arms control, Strategic dialogue that we’re having today with was in Vienna on 27th and 28th of this month. A few days back. We need we know we need China to be part of the two. There now a significant nuclear power. We’ve seen what’s happened on the economic front. We see the Belt Road initiative. So there are. They’re competing. Senator Rubio talked about their efforts in four or five technologies fears. This is a multi cut front campaign. It will take not only the United States government but the United States citizens to understand this challenge. And then we’ve gotta build out the global lines. And last thing I’ll say, Here’s I’ve seen I’ve seen it said that the United States is asking nations to pick sides between China and United States is fundamentally false, were asking every sovereign country to pick between freedom and tyranny. And that’s the choice every leaders got to make. And that’s when I go around the world. That’s what I talked to them about, and they all know they all know that the United States, the country that they want to be a long said they all know that freedom and our value system in the rule of law, on property rights and the protection of these a naval rights is central to their country. That’s why I think the tide is turning around the world and that people are seeing the Chinese Communist Party for what it is, the threat to the security of their people. I agree with the tyranny freedom. I characterize a little different, their state control and their self determination. The world’s turning into a binary equation. Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba. If you add up all the GPS of those state controlled countries, it’s probably less than $20 trillion if you add up the GDP of all the rest of self determining, that’s over $70 trillion. Mr. Secretary, I want to relate that back to the last question here that relate. That goes to your comments earlier about the number one thing. We don’t think you agreed with 1000 pit percent with Senator Murphy about allies being the answer here with China that a and this is a huge effort, it’s going to take years to develop, but right now we have an opportunity with the quad. The quite a quadrilateral security dialogue. This is United States, India, Japan, Australia and a great developments happening right now that India is very strongly considering inviting Australia to that exercise. Malabar. Would you comment on how important this particular the group is in relation to the bigger conversation? Just mentioned? The fact that the GDP of the quad is more than twice that of China today isn’t is not to be lost on the conversation. Would you just make one last comment on it? It’s more populous than China as well. These air these their nations that all have elected leaders. I’ll have democracies all understand, uh, in different cultures in different settings. I’ll have a central understanding about how commercial enterprise should be conducted and how military should engage in about how security is actually achieved. The good news is, I think this grouping is stronger than it’s ever been. Maybe we were gifted by general secretary She. He took actions that caused each of the leaders in those countries to recognize the value of this group. I meet with them with some frequency either phoner in person and we’re working economic efforts together. We’re working on covert responses together. There’s lots of places where we’re finding common touch points where we can develop real strength and unity. They can, in fact, provide the bulwark that we can build out from all across the world. Thank you, Senator. Produce in the grain thing. That secretary. Appreciate the good job you do for our country and leaning into hard issues forcefully. And that we need more that, not less. Uh, when it comes to ah u n envoy for Libya, do you support that we need a new one? Yes. Good. And I’m gonna try to get a letter from Member biting the committee to the U N. Secretary General saying please appoint a special envoy and miss sector. Anything we can do to up our game would be great. I know you worked with the Berlin folks and we’ll see if we can and we need the rain stability. Senator, I know you agree with that. Not just a new one, but the right person as well. Okay. Thank you very much of the Caesars act. Thank you for using it quickly and in a holding aside, son. Accountable is a great first step in what I think will be a long journey. The punishes regime is more coming. Yes, Senator. Thank you. Great job. Our talk to general means Muslim yesterday with the SDF. Apparently they’ve signed a deal with an American oil company. Teoh modernize through Oldfields in northeastern Syria. Are you supportive of that? We are. That would be a great way to help everybody in northeastern Syria. The deal took a little longer senator than we had hoped. And now we’re in implementation. Very powerful. You’ve been terrific in that regard. When it comes to Afghanistan, is it my understanding correct that any withdrawal from Afghanistan will be conditions based? That’s correct. And the inter Afghan dialogue hopefully will start here fairly soon. Yes. Yeah, hopefully, yes. So I apologize, and I don’t mean to make light of that. We’re very hopeful that in the next week I worried that I may have said that once before, but way See the conditions that have not completed enough task the way we think there’s a real chance weaken Well, in case the Taliban have fallen the hearing. I doubt if they are pretty hawkish gown Afghanistan. You’ve been great on foreign policy in general. From that point of view, I’d like to end the war, too. And I’d like to get the Taliban integrated into a new Afghanistan that respects the rights of women, where everybody can have a say through the democratic process. And the Taliban are part of the Afghan culture, their minority they’re not. They’re by no means a dominant voice in Afghanistan. But if we could help Pakistan and Afghanistan achieve a working relationship they’ve never had before on terrorism, we could get a inter Afghan dialogue started. I am willing to invest in an Afghanistan that, uh, has it place for the Taliban, but not to the exclusion women or religious minorities. So count me in for your efforts and our very much appreciate what’s all is doing. And and Adam, when it comes to China, is it fair to say that in 2020 Chinese Communist Party is running concentration camps? Teoh that house religious minorities? Be careful about the language. I’ve described it this way, Senator. It is something like that has the worst human rights violation that we have seen this century. Okay, fair enough. That’s a good description. You closed the Houston consulate. Damn because they were using the diplomatic platform to she still in lie when it comes to intellectual property, that intellectual property and other items as well. Yes. The special status of Hong Kong has been virtually destroyed. Is that fair to say yes? And I appreciate you speaking about it in taking action when it comes to the rule of law the Chinese Communist Party sees it’s more of a nuisance than anything else. I think the litter of promises broken across multiple forums demonstrates that they take those agreements for having very little value. If you got a property speech, you generally don’t build a military base on the contested property. You actually could have some kind of court and work it out. We just passed in the Judiciary Committee legislation modeled on jazz sta allowing Americans who have been victims of the Corona virus to sue the Chinese cameras body. Have you do you support that I haven’t had a chance to take a look? We’ll get it to you and please get back to us if you could, uh, bottom line. And Syria is never gonna end until we get the the entire fabric of Syrian society in a room working together the northeastern footprint we have where we’re working with the SDF who helped us destroy the Isis caliphate. They did most of the heavy fighting. Ah, that gives us leverage. Appreciate you being an advocate for the SDF. Appreciate that you, uh, try to work with the new leadership in Iraq. It’s important that Isis never come back. It’s important that we haven’t say about that part of the world. Finally, as to a Ron, where do you see the Iranian regime In terms of their potency, Are the sanctions working? And what would you advise this committee to do? Going forward with Iran So, Senator that the sanctions have clearly had an impact. It has diminished their capacity to underwrite, has blob Shia militias in Iraq, uh, but clearly hasn’t achieved the ultimate objective, which is to change the behavior of the Iranian regime on. So our view is this were happy to see them change. But until such time as they do, we see the best tools to start of the regime of the capacity to inflict terror around the world. So you’re supporting doing that? It is very important. And I talked a little bit earlier. I think you had arrived just yet about the U. N arms embargo that were working so diligently. Make sure it doesn’t expire in a couple months. Well, one last topic in again, Thank you. I think you’ve done a very good job from my point of view for our country, leaning into really difficult issues forcefully and with reason. Developmentally the house. $3 trillion build and have any money for vaccines going to the developing world. The Republican bill has about four billion. I would urge you to work with us to try to find a way if we can get a vaccine developed to get it to the developing world. Sort of like what we did with PET for because it will do no good toe eradicate here. If we don’t eradicated everywhere, would you work with us in that regard? Yes. We have presented something that that we’ve given a name Piper Pro, something modelled on PEPFAR that ultimately we think could be very successful. If we get a vaccine, we’re happy to work with you all on it thank you very much for sector. Thank you. Senator Graham. Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Secretary. Welcome. Thank you for your testimony. And thank you for your service as well. Let’s cover a number of topics. Let’s start with North Stream two. You and I have worked for some time on North String to and stopping the completion of that pipeline. Uh, as you know, over a year ago, I joined with Senator Shaheen and passing bipartisan legislation went through both houses of Congress with overwhelming bicameral bipartisan support, imposing significant sanctions on companies that participated in laying the pipeline of North Stream two. The president signed that legislation around 7 p.m. If I remember correctly on a Thursday and 15 minutes before that, his signature was on the page. The Swiss company that was laying the pipeline announced they were immediately ceasing all pipeline construction activities so that those sanctions worked. Russia has not stopped. They have a pipeline that is 90 to 95% complete. Now, the good thing about a pipeline is a pipeline that is 95% complete is a pipeline that 0% complete, cause it ain’t transmitting anything until they connect the two ends. It is my intention that they never complete this pipeline. Both Russia and Germany continue to press forward aggressively to try to find ways to complete this pipeline. As you know, Senator Shaheen and I again introduced even stronger sanctions to any companies involved in any way whatsoever. With the construction of the pipeline, those stronger sanctions were included in the nd a that passed this this body with overwhelming bipartisan support just last week. And so I’m hopeful, is the end a moves forward, that we will have those stronger sanctions in effect. At the same time, you made an important decision within the State Department, Uh, under Cassa. The administration has the authority, I believe, to sanction companies working to build this pipeline. Your predecessor, Secretary Tillerson, had issued, as I understand it a guidance that was widely interpreted as essentially exempting Nord Stream two. And and you made the right decision to rescind that guidance. Can you explain to the committee the importance of that guidance and what authority the administration has right now Today, with no additional legislation to sanction any company in the German company, any other company that participates in any way with completing this pipeline. So thanks, acres. The president made that decision to change that language was my recommendation. So I’m not walking away from it, but I wouldn’t make sure you bring to the president was fully on board with that. That change that language is important cause your point in this is a little bit too simple. But it was essentially get out of jail free card for those conducting activities surrounding notion. True, that’s no longer true. And both the State Department, part Treasury have made very clear in our conversations with those who have equipment there, and we can see that they’re responding, as are their insurers, the board of directors. Their lawyers all understand the, uh, express threat that is posed to them for continuing to complete work on completion of the pipeline. And we we remain hopeful that those who have the capacity finished this pipeline quickly won’t be able to do so. Choose not to because of these sanctions. And then we have the task of those that are harder to reach by sanctions, making sure that we do everything we can to stop in. The president’s been so clear about the security threat that night stream to pipeline poses to Europe or not been able to convince the Germans of that. Um, so we’re taking action ourselves to try and accomplish that preserve security for the European people. So, Secretary Pompeii, I know you care about this issue. I spent about six hours with the president yesterday on Air Force One, and North Stream two came up in considerable depth. Ah, as did the president’s frustrate ins with the leadership of Germany. Uh, let me point out that the State Department has a long tradition of sometimes obscure speech, perhaps rivaled only by the Federal Reserve. This is an issue in which ambiguity is not beneficial. And, as you know, the Russians air actively pushing disinformation that they’re not going to be sanctions for anyone involved in this pipeline. The Russians actively push this information that the bipartisan legislation I had introduced previously was not going to pass. That was wrong. And we had overwhelming bipartisan support that passed into law and and so I would encourage I believe under cat. So you have full legal authority right now to make clear and explicitly clear to anyone involved with constructing this pipeline that the consequences of doing so are catastrophic and not worth doing. And so I would encourage the State Department, and I recognize you work within an administration, and there may be other agencies that have different views. But if there are, those other agencies aren’t right in this matter. And so I urge you to speak with absolute clarity because it is only that clarity. I think that has any prayer of actually stopping the completion of this pipeline. And if the pipeline is completed, it will do. Serious damage is to the economic interest in the national security interest of Europe. It will do serious damage to the economic and national security interests of the United States, and it will benefit Putin and put billions of dollars in his pocket. There’s no need for ambiguity. President hasn’t been ambiguous about this at all. There was a reason that we made the change in that language. Essentially the waiver language, if you will were full and fully intent of sanctioning those that violate the provisions that air contained. They’re both in cats and otherwise thank you, that that’s helpful. Let’s let’s shift to another area that’s clear enough. I think that last statement had had had substantially greater