U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–367PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S 

FOREIGN POLICY: A MID-TERM 

ASSESSMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Serial No. 116–10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

( 

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

or http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY LEVIN, Michigan 

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia 

CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

DAVID TRONE, Maryland 

JIM COSTA, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Ranking 

Member 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CURTIS, Utah 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

RON WRIGHT, Texas 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

STEVE WATKINS, Kansas 

MIKE GUEST, Mississippi 

JASON STEINBAUM, Staff Director 

BRENDAN SHIELDS, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Honorable Madeleine K. Albright (Former Secretary of State) ........................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................... 57 

Hearing Minutes ...................................................................................................... 58 

Hearing Attendance ................................................................................................. 59 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Submission from Chairman Engel on behalf of Amnesty International ............. 60 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Question for the record submitted from Representative Yoho ............................. 73 

(1) 

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S 

FOREIGN POLICY: A MID-TERM ASSESSMENT 

Wednesday, February 27, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot L. Engel (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ENGEL. The committee will come to order. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, extraneous materials for the record subject to the 

length limitation in the rules. 

I must say, Madam Secretary, I have been on this committee a 

long time, and I have never heard it so quiet at the start, so I think 

that is a tribute to you and everybody feeling that we want to hear 

what you have to say. And it is almost as if royalty stepped in here 

for a little while. So thank you so much for being here. 

As we have so far, this committee will continue to grapple with 

the most immediate and critical challenges around the world. At 

the same time, I think it is important that we take a step back and 

look more broadly at the overall state of American leadership and 

foreign policy and to lay out our own vision and ideas. 

As we conduct that assessment of the Trump Administration’s 

foreign policy, we are honored to welcome one of our country’s most 

accomplished and thoughtful foreign policy minds, former Secretary 

of State Madeleine Albright. 

Thank you, Secretary Albright, for joining us today to share your 

insight. Welcome back to the committee. Welcome also to members 

of the public and the press. 

It will be no surprise that I have deep concerns over the direction 

American foreign policy has taken in the last 2 years. We have 

been walking away from international obligations. It has called 

into question America’s commitment to our alliances and core values. It has alienated our friends, emboldened our adversaries, and 

cozied up to strongmen and dictators and the people on the front 

lines of American foreign policy. Our diplomats and development 

experts have been pushed to the side. 

It is also a foreign policy that weakens and isolates the United 

States and makes us feel less safe. When we are not respected 

around the world, when we denigrate allies and flout international 

norms, it makes us less able to build the partnerships and coalitions that are essential for advancing our interests and, more importantly, ensuring our security. 
2 

Now, it is easy to stand on the sidelines and complain, but I 

think if we are going to criticize what we do not like, we also have 

a responsibility to offer an alternative. And there are a few big 

things that I think would shape such an alternative. They represent what I consider to be the pillars of a successful, uniquely 

American foreign policy. 

The first has to do with American values. When we are at our 

best, American values are at the center of our foreign policy. Of 

course, we always have to prioritize the security of the American 

people, and one of the ways we do so is by supporting and advancing human rights, democracy, the rule of law. Our foreign policy 

should reflect our country’s spirit of generosity and compassion, the 

foreign assistance and development efforts that help countries and 

communities lift themselves up. These are the right things to do. 

They improve people’s lives and burnish the values that make our 

country an inspiration. They show the world our character and 

bring other countries on to our side as partners. 

And that brings me to the second major thing: working together 

with other countries. For American foreign policy to succeed, we 

need to be able to work with a wide range of friends and allies. Our 

alliances and partnerships underpin our ability to diffuse crises, to 

respond to disasters, to push back against aggressive regimes, and 

other threats. Multilateral organizations and agreements helped 

shape the world in the second half of the 20th century, and the 

United States has traditionally played a leading role under administrations of both parties. As powerful as our country is, we are 

even stronger when we work with others focused on the same priorities. We are better at combating threats from overseas, whether 

it is violent extremism, a deadly pandemic, or climate change, 

when we are standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends and 

allies. 

And finally, the third theme. How will we pursue our foreign policy goals, and who will be responsible for it? The way I see it, we 

need to elevate diplomacy and development, because whether or 

not they are treated this way, they are absolutely essential to our 

national security. Seeing more and more traditionally civilian diplomatic responsibilities slip away to the Pentagon or the intelligence community has always been a major frustration for me. In 

all fairness, this trend started well before the current administration. We would not ask our diplomats to do the job of our uniformed servicemembers, and we should not be asking our 

servicemembers to do the things that our diplomats and development experts are trained to do, from conflict prevention to security 

assistance to face-to-face negotiations. 

In the last 2 years, a bad situation has gotten worse. The administration has chased some of our most seasoned diplomats to the 

exits. They have left important senior national security positions 

vacant. They have ignored the expertise of career officials and sent 

morale plummeting at the State Department. These committed 

men and women are on the front lines of American foreign policy. 

What can they possibly think when the people calling the shots try 

to slash their budget by a third? 

We need to make it clear to these dedicated public servants and 

to the rest of the world that the United States understands the 
3 

value of diplomacy, and we need to give our personnel the support 

and resources they need to carry out this important work. 

I intend to pursue an agenda built around these three major 

themes. I look forward to working with our members to find ways 

to do that, and I am eager to hear Secretary Albright’s views on 

where we go from here to build a successful foreign policy. Secretary Albright has always been my favorite, the words, the pearls 

of wisdom that come from her mouth. . . just a wonder to behold. 

It is good to hear it. 

So we look forward, Madam Secretary, and I will yield to my 

friend, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for any opening 

remarks he might have. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you again. I look 

back on our dinner at the Munich Security Conference last year, 

and I cherish that a great deal. We appreciate you being here today 

to impart your wisdom on this committee. 

Over the last 2 years, I think the President’s administration has 

implemented a forward-leaning foreign policy agenda. Right now, 

the President is in Vietnam to meet with North Korean leader Kim 

Jong-un. North Korea has launched—has not launched a missile or 

tested a nuclear device since the end of 2017. They have freed 

American hostages and returned the remains of missing soldiers. 

These are all positive developments. However, previous administrations, as you know, have negotiated with North Korea unsuccessfully. The regime in P’yongyang has a record of making empty 

promises in return for sanctions relief. 

I strongly urge the administration to continue the maximum 

pressure campaign we have for complete verifiable and irreversible 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I remain hopeful but 

also realistic and somewhat skeptical. There are few threats as 

dangerous as nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue regime. 

On Iran terrorism in Israel, I strongly support the decision to 

withdraw from the Iran deal. This was a flawed agreement, in my 

judgment, that provided over $100 billion to the world’s leading 

sponsor of terror. The inspections were not aggressive enough, set 

clauses that provided legitimacy for a future nuclear program, and 

the last administration, I believe, wanted a deal too badly, and we 

are less safe today because of that. 

This administration has also made crushing Islamist terrorism a 

top priority. As a former chairman of the Committee on Homeland 

Security, I have seen the rise and fall of the so-called caliphate. 

Now ISIS truly is on the run, but it is still a very real threat. I 

urge the administration not to withdraw our forces from Syria and 

Afghanistan until ISIS and al-Qaeda are completely destroyed. 

Any strategy for the Middle East must also include maintaining 

strong ties with Israel. I look forward to moving important legislation with the chairman to do just that. 

On China and Russia. There are many dynamic threats in the 

world today, and we are increasingly under threat from China and 

Russia. The Chinese Government steals our intellectual property, 

threatens Taiwan, preys upon underdeveloped nations through 

their Belt and Road Initiative. China is an adversary, and I am 
4 

pleased that the current administration is confronting Beijing over 

its trade practices and military adventurism. 

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine 

and attacked the democratic systems of other countries, including 

our own and our own elections. I fully support the sanctions placed 

on Russia for meddling in the 2016 election. 

A great deterrent to Russian aggression is a strong NATO. 

Thanks to pressure from the President, more of our allies are beginning to increase their defense spending. This is bad news for 

Vladimir Putin and a great policy achievement for the West. Finally, I applauded the administration’s decision to withdraw from 

the INF Treaty due to lack of Russian compliance, and it is interesting that our NATO allies agreed. 

On Venezuela, the current crisis in our Western Hemisphere. In 

our own hemisphere, the current situation in Venezuela is deeply 

disturbing. The socialist dictator policies of Nicolas Maduro have 

turned the country into a failed mafia cartel state. With little food 

and medicine, millions of people fled the country. Maduro’s armed 

thugs are now doing everything they can to stop the delivery of humanitarian aid. They have blocked bridges and roads. They have 

shot innocent civilians and set aid packages on fire. And yet as 

Venezuela burns, there are still people in America and around the 

world who defend and promote socialism. 

To see the dire suffering that comes from socialism, look no further than the chaos in Caracas, or the Soviet Union, or any history 

book. I commend the President for supporting the people of Venezuela in their quest to take their country back from Maduro and 

his crimes. I believe our Congress needs to directly recognize Interim President Juan Guaido and support his calls for a free and 

fair election. We are committed to the personal safety as well of 

Guaido, which I am very concerned with, and his family. In fact, 

we met with the Vice President yesterday who expressed his concerns about the safety of President Guaido. And I am sure all of 

us here share those sentiments. 

Madam Secretary, again, it is a great honor to welcome you here 

this morning. You have been a tireless diplomat for many years, 

and your personal story is inspiring really to all of us, so I look forward to hearing your testimony. As the chairman and I always say, 

partisanship on this committee should end at the water’s edge. 

These hearings give us a chance to put these politics aside and 

offer solutions to very, very complex issues in what is becoming an 

increasingly dangerous world. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. 

So let me start with the introduction. Our witness needs no introduction, but I will introduce her anyway. Madeleine Albright, 

first and foremost, is a great friend of mine, and I am honored to 

call her my friend. She served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 

2001, the first woman in American history to be nominated as 

America’s top diplomat. She had earlier served as our Ambassador 

to the United Nations and was a member of President Carter’s National Security Council. 
5 

She is now chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, a global strategy 

group here in Washington, as well as a professor in the practice of 

diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; 

chair of the National Democratic Institute, or NDI, for International Affairs; and president of the Truman Scholarship Foundation. She sits on the Department of Defense’s Defense Policy Board, 

as well as the board of the Aspen Institute. 

So, Madam Secretary, we are delighted to have you with us this 

morning, and I now recognize you for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT 

(FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE) 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul, 

members of this committee, thank you so much for having me here, 

and good morning. And I do want to start out by saying I believe 

in a bipartisan foreign policy. I think it is very important. I am 

pleased to be here, and I appreciate the chance to offer my perspective on the many challenging issues before the committee, and so 

let’s begin with some context. 

We live in a world being reshaped for better and for worse by two 

major interrelated trends. The first is globalization, which has 

brought people closer together than ever before and enabled us to 

travel, trade, and share ideas at an unprecedented rate. But for all 

its benefits, globalization is also threatening and faceless. Many 

people worry that they will lose their livelihoods to foreign competition and their separate identities to some vast, faceless, multicultural sea. And while I believe patriotism is a virtue, I am very concerned about the rise of a kind of nationalism that equates an affinity for us with a hatred of them. 

The second trend is the constant march of technology, which has 

helped the world to become more efficient and broadened access to 

knowledge, food, medicine, and markets. Whenever I am in Africa, 

for instance, I am amazed at the difference that cell phones have 

made to farmers and entrepreneurs and healthcare professionals, 

especially women. But technology, too, has a downside. 

A network that can disseminate truth can spread lies just as rapidly. And the rise of social media has enabled people everywhere 

to share their grievances both instantly and globally. 

We thought technology would help democracy by amplifying people’s voices, but it has also disaggregated them. It fueled protest 

movements such as Tahrir Square in Egypt, but did not help those 

protesters make the transition to governance. In fact, technology 

has made governing more difficult and given demagogues another 

tool to build emotional bonfires out of the kindling of lies, prejudice, and paranoia. 

These megatrends, for better and worse, are making the world 

more turbulent and generating disorder in practically every region. 

They were in evidence long before the advent of the Trump administration and, beginning in 2017, would have confronted any new 

Commander in Chief with vexing foreign policy challenges. 

But the question before the committee today is where does America stand in 2019? And more especially, what has President 

Trump’s foreign policy meant for the security and prosperity of the 

United States? 
6 

Now, as you have been told, I am a professor at Georgetown, and 

if I were grading Mr. Trump, I would begin charitably and mark 

many of his efforts as incomplete. For example, he kept his promise 

to negotiate a revised trade deal with Canada and Mexico, although he did create a lot of animosity with our closest neighbors. 

His administration’s heavy-handed approach to China could 

produce gains, and there have been signs of progress in recent 

days. His engagement with North Korea and Kim Jong-un has 

yielded scant dividends to date, but talking is definitely better than 

fighting. And I hope that the summit that is now underway in Vietnam will, unlike the earlier one in Singapore, generate real and 

tangible progress toward the denuclearization of North Korea. 

Afghanistan is another area where, to its credit, the administration is now pursuing a diplomatic strategy. But it is far too soon 

to tell whether we can responsibly end the conflict with a political 

settlement that would benefit the Afghan people and, therefore, 

America’s interests. In the Middle East, the administration has 

been promising for 2 years to unveil an innovative plan for peace, 

and we cannot judge what we cannot yet see. 

Finally, in Venezuela, the administration is right to press for 

democratic change, and we can all see the situation there is tense 

and complicated. The United States should not do anything that inadvertently strengthens Maduro’s hand. We should continue to 

work closely with colleagues in the region, while upholding the 

principle that the Venezuelan people alone have the right to determine their future. 

Now, that is the good news. In other areas, the administration’s 

record is marked by confusion and inconsistency, a lack of diplomacy and, in some cases, a complete abdication of responsibility. 

On Iran’s nuclear program, climate change, Trans-Pacific trade, 

and the INF Treaty, this administration has chosen to renounce 

the efforts of previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, and I believe each of these decisions was a mistake. Much 

of the Middle East is a tinderbox, and even the most seasoned foreign policy experts have trouble keeping track of who is on whose 

side as powers such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the Gulf States 

compete for influence. 

On Syria, we appear to be pursuing several policies simultaneously, confusing our allies, delighting our adversaries, and putting at risk the significant gains made since 2014 in the fight 

against ISIS. 

In Saudi Arabia, the President and Secretary of State have 

aligned themselves with a leader thought by our own intelligence 

agencies to have authorized the murder of a journalist. Henry Kissinger used to talk about the importance of diplomacy of constructive ambiguity, but there is nothing either ambiguous or diplomatic 

about a bone saw. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, having just been 

with many of you at the Munich Security Conference, I can attest 

to my sadness at the state of relations between the United States 

under this Administration and our allies in Europe. I do not, by 

any means, absolve Europe of all blame for the disagreements and 

misunderstandings that exist. We are right to ask more of them, 

especially in the form of contributions to our common defense. I do 
7 

think, however, that we can make our points more productively 

without bullying, name calling, and threats. If we are not friends 

with our friends, to whom will we turn for help? 

In that context, even many in the administration are in the dark 

about the President’s conversations with Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Russia continues to play a spoiler role in the Middle East, 

while working to undermine democracies around the world. And 

China must be getting very fat because its One Belt, One Road initiative is larger and larger, having influence in regions such as the 

Middle East and Africa that are crucial to the future of the global 

economy. 

I have more general concerns. The course I teach is about foreign 

policy decisionmaking process. My students look at how information has been gathered, options weighed, and actions decided on at 

key points in American history. 

Today, I am not sure we have a policy decisionmaking process. 

Vacancies persist across the spectrum of national security agencies. 

We still have no Ambassadors in, among other very important 

countries, Egypt, Jordan, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South 

Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. With the dangerous confrontation 

underway between two nuclear armed States in India and Pakistan, we may soon get to see whether this administration is 

equipped to manage a serious international crisis. 

I recently attended a U.N. conference on migration. Among those 

present were high level representatives from China and Russia. 

The chair set aside for the United States was empty. Worldwide, 

there are more refugees huddled in camps than there have been 

since the Nazi surrender almost three-quarters of a century ago, 

and yet the United States is less welcoming to the international 

homeless than at any point in modern history. 

Throughout the lifetime of my generation, people around the 

world have been able to look to the United States as the single 

most powerful leader on behalf of democracy, human rights, and 

the rule of law. We have never been perfect, but we have always 

been present. And we have always taken our responsibilities seriously because we have seen firsthand the cost of abdication, holocaust, and global war. 

Today, the enemies of freedom smell something in the air that 

gives them hope, the odor of America’s absence, and the impression 

that our leader shares their disdain for democracy. All in all, the 

situation is both sad and dangerous. This administration still has 

time to awaken, but my greater hope is with you, the men and 

women of the new Congress. 

Again, as I tell my students, many of the tools we have available 

to advance our interests in the world, including sanctions, trade 

agreements, and the use of military force, depend on Congress to 

be activated. Congress also plays an essential role by providing resources for defense, diplomacy, development, and democracy programs, which are crucial to the success of our foreign policy. I have 

met with enough Members of Congress from both parties to know 

that you did not come to Washington to preside over an abdication. 

You want America to lead. 

And as you know, the powers of the legislative branch are set out 

in Article I of the Constitution. Well, 2019 is Article I time. You 
8 

can, you must help us put us on the right path. So I urge you to 

use your powers of oversight and your influence with the public to 

ask the right questions and to hold the executive branch accountable. 

I commend this committee and Chairman Engel for your leadership in working to end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen, as 

well as the bipartisan legislation which recently passed reaffirming 

U.S. support for NATO. I ask you to continue to protect essential 

funding for diplomacy, development, and democracy in the face of 

the administration’s efforts to defund the State Department. 

As chairman of the National Democratic Institute, I have seen 

the benefits of these programs firsthand and can tell you that they 

are some of the most cost-effective ways of advancing our interests 

around the world. I ask you to reassure our allies in Europe that 

America will continue to stand with them and for the democratic 

values that are at the heart of the Trans-Atlantic Partnership. Engage with foreign counterparts wherever possible, including 

through official travel delegations. I so believe in the codels. 

Finally, never forget that when we work together across party 

lines, we set an example for other democracies, both established 

and emerging. 

At the beginning of the year, I had the pleasure of traveling 

down to Williamsburg for the congressional Research Service Orientation, which new Members of both parties attended, and it was 

so interesting. People had their badges on with their names and 

their States but not their parties. We had very interesting discussion. 

There is no masking over some of our differences, but I do believe in the importance of bipartisanship and the powerful signal 

that such cooperation can send to the world, and that is why I have 

recently invested time and effort in two initiatives that may be of 

interest to this committee. 

The first, a Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Security, and 

Prosperity was launched at the Munich Security Conference with 

the goal of rallying the democratic world on behalf of common values. More than 70 years have elapsed since the Atlantic Charter 

was issued and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was 

adopted. Perhaps we started taking some of these principles for 

granted. So the time is right to renew our vows and to engage a 

new generation in freedom’s cause. 

The second initiative is the U.S. Institute of Peace Task Force on 

Extremism and Fragile States, which is co-chaired by Governor 

Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Yesterday, we 

launched a report which called on the United States to adopt a 

long-term strategy of prevention, addressing the underlying conditions that fuel extremism in the first place by better coordinating 

U.S. efforts and pooling international resources to support partners 

in fragile States. 

In the interest of time, I would like to submit both documents, 

the Declaration and the Task Force report, for the record, and I 

would be very happy to answer questions about either of these efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, members of the committee, we meet at a moment of great uncertainty and global tur-
9 

bulence. We are in a new era, and we need to work together to 

build a consensus on what America’s position should be in the 

world. For my part, I believe that America must remain the indispensable Nation, but there is nothing about the word ‘‘indispensable’’ that means alone. We can and must act in partnership with 

like-minded countries to advance our common interests, to build a 

world that is more prosperous, secure, and free, and your continued 

leadership is essential if we are to achieve that goal. It is Article 

I time. 

Thank you very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Albright follows:] 
10 

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Submitted Statement of Secretary Madeleine K. Albright 

"The Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: A Mid-Term Assessment" 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

VVednesday,February27,2019 

Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, members of the committee: good 

morning to you all. 

I am pleased to be here and appreciate the chance to offer my perspective on the 

many challenging issues before this committee. 

Let's begin with some context. 

We live in a world being reshaped- for better and for worse- by two major 

inter-related trends. 

The first is globalization, which has brought people closer together than ever 

before and enabled us to travel, trade and share ideas at an unprecedented rate. 

But for all its benefits, globalization is also threatening and faceless. Many people 

worry that they will lose their livelihoods to foreign competition, and their separate 

identities in some vast, faceless, multicultural sea. And while I believe patriotism is a 

virtue, I am very concerned about the rise of a kind of nationalism that equates an 

affinity for "us" with a hatred of "them." 

The second trend is the constant march of technology, which has helped the 

world to become more efficient and broadened access to knowledge, food, medicine, and 

markets. Whenever I am in Mrica, I am amazed at the difference cell phones have made 

to farmers, entrepreneurs, and health care professionals - especially women. 

But technology, too, has a downside. A network that can disseminate truth can 

spread lies just as rapidly. And the rise of social media has enabled people everywhere to 

share their grievances both instantly and globally. 

We thought technology would help democracy by amplifying people's voices, but 

it has also made governing more difficult and given demagogues another tool to build 

emotional bonfires out of the kindling oflies, prejudice and paranoia. 

These megatrends, for better and worse, are making the world more turbulent 

and generating disorder in practically every region. They were in evidence long before 

the advent of the Trump Administration and, beginning in 2017, would have confronted 

any new commander-in-chief with vexing foreign policy challenges. 

But the question before the committee today is where does America stand in 

2019? And more specifically, what has President Trump's foreign policy meant for the 

security and prosperity of the United States? 

As many of you know, I am a professor at Georgetown, and if I were grading Mr. 

Trump, I would begin charitably and mark many of his efforts as incomplete. 
11 

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

For example, he kept his promise to negotiate a revised trade deal with Canada 

and Mexico, although he did create a lot of animosity with our closest neighbors. 

His administration's heavy-handed approach to China could produce gains, with 

signs of progress in recent days. 

His engagement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has yielded scant 

dividends to date, but talking is better than fighting. I hope that the summit now 

underway in Vietnam will, unlike the earlier one in Singapore, generate real and 

tangible progress towards the denuclearization of North Korea. 

Mghanistan is another area where, to its credit, the administration is now 

pursuing a diplomatic strategy. But it is far too soon to tell whether we can responsibly 

end the conflict with a political settlement that would benefit the Mghan people and 

therefore America's interests. 

In the Middle East, the administration has been promising for two years to unveil 

an innovative plan for peace; we cannot judge what we can't yet see. 

Finally, in Venezuela, the administration is right to press for democratic change. 

As we can all see, the situation there is tense and complicated. The United States should 

not do anything that inadvertently strengthens Madura's hand. We should continue to 

work closely with colleagues in the region, while upholding the principle that the 

Venezuelan people alone have the right to determine their future. 

That is the good news. In other areas, the administration's record is marked by 

confusion, inconsistency, a lack of diplomacy, and, in some cases, a complete abdication 

of responsibility. 

On Iran's nuclear program, climate change, trans-Pacific trade, and the INF 

treaty, this administration has chosen to renounce the efforts of prior administrations, 

both Republican and Democratic. I believe each of those decisions was a mistake. 

Much of the Middle East is a tinderbox, and even the most seasoned foreign 

policy experts have trouble keeping track of who is on whose side as powers such as 

Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Gulf States compete for influence. 

On Syria we appear to be pursuing several policies simultaneously, confusing our 

allies, delighting our adversaries, and putting at risk the significant gains made since 

2014 in the fight against ISIS. 

In Saudi Arabia, the president and secretary of state have aligned themselves 

with a leader thought by our own intelligence agencies to have authorized the murder of 

a journalist. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, having just been with many of you at 

the Munich Security Conference, I can attest to my sadness at the state of relations 

between the United States under this administration and our allies in Europe. 

2 
12 

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

I do not, by any means, absolve Europe of all blame for the disagreements and 

misunderstandings that exist. We are right to ask more of them, especially in the form of 

contributions to our common defense. I do think, however, that we can make our points 

more productively without bullying, name-calling, and threats. 

If we are not friends with our friends, to whom will we turn for help? 

In that context, even many in the administration are in the dark about the 

president's conversations with Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Russia continues to play a 

spoiler role in the Middle East while working to undermine democracies around the 

world. 

I have more general concerns. The course I teach is about the foreign policy 

decision-making process. My students look at how information has been gathered, 

options weighed, and actions decided on at key points in American history. 

Today, I am not sure we have a foreign policy decision-making process. 

Vacancies persist across the spectrum of national security agencies. We still have 

no ambassadors in, among other very important countries, Egypt, Jordan, Mexico, 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. 

I recently attended a UN conference on migration; among those present were 

high-level representatives from China and Russia. The chair set aside for the United 

States was empty. 

Worldwide, there are more refugees huddled in camps than there have been since 

the Nazi surrender almost three-quarters of a century ago, yet the United States is less 

welcoming to the international homeless than at any point in modern memory. 

Throughout the lifetime of my generation, people around the world have been 

able to look to the United States as the single most powerful leader on behalf of 

democracy, human rights, and the rule oflaw. We have never been perfect, but we have 

always been present; and we have always taken our responsibilities seriously because we 

had seen first-hand the cost of abdication: Holocaust and global war. 

Today, the enemies of freedom smell something in the air that gives them hope, 

the odor of America's absence, and the impression that our leader shares their disdain 

for democracy. 

All in all, the situation is both sad and dangerous. 

The administration still has time to awaken, but my greater hope is with youthe men and women of this new Congress. 

Again, as I tell my students, many of the tools we have available to advance our 

interests in the world- including sanctions, trade agreements, and the use of military 

force - depend on Congress to be activated. 

3 
13 

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Congress also plays an essential role by providing resources for defense, 

diplomacy, development and democracy programs which are crucial to the success of 

our foreign policy. 

I have met with enough members of congress from both parties to know that you 

did not come to Washington to preside over an abdication; you want America to lead. 

As you know, the powers of the legislative branch are set out in Article I of the 

Constitution. Well, 2019 is Article I time. You can- you must- help put us on the right 

path. 

So I urge you to use your powers of oversight and your influence with the public 

to ask the right questions and to hold the executive branch accountable. I commend this 

committee and Chairman Engel for their leadership in working to end the U.S. 

involvement in the war in Yemen, as well as the bipartisan legislation which recently 

passed reaffirming U.S. support for NATO. 

I ask you to continue to protect essential funding for diplomacy, development 

and democracy in the face of this administration's efforts to defund the State 

Department. As Chairman of the National Democratic Institute, I have seen the benefits 

of these programs first-hand and can tell you that they are some of the most costeffective ways of advancing our interests around the world. 

I ask you to reassure our allies in Europe that America will continue to stand with 

them and for the democratic values that are at the heart of the transatlantic partnership. 

Engage with foreign counterparts wherever possible, including through official foreign 

travel delegations. 

Finally, never forget that, when we work together across party lines, we set an 

example for other democracies, both established and emerging. At the beginning of the 

year I had the pleasure of traveling down to Williamsburg for the CRS orientation, 

which new members of both parties attended without wearing their party label on name 

badges. There is no masking over some of our differences, but I do believe in the 

importance of bipartisanship and the powerful signal that such cooperation can send to 

the world. 

That is why I have recently invested time and effort in two initiatives that may be 

of interest to this committee. 

The first, a Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Security, and Prosperity, was 

launched at the Munich Security Conference with the goal of rallying the democratic 

world on behalf of our common values. More than seventy years have elapsed since the 

Atlantic Charter was issued and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was 

adopted. Perhaps we started taking some of those principles for granted. So the time is 

right to renew our vows and to engage a new generation in freedom's cause. 

The second initiative is the U.S. Institute of Peace's Task Force on Extremism in 

Fragile States, which was co-chaired by Governor Kean and Former Congressman Lee 

4 
14 

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Hamilton. Yesterday we launched a report which called on the United States to adopt a 

long-term strategy of prevention - addressing the underlying conditions that fuel 

extremism in the first place by better coordinating U.S. efforts and pooling international 

resources to support partners in fragile states. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, members of the committee: we meet at 

a moment of great uncertainty and global turbulence. We are in a new era, and we need 

to work together to build a consensus on what America's position should be in the 

world. For my part, I believe America must remain the indispensable nation. But there 

is nothing about the word indispensable that means alone. 

We can and must act in partnership with like-minded countries to advance our 

common interests and to build a world that is more prosperous, secure, and free. And 

your continued leadership is essential if we are to achieve that goal. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

### 

5 
15 

Chairman ENGEL. Well, thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

As usual, I so appreciate your remarks and so agree with virtually 

everything you said. 

You mentioned that you had just come back from the Munich 

conference, as I did, and we saw each other there. And then afterwards, I went to Brussels, with the Speaker, to look at NATO and 

interact with NATO and the European Union. And one of the 

things that really saddened me and worried me at the same time 

is the message that we are sending or the administration is sending to our friends and allies, our closest friends and allies across 

the world that somehow or other, we do not value the alliances, 

that somehow or other, we want to go it alone. We do not want to 

work as closely with them as we have in the past. 

The President, when he first became President, said that NATO 

was obsolete, and we found a palpable concern about our allies— 

with our allies who are confused as to where the United States 

stands. Are we actually pulling away? Do we not take NATO or the 

European Union to heart the way previous administrations in both 

parties, frankly, have done in the past? 

So I am wondering if you could just give us your observation of 

what you saw in Munich and what you heard from our allies, the 

concerns, the worries. I would appreciate it very much. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I was born in Europe, and I came to the United 

States when I was 11 years old. NATO was created as a result of 

what was happening in central and eastern Europe as the Russians 

were putting together their empire, and it was not until the coup, 

the communist coup in February 1948 in my native Czechoslovakia 

that NATO came into existence. I have been a believer in NATO 

from day one, and I was very honored to have been asked to work 

on the 60th anniversary of NATO on a new strategic concept. 

I think NATO is an essential alliance, and our part in it is obviously key. I think we have confused our allies, and that is something that is very troubling. And by the way, we used NATO, with 

your help, in the Balkans. It played a very important role in ending 

ethnic cleansing, and I think that we are stronger in that partnership. 

What was very troubling for me at the Munich conference this 

time, and I have been to many of them, is we are always the subject of discussion but never kind of a sense that who are we, what 

are we doing, what are our goals? And therefore, I think it was so 

important that there were so many of you there, 50 Members of 

Congress that were there, I think in order to explain that America 

is America. And we do know that we have shared responsibility 

and that the NATO alliance is very important. 

What is interesting is that when we were doing the 60th anniversary of NATO, it was when all the NATO activities were what is 

known as out of area. NATO is now back in area trying to deal 

with the threats that are coming from Russia. And so it is, in many 

ways, back to some of the beginnings of it and more important than 

ever. And I do think that it is very important for all of us that believe in partnerships to deliver that message, because I was very 

worried about what I saw in Munich. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. In your testimony, you talked 

about confusion at the State Department. I want to address that, 
16 

because this committee has gone on record as opposing these draconian cuts, 31 percent, and in fact, in negotiations with the House, 

we were able to restore almost all of the cuts that we did not like. 

Both parties did it, because we had a Republican majority in Congress last time, and they fought this just as much as we are fighting it now. 

But what has happened is morale at the State Department has 

really plummeted, and the number of Americans seeking to join the 

U.S. diplomatic corps has declined during the Trump administration to its lowest level since 2008, according to State Department 

numbers reported this week. And we continue to hear reports of individuals at all levels choosing to leave their careers at the State 

Department because of low morale. I mean, the State Department 

is diplomacy. You want to fund diplomacy so there is not war. We 

have had the opposite, funding the defense. And I am for a strong 

defense, but the fact of the matter is hand in glove, you need to 

also have strong diplomacy. 

So I am also bothered by the lack of action by the State Department to address reports of retaliation against Department employees for their perceived political views, national origin, or sexual 

identity, and left unaddressed, these allegations have a chilling effect on recruitment and retention, and fuel a tense climate that 

makes it that much harder for our diplomats to accomplish their 

work. 

You led the State Department’s work for us for 4 years. What is 

your assessment of these recruitment and retention declines, and 

what can be done to reverse these trends? And also, what do you 

think is the impact of unchecked retaliation against members of 

the Department’s career work force and their ability to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I am very troubled by what I have seen, and I am 

grateful to Congress for having restored some of the money that 

was cut. You can not do diplomacy without diplomats, and I do 

think that—I am very saddened by what I hear and read about the 

State Department. 

When I left office, I made very clear how jealous I was of those 

that were able to stay and do diplomacy for a different administration. And I thought, they get to do foreign policy all the time and 

I have to leave. And the bottom line is what I found in them were 

people that are professionals that want to serve our country. They 

are not partisans. They are not people that need to be criticized for 

various things. 

I did something my children call eavesing, which is eavesdropping on a conversation, and I heard some people say, well, we 

have to get rid of those people in the State Department, they are 

not loyal Americans, at which point I had to admit that I had been 

eavesing and said I disagree totally. And I think that we cannot, 

in fact, punish the people at the State Department, and I am very 

troubled by the number of people that have left. 

I also am troubled by something else. As I said, I teach at the 

School of Foreign Service. It is not the foreign service. It is a school 

that really principally is trying to train young people to go into 

international relations. The number of students that have come to 

me and said, I am not sure I want to take the Foreign Service 
17 

Exam, given what is going on; what should I do? And I say, actually, you are not going to be making policy at the beginning. You 

are going to be stamping visas. But if you do not get into the system, there is going to be a break in the pipeline. 

And so it is not just a matter of what is going on now but what 

will happen if we do not have trained diplomats. And so I am very 

troubled. I am grateful to all of you. I think that we need to encourage—it is a tool. It is the major tool in our toolbox, and it does 

take trained diplomats to carry out American policy. So I am very 

glad that you are focused on that. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. MCCAUL. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me thank you, Madam Secretary, for your service to the 

country, but also your service recently on the Institute of Peace 

Task Force. The chairman and I were at a press conference yesterday with Senator Graham, Senator Coons, Governor Kean. As a 

former chairman of Homeland Security, I think we have done a 

good job protecting the homeland and being on the offense with our 

military, but the prevention side is where we need to really focus. 

And I think the recommendations of that task force should be very 

helpful to Congress. 

Shifting gears to Venezuela. There are so many hotspots to talk 

about, but when we talk about humanitarian crises erupting in the 

globe today, I cannot think of a worse one than Venezuela, where 

trucks are attempting to get into the country to provide humanitarian aid and Maduro’s forces are lighting them on fire and killing 

people. I know the U.S. is seeking the U.N. Security Council vote 

on a resolution calling for Venezuela to allow this humanitarian 

aid and hold free and fair elections. I hope to work with the chairman on a resolution from the Congress, speaking on behalf of the 

American people, in support of what is happening down there 

against Maduro and for humanitarian assistance. 

But to the point of recognizing Interim President Guaido, this 

has come up quite a bit, 54 other nations directly recognize him as 

a legitimate Interim President. Would you support this as a resolution from Congress? And do you support his efforts toward a peaceful transition? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I do think that the situation in Venezuela and the 

region is very dangerous and a horror show in so many ways in 

terms of what it has done to the people of Venezuela and the region, so there are various parts that I would support. I actually do 

think it is a good idea for us to recognize, but I also am very glad 

that there is a multilateral approach to it, a regional one, with the 

Lima Group, and then more and more supported by the Europeans, 

so that it is not just—— 

Unfortunately, the U.S. does not always have a great reputation 

in terms of our policies in Latin America over decades. And so I 

think having a multilateral effort on this is very, very important, 

and I hope we align ourselves more with the multilateral approach. 

I also do think, and this has something to go back on on the task 

force in many ways. The countries around Venezuela are ones that 

need help. Colombia. Those of us that worked on a bipartisan effort 

on Plan Colombia understand how many issues are going on there. 
18 

Then in the Northern Triangle and then people that are emigrants 

that are leaving Venezuela are putting a lot of pressure on those 

countries. 

I hope that we look at how to increase humanitarian assistance 

and development assistance to those countries because they are 

under a lot of threat. And so my approach to this would be multilateral, diplomatic. Sanctions, I think we might want to think 

about. 

What is concerning about a Security Council resolution, given 

what the Russians and Chinese are doing in support of Maduro, 

one has to be careful about what they might do in the Security 

Council. 

Mr. MCCAUL. That is a good point. I agree with you. The Lima 

Group. This is viewed as South America, not the United States trying to do this alone but, rather, a unified effort. 

North Korea. The President is meeting with Kim Jong-un. He 

met with him this morning. I want to get your—well, over the past 

prior administrations, three of them, we made concessions, but 

they are now to the point where they have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile we think possibly with a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be delivered as far as the United States 

Continent. 

What advice would you give to the administration as to how to 

move forward with this? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all, it has been a very long-term 

problem. I am very glad that we are following a diplomatic approach at this point. I think it is very important, and I was not exactly for fire and fury. I, until recently, was the highest level sitting official to have gone to P’yongyang. I went there in October 

2000 and met with Kim Jong-un’s father, Kim Jong-il. We were 

working on the issue of missile limits and a number of different 

things. And by the way, just a note, Kim Jong-il, the father, had 

said it would be fine if we left our forces in South Korea. 

And I think that, unfortunately, those talks were not carried on, 

and I think we have gone through any number of different talks 

and promises. And I do think that what is very important is to 

make sure that whatever steps are taken by the administration are 

done in a way that is worked out in a way where we are not giving 

away things without something in return. 

I was troubled by the Singapore summit, and I was asked whether it was a win-win or a Kim win. I think it was a Kim win because 

we gave up our exercises with South Korea and Japan, our allies, 

and did not get what we needed, which was some definition of 

denuclearization, some verification aspects, and that, I think, is the 

most important part. President Reagan said trust but verify, and 

so I do think that that part is important, and then some kind of 

a roadmap. This is going to take time. It is a dangerous situation. 

I think it is very difficult to have a discussion about it, as President Trump is sitting there now, in terms of how this is working, 

and I think one has to be careful not to interfere in that. I do think 

what I see as far as this summit is concerned, more diplomatic 

preparation with what Secretary Pompeo has been doing and what 

Steve Biegun has been trying to do. So I think that there needs to 

be reciprocity in the steps and simultaneity to them of one step or 
19 

another and for us not to give away things before we know exactly 

what is coming from the other side. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I agree. Do not make concessions without getting something in return; defining what denuclearization means, 

because it means something different to them than it does to us; 

and I think inspection of sites; and then, finally, a roadmap. And 

I think those are the three elements. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I also do think that the fact that the North Koreans seem to be big transmitters of technology to other countries, 

which is why the sanctions are so important, and multilateral sanctions on that. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. MEEKS. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is delightful to see you and hear you as always. And I am reminded, in looking on my last flight over to Europe, I read your book, ‘‘Fascism: A Warning,’’ and it reminded me 

that words matter. And our allies listen to all of the words that are 

said, particularly our allies and our enemies, by the President of 

the United States of America. 

And I must admit that I am deeply concerned about what is taking place in that I show as an example, for example, while we were 

over at the Munich Security meeting, the President tweeted out, in 

regards, he said that European countries should take back and put 

on trial hundreds of ISIS fighters who have been captured in Syria. 

Quote, ‘‘Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so 

capable of doing,’’ the U.S. President tweeted, and that was last 

Saturday night. And he warned that ISIS is ready to fall, but more 

than 800 prisoners could be made their way to Europe, and he 

would just release them if they did something. 

Those are his words at a time over there with our allies. There 

is one person that said that they are American citizen that wanted 

to come back and stand trial, and he said that they are not going 

to let her back in. So contradictory in terms. 

We look at what is taking place in Venezuela, and it is bad. We 

see millions of people crossing over to Colombia and Brazil and 

Peru, and we compliment them, but people who are also suffering 

in Central America, trying to come to the United States, he wants 

to build a wall to prevent them from coming in. Contradictory in 

nature. 

He says he wants to have a peace agreement on denuclearization 

of North Korea with nothing that is concrete, but yet he pulls out 

of the JCPOA that was with multilateral individuals that could be 

verifiable and people on the ground on a daily basis. So he points 

on one end where there is nothing verifiable; on the other end, 

complete verifiable. He pulls out of a climate change agreement 

and then says—and has the language of America first against all 

others. That concerns me with reference to our allies especially. 

Do you think that the words of the President of the United 

States really matter? And how should we then combat that as 

Members of the Congress as you talked about it is time for the 

First Amendment here in the United States—in the Constitution? 
20 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I am concerned about what is being said, and let 

me just say about my book. One of the best quotes in there is from 

Mussolini, or attributed to him, which is if you pluck a chicken one 

feather at a time, nobody notices. So there is a lot of feather plucking going on. By the way, it is hard to say those two words together 

too quickly. 

But, basically, the kind of points that you have made are part 

of the international feather plucking where people do doubt what 

we are doing. And I think so much of international policy does depend on the relationship and what you say. People take very seriously what is said by anybody, but certainly by the President of the 

United States. 

And the issues in terms of—I have to say, for me, I happen to 

have supported the JCPOA, because in many ways, it dealt with 

the most serious aspect of Iran’s behavior, which is troubling across 

the board, but their capability in terms of developing nuclear weapons. I find passing strange that the President has put himself kind 

of into a box, because if that kind of an agreement could be worked 

out on North Korea, not dealing with everything that the North 

Koreans are doing wrong, it is pretty much of a good blueprint on 

that. And then also, by pulling out of an agreement, it has undermined our relationship with the other members of the P5+1 in 

terms of can we be trusted on agreements? And it does go to the 

point of if we want to do something with allies and friends in Venezuela, can you trust America’s word? Or on the North Korea, it 

is going to take more than us to deal with some of the issues on 

sanctions. 

And so it is undercutting our own policy, and therefore, I think 

that it is very important to call it out. And part of the problem 

truly is that I do believe in a bipartisan foreign policy, and I will 

tell you what I find personally hard. It is not appropriate for a 

former diplomat to be abroad and criticize one’s own country, but 

also, most of us have to continue to have some credibility by telling 

it like it is. And I think that when all of you were, many of you 

in Munich, I think people need to know what the role of Congress 

is and how many Americans feel, that we cannot go into this by 

ourselves and keep plucking the feathers. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Mr. Smith for allowing me to switch places. I 

am the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and we 

have a hearing at 11, so he has allowed me to do that, and I greatly appreciate that. 

I also want to thank you, Madam Secretary. You may not remember this, but when you were Secretary of State, I had a constituent, Tom Sylvester. He had a daughter named Carina, and it 

was an international child abduction case. She had been taken to 

Austria, and he had been trying to get her back. He went all the 

way to the Austrian Supreme Court, prevailed there. Went to The 

Hague, under the Hague Convention, prevailed there, and could 

not get his daughter back, and you were kind enough to be involved. You met with he and I down at Foggy Bottom, and so thank 

you. 
21 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. International child abduction cases, they rip your 

heart out. And if you are involved in one, whether you are the person who has been adversely impacted or anybody involved, it is just 

a very sad thing. It does not get enough attention, so thank you 

for caring enough. I really appreciate that. 

Second, you mentioned you are a professor, I believe, at Georgetown, and you said, if you were grading the President on international affairs matters, you said you would give him an incomplete. And just in fairness to the President, this is—you know, he 

has been in office 2 years, so it would be half of his first term, and 

if he has a second term, it would be a quarter of his term. So I 

think he has made progress in different areas, but it is unknown 

where we end up with North Korea or a whole range of things. 

And I would just—you know, I think we should recognize that, 

for example, Ronald Reagan, who many criticized for being a warmonger early in his Presidency, it was later on in his second Presidency that he and Gorbachev essentially changed the course of history, and the Pope and others as well, so it did not happen right 

away. It took time for that to happen and the cold war to come 

down—or the Berlin Wall to come down and a whole range that 

was under, obviously, the next administration, but Reagan is the 

one who set it up. 

And even Bill Clinton, you know, he literally as he was heading 

out the door, was trying to get an agreement with the Palestinians 

and the Israelis and ultimately failed in that, but he sure tried 

hard. And that was in the eighth year. 

So I think just to be fair to the President, you know, he has been 

there a relatively short period of time, and he is trying in a whole 

lot of areas, and he has had other things on his mind. I am sure 

there is another committee today who is looking at things, and that 

has got to be real challenging for the Commander in Chief. 

But let me shift to another area, and that is Taiwan. I happen 

to be one of the co-founders of the congressional Taiwan Caucus. 

And President Xi recently said that he would not renounce the use 

of force in reunification, and I know Taiwan and the relationship, 

they are an ally of the United States. They are a democracy. The 

PRC, China, is our rival, our adversary. They are a potential 

enemy if they do things, they continue to do things like build islands and then militarize them. 

So in that very important relationship, which I also think does 

not get nearly enough attention being the hotspot that it could potentially be, would you comment on Taiwan and the importance of 

the U.S. maintaining that strong relationship and where you see 

the PRC ultimately ending up on this? 

Thank you. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I was in the White House when normalization 

with China happened. I was a staff member of the National Security Council actually doing congressional relations. And so I went 

to Taiwan—I mean to China with a codel before normalization with 

Senator Muskie, and it was exactly 40 years ago. And one of the 

things that I thought was very important as we got normalization 

was the Taiwan Relations Act, and it is something that has guided 

our relationship and the importance of maintaining it. 
22 

Whenever I am asked about this now, I really do think that that 

is a very important piece of legislation in the relationships that we 

have. And I was very troubled a couple of days ago to read about 

some of the threats, again, that Beijing is making against Taiwan 

and missiles and a variety of things, and I do think that we need 

to stand up for what is in the Taiwan Relations Act and make very 

clear that that relationship is an important one. We would like to 

see some kind of a peaceful way of dealing with our China policy, 

but I do think it is not—that we cannot forget what our obligations 

are. 

And it is interesting that it has been 40 years and kind of think 

about the things we learned about China’s behavior. I do think that 

the whole issue of our relationship with China at this point needs 

to be looked at. I am very concerned. I talked in my Statement 

about where we are at the current time, and I hate to see the 

United States withdraw from the international scene because the 

Chinese are filling the vacuum. And to have Xi Jinping all of a sudden be the proponent of climate change and multilateralism kind 

of does not make much sense to me. 

We are the leaders of the world. I believe in American leadership, and I am very concerned about our absence in places because, 

as I said, the Chinese are getting fat as the belt and road keeps 

getting larger, their influence in Venezuela, any number of things. 

I think we need to figure out what the right relationship is with 

the Chinese on this. They are a threat. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, and thank you for being here today. One of the 

things that really worries me about this whole situation in Venezuela is the destabilizing factor that it is going to have throughout 

the region. I mean, these countries cannot absorb the amount of 

people that are coming over. Quite frankly, Colombia has done a 

great humanitarian job in trying to help these people, but it seems 

that now—it seems that, for example, Peru has 700,000 Venezuelans. That is a great pressure on their economy. 

And for the first time since I can remember, I am happy to see 

that the countries of the region are taking on Venezuela. I have 

never seen so many countries in the region get together to try to 

bring us some sort of a resolution, but then I worry about the direction that some of these countries are going. I worry about the direction that Brazil is going. I worry about the direction that Guatemala is going. They just threw out CICIG, an anticorruption commission that was there, they just expelled them, got rid of it, disbanded it. So it seems like this is always the land of extremes. You 

have these dictators. They hide under the socialist label, and then 

you have the right wing dictators. 

So how do we, with our history in this region, talk to these countries and not so much take the lead but work with them and let 

them take the lead? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think it is very important for us. The Lima 

Group, really, I think is a very good grouping. I think we need to 

look at the functions of the OAS a little bit more in terms of how 
23 

they could be helpful on this. I also do think that we need to be 

supportive of the neighboring countries. And also, I have to say, to 

be more generous in terms of the immigrants from Venezuela by 

extending the TPS for Venezuelan refugees. 

I think that we cannot all of a sudden be telling other countries 

to take people and we are cutting our numbers in so many different 

ways. And so if we want to be a good partner in the Western Hemisphere, then I think we need to work with partners, the OAS system, and then with others. 

And I think the hard part about this is we would like this to be 

solved immediately. It is going to take a while. And I do think the 

following thing: Americans are the most generous people in the 

world with the shortest attention span. And we need to remember 

that this is going to take a while, that we need to put in the efforts 

with our diplomats, with our economic tools, and with the partners 

in a multilateral setting. Also, Americans do not like the word 

multilateralism. It has too many syllables and it ends in ism, but 

all it is is partnerships. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I like the partnership idea because of the history that we have had in this region. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. SIRES. We have to work with these groups. And now that we 

have all these countries banding together, we could be a partner 

with them, but I worry that we are going to try to take the lead, 

and some of these countries are going to start fading away. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. SIRES. I worry about that. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I mean, we have to be an active partner. By the 

way, the most revolutionary thing I did as Secretary of State was 

to move Canada into the Western Hemisphere. According to the 

State Department, it was in Europe, and so we wanted to have 

more democracies in the hemisphere. They actually are in the 

hemisphere, but having the Canadians as a part of this multilateral approach is also important. 

Mr. SIRES. Can you talk a little bit about this fake constitution 

that was voted in Cuba? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I have—it is very interesting because kind 

of the things that had been being done before was how to live up 

to a constitution, and meanwhile, the Cubans have gone another 

direction, so I am concerned about that. 

Mr. SIRES. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Secretary, welcome again—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To the committee, and thank you for 

your service. Time permitting, there is only 5 minutes. Just two 

basic questions, if I would—if you could answer. 

The first is with regards to China. When President Bill Clinton 

delinked human rights performance and MFN in May 1994, I and 

others were shocked. As a matter of fact, Nancy Pelosi and I joined 

together and worked very hard to try to get that reversed. It sent 

a signal that profits trumped human rights. When the President fa-
24 

mously linked it a year before, we applauded him to the nth. I 

mean, it was just such a good move, and the people of China would 

have benefited had we stuck to our guns. 

Today, as you know, Xi Jinping on all areas of human rights 

abuse is in a race to the bottom with P’yongyang in every single 

area you look at, especially in the area of religious freedom. The 

ruling Chinese Communist Party has undertaken the most comprehensive attempt to manipulate and control or destroy religious 

communities. And under this new policy called centralization, 

where every single believer, every single institution must comport 

with communist ideology or else; you know, Gulag, laogai, torture. 

We look at what they are doing to the Muslims, the weaker Muslims in the autonomous region, a million people in Gulags. 

What would be your strong statement to the Chinese Government right now on human rights in general, but especially what 

they are doing on religious freedom? They are rewriting the Bible. 

They are tearing down churches. What they do against the Dalai 

Lama, and of course, his people in Tibet, the Buddhists, is just absolutely appalling. 

Mr. SMITH. Second, if I could ask you how you would rate, you 

give incomplete scores generally to President Trump. But, as you 

know, I was the prime author of the Trafficking Victim’s Protection 

Act of 2000, and we are always glad that the President signed it, 

but getting there was extremely hard. 

Secretary Howard Koh sat just where you sat and was against 

the sanctions in the regime, wanted to have—rather than having 

the TIP report that comes out every year, the gold standard that 

does a narrative on every country on prevention, prosecution, and 

protection, the three Ps, he said fold it into the Country Report on 

Human Rights Practices, that the burdens of this reporting and 

this bureaucracy of the TIP office was just superfluous and we did 

not need it. He was also against the sanctions, which I think—just 

like in our own civil rights law, Title IX, why did Title IX work so 

well? Because it was a sanctions regime against college and universities that would not have women’s sports, and that is all of our 

civil rights laws, in my opinion, work because of a sanctions regime. We have robust sanctions, and he testified against that as 

well. 

But, again, it was signed. How would you rate the President on 

this? I have read this report cover to cover. Secretary Pompeo, 

again, put China on the worst list, Tier 3, where they belong, because they have horrible, horrible abuses on both the labor side 

and the sex trafficking side in that country. So, if you could, on 

those two issues. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all, let me applaud you for everything that you have done on human rights and on immigration 

issues, I have to say. I do think the following thing: There was not 

a time that I had a meeting with the Chinese, either at the U.N. 

or later, that I did not raise the issue of human rights. It has to 

be raised all the time. The question is, under what circumstances, 

when do you do it publicly? President Clinton and I did raise it 

publicly. 

I am concerned about the fact, at the moment, as far as I can 

tell, the issue has not come up between President Trump and Xi 
25 

Jinping. And I think it is very important in terms of the values 

that we have to always raise it. I think the hard part always is, 

is how in diplomacy are you able to raise those issues and then still 

continue to have a relationship. And to look at the larger relationship and when do you use sanctions and when do you not. 

Your point about the MFN, part of it was that, every year, we 

had to pull up the plan to see if it was growing to kind of see what 

our relationship was going to be with China, and we were for 

bringing them into the WTO in order to get some kind of regularity 

in it. The Chinese have to be pushed on all of this constantly. 

But I am concerned generally about our relationship with them. 

They are a threat. There are times we have to work with them, we 

are going to count on them to be helpful on North Korea. And the 

question—the art of diplomacy is trying to figure out what you do 

when and how, but there should never be a meeting of any kind 

with the Chinese where human rights are not raised in it. 

Mr. SMITH. And how would you rate the President on trafficking? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, on human rights in China? 

Mr. SMITH. No, on trafficking the—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. On trafficking, I have not seen a lot of activity on 

that, frankly. Incomplete. By the way, my grading, since I do 

grade, an incomplete is actually a friendly grade, because one can 

give a lower grade. And so it gives the opportunity, I think, for a 

change in behavior. I am about to meet with my students, I have 

a couple that I think are incomplete, and I am going to say, we are 

in the middle of the semester, do something. 

Mr. SMITH. But have you been able to read this? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I have not, I am sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. I mean, in every country—we are promoting this as 

a country—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I would very much—I will make a point of reading it. 

Mr. SHERMAN [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will skip myself and recognize the gentlelady 

from California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate you allowing 

me to speak. 

Madam Secretary, it is an honor to hear you, and I just really 

want to acknowledge our appreciation, our country’s appreciation, 

for your long history and your contributions. 

I wanted to ask you where you think U.S.-African relations are. 

I chair the Subcommittee on Africa and deal with African diplomats all the time. I often make a distinction between where Congress is, which Africa is a very bipartisan issue, but I do not have 

much to say when it comes to where the administration is. I cannot 

really offer an explanation, especially when our President is on— 

has been known to refer to African countries in such a derogatory 

way or make up the names of countries that do not exist. 

I also wanted to ask you about how the rest of the world was 

viewing how we are handling our own border. And then, finally, if 

you could comment about your book in terms of your concerns 

about our country. You raised the specter of fascism, and you make 
26 

the point that, currently, authoritarian regimes actually started off 

as being elected. So if you would not mind expanding on those. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I am very concerned about the lack of attention 

to Africa in many different ways. It is a continent that, it is interesting, people say Africa, when there are an awful lot of differences 

among the country. 

Ms. BASS. Like it is a country. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. And really, there are some really good news stories and some that are pretty tough. You have been very kind. You 

have gone on some codels with the National Democratic Institute, 

and I think that there really is an important aspect of trying to understand what the different evolutions are in Africa. I just had an 

interesting meeting, actually it was in Morocco, but there was a 

discussion about the fact that we should stop talking about northern Africa and—— 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT [continuing]. The Sahel, and that there really—it 

is an artificial line that we are drawing. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. And I think that we need to see where we can be 

more helpful. For instance, I am very pleased that during the Clinton Administration, that we did the Africa Growth and Opportunity 

Act, and that that is something that needs to be expanded on to 

see the opportunities. And so I think there is a lot of work to be 

done. It helps if you know where the countries are. But there are 

very many aspects of it, and your help on it has been very important. 

I also do think, I am not here representing—on behalf of the National Democratic Institute, but we do in fact have a lot of programs there. I think one has to look at whatever has just happened 

in the Nigerian election; Nigeria is a key country. So to pay more 

attention to it. 

I am troubled—I go back, and it goes back to kind of the way 

I see the world at this point. We are in a very, very different phase, 

for all the reasons that I mentioned. And I am troubled by the fact 

that divisions in our societies, whether it is in the United States 

or other places, are being exacerbated by those who identify themselves with one group at the expense of another, and that there is 

always kind of the other, are the immigrants. One of the things 

that we know is when you begin to develop scapegoats, and that 

is part of the thing of blaming the immigrants in whatever country. 

The Europeans have been doing it. 

I am stunned. I am an immigrant, and so, when now our—we 

have fewer numbers of people coming in than ever before. I think 

it is just stunning. So I do think that I am worried about the divisions in our society that then become exacerbated, where instead 

of trying to find common answers, we are kind of pushing us 

against the other. The thing that, frankly, blew my mind as I was 

doing research on this book, is that all the countries, beginning actually with Mussolini, they were—Mussolini and Hitler came into 

power constitutionally. 

The countries that we are worried about now, whether it is Turkey or Hungary or Poland or Venezuela, the Philippines, those people were all elected, and then take advantage of it and then exacer-
27 

bate. And so I think that is why we need to begin to look. I think 

the social contract is broken. I think there are very serious issues 

going on everywhere due some to technology and globalization. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, let me just say that I really have appreciated my experiences with NDI. I went to Zimbabwe last year to be an election 

monitor, and Kenya the year before that. It does put us in a little 

difficult situation because people do ask us about our elections. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. By the way, when I was—we were doing 

some work in Egypt, and I was telling people—I was meeting with 

some Egyptian parliamentarians, and I said, democracy really depends on compromise and coalition building. And they said, you 

mean like you guys? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Perhaps we need a parliamentary system of government in the United States, but that is beyond the 

scope of our hearing. 

I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Secretary, I was really grateful to be with you at 

Munich last week. I was very impressed, and again, your statements today about bipartisanship and foreign affairs. And then I 

particularly want to congratulate you on NDI. I have worked with 

IRI, International Republican Institute, and just as Congresswoman Bass, I have had the opportunity to be an election observer 

and how meaningful these programs are. 

And I also was very pleased last week to be with you for the rollout of the declaration. And I had hoped that it would get more attention. If you could tell everyone what the declaration is and what 

the significance of it is and how we can best promote the declaration. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. OK. First of all, let me just say, I love working 

with IRI. I became very good friends with Senator McCain, and 

Senator Sullivan and I are really kind of working through things 

now. So thank you very much for your support. 

I think the declaration of principles is very interesting because 

part of it was sponsored by the Atlantic Council, and I have to say 

that I was kind of skeptical at the beginning, but it is kind of going 

back to basics in terms of the kinds of things that bring our societies together, looking at what the role of the people are, what the 

responsibilities are. There are a number of statements to do with 

it that in a way are not just renewing our vows from 70 years ago, 

but also trying to outline what needs to be done. 

One of the things that we are going to be doing is reaching out 

and talking to people all over the United States, and a lot of the— 

it was international. So in terms of talking about what the basic 

principles are and bringing the younger generation into it. I have 

said that institutions and people at age 70 need a little refurbishing. So this is basically a way to go back and see what is germane now in terms of the role of the private sector, how countries 

work together, how people work together, the role of governments 

and individuals. I would be very happy to distribute those. 

Mr. WILSON. And it was impressive to me, the public, private, 

and also the different international organizations working together 

for the declaration. 
28 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. I was really grateful to have led a delegation on 

May 14 for the opening and the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to 

Jerusalem. And I felt like it was just so uplifting to be there. We 

have an extraordinary Ambassador with Ambassador David Friedman. With President Trump, it was promises made, promises kept. 

What is your view about the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, let me say, I have been a supporter of Israel 

forever, and I also spent a lot of time working on Israeli-Palestinian issues. The status of our embassy in Jerusalem is a final 

status issue, and I happen to think it was a mistake to do it at this 

point. That it has made things more complicated. And then also, 

I have been troubled by the fact that funding has been stopped to 

a lot of Palestinian groupings, which makes it very difficult. The 

Palestinians do not—now we have a very serious problem in 

terms—I am looking forward to see whatever peace plan is coming 

out of this, and I do believe in a two-State solution. 

So I do think that every country has a right to recognize where 

its capital is, but this was a final status issue and I think should 

remain—should have remained in that category. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I just—we have seen the consequence. There 

were warnings that there would be mass violence that did not 

occur. We were warned of so many different consequences, and I 

just appreciate President Trump having the courage to proceed. 

Also, I appreciate in 2000 your meeting with Kim Jong-il, and that 

we can have progress in diplomacy with North Korea. 

Over the past 2 years, North Korea has not launched a missile 

in 457 days, it had not had a nuclear test in 543 days. There have 

not been threats against the people of Guam by way of missile testing. The President’s initiatives have secured the release of four 

Americans detained in North Korea. DPRK has made a promise to 

destroy the missile engine test site in Kusong. And the remains of 

55 American remains of servicemembers have been released. 

Over and over again, there has been progress, and of course, the 

real concern, and you have identified it, and this can be part of 

what is going on in Hanoi today, and that is the correct definition 

of denuclearization. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I do think that it is important to be carrying 

on these diplomatic steps. I appreciate the steps that you have 

mentioned that have been taken, but we are a long way from 

where we need to be, and I think that we need to have diplomats 

working on this things prepared. And I hope that the talks today 

are successful. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you for your efforts in 2000. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I should point out that during the 

Clinton Administration, there was not 1 year but rather a severalyear period of no testing, and that well over 100 remains of our soldiers were returned, all without giving Kim or his father the status 

of a face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States. 

Madam Secretary, at our earlier meeting, I heard you talk about 

the importance of Article I of the Constitution. The most important 

part of that article is the right to declare war that is vested in the 
29 

Congress. Now, the War Powers Act, also known as the War Powers Resolution, is the preeminent statute designed to define the 

role of Congress when it comes to the most important aspect of the 

use of foreign policy, and that is, the deployment of military force. 

But administration after administration has honored it, at most, 

in the breach, and sometimes deliberately violated it. When they 

have presented reports that are called for by the Act, they are always submitted consistent with the Act, making a point that the 

administration does not believe the Act is a statute or a law that 

they have to follow. Whereas, other reports are submitted pursuant 

to an act. 

You are now no longer in the executive branch, you can look back 

at it as a professor and scholar. Do you believe that the War Powers Resolution is binding on the President, or in contrast, do you 

believe that a President can simply ignore it and deploy troops on 

long-term operations without an authorization to use military 

force? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Just as you were starting out, I made a note to 

myself, consistent with. And I do remember every time I testify to 

be absolutely clear to say consistent with, not pursuant to. So I literally just wrote it down before you said it. 

I do think that the Constitution is definitely an invitation to 

struggle on this particular issue. And I have gone through—I cannot—I do not know how much my students appreciate this, but the 

whole history of how these things have gone on and why the Gulf 

of Tonkin Resolution created this issue and how it has been carried 

out. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, you can go back to Jefferson’s deployment of 

the Marines on the shores of Tripoli. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Right. So I think the question is the following. 

And I, frankly, do think it is strange to be operating by an AUFM 

that came out, you know, like a long time, you know, as long as 

I have been out of office. But basically this is my question, and I 

know this is something that you have been working on is, how does 

one decide whether one gives ultimate authority to the President 

or limits it in such a way that—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to move on to other questions. But is the 

President the emperor who can deploy our troops anywhere in the 

world without authorization from Congress? Is that what our Constitution—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. The Constitution does not say that. And so I do 

think the consultation and work together on this—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, consultation is what the czar did with the 

Duma back in 1905. Does Congress have power or are we just an 

advisory—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think Congress has power, I do. 

Mr. SHERMAN. OK. I want to move on. You are right about the 

envoys—about all the open positions in the executive branch. Perhaps the most glaring vacancy right now is that we do not have 

a coordinator special envoy for human rights in North Korea. But 

I do want to focus on India-Pakistan. 

This is the only place in the world where two nuclear powers 

have gone to war with each other, or at least kinetic military battle, and that has recently resumed or been initiated. What can the 
30 

U.S. do to reduce tensions in South Asia? And what do we do about 

the fact that Pakistan seems to at least tolerate, if not support, certain terrorist groups while, of course, opposing others? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. You are not going to believe my answer to this, 

because my father was a Czechoslovak diplomat who, in 1948, represented Czechoslovakia on a first commission to deal with India 

and Pakistan over Kashmir. And he was the one that arranged the 

cease-fire for the end of the first fighting. And so I am old, he is 

dead, and the issue is worse than ever. 

Also, in my class, we do a role play. And even before the most 

recent thing, the scenario is India and Pakistan with nuclear 

issues. So I will let you know what my class decides on this, but 

I do think—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. We all have brilliant students in our respective 

districts. Do we have any guidance from the professor? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I do think that we do need to figure out some way 

to make sure that we do not have a nuclear confrontation. I think 

the U.S. needs to get involved in this. And I think that it is—it 

would be a good idea, actually, to have some kind of an envoy trying to deal with this. We cannot allow this to get out of control. 

And what happened under President Clinton was there was various things that went on, President Clinton met with the Pakistanis on cargo, and were trying to deal with it. We cannot just 

avoid this. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My time has expired. 

I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Albright, it is a privilege to have you here. Regardless 

of any political differences anybody has here in the room, I think 

that your personal story is an inspiration to people, certainly in 

America and around the world, and we commend you for your continued engagement in world affairs. 

With the rise of anti-Semitism at home and abroad, and you see 

it on campuses—and unfortunately, I think we have really witnessed it right here among some of our own colleagues in the halls 

of Congress.—what do you think Congress can do to highlight this 

resurgent evil? And what solutions or actions should we consider 

that we have not already taken? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I do think that it is something that we cannot kind of just not talk about and deal with, and I think people 

need to discuss what the results of it are and try to figure out how 

one deals with—and it is a hard issue in terms of freedom of 

speech, and also the boycott. I mean, I think that there are questions about how to deal with that and still allow freedom of speech. 

I just think that we all have to speak out about the results of 

it. And I would be interested to know what kind of actions you all 

are recommending on it. Because some of it makes it hard, it is not 

something that one can legislate as much as one needs to keep 

talking about that we cannot do, what I said earlier, which is to 

identify with one group at the expense of another and make them 

the scapegoats. That is what happened. 

Mr. PERRY. I think we need to, among other things, be careful 

about the parsing, which seems to be happening, where you can 

say that you are not for the Government of Israel, but you are for 
31 

the Jewish people. The Jewish people form the government of 

Israel. The State of Israel is formed by the Jewish people. And if 

you are maligning the government and the State of Israel at the 

same time, they are congruent, they are one and the same, they 

are the Jewish people. And I think that is the biggest thing we can 

do. 

I want to move on to a little bit, looking at some of your statements that you read to us here this morning, particularly regarding the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, and the scant dividends to date based on the President’s actions. And I agree wholeheartedly with you that talking is much preferred to fighting. 

Fighting is the absolute last resort that we should seek. But at the 

same time, I think we need to give this administration space. 

I do not like to see the President of the United States with a dictator anywhere. I think it does provide them some status that they 

would not normally have, but in the past, other Presidents have 

done it, and there has been little hue and cry from the other side 

that seems to revile this one. I am not looking through the world 

with rose-colored glasses. Kim Jong-un is a murderous dictator, but 

we have a circumstance that has been created because of the failures of previous administrations where we have a dictator with nuclear weapons. And you would know of anybody how complicated 

these issues are, and especially in that culture where a personal relationship, a personal relationship makes the difference in the negotiation as opposed to as much of the eaches. 

And while we say that this President has not done enough from 

the first meeting, it was the first meeting, the beginning of the dialog. And I will remind everybody that in the past, under an administration that you served in, we offered security guarantees, fuel, 

food shipments, and help on building reactors. And, you know, 

North Korea, as you know, after they said that was the last missile 

test, lied directly to you and continued to test missiles and build 

nuclear enrichment facilities in secret. 

So I just want to make the record clear here. And also, regarding 

comments on Syria, we appear to be pursuing several policies simultaneously, confusing allies and delighting our adversaries. I do 

not think—you know that is a very difficult situation, and this 

President has been put in an awful position of cleaning up a circumstance where our policy had kept Russia out of the Middle East 

for over 60 years, and the last administration gave them full entree 

and walked away, and now this President is trying to pick up the 

pieces on a horrific situation of a civil war which is supported by 

dictators in China and folks in Iran. 

And, finally, I am very concerned about comments where we 

would say that America—there is an impression that our leaders 

share a disdain for democracy. And with the little time I have, this 

President has supported democracies in Venezuela, put pressure on 

China, pressure on Russia, pressure on Iran, supported the only 

democracy in the Middle East, Israel, tried to maintain a relationship with Turkey, bringing back Pastor Brunson, and supported 

the Ukrainian defense against Russia. This President is a supporter of democracy, and I reject wholeheartedly—that is an inflammatory comment that is very dangerous, I think, to suppose or 

to imply that the President of the United States does not support 
32 

democracy anywhere in the world, including the United States. But 

I appreciate your input. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. May I ask the witness be permitted to respond to 

what I think was a question? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will recognize her for a short time, yes. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Let me say I am troubled by the relationships 

with some very authoritarian leaders. I think that a lot has been 

done to raise Kim Jong-un’s status. I agree with some of the positive steps that have happened, but I would also say that when the 

Clinton Administration left office, there were no long-range missiles, there was no more fissile material, and no nuclear weapons. 

And I think that it is very hard to deal with North Korea, because 

it is the trust but verify. And I do not know how many times they 

say they have destroyed Yongbyon. I think that we need to figure 

out what is really going on. And kind of having a love affair and 

some of the terminology is kind of difficult for people to understand. 

I do think—— 

Mr. PERRY. Difficult for all of us to stomach, but once again, it 

is better than fighting. And I would say that—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I definitely agree. 

Mr. PERRY. I would say at the end of the last administration, 

most Americans saw the United States at the brink of war with 

North Korea, and a great concession by North Korea at this point 

is no testing, and we are not at the brink of war. While I find it— 

some of the rhetoric distasteful, that is—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Could the witness be permitted to finish her answer? She was just interrupted. It is her time. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It is actually the extended time of the gentleman. 

You will have—I am about to yield to you. 

I do want to just comment on one thing the gentleman said, and 

that is, I have never met an Israeli who did not malign the Government of Israel. It is a national sport. 

And with that, I am going to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 

from Rhode Island, that I am sure he will want to build on—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here 

today and for your continued leadership and extraordinary service 

to our country. We could spend many hours, even days, discussing 

all of the shortcomings of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, but since I only have 5 minutes, I would like to focus in particular on values, namely, democracy and human rights. 

It is alarming how this administration seems to conduct foreign 

policy in a values-free vacuum. President Trump calls gross human 

rights abusers our allies, and treats our allies, including our closest 

NATO allies, like adversaries. As you said in your testimony, if we 

are not friends with our friends, to whom will we turn for help? 

The administration’s reckless approach and carelessness in damaging our alliances, in my view, is making America less safe. Congress, and in particular this committee, has a key oversight role to 

hold this administration to account and also to send a message to 

our allies about what America stands for. 
33 

And in particular, I would like your thoughts on what is happening in eastern Europe, in Poland and Hungary, where it seems 

democracy and rule of law are under increased threat. In your 

book, you refer to the erosion of democratic values and attacks on 

democratic institutions in Hungary. Unfortunately, as you know, 

Hungary is not an isolated case. We are also seeing warning signs 

of democratic backsliding in Poland. 

So I would be anxious to hear your assessment of what is happening in central Europe and eastern Europe, what is the state of 

democracy in this region, and particularly, what influence the 

United States has and how we should be using it, and what we can 

do more to support democracy in civil society in this region, in particular. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I am very concerned about what is happening in 

eastern Europe. And it is interesting, and I have gone over in my 

mind, frankly, what we might have done wrong in terms of our euphoria after the end of the cold war. Thinking that many of those 

countries were ripe for democracy, and democracy, as we know, is 

much harder than we think. 

And so—and believe it or not, Viktor Orban was everybody’s favorite dissident. He came to the United States—and by the way, 

George Soros paid for his education in England—and I think he is 

an example of exacerbating some of the issues that the Hungarians 

had. I did a survey over all of Europe at the end of 1991, and I 

cannot remember all the statistics and the questions, but one I remember is: Do you believe a piece of your country is in the neighboring country? Eighty percent of Hungarians thought so. 

And so Viktor Orban, who is a demagogue in many things, having invented a term called illiberal democracy, which is an 

oxymoron, has taken advantage of that anger in order to get support for policies that are completely undemocratic. And I think that 

that is a concept that makes it very difficult. 

Poland, I also, as kind of the birthplace of a lot of democratic action, I think again there is—I find hypernationalism a very dangerous aspect as far as democracy is concerned. And I do hope that 

what we try to do is to go and explain without being domineering. 

I am going to Poland next week. I am giving a speech in honor of 

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was my professor and my boss. Then I 

am going to the Czech Republic, and the Czechs treat me as some 

combination of a queen and an irritating older sister. I am going 

to give an irritating older sister speech since it is the anniversary 

of bringing them all into NATO. That NATO is not just a military 

alliance, it is a political alliance, and democratic values are a very 

important part of it. And I think we need to make it clear. 

And what I am worried about, our increasing separations between eastern Europe and western Europe. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. And I have just probably time for one 

more question. One of my criticisms of the Trump administration 

is that they seem to have little time for what have been real cornerstones of American foreign policy that you have written a lot 

about, democracy and human rights. And I wonder if you would 

just tell us a little bit about what role you think those values of 

democracy and rights play in our foreign policy. What effect will 

this administration’s disregard for these values have on our stand-
34 

ing and leadership in the world? And, in particular, the administration has failed to speak out in support of LGBT rights or to condemn atrocities committed against the LGBT community in 

Chechnya, is one example. What is the impact—do governments, 

when they fail to hear from the United States, behave in a different way? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I think that is a big impact. And one of the 

things that bothers me is, for instance, in Poland, there is no respect for the judiciary. There are those—I am concerned about 

what has happened in terms of this administration’s respect for our 

judiciary. About the role of the press. The rule of law. A variety of 

things that we hold are essential to democracy, and literally the extent to which some of them can point to what is going on here, saying, well, if you guys do it, why cannot we. 

So I believe that we do have a role to play as leaders, and I do 

think that we need to be very clear about what we believe in in 

terms of the rights of various groups and what our value system 

is, and we have been kind of burying that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized. 

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. I represent Kansas’ 

Second District, eastern Kansas, think farmers, ranchers, producers, and what can we do as diplomats and Congress Members 

to enhance access between our growers and international buyers? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. You know, I think this has been a very important 

part of American foreign policy for a long time with PL–480 that 

really started the farm programs. And I think that we need to 

make clear that our relationships with countries is based on a free 

trade aspect of this, and that we need to make clear how important 

our farming communities are, and to be as helpful as possible. I believe in that. 

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, ma’am. And in your testimony, you 

noted that this administration’s approach to China, quote, could 

produce gains with signs of progress in recent days. Now, given 

that, what should be the next step, particularly with regards to 

China? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I do think that we have been worried about 

some of the things they have been doing in terms of our intellectual 

property and just generally in terms of how they operate. And I 

think that the trade talks, from what I can tell, have gone fairly 

deeply, and while they need to be continued, I think there is a 

question—the President postponed the time of raising the tariffs, 

and so I think we need to keep pursuing to have some kind of a 

fair system, but where what we do is to be able to protect our intellectual property. And I do know that they have said they were 

going to buy more agricultural products, soy beans, so I think that 

is a good idea. 

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you 

again. 

I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
35 

And I will reiterate my colleagues in thanking you, Madam Secretary, for your service. I would also recognize, and I think you 

would agree with this, the men and women of our foreign services, 

our diplomats, our civil servants, our aid workers around the 

world, the tremendous work that they do representing us, and really just want to acknowledge to them that this body appreciates 

what they do every day, and the NGO’s that also project American 

soft power and presence around the world. 

Secretary Albright, in your written testimony, you talked about 

that there was some concern about the foreign policy decisionmaking process, and I would second that. And I will use two examples, you know, recent examples, and also about a year ago. If you 

think about the decision to withdraw from Syria, I was in the region in December, met with our special envoy to ISIS, Brett 

McGurk, and talked to our commanders in the field, and they are 

prosecuting their mission very well. 

Nobody seemed to have any idea that a public statement was 

going to be made by the administration. If I infer from Secretary 

Mattis’ decisions, it did not appear that Secretary Mattis had been 

consulted. We know from testimony on the Senate side, General 

Votel had no idea and was not consulted on this. And it is of deep 

concern. Let’s separate the actual decision, there is a deep concern 

amongst myself and I hope everyone on this committee, that there 

is not an interagency process that seems to be taking place as 

major policy decisions are being made. 

I would say the same thing about a year ago when a decision to 

support the Saudis and the Emiratis on their blockade of Qatar. 

You heard mixed signals coming out of the administration, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense saying, no, we are not going 

to take sides; the President of the United States taking sides. 

You know, from your time at State, what would the right interagency process look like, and where should we, from an oversight 

perspective, dive into this? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I have been fascinated at the decisionmaking process and participated in it. So it is one of my subjects 

that I spend a lot of time on. And since the 1947 National Security 

Act, there has been a process. Each President puts a somewhat different spin on it in terms of their own proclivities and how they 

like to do business. But the bottom line is the U.S. Government 

makes thousands of decisions a day. The harder the decision, it 

gets pushed up the line. And the hardest ones go to the National 

Security Council in order to be able to present a proposal to the 

President. 

And the very important part is how those decisions are set up, 

prepared by an interagency process, and then having a meeting of 

the principals committee, which means the Cabinet members that 

the National Security Advisor runs. And the best meetings, the 

ones that I have witnessed or studied, are the National Security 

Advisor makes a point of finding out how different departments 

feel about it. 

I kind of talk about it as breaking the eggs so that you really— 

and then the National Security Advisor would like to make an omelet out of them to give to the President. If you cannot make the omelet, then you go and meet with the President and go over the deci-
36 

sions again and present your different views. That, from everything 

that I can tell, is not taking place. There are some questions as to 

whether—I mean, I do not know anything beyond what I read in 

the papers, but whether there have been principals meetings. 

I think the Syria decision, and I am sorry that I could not answer before, I do not think we have done Syria right. I think there 

are many issues, and they go back to any number of aspects of it. 

But the part that was really ridiculous was having different members of the Cabinet say something different, so that we did not 

have any idea what the policy was, thereby making ourselves look 

completely inept. And the kinds of things—not just Secretary 

Mattis and various people—but, I mean, on any hour of the day 

you did not know what U.S. policy was, and that is the result of 

a nonexistent decisionmaking. 

Mr. BERA. And that has to be of deep concern to us, and certainly 

deeper concern to our allies if they do not know what our policy is 

and how that policy is being discussed and made, you know. I have 

the privilege of being the subcommittee chair on Oversight and Investigations, and certainly one of the things that we want to do is 

take a deep dive and a deep look into how these decisions are 

made, and we do think there is a congressional role in this. And 

if we are all speaking with one voice in a bipartisan way, we may 

or may not agree with the policy, but if we actually understand the 

thought and decisions that went behind that policy, it does project 

our soft power and our commitment both to our allies, but to the 

rest of the world, in a much more positive way. So thank you for 

that comment, and we look forward to—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you. 

I would like to thank Chairman Bera for his remarks. I certainly 

agree with that sentiment of having a bipartisan analysis of foreign 

policy decisions. 

And, by the way, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your great 

service to our country over the course of many years. You would 

be hard-pressed to find any Member of Congress that does not have 

respect for all of your service to our country, so thank you. 

Some of the observations with regards to an absence from the national scene or an odor of American absence of leadership, I do not 

want to misquote you, but some of the statements that you made 

today. We can have a difference of opinion on decisions that President Trump makes in some cases where the President might withdraw from the Paris climate accord. You can argue that that is taking a step back from American leadership, others are strongly in 

support of the decision. I think it is really important to note, which 

is part of the scope of today’s hearing, that there are many decisions that were made that it was America stepping up and being 

more involved and showing more leadership. 

And earlier you say the USMCA, as one area with regards to 

Canada and Mexico, where it was a tough negotiation, and there 

were improvements that were made to an agreement that was decades old, and it certainly was not easy in dealing with allies. I believe that withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal was American 

leadership, and obviously, you would argue the opposite. But, you 
37 

know, I have strong opinions as to why we should have withdrawn 

from the Iran nuclear deal. Moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, I would argue, was showing American leadership. 

ISIS is almost completely wiped off the map in Iraq and Syria, 

which is fantastic. This is something that has been going on, an effort over the course of a few years. But that map, just a few years 

back, looked really bad as far as the amount of territory that they 

controlled. The decision to use the MOAB in Afghanistan. I was in 

Afghanistan right after that decision was made. It was one that 

helped American forces, coalition forces, and it raised morale 

amongst the troops that I was speaking with. Passing the Taylor 

Force Act through Congress and then getting signed by the President, because there is a pay-to-slay policy amongst the Palestinians 

to financially reward terrorism. 

Congressman Cicilline brought up a great point with regards to 

the LGBT situation in Chechnya. That is a huge concern. But I 

think it is also important for us to acknowledge that it was just a 

week ago that there was an announcement made amongst the 

Trump administration led by Ambassador Grenell of Germany to 

start a global campaign toward decriminalizing LGBTQ all across 

the entire world, and I think that we should acknowledge that effort from a week ago and then decide—figure out how we can be 

helpful for that effort. 

I believe the American involvement in Venezuela, the support for 

the Venezuelan people and recognizing Guaido, is the Trump administration showing more leadership, not less. In August 2017, 

with regards to North Korea, the U.N. Security Council voted 

unanimously to increase sanctions, and China and Russia ended up 

voting with us. And I credit Ambassador Haley and her team and 

the Trump administration for their efforts to get that vote, but obviously there is a lot of other dynamics and complications as it relates to North Korea. We are having this hearing while the President and his foreign policy team are in North Korea. 

So while we are having a really important hearing where opportunities are going to be taken to share, it could be frustration or 

criticism with certain decisions the President made, because that 

is a congressional role with oversight, and it is important for us to 

do that. 

I just wanted to use my brief time just to cover a few other topics 

that are going on that, I would argue, are important for American 

foreign policy, even if we might disagree with some of it. So I just 

think there was a few more topics to add to today’s discussion. 

And once again, thank you for your great service to our country, 

for being here today, and the United States, really. I was a couple 

years younger when you were serving as Secretary of State, an 

honor to meet you in person, but I think our country is better off 

that you have dedicated so much time in your life toward the 

United States and global foreign policy and so many great causes. 

I yield back. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much. And if I just might say, I 

do think it is important to think about the unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions, and we all need to work on 

that more. I believe in executive legislative partnership on foreign 
38 

policy, and I believe in bipartisanship, and I proved that by being 

very good friends with Senator Jesse Helms. 

Chairman ENGEL [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your many 

years of service and your commitment to our Nation and democracy 

across the world. At this very same committee last hearing, we 

heard from Elliott Abrams. He sat right where you are sitting and 

provided testimony and answered questions regarding the administration’s actions and intent toward Venezuela. 

Despite his attempts at reassuring us, I am still particularly worried about his involvement in our efforts to support the people of 

Venezuela. This country has a long and dubious history of interfering militarily in Latin America, and Mr. Abrams himself played 

a particular role in that story. 

President Trump has frequently appointed individuals who are 

the anthesis to their positions in making high-ranking positions 

across our government. Yet the appointment of an individual who 

was criminally charged for lying to Congress about his role in arm 

sales to fund a coup in Nicaragua seems to particularly be irresponsible, even for Mr. Trump. 

Are you concerned that Mr. Abrams’ past participation in IranContra disqualifies him as an impartial arbiter, if you may, in this 

particular conflict in Venezuela? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I think that I would not have named him, 

but I do think that the President has the right to name the people 

that he wants. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. As a refugee yourself—and I have read about 

your particular story, a very compelling story, and one that I think 

should enlighten all of us during these troubling times. Do you 

mind sharing your view on how we are treating folks that are coming up to the border seeking asylum, many of them obviously running from violence, running from gangs, and natural disasters and 

the like? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. My short answer is it is un-American. That I really do believe that this country has had a generous policy. I do think 

every country has a right to make its immigration policy, and I 

wish that there would be a comprehensive bill to do with immigration. 

And I have to tell this story. One of my favorite things in life is 

to give people naturalization certificates. And the first time I did 

it was July 4, 2000, at Monticello. I figured since I had Thomas 

Jefferson’s job I could do that. And so I hear this man leaving, and 

say, can you believe it? I am a refugee and I just got my naturalization certificate from the Secretary of State. And I went up to 

him, and I said, can you believe that a refugee is Secretary of 

State? 

I think our country is about welcoming people, and what is going 

on at the border is un-American, separating the children, having 

no process, absolutely appalling. And I do hope that you all address 

that. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you. Let me go back to Mr. Abrams. Many 

in Venezuela, the folks that are fighting for democracy there, have 

been asking for arms there. Many feel they should be able to pro-
39 

tect themselves in the fate and the likes of what the Maduro regime is perpetrating against them. 

First of all, do you think that that is advisable? And are you concerned that Abrams is at the helm, and he already did something 

like this in the past, and he may again engage in this type of behavior? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I think that we do not need to add more 

arms there. I am not for—I am for assistance, I am for negotiation, 

I am for sanctions. I think we have to be very careful not to exacerbate the situation. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And what about military intervention? I know 

that when you served as our Secretary of State, you were involved 

in some military actions in certain parts of the world. Do you feel 

that the crisis in Venezuela has reached a level where that could 

be a potential option? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think—I happen to agree that normally what is 

said is all options are on the table. But I do think at the times that 

I was involved in using force, which was in the Balkans, was really 

after a great deal of negotiation and attempts at various other solutions. I have not seen that. There have been—the way that we 

brought people to the table at Dayton, for instance, was with very 

strong sanctions and a number of different diplomatic efforts, and 

I do not think enough of that has happened at this point. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And, finally, do you feel that the Maduro regime 

is a narco regime? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think that it has an awful lot in supporting corruption in a variety of different aspects in Venezuela. I think there 

is a genuine question about what happened in the elections, and 

I think that they certainly have had a lot to do with the drug trafficking and with corruption. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you for your service, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madeleine—Secretary Albright, thank you for being here, ma’am. 

I view this committee as the most important committee in Congress. And I say that because the right and strong foreign policy 

is good economics policy, it is good trade policy, and it is definitely 

strong national security. Therefore, welcome to the best committee 

in Congress. 

When you look at the world today, it is in the largest flux that 

we have seen since World War II, there is a tectonic shift in world 

powers we have not seen since World War II. Different countries 

are jockeying for different positions, as we see with the rise of 

China in the South China Sea and around the way they are going 

after the ports in the strategic areas around the world. 

Yet if we look over the past, and I cannot blame any administration, it is an accumulation of administrations over the last 30 or 

40 years, that has let a country go from a very backward economy 

to one of the second strongest in the world. Yet some things have 

been left unchecked. 

You know, when Xi Jinping came to the Rose Garden in 2015, 

with President Obama, said that the South China Seas, the land 
40 

that they were reclaiming, would never be militarized, yet at the 

same time, they are being militarized. Today, they are fully militarized. And then we see what is going on in the Middle East, over 

70 million refugees, the largest number since World War II, and in 

our own hemisphere with Venezuela, over 3 million or pushing 3 

million. And we are going to have an influx of refugees at our borders this country has never seen before. 

Stating all that, and the flux—not the flux, but the assault 

against Western democracies with what China, Russia, Iran are offering, mainly China, socialism with Chinese characteristics. As far 

as I am concerned, it is still communism, it is in their name. 

And then with Xi Jinping in 2017, the 17th Chinese Communist 

Party Congress said the era of China has arrived. No longer will 

we be made to swallow our interests around the world. It is time 

for China to take the world center stage. 

Do you feel that is threatening and the right thing for a world 

leader to say? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. You have described a world, the diplomatic term 

for which is, it is a mess. And I do think that there are all those 

issues out there, and we keep harking back. And I think we need 

to look at what our various institutional structures are and the relationships. 

I am very worried with the kind of pulling back of America from 

a number of roles that the Chinese are filling the vacuum. They 

are on the march in many different ways, and Xi Jinping is using 

nationalism as a way to motivate his people when they are having 

a number of different problems. But the issue, and this is what has 

to happen, is to have—to be able to have areas where we try to find 

some cooperation, and then find the areas where we have to compete and make very clear what our views are. 

I am troubled, in reading the threats issue that the intelligence 

community put out, they state this very clearly, the Chinese problems, the Russian problems, and then areas where we need to look 

at regional stability. And the thing that I—I am very glad to be at 

this important committee, and I am very happy to continue whatever longer term discussions, because with all of you I think we 

have to look at what our policies are going to be that are relevant 

for this part of the time and not keep thinking—— 

Mr. YOHO. Can I cut you off there because that is where I kind 

of want to go? Knowing the change in the world that is going on 

and all the conflicts that are going on, with your expertise, you history, knowing politics back in the 1990’s, knowing it today, and it 

has changed tremendously, what would you advise this committee 

to direct foreign policy, you know, to counter China and the BRI, 

we did the BUILD Act to counter that, and this committee passed 

that, it got signed into law. 

What else would you recommend that this committee—because I 

want to set policies in place for 50 years down the road that an administration just cannot come in and change on a whim, that it will 

have to go through a committee of jurisdiction. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I do think that one has to look at what the institutional structures are that we are working with and our decisionmaking process, but then also look to see to what extent we need 

international organizations, how we operate with them. Is the 
41 

UN—does it need help without us cutting our funding? I think we 

have to take a very large picture in terms of the institutions. I 

would hope that you would actually ask members of the private 

sector and academia and people like me, former practitioners, to 

come and talk about what the various issues are and not get involved in policies that bring unintended consequences. We need 

some forward thinking together, and the private sector also has to 

be involved in it. 

Mr. YOHO. One of your colleagues that got elected, Donna 

Shalala, was here in the nineties. She said—I asked her how 

things were going here, and she goes, this is completely different 

than when I was here. It is toxic. It is all politics, not policy. And 

I think that is a great warning. 

Thank you. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Ms. Wild, 

Ms. WILD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is an honor for me to be sitting on this committee and to be listening to your testimony. My late mother had 

the privilege of serving as a foreign service specialist under your 

leadership and was assigned to African affairs, and I am sure she 

would be thrilled to know that I am here today with you and that 

I was appointed vice chair of the Africa Subcommittee. 

I share Chairwoman Bass’ concerns that African countries are 

often ignored or overlooked in our foreign policy positions, but that 

is not the subject of my question to you today. Let me switch gears. 

In August 2017, the Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement which, of course, as you well know, was adopted in 2016 to 

create a structure for nations to pledge to voluntarily reduce their 

greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. My primary 

concerns are these: One, it shows a clear disregard for the seriousness of climate change; but second, and within the province of this 

committee, it demonstrates a recklessness in backing out of an 

agreement that the United States made with our close allies. 

I would like you, if you would, please, to discuss how the allies 

of the United States reacted to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. And also, what is the impact of us doing so with our allies in terms of our international 

standing and reputation for trustworthiness? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think it raises that very question, because so 

many agreements and diplomatic relationships are based on understanding and trust and living up to your word, frankly. I think 

both that and withdrawing from the JCPOA undermines what it is. 

Negotiations are negotiations, and people make compromises. And 

then if you walk away from them, why would they trust you on the 

next one? 

I actually think both of them are difficult, but the climate 

change, when you think about it, was done in way that left an 

awful lot of choice for each sovereign State. It was not kind of an 

order about everything. It was a setting up of a system to talk 

about things. 
42 

I also know when we withdraw from agreements or are not there 

when treaties are being negotiated, we lose our position. You know, 

the international criminal—we may not agree with everybody, but 

issues when we are not there, we walked out of the land or did not 

pay attention to the landmine treaty or did not pay enough attention to the International Criminal Court. We have to be there, and 

I think that a lot of agreements like that are based on trust, and 

we have undermined our trust. We are the most powerful country 

in the world, and we are destroying the capability to deal with 

problems by walking away from issues that we have agreed to. 

Ms. WILD. So we lose our place at the table. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Definitely. 

Ms. WILD. Can you discuss which countries have not ratified the 

Paris climate agreement, and whether the United States historically has aligned with the priorities of those countries, if you know? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I cannot list them, but I do think that when we 

align ourselves that way, we are sending a message. They are not 

exactly the ones that we would like to have something to do with. 

What I do find fascinating, and I mentioned this earlier, is all of 

a sudden the Chinese are the leaders on this. And when we do 

not—when we are away from the table and we do not lead, somebody is going to step in. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is so great to be with you, Madam Secretary, and I want to 

take this precious opportunity to ask you to think in broad and historical terms about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the 

arc of history and what we have done as a country and what is 

going on in the world. I think you touched briefly on India and 

Pakistan earlier. They are fighting right now, and obviously, they 

both became nuclear weapons States in recent years. Now we 

have—you know, I am very sad that we withdrew from the Iran 

nuclear agreement, and I am very worried about Saudi Arabia trying to obtain nuclear weapons. 

So I wanted to ask you broadly about that, but in the context of 

our own actions about our own nuclear weapons and those of Russia and China. You know, recently, the President withdrew from 

the intermediate nuclear weapons agreement with Russian because 

they were not complying, which they were not, but it is hard to understand how that is a constructive response. And I am very concerned that if we are stalled over a period of, really, many years 

of not getting anything done ourselves, and also, with these many 

other States trying to develop nuclear weapons, we are setting the 

stage for disaster. 

So I wondered what your perspective on this situation is. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, it is really, for me, that kind of was a witness to the evolution of nuclear weapons but also the agreements 

that were made, I think we have come to a very sorry state. I think 

one of the general themes here has been, and I have supported 

that, is that one has to look at what agreements are and then bring 

them up to date in any number of ways because they do not always 

suit the exact situation, but withdrawing from them is a mistake. 
43 

And the New START Treaty is up for negotiation. And what is 

happening is the Russians are updating their nuclear weapons systems, doing all kinds of things that are of great concern to us. We 

are modernizing our nuclear arsenal, but I think that what it 

means is that we cannot withdraw from things. What we need to 

do is to update the negotiation on them. I would hope that we could 

commit ourselves to a New START Treaty or to negotiating on the 

basis of the New START Treaty. 

And I think partially the way that the treaties have been set up, 

they are supposed to deal with when there is failure and cheating. 

Withdrawing from them does not exactly help, and it is giving an 

excuse to the Russians to go forward with things. We need arms 

control treaties. We also need people. There used to be kind of a 

priesthood of people that really understood all the nuclear—all the 

arms control things. Some of those people are no longer around, 

but we really do need to give a lot of emphasis to arms control 

agreements. And it goes back to the previous question in terms of 

trust and things like that, and I think we are undermining our own 

strength by not paying attention. 

The other thing is nuclear proliferation is a multilateral problem, 

and we need to look at it from that perspective. 

Mr. LEVIN. You know that when we sold nuclear technology to 

the United Arab Emirates, they agreed to sort of a gold standard 

of nonproliferation language in that situation, and I am concerned 

about the Trump administration possibly selling nuclear technology 

to Saudi Arabia without that kind of guarantee. How do we—I 

really appreciate your comments about our own nuclear weapons 

and agreements with others about that. How do we lead on these 

problems of increasing numbers of nuclear weapons States? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, we do have to have an agreement, the 1– 

2–3, to really—and the Saudis, as far as I know, there has been 

no movement on that. 

Mr. LEVIN. That is right. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. And legally, we should not and cannot sell it to 

them. But I do think that we need to constantly keep looking at 

the nuclear nonproliferation regimes that are out there, and as I 

said, require a multilateral action. But I think we have to be very 

careful not to be those that help the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that has a lot to do with what we are doing with North 

Korea and the stuff that they are selling to a variety of people. 

That is what people are concerned about is some sale from North 

Korea more to the Pakistanis or to the Saudis. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is wonderful to see you, Madam Secretary. I remember staffing 

you at these marathon sessions years ago, and now here I am with 

a chance to ask you some questions. 

I want to start by saying that I really appreciate your commitment to bipartisanship and your effort to give credit even to an administration that you are largely critical of on some issues. I have 

tried to do the same thing; largely supportive of what they are try-
44 

ing to do in Venezuela, for example. I think they, in some ways, 

are giving China more right than some previous administrations. 

But I do want to come back to a question that has permeated our 

discussion today, and that is what is happening to our moral authority in the world. Does it help us in the struggle for democracy 

and against dictatorship around the world when our President is 

calling our free press the enemy of the people or questioning the 

credibility of our own democratic elections or attacking the integrity of our intelligence community and our law enforcement community? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think it is very damaging, because I think—having spent a lot of time talking to a variety of foreign leaders and 

them basically saying, you mean you want us to do this, but what 

are you doing and saying? Our moral authority makes a difference. 

I think that one of the issues—and I always like to refer back to 

my father. He believed that the U.S. needed a moral foreign policy. 

That is different than a moralistic foreign policy, which kind of dictates everybody what to do, but we do need to have our value system in place. 

And the press, a free press is the basis of democracy. You cannot 

call them the enemy of the people because it gives Putin a chance 

to say the same thing. So I am very much concerned about what 

kind of a model or example we set. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. In the same vein, I could ask does it help us 

stand up to the Maduro regime, which has turned Venezuela into 

a socialist country by issuing emergency decrees in opposition to 

the elected Congress of that country when we are issuing emergency decrees of ourselves? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I have been troubled by that, because emergency 

decrees are sometimes used for the wrong purposes in order to exacerbate problems. I am very glad that the Congress voted against 

the emergency decree that President Trump put out. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you. On to the Senate. 

And I think that the bigger picture here, and we have not really 

brought this out thus far, is it is not North Korea, it is not Venezuela. These are individual crises. It is that we have two great 

powers, Russia and China, that are challenging the world order 

that we built and our moral authority to lead it. And it seems to 

me we are squandering some of our greatest advantages in that 

fight, our alliances with democratic countries that willing work 

with us. The example that we set at home, the consistency in the 

application of our principles around the world. 

I was there with you in Munich and heard Vice President Pence’s 

speech, and one part of it that really struck me was when he asserted at the very beginning that America is back as the leader of 

the world, and virtually nobody applauded. Can we be the leader 

of the world if nobody follows? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. No. I mean, and that is the part of the thing that 

is terrible, is I cannot—and you were there. I cannot repeat how 

proud I was to represent the United States. And I think that the 

fact that we have given up on a lot of our principles and that people question our trustworthiness or what our motives are, I think 

is weakening us. And the responsibility of any President of the 

United States is to worry about our national interests, but they are 
45 

being undermined by the way that we are treating our friends and 

allies. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. And would not you agree that President 

Putin’s primary strategic goal with respect to the United States is 

to divide us from our allies and to break our moral authority? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. No question. And we forget that we are dealing 

with a KGB agent who knows exactly how to use propaganda, and 

he has now militarized information, and what he is doing is systematically undermining our friends and allies in central and eastern Europe. He developed another oxymoron term which is authoritarian capitalism, you know, or a liberal democracy. That is what 

he and Orban have in common. And I think he knows how to separate and undermine, and we have to push back on that because 

he—I have said this, he has played a weak hand very well, and we 

have played a strong hand poorly. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. BURCHETT. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, ma’am, for being here. By my accent, you probably 

think I am from New York—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Definitely. 

Mr. BURCHETT [continuing]. But I am actually from Tennessee. 

It is very cool for me sitting here talking to you. I was just thinking—I am cutting into my time, but I think it is important—that 

in my pin collection I have a Muskie for President pin. I believe 

you were involved with that. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Definitely. 

Mr. BURCHETT. I was 4 years old when that was going on, so I 

just wanted you to know that. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I was a little older. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Yes, ma’am. That is all right. That is all right. 

And your story is very American. I was thinking of my momma, 

and she flew an airplane during the war. And she was kind of a 

nontraditionalist. I wish she was alive to see me sitting up here, 

say hello to you. 

But my question has to deal with China and dealing with their 

telecom giant. I believe it is pronounced Huawei. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Huawei. 

Mr. BURCHETT. OK, thank you, ma’am. And as the carriers prepare to roll out the 5G wireless networks, officials have raised 

some concern that Beijing could use Huawei to spy on our various 

networks or even to disable them. It has been reported in a couple 

of instances. But this has led, of course, the Trump administration 

to press our allies to avoid using their equipment. 

I was wondering what your take was on that. And do you see 

them as a national security threat? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I am very concerned by Huawei because 

they are very much a part of selling component parts that undermine the whole system. And I am very concerned about something 

generally that we are not thinking enough about a cyber approach 

and what technology could undermine, and I am very glad that we 

are pushing back on this. But it is a problem because our friends 
46 

and allies do have the same systems, and we have to figure out 

how to work with them on that. 

And by the way, I do think we need to also begin to look at some 

rules of how cyber works. So, you know, we had a conversation 

about arms control. We also have to think about what the next 

threat, and a lot of this has to do with technology, and there need 

to be some rules about that. I am concerned about Huawei. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Yes, ma’am. I am glad you said that. I do not 

represent it, but about 6,000 hardworking folks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory live in the district I represent, and I just this 

past weekend toured some of their—they have one of the worlds’s 

largest computers, and I can assure you that cybersecurity is at the 

forefront of everything they were talking to me about. 

The next question I have was about NATO. And I know you addressed that earlier. And I apologize, Mr. Chairman, if this 

questionhas been asked before. If it has, you just say, I have answered it already. Go on to something else. But NATO, you know, 

we—apparently, the other countries have been expected to pay the 

2 percent in the past. They have not, really. A lot of them have. 

I think we paid maybe 50-plus percent of the NATO budget. 

Do you think that the threshold this year—or do you think we 

are close to getting to that threshold with these other member 

countries? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think that this is an agreement that was made 

that they need to do it. I think a lot of people, however, do not understand what is being referred to. This isn’t putting some money 

into a NATO pot. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Right. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. It is what they need to spend out of their own defense budgets in order to be part of the system, and I do think we 

need to keep pushing at it. And I think that—but not by bullying. 

I think it is a matter of trying to keep pushing them as partners 

and then to really look at what the threats are. So I am all for it. 

I think that they need to do it. I do not think it is as close as I 

wish it were to be, and I think we need to raise it, but it is more 

the tone of how it came out and some understanding, and I think 

the American people need to understand what we are talking about 

and how NATO works. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Yes, ma’am. It comes to mind a saying my mother used to say, and it skipped my mind right now, but it is something to do with it is a little easier to lure bees with honey than 

vinegar, so I can understand that. Thank you so much, ma’am. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. BURCHETT. And I appreciate your—it is a great story. And 

if any of the young folks are watching this, I think they ought to 

research this lady, your grandparents, and where you came from 

in Czechoslovakia. I mean, it is just a really cool story. So thank 

you so much. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. It is a good American story. 

Mr. BURCHETT. That is what I said. I had it written—I wrote it 

in pencil up here. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Typically American. Thank you so much, ma’am. 
47 

Chairman ENGEL. Mr. Burchett, I want you to know that I only 

called on you because I thought you were from New York. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Yes, sir. Well, I know. We have had this conversation. My accent threw you off a couple of times. You asked me 

where I was from up there, and I have never—I hardly get to north 

Knoxville, much less New York City, But I plan on doing it 1 day, 

and I am going to hang out with you specifically. 

Chairman ENGEL. Let me invite you. 

Mr. BURCHETT. Thank you, brother. 

Chairman ENGEL. We would be pleased to have you. Thank you. 

Ms. OMAR. 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you, Chair. Hopefully, I can join that invitation to visit New York as well. 

Madam Secretary—— 

Chairman ENGEL. You are invited. 

Ms. OMAR. Madam Secretary, it is such an honor to have you in 

this committee. And my apologies for having to run to another committee, but I am so glad we have this opportunity to chat. 

Yesterday in my office, I met with some veterans who are part 

of Common Defense. They are veterans of wars we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq. They asked me some questions that were a little puzzling to me, and I did not really have answers for them. 

Those that I met who served in Afghanistan were not convinced 

that after 18 years of fighting, Afghanistan was better off for our 

having been there. And the ones that served in Iraq, they spoke of 

the trauma inflicted on communities there, as well as their own 

traumas and the ravages of war that they have been subjected to. 

In Libya, we talked about some of the stories. We are reading 

about migrants who being sold into slavery and the complete horror that is being faced by Libyans trying to flee their country as 

refugees. 

What worries me as someone who survived war and understands 

the horrors of wars firsthand is that the planning of wars does not 

seem to genuinely consider the human toll it takes, and plans do 

not seem to be made for recovery, and our moral responsibility to 

the people of these countries does not seem to be taken seriously. 

So my question to you and something I wanted to explore with you, 

Madam Secretary, is about the decision to militarily intervene in 

a foreign country. 

When it is made, how much weight is given to the dramatic toll 

that is going to be inflicted on the innocent civilians in that war? 

I do not just mean the civilian casualties. I also mean to the extent 

we weigh the long-term impact that we will have after we get 

there. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think that one of the hard parts is trying to decide what tool you use in order to deal with a particular problem, 

and force is usually the last tool to be considered. And I have to 

tell you, things that I never thought I would have to do in my lifetime, either at the U.N. or as Secretary of State, to raise my hand 

in order to say that we needed force somewhere. It is something 

that I did in the Balkans because I thought people were being ethnically cleansed not for anything they did, but what religion they 

were. And so I think it was the right thing to do. 
48 

Afghanistan was something that was the result of 9/11. The murderers came out of Afghanistan. I think the war kind of—the purpose of having troops there changed at a certain point. I do not 

think there was enough discussion about it. And I think that—I 

hope now that whatever agreements are made benefit the Afghan 

people and that it is done in a good way. 

Libya was an interesting example because, in fact, there is a new 

concept about responsibility to protect, which, if you know, that the 

leader of a country is killing his own people or calls them cockroaches, whether the international community has some responsibility for it. But I think you raise a very important point, which 

is that it is not just the moment of the force but what you do, how 

long you are there, do you continue to discuss it, and the decisionmaking process to what extent are the other parts of our government involved in it and not just doing it through the Defense Department. So I think you raise a very, very important point. 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you. For the remainder of my time, I wanted 

to speak about some of the other tools that you mentioned, the tool 

of using sanctions. You know, some scholars and practitioners of 

foreign policy have questioned whether sanctions are effective at 

changing the behaviors of certain governments. There is also a perception that sanctions are easily avoidable by the rich and the powerful, individuals that we target in using those sanctions. 

So I wanted to ask you, do you believe that there is a risk in enacting sanctions because of the real and perceived harm done to 

the people of the country? Is it possible that the use of sanctions 

undercuts our national security by furthering anti-Americanism in 

the countries we target with sanctions? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I cannot wait to go back to my class and tell them 

the questions you asked, because I talked about sanctions as a tool 

on Monday in class, and part of the thing is that there are not 

enough tools. We are the most powerful country in the world, and 

there are not a lot of tools. And sanctions get chosen often as kind 

of the middle tool. More bite than diplomacy, less bite than force. 

We have learned a lot about sanctions. We have learned that 

comprehensive sanctions, which we did in Iraq, hurt the people, 

and began to look more at targeted or smart sanctions. I think 

there are times they do work because what you are trying to do is 

change the behavior of a country. They need to be assessed at various times. 

The question is when do you remove them? Who is really affected 

by them? But it goes back to another whole question, is, does the 

United States get involved when we see terrible things happening 

in a country? Do we have a responsible international role? And I 

do believe in the importance of American action, and the question 

is which tool you choose. But they need to be assessed. It needs to 

be discussed about how they work together, which ones do you use 

when. 

But sanctions are often the tool of choice for obvious reasons, but 

I do think they need to be assessed in terms of whom who they 

really affect. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLRED. 
49 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you for your question. Thank your for giving 

me the extra time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLRED. Mr. ALLRED. Hello, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you again. 

Thank you for being here today. I want to just say that I think that 

your story is the epitome of the American dream. And to anyone 

who is watching, who does not know your story, I would encourage 

them to learn about what brought you to the United States and the 

work that you have done here. And I want to thank you for a lifetime of service to our country. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLRED. And, you know, I am increasingly concerned that future Madeleine Albrights might not see their future in the United 

States, that our light abroad is dimming. 

And I represent an area that is deeply tied to our foreign relations and our foreign affairs. We are an area that has benefited 

from trade, and so when we pull back from trade or enact tariffs, 

it hurts my region. It hurts our economy. We are an area, and I 

have spoken with a lot of business leaders in my community who 

want the best and the brightest in the world to come to north 

Texas and to work in our businesses there, and they are deeply 

concerned at the decrease in foreign students coming to some of our 

universities. And Texas, of course, has some of the largest ports in 

the country, and in north Texas, we have one of the largest airports in DFW. So we are an international hub. And so what happens in our foreign affairs deeply affects my district and my State. 

And I wanted to ask you, and I know you have worked on this 

and spoken about this, and maybe you have spoken about it today, 

and I might have missed it. But I wanted to ask you what we can 

do in Congress to better inform the American people about the effect of our foreign policy on our domestic tranquility. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I have to say it is the key point of all of this. We 

are such a large country and think that we are not affected by foreign policy. And one of the things that I have tried to do is make 

foreign policy less foreign in order to have people understand that 

our well-being depends on having international relations, in having 

a foreign policy. And so I do think that what is very important to 

do is to spend time explaining in everybody’s district which is how 

are you benefited by trade or foreign policy, or if there is terrorism 

somewhere, to hope that it does not come to America, any number 

of different aspects of it. 

And I have said—and I am happy to repeat this in front of everybody—I am very willing to go to people’s districts to try to explain 

why foreign policy affects our domestic life, that in this day and 

age, every American is somehow affected by what happens abroad. 

And for us to build walls or put—or moats or whatever undermines 

what we need in the world, is to be able to connect with other people. And trade is good for America, and technology, development, 

and any number of things, but we need to explain it better. 

I definitely—it is a vital part and most important for all of you. 

You are the ones that represent America, and so I think it is very 

important. I am happy to help in whatever way I can. 
50 

Mr. ALLRED. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. You are welcome in Dallas any time. We would love to have you, especially 

with some of my high schools, to talk about the work that you have 

done and how important our foreign policy is to what we are doing 

on a day-to-day basis. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. And the young people make all the difference. By 

the way, in my book, I always say there is not a speech or a book 

that is written that does not quote Robert Frost. So he said, the 

older I am, the younger are my teachers. And I am learning from 

my students, but I am very happy to go and be helpful. 

Mr. ALLRED. Yes. Well, thank you. And in my remaining time, 

I just want to address another theme that I think that has been 

discussed today, which is American withdrawal from international 

leadership. And I know you have maintained your connections. You 

were at the Munich conference recently, and I just want to ask, do 

you think that the damage that has been done is irreversible? And 

what concrete steps do you think Congress should be taking in 

these next 2 years to continue to repair some of those relationships 

and restore trust abroad? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. It is not irreversible, but it requires contact and 

experience, which is why I think having so many of you go to the 

Munich Security Conference as being very important. And I also 

hope that you all meet with your counterparts, parliamentarians 

from other countries. At the National Democratic Institute we are 

very interested in rule of law in the role of the legislative branches. 

And I just flat out invite you now to come with us on some of our 

election observing missions and to do a variety of things. They need 

to see what America really looks like and how you want to be helpful in this and that we need to have leadership. 

So please, I think it is a very—codels. I was talking about that 

earlier. I think it is a very important part. There was a time that 

there were Members of Congress that were proud not to have passports. Please, you know. So I do think you guys need to get out 

there. So any time. 

Mr. ALLRED. Thank you Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman—or Madam Chair. 

Ms. SPANBERGER [presiding]. The chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Maryland, Mr. Trone. 

Mr. TRONE. Madam Secretary, thank you again for your patience 

today. It has been a long day today. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. It is a lot of fun, I have to say. 

Mr. TRONE. I have been really struck by your tremendous leadership with compassion, leadership with civility, and leadership and 

bipartisanship. And I will tell you, that is all in short supply here. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. TRONE. So thank you very, very much. We talked about, followup on Mr. Malinowski’s point earlier, about America’s reputation. We think about how President Trump in Venezuela has held 

them to standards, held Maduro and held his feet to the fire, but 

at the same time, to juxtapose that in the Philippines, in Russia, 

in Korea. We have had elections stolen. We have not held anybody 

to the fire of truth. And do you think that lack of consistency 

causes us irreparable harm to our reputation? 
51 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think it does, and it is very hard to follow. I 

mean, the hard part is to figure out what the strategy really is, and 

even though there is documents—I mean, what I found interesting 

is that the Trump administration put out its National Security 

Strategy very early. The question is to what extent is it being followed. And we do confuse people very much. And I think it goes 

to the points about trust, what our leadership role is, what our relationships are, and I do think consistency is something that would 

help. 

Mr. TRONE. Yes. It really drives at competence at the end of the 

day. 

Talk about Saudi Arabia a second. I have been concerned that— 

you mentioned earlier the bone saw. The situation with Khashoggi. 

We think about what has happened with Qatar. We think about 

the dissidents that have disappeared in Saudi Arabia and taken 

away. We think about the theft of probably $100 billion from other 

Saudis locked in the hotel. We think about the Prime Minister of 

Lebanon who has been kidnapped. And then we think about 

Yemen; over 100,000 folks are dead, probably 20-some million on 

the brink of starvation. We have a 33-year-old Crown Prince that 

is—you know, the country has been our ally, but we have a tremendous amount of arrogance, perhaps driven by age, perhaps driven 

by wealth beyond imagination. 

What should we be doing about this? Should we just say, oh, it 

is OK, and let it go? Because once we do that, my concern is, for 

50 years, your grandchildren and their grandchildren will have to 

deal with this. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think the hard part about State craft is trying 

to figure out how you say what is your value system, what you believe, everything, and at the same time, recognize that sometimes 

you have to have a relationship with a leadership that you disrespect or do not like or whatever. I think we need to make very 

clear that the actions that you have talked about are unacceptable, 

and at the same time, try to keep a relationship with Saudi Arabia. 

That is very hard. That does not mean selling arms to them, but 

trying to sort out how you can do both things, you know, kind of 

this, at the same time. 

And basically, I do think that we need to keep calling out what 

happened on Khashoggi and what our intelligence communities 

have been saying and not deny that those kind of things are going 

on. But it is Franklin Roosevelt who established the relationship 

with Saudi Arabia. Never was simple. We need to figure out where 

we have to tell it like it is and, at the same time, maintain some 

relationship. 

I have felt it is a mistake always to cutoff relations with a country or not have that conversation, because that is what diplomacy 

is about. 

Mr. TRONE. I agree with you. I think we need to continue the 

conversations and be relenting in our open discussion of what was 

right and what was not right, but at the same time, I do not think 

we should just accept the fact that this behavior can go on unchecked. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. No. I agree. And I think kind of having normal, 

smiley discussions with the Crown Prince is not the way to go. 
52 

Mr. TRONE. Anything we can do to mitigate the damage to the 

America First policies? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I think by recognizing that we believe in partnership with others, but that is again—I do not mean to put everything on your shoulders, but I really do think that the role of Congress in this is key. And when you all can explain what we are 

really about, I think it makes a big difference. Your role in all national security policy and the kinds of things that people say. And 

I do think one of the aspects in terms of understanding that America, actually, we are great, and that our greatness has come from 

understanding partnerships and respecting our friends and allies. 

Mr. TRONE. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. The chair recognizes my friend from Pennsylvania, Representative Houlahan. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Secretary Albright, for coming. It is a pleasure 

to see you again and a real privilege to have this conversation. 

I have two separate questions that are fairly disparate, so I am 

hoping that I have enough time to get to both. The first one has 

to do with women and girls and particularly the fact in 2019, Fiscal 

Year 2019, we appropriated $10 million to fund the Ambassadorat-Large for Global Women’s Issues, and apparently this position 

still remains open to this day. So I am wondering if you could be 

helpful in elevating what it is that this special envoy should do and 

why we should continue to fund this initiative given that it has not 

been filled. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, I have to say that when I became Secretary, 

I was the first Secretary to put women’s issue central to American 

foreign policy, not just because I am a feminist, but because I know 

that when women are politically and economically empowered, societies are more stable. Then the whole position was created, which 

I think is very important. And frankly, you know, in most countries, more than half the population is female, and so we are undercutting our own national interests by undermining that. 

I also do think—and by the way, what I am very proud that the 

National Democratic Institute does is support women candidates 

in—across the board in countries and trying to figure out how to 

be helpful when they are harassed in their countries, working with 

the United Nations on that. So I think that we need to see the 

issue from two ways. One is what makes it better for U.S. national 

interests, and then obviously the fact that I do think that the world 

is better off when women are equally empowered. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. I could not agree with you more. And my second 

line of questioning has to do more with cyber and bio security and 

a little bit about what you talked about in your opening testimony 

regarding sort of the decimation of the State Department. I had the 

privilege of going to the Pentagon on Monday for almost a full day 

tour, and a very senior ranking member of the Secretary of Defense’s office was asked about the state of the relationship between 

the Pentagon and the State Department, and he said it had never 

been better in his entire career. And he thought that there were 

no problems and no hiccups in their relationship. 
53 

And so I would love it if you could talk a little bit about the sort 

of line level and staff level state of affairs in the State Department, 

and also how it relates to cybersecurity and our ability to stay secure in that space. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I do think the importance of a relationship between State and Defense is essential. And one of the things that 

I have to say, Secretary Mattis said that if the State Department 

was not funded, he would have to get more ammunition and a real 

understanding of that relationship. 

I do think that across the levels there are a lot of department 

discussions between State and Defense. I think the problem at the 

moment is that some of the people in the Defense Department do 

not have a counterpart in the State Department and that they end 

up then doing what State should be doing, Defense begins to do. 

And so I do think—and this goes back again to the funding of the 

State Department and having people there. I also do think that 

specifically on areas like cyber, which obviously have a lot of technical aspects to them, also have diplomatic parts in terms of negotiating with other countries about what is acceptable, what is not. 

The question about Huawei, for instance, or how the Russians are 

using their asymmetrical tools in countries and then the diplomatic 

part. 

So we have those two departments for a reason, but one is operating—I have to say I am for a strong defense, but the difference 

in terms of $700 billion and something just under $60 billion is a 

little off base. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. I very much appreciate your time. And I yield 

back the balance of my time to madam chair. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia, and I am 

proud to call her madam chair. 

And welcome, Secretary Albright. Great to see you again. I think 

I saw you a little over a week ago in Munich at the security conference. And I do not know about you, but I was really struck by 

sort of the evolution in reactions among our allies in Europe to the 

evolution of diplomatic and foreign policy here in the United 

States. I would say 2 years ago, there was anxiety, there was consternation. There were questions. There was the seeking of reassurance. This time, led by the Chancellor of Germany herself, Angela Merkel, I saw a sort of anger and defiance and resistance, 

frankly, to the abrogation of U.S. leadership and the evisceration 

of policies and treaties that were, in fact, initiated by and presided 

over by the United States. 

I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but that was my observation. Big, big change in 2 years in terms of where our allies 

are vis—vis current United States foreign policy. And I think Mr. 

Pence, the Vice President of the United States, got a dose of that 

with the complete and utter silence in response to his speech, unlike Angela Merkel who criticized the United States specifically on 

JCPOA, on the Paris climate accord, on even naming a German 

auto manufacturer a threat to the national security, and she got a 

standing ovation. 

Your observation. 
54 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. I have been to many of the meetings, and I was 

appalled at what was going on in terms of kind of a sense of, who 

are these people? What happened to America? And I was so glad 

that you all were there, because I think that it made really clear 

that we did care, but it was as a result of kind of an American approach to things, of bullying and name calling and not understanding what the role is. 

I am not saying the Europeans are always easy to work with, but 

I do think that this was particularly an uncomfortable time, an embarrassment, if I might put it that way. I have seen some official 

releases of a transcript of the Vice President’s speech, and you 

know how they often have in parentheses—it had parentheses, applause, and I thought where the—you know, who wrote that? So I 

do think that it was an embarrassing kind of time, and I do think 

it is an important convocation of people. And so the fact that you 

were there made a big difference, but your analysis of it totally 

matches mine. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, Madam Secretary. If I may, in my 

remaining time, I want to talk about refugees. One of the most disturbing aspects, among many, in the foreign policy of this administration is its hostility toward refugees. Here we are, you know, the 

Statue of Liberty. You come from a refugee family, Madam Secretary, as do millions of Americans, and yet we have gone from 

100,000 level of refugees under the last year of the previous administration to a ceiling, a proposed ceiling of 30,000—— 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. In this next fiscal year. What is 

wrong with that? What is wrong with limiting the number of refugees? And what are the consequences of doing that, from your point 

of view having served, of course, as Secretary of State? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Well, first of all, I think it is inhumane toward 

the people that want to come in and the many refugees that have 

been created, and so I think it is, frankly, un-American. We are a 

humane society. People want to be helpful to each other. 

I think that the other part that makes it a problem, and we are 

not the only country, I think, that is being less than generous on 

this. It makes it very hard when America says you need to let in 

more people, and meanwhile, we are cutting our own numbers. So 

we are losing our authority on it. 

I do think it is very important for there to be some comprehensive immigration legislation. I think it is a complicated issue, and 

as you know, there are distinctions between refugees and immigrants and a number of different aspects. And there are a lot of 

studies that have been done, I have been a part of a lot, and how 

technology can now help in identifying people, any number of 

things. And there is a commission—I will be very happy to send 

that report over. 

But I am appalled, frankly. And I describe myself as a grateful 

American. And everything about the possibility of having come 

here as an 11-year-old and understanding democracy in America’s 

role. So I do think we need to do something to really not have the 

Statue of Liberty weep. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And speaking of that, and then I will end, but 

I welcome your support. I have introduced a bill called the Lady 
55 

Liberty Act, picking up what you said, which, by the way, is H.R. 

6909, and that would say, oh, no, no. The President gets to set the 

limit, as he does currently; however, that limit can never fall below 

100,000. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I welcome your input, if not your support, 

on trying to get that bill to the floor. I thank you. 

And thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. Thank you for doing that. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And, Secretary Albright, it is such an honor to have you here 

with us today. I thank you for your time, and I thank you for the 

opportunity to ask a few questions. 

I am a former intelligence officer, and some of the greatest accomplishments of my life have been knowing that the information 

I was out collecting would inform our diplomats and our policymakers on issues that are complicated and difficult and nuanced. 

And last week—or last month, excuse me, following the intelligence 

chief’s annual threat testimony, you said you were stunned by the 

President’s immediate and vehement dismissal of their assessments and by his overall regular attacks on the integrity and the 

trade craft of American intelligence officers. 

I am deeply concerned about what appears to be a growing disconnect between our political and our intelligence leaders, in particular, because I see that it undermines the ability of our lawmakers, of our diplomats, of American leadership to make informed, strong, quality decisions based on intelligence that was collected by people, by Americans who risked their lives to get it. And 

in light of this week’s summit on North Korea, my question is, do 

you have an opinion of how we as Members of Congress can help 

ensure that the White House is receiving and considering the intelligence as part of the administration’s policy formulation? And if 

that is not possible, as a former diplomat and as a teacher, do you 

have recommendations for what we as Members of Congress and 

as those with a platform within our own communities can do to ensure that the American population understands the value of intelligence in the way that it informs and the value of diplomacy in 

the way that it helps protect our communities and the way that it 

is a vital portion of our national security efforts? 

Ms. ALBRIGHT. It is a key part of our national security efforts, 

and I had—well, first of all, what I truly miss not being in the government is the intelligence. And I would read the papers, and then 

I would come into my office, and there would be the State Department INR part, and then the intelligence person would come in and 

brief me, and read the PDB and all kinds of things, and I always 

thought, gosh, I wish I could spend hours all day doing this. But 

the greatest respect for the intelligence community. Leon Panetta 

at the time asked me to be on the CIA External Advisory Board, 

which I did with General Petraeus and John Brennan. I am no 

longer on that, but it was a way to understand what the intelligence community did. 

And I think something that is very important in terms of all the 

work that is done on open source and all the information that is 

out there, and it is impossible for the government to operate with-
56 

out having that kind of knowledge. And I think that what needs 

to happen is obviously the funding of the intelligence community, 

but also the respect for the intelligence community. And I think 

one of the things that the External Advisory Board was there to 

do, because that is what Panetta thought, was to try to explain it 

more to Americans. And I think that that needs to happen, is that 

it should not—not the product so much but the fact that it is important. How can you possibly make policy without both kinds of 

intelligence, frankly? But I think that it is very important. 

And I think your coming here and being a Member of Congress 

is also a very important part in terms of being able to explain what 

it really does. So I will do my best to keep talking about the importance of intelligence. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your 

comments, for your insights, and your continued service to our 

country. 

Thank you to the members of this committee. The hearing is now 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
57 

APPENDIX 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), Chairman 

February 27,2019 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the 

Committee website at https://forcignaftftirs.housc.twv/): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday, February 27,2019 

10:00 a.m. 

The Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: A Mid-Term Assessment 

The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright 

(Former Secretary ()j'State) 

By Direction of the Chairman 
58 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS MmNUTESOFFULLCO~TTEEHEARING 

Day Wednesday Datec__ _ _:::0.='212::..:.:.71...:;1;::..9 ___ Room,_-=2.::.1.:..:7'2=-Im=:..:O:..:'/J'---

Starting Time 10:11 a.m. Ending Time 1:01 p.m. 

Recesses _0_ L_to_)L_to_)L_to_)L_to_)L_to_)L_to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Ch4irman EUot Engel, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Abigail Spanberger 

Check all of the following that apply: 

Open Session 0 Executive (closed) Session D Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

ElectronicaUy Record£!!.! taped) 0 

Stenographic Record Ld 

The Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: A Mid-Term Assessment 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

NIA 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? YesEJ NoD 

(If "no ", please list below and include title, agency, department, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted for the record.) 

SFR_Engel 

QFR_Yoho 

TUMESCHEDULEDTORECONVENE ___ _ 

;~ADJOURNED 1:01 p.m. 
59 

PRESENT 

f--x X 

X 

1--- X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

~-X 

f--x X 

~ 

1--~ X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

_X 

~ 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

MEMBER PRESENT MEMBER 

Eliot L. Engel, NY X Michael T. McCaul, TX 

Brad Sherman, CA 

Gregory W. Meeks, NY ~ I Chrislopher H. Smith, NJ 

X "'- Albio Sires, NJ 

Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

1-·x Joe Wilson, SC 

X Scott Perry, P A 

Theodore E. Deutch, FL X Ted Yoho, FL 

Caren Bass, CA X \nom K ;n-,;naec, lL 

.M. X · ee 7elcl;n NV 

,Rl , Jr., WI 

\mi Bcra,CA Ann Wagner, MO 

TX X Brian .1. Mast. FL 

)ina Titm , NV Francis Rooney, FL 

\driano ,, \)y X Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Ted Lieu, :A X John Curtis, UT 

Susan Wil PA X Ken Buck, CO 

.MN X Ron Wright, TX 

llhan Omar, MN X ,PA 

Colin Allred, TX X Tim Burcheti, TN 

Andy Levin, Ml X I Greg Pence, IN 

Abigail Spanberger, VA X Steve Watkins, KS 

Chrissy Houlahan, PA X '" Tom Malinowski, NJ 

David Trone, MD 

Jim Costa, CA 

j;,;;;y;;;:g~ CA 

.TX 

-·-
60 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

I AMNESTY 

INTERNATIONAL 

February 26, 2019 

The Honorable Eliot Engel 

Chairman 

Foreign Affairs Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2170 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Michael McCaul 

Ranking Member 

Foreign Affairs Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2170 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington D 20515 

Re: Amnesty International USA Statement for Mid-Term Assessment ofthe Trump 

Administration's Foreign Policy 

On behalf of Amnesty International and our more than seven million members and supporters 

worldwide, we hereby submit this statement for the record. Amnesty International is an 

international human rights organization, founded in 1961 with national and regional offices in 

more than 70 countries. 

The United States has played a critical role in the promotion and protection of human rights at the 

international level and in ensuring that the multilateral institutions mandated with working toward 

those goals deliver on their missions, that human right defenders hold human rights abusers 

accountable and that individuals enjoy their basic rights and dignity. Congress has and must 

continue to play a leading part in that effort, especially at this time when the U.S. has closed its 

doors to the most vulnerable. 

This statement focuses on the Trump administration's record in the following four areas: 

I. Protection of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Displaced Peoples 

II. Protecting Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders, Pressing Foreign Governments 

for Accountability on Human Rights 

III. Opposing Discrimination against Vulnerable Populations and Stigmatized Groups 

IV. Improving the Respect and Protection of Human Rights while Pursing National Security 

Interests 

I. Protection of Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Displaced Peoples 

The world is witnessing the highest levels of displacement in history. 68.5 million people have fled 

their homes, escaping persecution, torture and violence. Among them are nearly 22.5 million 

refugees, over half of whom are children. They face desperate circumstances and are in dire need of 

shelter, medical treatment, food and other life-saving services. 

1 
61 

Less than 1 percent of refugees will ever be given the opportunity to resettle in a third country. 

Most will either remain in the country to which they initially fled or return to their home country 

through voluntary repatriation.ln their annual global resettlement needs assessment, the United 

Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that close to 1.2 million refugees need 

access to resettlement- meaning they will likely never be able to return to their home country or 

be integrated in their host country. 

The U.S. has long been the single largest donor of international humanitarian aid. Now more than 

ever, the U.S. must provide sustained funding for humanitarian aid to protect displaced populations 

and provide funding and support for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Sustain funding for humanitarian and refugee assistance in line with current 

appropriations. Additionally, funding and support for the USRAP should also support the 

admissions of at least 75,000 refugees in FY 2020. 

Support a refugee admission goal exceeding 75,000 in FY 2020 

Support robust funding for refugee resettlement in FY 2020 

• Restore critically needed funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine 

Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 

II. Protecting Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders, Pressing Foreign Governments 

for Accountability on Human Rights 

On October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi walked into the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul Turkey and 

never came out. Khashoggi had been a critic of the Saudi government's abysmal human rights 

record. In the time since his murder, gruesome details of his dismemberment have become public 

and there is overwhelming evidence linking his murder to the highest levels of the Saudi 

government, yet no one has been held accountable, and the Trump administration has rejected the 

analysis ofits own intelligence community and continued to do business as usual with the Saudi 

government. 

Khashoggi is one of the thousands of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) around the world who are 

routinely the target of judicial harassment, smear campaigns, intimidation, death threats, arbitrary 

detention, sexual violence, assault, torture, enforced disappearances, and even assassination by 

governments. Since the signing of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in 1998, over 

3,500 human rights defenders have been killed worldwide. In 2017,312 human rights defenders 

were assassinated, and in 2018, 321 .d.!"Enli.;.L'i in 27 countries were targeted and killed for their 

work. 

Amnesty International has firsthand experience with this harassment. In recent years, the chair of 

the board of Amnesty International Turkey was jailed for 14 months and the executive director 

spent 4 months behind bars. Both still face trial on charges of allegedly being members of a terrorist 

organization. In 2018, the offices of Amnesty International India were raided by the India security 

forces, and Amnesty International Nigeria was the focus of days of protests paid for by the Nigerian 

military. 
62 

Amnesty International calls for the immediate unconditional release of all HRDs imprisoned solely 

for their peaceful human rights work. Amnesty further calls on government to investigate all 

murders of HRDs and to pursue the prosecution of those found responsible for those murders. We 

also call for the implementation of concrete measures to protect HRDs including the repeal of any 

legislation that criminalizes or restricts the work ofHRDs. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Request the State Department o (DOS) to provide a report on the situation on HRDs, 

assessing the impact of U.S. funded programs to support HRDs as well as programs 

promoting human rights. 

Increase funding for DOS programs such as the Human Rights Defenders' Fund and Lifeline: 

The Embattled NGOs Assistance Fund. 

Curbing Support for Human Rights Abusing Governments by the Trump Administration 

President Trump's lauding of infamous human rights abusers like Rodrigo Duterte of the 

Philippines, Xi Jinping of China, and Kim jong Un of North Korea undermines the credibility and 

ability of the United States to be a champion for human rights. It also increases the risk of other 

governments engaging in human rights abuses with the assumption that promoting respect for 

human rights is no longer a foreign policy priority for the United States 

President Trump congratulated Duterte on what a "great job" he's doing on the drug war when 

Duterte has overseen the extrajudicial killings of thousands in the Philippines. Duterte himself has 

said that "his only sin is extrajudicial killings." President Trump called Kim Jong Un "very 

honorable" when there are approximately 120,000 North Korean political prisoners in gulags under 

Kim's dictatorial regime. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Communicate to the President the centrality and importance it holds for human rights as a 

U.S. foreign policy objective and Congress' expectation that administration will uphold and 

support human rights. 

Call upon the Trump administration to work with the UN to advance Human Rights through 

Special Procedures Mechanisms 

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is tasked with reporting on 

the human rights record of all UN member states.UN Special Procedures play a vital role in 

protecting human rights, with Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups experts. On january 

4, 2018, the Guardian reported that the DOS has quietly ~nded its cooperation with these 

experts. The Trump Administration must commit to ensuring that the U.S. delegation 

collaborates and supports the work of the OHCHR and that of special procedures mandate 

holders, including in cases when they are investigating potential human rights violations in 

the United States. 

U.S. Peacekeeping Funding/Contributions: The U.S. has long prided itself on serving as 

the largest financial contributor to U.N. peacekeeping efforts. Through this, the U.S. has 

3 
63 

served as a lynchpin of stability and security in many troubled areas around the world. 

Recently, however, the administration has moved to cut U.S. funding to UN Peacekeeping. 

These actions have endangered countless civilian lives and have called into question the U.S. 

government's willingness to lead on human rights internationally. The Administration must 

recommit to supporting UN Peacekeeping efforts. 

THE AMERICAS 

Venezuela 

The institutional crisis in Venezuela- fueled by deep political polarization and marked social 

deterioration in the country- has had a devastating impact on human rights. The government of 

Nicolas Maduro is engaging in a campaign of political repression and violating Venezuelans' 

political and socioeconomic rights. Over 90 percent of Venezuelans now live in poverty, and 

over three million have been forced to flee the country. 

The crackdown on political dissent in the country continues to deteriorate. In January 2019, were 

numerous mass protests against the Maduro government, particularly in the working-class areas 

where pro-government armed groups are concentrated. 

In 2019 Amnesty International concluded that the forces of the Maduro government engaged in a 

campaign of extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detention, and uses of excessive force. The team 

documented six extrajudicial executions at the hands of the Venezuelan Special Action Forces; 

two young men killed and one young man wounded by firearms deployed by the Bolivarian 

National Guard and the Bolivarian National Police; and the arbitrary detention of over 137 

children and youth. All the targeted individuals had been linked to protests agitating for change 

and demanding access to basic goods, including food and medicine. 

Recommendations: Congress should: 

Collaboratively, with other governments, call for an end to impunity by advocating for 

oversight by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as well as preliminary investigation of 

these abuses by the International Criminal Court. 

Ensure that Venezuelans seeking international protection in the United States are granted 

unrestricted access to territory and protection from return. 

Ensure that the U.S. government's responses to the institutional crisis in Venezuela focus on 

the humanitarian needs and the rights of Venezuelans, and do not exacerbate their 

suffering. The petroleum sanctions imposed by the government in january 2019 have only 

caused greater harm to the most vulnerable Venezuelans, and threats of military 

intervention will only serve to further entrench and sow division in an already deeply 

polarized situation. Amnesty International recommends that Congress use its power to 

closely examine any measures taken (or threatened to be taken) by the U.S. government to 

ensure that they will not violate Venezuelans' human rights. 

4 
64 

Following reforms to the social security system in April 2018, Nicaraguans began engaging in 

widespread protests. In response, the regime of Daniel Ortega in power since 2007, brutally 

cracked down on protesters, resulting in hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries. While the 

reforms were ultimately scuttled, the Nicaraguan people continued to take to the streets to demand 

an end to the Ortega government and to the impunity in the wake of the deadly response to the 

protests. 

In June 2018 Amnesty International concluded that the Ortega government has adopted a strategy 

of indiscriminate repression, intending not only to stanch the protests but to punish those who 

participated and anyone who attempts to shine a light on the rampant corruption and rights abuses 

committed by the regime. The government has engaged in escalating attacks on the press, forcing 

over 60 journalists into exile.ln December 2018 the government cancelled the legal registration of 

the Nicaraguan Centre for Human Rights, a domestic NGO dedicated to educating Nicaraguans 

about their human rights and providing reporting on Nicaragua's compliance with its human rights 

guarantees. In December 2018, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GlEl, by its 

Spanish acronym) concluded that the Ortega government had committed crimes against humanity 

in its crackdown on the 2018 protests; that same month, the Nicaraguan government kicked out 

GlEI as well as the Special Follow-up Mechanism for Nicaragua, in a move the Organization of 

American States criticized as "further plac[ing] Nicaragua in the terrain of authoritarianism." Since 

2018, many Nicaraguans have been forced to seek protection elsewhere, including in the United 

States. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

ASIA 

Conduct hearings on the situation in Nicaragua, particularly the crackdowns on free press 

and political protesters; 

Ensure that the administration extends protection to Nicaraguans fleeing political 

repression in the United States. 

Philippines 

Congress must forcefully address the devastating human rights impact of the so-called war on 

drugs in the Philippines and the alarming lack of criticism and pressure for reform from the Trump 

administration. Since Rodrigo Duterte became president. Since June 2016, more than 7,000 people 

have reportedly been killed by police officers carrying out antidrug operations and by unknown 

armed persons, many of whom have links to the police. Each day leaves more people senselessly 

dead, fueled by the dehumanizing rhetoric of high-level government officials, including Duterte. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Publicly and forcefully denounce the rampant human rights violations associated with the 

Philippines' "war on drugs," and call on the Trump administration to do the same. Strong 

statements from Congress and from the Administration would provide important support 

for the individuals and organizations combating the unlawful killings and underscore that 

their voices are being heard and that they have support around the world. 

5 
65 

Carefully review and restrict U.S. assistance that goes to the Philippine National Police 

(PNP). Take measures to ensure that no U.S. assistance supports human rights violations, 

including in the "war on drugs." Congress should link future assistance to clear progress in 

reforming the PNP and ending the impunity of police officers who commit or oversee 

unlawful killings. S.1055, also known as the Philippines Human Rights Accountability and 

Counternarcotics Act of 2017, introduced by Senators Cardin and Rubio in 2017, has 

promising provisions on the issue of security force assistance. 

Support the efforts led by Philippine HRDs and the Commission on Human Rights. With 

limited budgets, and in the face of harassment and threats, Philippine HRDs are 

documenting the horrors of the "drug war." 

Demand that the Trump Administration, in any future calls or meetings with the Duterte 

government, demand an end to the extrajudicial executions. 

Myanmar 

Since August 2017, over NO~\HlJl Rohingyas have fled to neighboring Bangladesh to escape the 

brutality of the Myanmar military that include: mass murder, torture, rape and other forms of 

sexual violence, enforced disappearances and forced starvation. 

In its September 2018 report of atrocities in the Northern Rakhine State, the DOS concluded that 

the campaign of violence against the Rohingya were "well.:.!Jlgnned and coordinated." Amnesty 

International has documented a system of apartheid that restricts freedom of movement of the 

Rohingya, and denies adequate access to health care, education, work, and food.lncreased 

humanitarian assistance is necessary and urgent for Rohingya refugees in overcrowded and 

unsustainable camps in Bangladesh. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Hold perpetrators of human rights violations against the Rohingya accountable. 

Engage the Trump administration to refer the situation in Myanmar to the International 

Criminal Court and support the established a mechanism that will collect and preserve 

evidence that can be used for a future criminal proceeding. 

CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 

In Poland the ruling Law and justice party has launched a series of reforms aimed at undermining 

the independence of the country's judiciary. In Hungary, legislation supported by Viktor Orban has 

severely constricted space for independent media and civil society. In Ukraine government officials 

have responded to violent attacks by extremist groups against LGBTI activists, anti-corruption 

protestors, and ethnic minorities with apathy. 

Trump administration officials have pointedly refused to raise these concerns at a senior level, 

instead abetting the region's authoritarian slide. President Trump has heaped high praise on the 

Polish government both in Warsaw and in Washington. Three decades after tbe collapse of the 

Berlin wall, we are witnessing the closure of political space in Central and Eastern Europe. 

6 
66 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Russia 

Conduct hearings on closing space for media, civil society, and activism in Europe. 

Ensure that Secretary Pompeo's recently _i!.nnounced effort to strengthen local media in 

Poland, Hungary and other regional countries translates into an effective, snstained, and 

well-funded program. 

Allegations of improper contacts between President Trump and President Putin have dominated 

U.S. Media headlines. Yet behind the narrow media coverage, the Kremlin continues its assault on 

human rights. 

In April 2017, a Russian newspaper reported that over 100 men believed to be gay had been 

abducted, tortured and, in at least several cases, murdered. Despite Members of Congress calling on 

them to do so, President Trump and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed to publiclv 

condemn the purges for months. Russia's continued detention of activists and human rights 

defenders from occupied Crimea, including Oleh Sentsov and .Emir Usein-Kuku, has been roundly 

condemned by human rights organizations around the world. The Kremlin has repeatedly cracked 

down on peaceful protestors by limiting their ability to assemble and detaining their leaders, 

including opposition activist Aleksei Navalny. 

According to the limited statements made available to the public, President Trump failed to raise 

these pressing issues during his july 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki. President Trump's 

performance during the Helsinki summit was denounced by numerous prominent bipartisan 

voices, as well as the American public as a whole. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

AFRICA 

Request details on President Trump's preparation for the Helsinki summit and request 

clarity from senior administration officials about whether human rights were raised and, if 

not, why not. 

Request that Secretary Pompeo provide Congress with a report detailing what actions 

senior U.S. diplomats have taken to convey U.S. concerns to the Kremlin over the increasing 

harassment of Russian HRDs and what the administration plans to do going forward. 

Cameroon 

For the last 35 years under the leadership of President Paul Biya, the country's military has enjoyed 

absolute impunity as it has committed egregious human rights violations. These abuses worsened 

as the country began to be targeted by the armed group Boko Haram in 2013. Security forces 

arbitrarily detained persons suspected of being supporters or members ofBoko Haram. They 

committed extrajudicial executions, torture, and destroyed villages and farmlands with impunity. 

The security forces have implemented similarly brutal tactics in response to escalating unrest in the 

Anglophone regions of the country. Much more must be done to prevent more Cameroonians from 

7 
67 

joining armed separatist's groups. Pressure for reform and respect for human rights in Cameron 

must come with equal force from highest levels of U.S. Government. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Press the administration to convene a meeting of key allies of and donors to Cameroon to 

discuss a joint diplomatic initiative to create an independent commission of inquiry into 

human rights violations by the Cameroon security forces and armed groups in Cameroon. 

Building on the recent decision of the administration to suspend some security assistance to 

the Cameroonian military based on human rights concerns, Congress should add its voice to 

the calls for reform by reintroducing and passing H.Res.1111, which calls on the 

Government of Cameroon, armed separatist groups, and all citizens to respect human rights 

and adopt nonviolent approaches to conflict resolution. 

Ethiopia 

In 2019 Ethiopia will have to make good on the promises of reform ushered in by the appointment 

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali at the beginning of April 2018. While the government has released 

over 10,000 political prisoners, much of the legislation that resulted in their incarceration remains 

in place. A number of banned opposition groups have returned to the country and have held events 

but sweeping repressive legislation is still the law and could be enforced at any given moment. At 

the same time impunity for human rights violations by the security forces before and during the last 

two states of emergency remains in place and will increasingly shape a difficult, transition period of 

negotiation between the country's stakeholders. EJJ:mL<&!.Lil based violence is on the rise and the 

government is under increasing criticism both failing to protect people while also still targeting 

youth activists in mass arrests. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Press the Trump administration to work with the Ethiopian government to enact key reforms 

including; 

l':ligcrjQ 

Request a report from the DOS assessing the key human rights concerns in Ethiopia, 

progress made by the Abiy government and policy initiatives that U.S. can and should 

support. 

Work with the Departments of State and justice to explore rule of law capacity building 

programs with the Ethiopian judiciary. 

Pass S. Res. 168 encouraging key human rights reform in Ethiopia. 

The Nigerian security forces have been linked to serious human rights violations in their 

counterinsurgency campaign against the armed group Boko Haram. Violations have included 

extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention and rape and have contributed to a 

culture of impunity and increasing levels ofYLolence in states in the country's north east and 

middle belt regions. Security forces have also destroyed homes and livelihoods contributing to an 

internally displaced population (lDPs) of nearly two million people. 

The Nigerian Government's failure to hold anyone accountable for the abuses in some cases 

denying outright the allegations and in others cases justifying the activities of the military or 

8 
68 

launching investigations whose findings are never released. The increasing levels of violence is 

driving a rise in the number of lOPs could also further destabilize the country. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Require a report from the DOS assessing the Buhari government's efforts to enforce 

accountability and reform. 

Place a freeze on planned military transfers to the Nigerian military until such a time that 

Congress is convinced that credible and transparent steps have been taken by the Nigerian 

government toward rebuilding professional, accountable security services in Nigeria. 

Ill. Opposing Discrimination against Vulnerable Populations and Stigmatized Groups 

Human Rights Documentation by the DOS 

In 2018, there were glaring absences from the DOS' Human Rights Reports relating to reproductive 

rights. The reports stripped out sexual and reproductive rights, effectively erasing the human rights 

concerns of millions, and instead included only very narrow mentions of coerced abortion, 

involuntary sterilization or coercive population control methods. This "narrowing" has produced 

reports that are ideologically-driven interpretations of human rights that ignore key rights for 

women- to health, bodily integrity, and to control when they have children. Not only does this 

undermine the United States' stated commitment to human rights, it woefully misunderstands 

women's rights and the centrality of sexual and reproductive rights to ensuring equal rights for all. 

These glaring absences in the reports are a diminishment not only of women's rights, but of the 

integrity of the report itself and the State Department's commitment to human rights. It appears 

that this effort to erase the rights of millions of people around the world will continue in 2019, and 

Congress must oppose this. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Express its outrage over the omission of key human rights from the 2018 reports to 

Secretary Pompeo, schedule a hearing to review and discuss the 2019 reports and to take 

steps to ensure that that going forward the Human Rights reports include the full scope of 

human rights and not a selective, narrower. ideologically-driven subset of rights. 

Ending the Deadlv Global Gag Rule 

The Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, was reinstated by President Trump in 

2017, and prohibits foreign NGOs that receive U.S. foreign aid from using their own money to 

inform the public or educate their government on the need to make safe abortion available, provide 

legal abortion services, or provide advice on where to get an abortion. The Global Gag rule means 

that NGOs that receive U.S. International aid for other reasons--like maternal health, HIV 

prevention, or fighting malaria or Zika -must choose whether to lose critical U.S. funding or 

provide the services their patients need. Documentation has shown that the policy restricts a basic 

right to speech and the right to make informed health decisions, as well as harms the health and 

lives of poor women by making it more difficult to access family planning services. Additionally, it 

has also been found that the policy does not reduce abortion. 

9 
69 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Permanently end the Global Gag Rule; 

Increase funding for international family planning and reproductive health (FP /RH) 

programs. 

Stopping Gender-Based Violence 

Every year, violence devastates the lives of millions of women and girls worldwide. Freedom from 

violence is a human right; yet, one out of every three women worldwide will be physically, sexually 

or otherwise abused during her lifetime-with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries. 

Violence against women and girls is a global epidemic and a human rights violation occurring daily, 

ranging from harmful practices such as rape, "honor killings," female genital cutting and human 

trafficking. Violence against women destabilizes countries, impedes economic progress and 

prevents women from contributing to their community. 

The United States has as a critical role to play in reducing gender-based violence (GBV) globally. 

The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) makes ending violence against women and 

girls a top U.S. diplomatic and foreign assistance priority. The bill creates a more effective and 

efficient strategy to combat GBV by streamlining the U.S. government's current efforts. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Pass the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) 

Ensure robust funding to combat violence against women and girls globally through the 

Departments of State and USAlD. 

Protecting LGBTl Rights 

In May 2018, Secretary of State Pompeo stated that the U.S. "firmly opposes criminalization, 

violence and serious acts of discrimination such as housing, employment and government services 

directed against LGBTI persons." He went on to say that the U.S. uses "public and private diplomacy 

to raise human rights concerns, provide emergency assistance to people at risk, and impose visa 

restrictions and economic sanctions against those who persecute them." 

The U.S. government must continue its efforts to hold individuals who violate the human rights of 

LGBTI people to account, supporting LGBTl civil society as part of our broader democracy, rights 

and governance funding, and protecting LGBTI people seeking asylum. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Request a report from the Department of State providing an update on how the Department 

is enforcing the Equality Act with specific reference to the treatment of LGBTI person who 

have sought asylum in the United States in the last 24 months. 

10 
70 

IV. Improving the Respect and Protection of Human Rights while Pursing National Security 

Interests 

Use of Lethal Force 

Since early 2017 the Trump administration has dramatically increased the use of lethal force, 

particularly using air strikes, both within and outside theaters of armed conflict. As a result of this 

policy there has been a sharp increase in the number of people killed by U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, 

Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen. The Trump administration has provided little explanation of their 

purpose or information about their consequences or disclosed information necessary to allow 

independent assessment of whether those strikes complied with international law. The 

administration has also failed to demonstrate that its investigations of civilian casualties are 

sufficient to provide credible assessments of the number of civilian deaths and other harm these 

strikes have caused. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Press the administration for complete details on its use of lethal force to ascertain its 

compliance or lack of compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law; 

Request that the administration put in place a thorough and credible civilian casualty 

investigation and reporting process, and a fair process for providing compensation and 

assistance to victims. 

US Arms Sales to Yemen and Saudi Arabia 

In May 2017 President Trump announced the conclusion of a l110 billion arms deal with Saudi 

Arabia. While experts have since cast doubt on the accuracy of this advertised sum it is clear that 

the Trump administration sells substantial amounts of weapons to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 

many of which are deployed in the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen. That war, waged with little 

concern for civilian lives and international law, has to date caused at least 10 00_0 civilian casualties. 

Save the Children estimated that 130 children were dying every day from malnutrition or cholera. 

Amnesty International has documented how U.S. munitions sold to the coalition were used against 

civilians, often to shocking affect. In one~ a U.S.-manufactured Raytheon Paveway laser-guided 

bomb killed 16 civilians and injured 17 more .. Media reports indicated that a bomb supplied by the 

U.S. was responsible for killing 40 children in August 2018. Concurrently, Amnesty International 

and others have documented that the Saudi-led coalition and their Yemeni allies have run a 

network of secret prisons in Southern Yemen where Yemenis are disappeared, tortured and 

sometimes killed. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Pass the Saudi Arabia Accountahilitv and Yemen Act of 2019 which suspends the supply of 

weapons, munitions and related military equipment to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab 

Emirates and other parties to the conflict in Yemen. 

11 
71 

Ensure the Pentagon reports accurately on and responds appropriately to civilian casualties 

caused by U.S. military operations. 

The Pentagon recently acknowledged in response to a report by Amnesty International, that it had 

failed to report dozens of civilian casualties resulting from the US-led Coalition's assault on Raqqa, 

Syria in 2017. While this acknowledgement is welcome, it is not enough. The State Department 

should urge the Pentagon to comply with its international obligations to investigate all allegations 

of civilian casualties caused by U.S.lethal force where war crimes may have been committed, 

including the cases documented by Amnesty, to report publicly on the outcomes of those 

investigations, and to provide compensation and reparation for victims. The U.S. military has 

instead issued summary conclusions saying the laws of war were not violated, with no details of 

how any investigations were carried out. Meanwhile, it is clear from the findings of Amnesty's 

research that many more alleged civilian casualties from the U.S. assault on Raqqa have not been 

investigated or acknowledged. The State Department should work with the military to ensure that 

it establishes a reliable mechanism for receiving and evaluating claims of civilian casualties and 

civilian harm, and for providing compensation to victims. 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Schedule hearings in to civilian casualties and other human rights abuses associated with 

the assault on Raqqa in 2017. 

Write to the State Department and the Pentagon to investigate all allegations of civilian 

casualties caused by U.S.lethal force where war crimes may have been committed and ask 

what actions have been undertaken to provide compensation and reparation for victims. 

Guantanamo Bay 

The continued detention of 40 men at Guantanamo Bay, most without charge or trial, is a human 

rights travesty and a clear violation of the U.S. obligations under international human rights law. 

Those who have been charged were charged in the Military Commission system at Guantanamo, 

which fails to meet even the minimum international fair trial standards. The judges are not 

independent, the government has denied defendants access to evidence, and it has repeatedly 

intruded on what are supposed to be confidential relationships between the defendants and their 

attorneys. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made clear that it has no intention of 

transferring any detainees out of Guantanamo, including the five detainees who have already been 

cleared for release from the prison by all relevant U.S. national security agencies. This is clearly 

arbitrary detention in violation of international human rights law. 

Toffiq al-Bihani, for example, is a 46-year old Yemeni detainee who has been in U.S. custody without 

charge or trial for more than 16 years. He is one of the detainees named by the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence as having been tortured by the CIA in U.S. custody. He has never even 

been charged with a crime. Mr. Al-Bihani was slated for conditional transfer by the Obama 

administration in 2010, either to Yemen when the security situation improved, or to another 

country that would accept him. Saudi Arabia, where he was born and has extended family, had 

agreed to accept him. Yet the transfer never happened. His continued detention at Guantanamo, 

more than 16 years after he was turned over to the U.S. by Afghan authorities and eight years after 

he was cleared to leave, is unconscionable and a clear violation of international law. 

12 
72 

Recommendations: Congress should 

Lift the current statutory restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United 

States so as to allow those detainees accused of wrongdoing to be tried in the U.S. federal 

court system. Those not accused of crimes must be released. 

Amnesty International USA would once again like to thank the Committee for holding the hearings. 

For more information, please contact Adotci Akwei (202) 509-8148 or aakwei@aiusa org. 

Sincerely, 

joanne Lin 

National Director 

Advocacy and Government Relations 

Amnesty International USA 

Adotei Akwei 

Deputy Director 

Advocacy and Government Relations 

Amnesty International USA 

13 
73 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Æ 

Questions for the Record from Rep. Ted Y oho 

The Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: A Mid-Term Assessment 

February 27, 2019 

Question: 

What are some tangible steps Congress can take to keep American foreign policy on 

track? 

Secretary Albright did not submit a response in time for printing. 

Question: 

Acknowledging that you are a refugee yourself, do you agree that individuals who wish 

to enter the United States at the southern border should do so legally? 

Secretary Albright did not submit a response in time for printing.