S. HRG. 115–339 

NOMINATION OF HON. MIKE POMPEO 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

NOMINATION OF HON. MIKE POMPEO 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–844 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–339 

NOMINATION OF HON. MIKE POMPEO 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD, YOUNG, Indiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

TODD WOMACK, Staff Director

JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director

JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk

(II)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee .................................................. 1 

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey ...................................... 7 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from Kansas ...................................................... 2 

Dole, Hon. Bob, Former U.S. Senator from Kansas .............................................. 4 

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....................................... 4 

Pompeo, Hon. Mike, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Nominated to 

be U.S. Secretary of State ................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted by Members 

of the Committee .................................................................................................. 101 

Correspondence Submitted for the Record Supporting the Senate’s Confirmation of Hon. Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State ............................................... 278 

Correspondence Submitted for the Record Opposing the Senate’s Confirmation 

of Hon. Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State ....................................................... 282 

(III)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(1) 

NOMINATION ON HON. MIKE POMPEO 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in Room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Johnson, 

Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 

Merkley, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 

come to order. I want to thank everybody for their interest and our 

committee members for being here. 

If I could just do two housekeeping measures while Senator Burr, 

Senator Roberts, and Senator Dole are making their way in, hopefully very quickly, I would like to say two things. 

I know we have a number of people that we love here who sometimes like to protest. 

Good to see you. Thank you for waving. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I, in the past, have been able to cause people 

who are arrested to be un-arrested, but that has ended. So please 

don’t do anything that causes us to have to call you out of order, 

because the process, once it starts, cannot be stopped anymore. 

So we thank you for being here. We thank you for being considerate and respectful of people who are here today besides yourself. 

Secondly, we had planned to have a markup on the AUMF on 

Thursday. The minority has asked that we delay that markup for 

a few days as they consider it a little bit more fully. So it will be 

likely that we will do the AUMF markup instead of next Thursday 

sometime early in the next week. And we will be releasing the documents relative to that on Friday. But we thank you all for your 

continued work on this issue. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I make a remark? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you taking a little more time on the AUMF, because as we speak, we do not have 

a final version. So in order to give members time on one of the 

most important votes they ever take, which is the Authorization for 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

2 

the Use of Military Force, I think members want a considered approach. 

I would urge the chair to consider, once he has a final version, 

not only to share it with us but also to consider the possibility of 

a singular hearing on that specific AUMF, and then that would 

give members an informed opportunity to develop whatever views 

they have on it, what votes they might want to take, and what 

amendments they might want to offer. 

But I appreciate in the first instance giving the time for the purpose. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Sure. And I think you know we were 

prepared to release it today. We will probably wait until tomorrow. 

Maybe what we do, with consultation with you, is consider having 

that hearing next Thursday instead and then having the markup 

to follow. 

But, obviously, this has been something we all have discussed for 

many, many, many years. 

With that, we have three distinguished Senators here who have 

other things to do. We typically would give our opening comments 

first from the dais, but out of respect for their time and who they 

are, we would like for them to go ahead and give their comments, 

and then we will move back to regular order. 

Again, we thank you all for being here. I do not know what order 

you would like to start, but it sounds like we are starting with Senator Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Menendez, and distinguished members of the committee. It is 

an honor to be here today in support of my Kansas friend and colleague Mike Pompeo as the President’s nominee for Secretary of 

State. 

For more than a decade, I have known Mike, first as a friend and 

a business leader, then a congressional colleague, and most recently as the leader of our intelligence community. 

At home, Kansas knows Mike as a family man, a devoted husband to Susan and father to Nick, both of whom are here. I know 

how proud you are. 

They know him as a man of integrity and honesty, of hard work 

and perseverance. He built a successful business, understood the 

responsibility of maintaining a payroll, and helped to bring job 

growth and prosperity to Wichita, Kansas. 

They know him to have Kansas common sense and to be 

plainspoken, to tell it like it is. Senator Dole and I might share just 

a little bit of that, too. 

They know him as a statesman, a man who listens to others, who 

works well with people, and who can negotiate solutions in a very 

effective manner. 

Given these qualities, I believe that Mike Pompeo’s next challenge in this troubled and tumultuous world is perhaps a challenge 

for which he is best suited. As our Nation’s most senior diplomat, 

Mike will be forthright. He will be forceful. He will be thoughtful. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

3 

He will give the President and those of us in Congress candid counsel. He will be a man of his word. It is in his DNA. 

Just look at his bio. Mike is Army strong. He graduated at the 

top of his class at West Point and then served as a cavalry officer, 

patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He 

later joined the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry 

Division. 

After completing his military service, Mike attended Harvard 

Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. 

Mike understands the law. 

After practicing law, Mike returned to his mother’s roots in south 

central Kansas, running several very successful businesses in 

Wichita before running for Congress in 2010. 

He came to Washington with a very strong desire to serve the 

people of the 4th District and the rest of our State and to make 

a difference. He sought a seat on the House Intelligence Committee 

at a time when intelligence-gathering methods were under fire, before he went on to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. 

As I told my good friend and chairman, Richard Burr, and my 

colleagues on the Intelligence Committee just last year, Mike 

Pompeo understands and respects the role of Congress and the 

need for vigorous oversight. 

I say to those who serve our country here and in Washington and 

at diplomatic posts around the world, Mike Pompeo will work hard 

to earn your trust. 

He will seek to build bridges, to rely upon expertise, to debate 

and discuss, but always—always—with respect. Whether it is managing crises in Syria or North Korea, complex relationships with 

Russia or China, or humanitarian disasters in Myanmar or Yemen, 

Mike will represent American ideals and values backed by the 

strength of leadership of the free world. 

History has shown us time and again that we cannot sit back 

and wait, given the most serious challenges we face in the world 

and the role that our Nation plays. 

Whenever there is a void, the world pays a price. [Disturbance 

in hearing room.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roberts, I am sure that happens regarding soybeans in the Ag Committee often. [Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. It may happen with me and the President 

when I talk to him about all of the tariffs that we are going to talk 

about this morning. [Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I was right in the middle of the best part, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I said, wherever there is a void, the world pays 

a price. I guess we just did. 

Wherever there is a void, the world pays a price. We need Mike 

Pompeo at the State Department, and we need him now. It is my 

fervent hope that this committee and the full Senate will proceed 

with a swift confirmation for the President’s nominee. 

I know that Mike Pompeo will serve us proudly. It is now a privilege and an honor to turn to my mentor, my friend, and recent 

Congressional Gold Medal recipient, Senator Bob Dole. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB DOLE, 

FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator DOLE. Well, nice to see all you people up there. I cannot 

see very well, so you look good. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You look very good, and we are glad to have you 

here. 

Senator DOLE. Well, one thing about Mike Pompeo, and I want 

to welcome Susan and Nick, he will hit the ground running. He 

knows the territory. He knows the people. 

I got acquainted with him as CIA Director, so he is ready to go, 

and he will be our top diplomat. 

What we would like to urge is quick confirmation, because he is 

needed by the President and the rest of us who live in this wonderful country. 

But Mike Pompeo, I don’t know, he is just a brilliant guy, at the 

top of his class at West Point, a businessman, a congressman, a father, a husband. And all those things added up with the experience 

he has, he is ready to go. 

And we thank you for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much, and all of us are thrilled to 

have you here, and I am so glad you were honored the way you 

were recently in the Capitol. Thank you for sharing your time with 

us. 

Senator Burr, who chairs the Intelligence Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, 

U.S. SENATOR OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and to my colleagues, the advantage to going last for any nominee is you have 

heard everything about that nominee. And then there is Mike 

Pompeo, because the story goes on past that. 

I think one has to ask what makes a great leader, and what you 

have heard is a personal story about Mike Pompeo that I think, in 

anybody’s checklist, if you saw those things, you would say, here 

is a great candidate. Here is a great nominee. West Point as a 

teenager, first in his class. A military leader. A lawyer from Harvard, picked for the Harvard Law Review. Successful business. 

Served three terms representing people from Kansas. And when 

asked, responded and took, I think, the toughest job at the toughest time, and that was Director of the CIA. 

Now, during his confirmation hearing, I asked Mike to lead the 

CIA in an ethical, moral, and legal manner. And I am here to tell 

you that he did exactly that. Mike has honorably represented and 

aggressively supported the employees of the CIA. 

And I think what we need right now is an individual that can 

bond those great diplomats within the State Department while carrying out the message of this administration’s policies abroad. 

Mike has been responsive, and he has been transparent with the 

Intelligence Committee, and, more importantly, he has always spoken the truth. 

Mike’s intellectual rigor, his honorable service, and his outstanding judgment make him a natural fit for the Department of 

State. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

5 

Now, what I want you to take away from this is Mike Pompeo 

is a good man. And I want to ask you, and I want to ask all our 

colleagues in the Senate, if there is ever one where you put politics 

aside, here it is. Mike exemplifies talent. 

And I think when we look at nominees who we are sent by an 

administration, we look for somebody that we are proud of. We look 

for somebody that has the talent to do the job correctly. I would 

suggest to you that Mike Pompeo represents everything that we 

pray in a nominee that they would have. And that as we go forward, we have an opportunity to say to those young people around 

this country who one day want to give back to their country that, 

yes, your background does matter. We want the best. We want the 

brightest. We want the ones that are most committed to do it. And 

we have an opportunity in Mike Pompeo to select and to confirm 

an individual that I think speaks for generations to come. 

I thank the committee for their indulgence. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, all three of you. We appreciate 

having people that we respect so much here before us. We know 

that you have other business to take care of. You are welcome to 

stay, but you cannot stay there. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So we will bring the witness forward. 

While we are reorganizing—and, Senator Dole, again, thank you 

for being here—I want to recognize the fact that Ambassador 

Haley, I think, is joining us. I have not been able to see her yet 

in the audience. Thank you for being here. 

Director Mike Pompeo, we welcome you here today, and we 

thank you for your willingness to serve our country yet again, this 

time in the role of Secretary of State. We are also glad that your 

family is here with you, and we extend our thanks to them for the 

sacrifices that your service requires of them. 

You have been nominated by the President at a very important 

time in our Nation’s history. Our country’s standing in the world 

has been on the decline over the past decade or more, and that certainly continues. 

Throughout the 20th century, our allies viewed the United States 

as a reliable partner and a source of stability, a friend whose ideals 

and leadership made our world a better place. Unfortunately, 

today, we are not counted on as we once were. 

The chasm between what our leaders say and the actions that 

they take can have a devastating impact. I think about where Syria 

would be today had we done what we said in 2013 when the opposition posed a significant threat to the regime. Assad crossed the 

red line, used chemical weapons, and we did nothing. The loss of 

momentum was palpable. Our inconsistencies have created vacuums that are being eagerly filled by those who do not share our 

values. 

When the leader of our country speaks with the full might of the 

most powerful military the world has ever known behind him, he 

must choose his words carefully. 

His words and actions have global ramifications and send a signal to both our foes and allies regarding our level of commitment 

to longstanding alliances, our desire for beneficial trade relationships, and our very belief in the ideals we claim to embody. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

6 

But while at times the President may act or speak impulsively, 

we have also seen that good counsel has led the President to 

evolve, from my perspective, to a much better place on a number 

of important issues. 

I believe the next Secretary of State must continue to provide 

such counsel, even when it is difficult. 

If confirmed, you must continue to provide advice to the President that allows him to view a given situation holistically and not 

make decisions that focus on the impact to one domestic group or 

foreign government. 

Any President has numerous voices from both inside and outside 

the White House vying for his attention. An effective Secretary of 

State must be able to prioritize the issues for the President and attempt to drown out the noise and chaos that can so often distract 

and bog down the leader of the free world from making sound and 

informed decisions. 

I know that you have developed a close relationship with the 

President, and I believe that relationship could well serve you, if 

you are confirmed as Secretary of State. 

However, many strong voices have been terminated or resigned. 

That is why I think it is fair for our members to ask whether your 

relationship is rooted in a candid, healthy, give-and-take dynamic, 

or whether it is based on a deferential willingness to go along to 

get along. 

Americans often think of the Secretary of State solely in his or 

her capacity as our chief diplomat, racing around the world to 

broker compromise, prevent war, or negotiate treaties. And no 

doubt, your success as a diplomat, as you well know, is key to keeping our men and women in uniform that we treasure so much out 

of harm’s way. 

While all of that is true, this position also requires the person 

occupying the office to be every bit a manager as a diplomatic 

envoy. The Secretary must effectively manage multibillion dollar 

budgets and a workforce of tens of thousands. This is the part of 

the job that isn’t flashy and doesn’t usually get much media attention, but it is just as important as any other aspect of the Secretary’s duties. 

In order to execute foreign policy effectively, the Secretary must 

have a fully functional department behind him. During your tenure 

at the CIA, you demonstrated that you understand the need for 

having a functioning workforce. I am hopeful that, if confirmed, 

you will make it a priority to fill those key positions and to work 

to earn the trust of the career public servants in both the department’s foreign and civil service. 

Not only will the next Secretary of State have to adapt to a 

unique decision-making process and have significant management 

issues to tackle, but there are also numerous crucial policy issues 

around the world that must be addressed. 

While the obstacles we face are daunting, they are by no means 

insurmountable. 

The history of American foreign policy is filled with Secretaries 

of State who have changed the world for the better in the face of 

adversity. In fact, those who have gone down in history as great 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

7 

are those who dealt with the greatest challenges. When faced with 

what seemed like impossible odds, they rose to the occasion. 

That is what, when we are at our best, we do as Americans. And 

it is my hope that you will do the same, if confirmed. 

Examining a nominee to be Secretary of State is one of the most 

solemn duties of this committee. You will be asked many questions 

about the policy issues facing our Nation and your vision for the 

Department of State. 

Thank you again for your willingness to serve, and I look forward 

to your testimony and answers. 

And with that, I will turn to our distinguished ranking member 

and my friend, Bob Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, congratulations on your nomination and welcome to you 

and your family on your second Senate confirmation hearing. 

This committee considers your nomination after nearly a year 

and a half of reckoning with President Trump’s erratic approach to 

foreign policy, which has left our allies confused and our adversaries emboldened. It is an approach driven by impulse, not strategy. 

President Trump’s America-first policies have left America isolated and alone in the midst of unprecedented challenges, challenges from an aggressive Russia who seeks to undermine the 

international order we helped create after World War II, that has 

brought peace and stability to the world for nearly three quarters 

of a century; a destabilized Middle East; the ongoing threat of terrorism; an emboldened China asserting itself in the South China 

Sea militarily and economically, as well as right here in the Western Hemisphere; Assad, a butcher who has used chemical weapons 

against innocent civilians; Maduro tightening his grip on his regime, starving Venezuelans in one of the most oil-rich countries in 

the world. 

Meanwhile, President Trump has abandoned the very Democratic values and ideals that have shaped America’s role as a beacon to our friends and as a bulwark against a world in crisis. 

Now, I was pleased to hear you say earlier this week that you 

plan to support the career public servants at the State Department. 

The problem is, we have an emaciated State Department under 

this administration. 

Let me be clear. Members of this committee expect every Secretary of State to champion the department and its mission. We expect you to advocate for robust diplomacy as the first line of defense against sending our sons and daughters into war. And to do 

that, we need a strong diplomatic corps and an A-I-D that compliments and enhances our foreign policy. 

Now, as CIA Director, your job was to conduct covert operations, 

and collect, evaluate, and provide intelligence to policymakers, including the President. As the Secretary of State, you will not be 

providing intelligence for other people to use to make policy; you 

will be the person executing the foreign policy of the United States 

of America. Many countries in the world already think the State 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

8 

Department is an extension of the CIA, so how you conduct yourself moving forward will be critical to our diplomacy. 

As the Senate considers your nomination to be the President’s 

top foreign policy adviser, we must ask: Will you enable President 

Trump’s worst instincts? Will you advocate for long-term strategies 

to protect U.S. national security and interests, or will you be lurching from crisis to crisis, as we have seen under this administration? 

Will you advocate for robust diplomacy, or will you take America 

into unnecessary and costly wars? Will you stand up to President 

Trump and say, no, you are wrong in that view, Mr. President, or 

will you be a yes man? 

Americans are scared that this President, the commander in 

chaos, will lead them into war. This is not a time for taunts and 

tweets. 

On Russia, the intelligence community and our military leaders 

have repeatedly stated that Russia poses ongoing threats to the 

United States’ national security and to our allies, yet President 

Trump cannot bring himself to even acknowledge the Russian 

threat. He says that a court-granted search warrant is an attack 

on our country but cannot call out Russian cyberattacks on our democracy. 

We have pushed the President to put together a real strategy to 

counter Russian aggression. We urge the President to implement 

the mandatory sanctions that Congress overwhelmingly passed and 

he has failed to implement. 

North Korea poses a real and nuclear threat to the United 

States, our citizens, and our allies. The American people are deeply 

worried by an erratic President who uses schoolboy taunts when 

talking about nuclear war. A meeting is not a strategy. Preventing 

nuclear war requires thoughtful diplomacy, preparation, clear objectives. 

Will you enable the voices around the President seeking to go to 

war, or will you press for an empowered diplomatic path to protect 

the safety of all Americans? 

Mr. Director, what is your actual plan to stop North Korea from 

getting a nuclear weapon? 

Turning to Iran, everyone knows I voted against the Iran nuclear 

deal and was vociferous about it, but I also share the assessment 

of your counterparts across national security agencies that it does 

not serve the United States’ national security interest to unilaterally withdraw from the deal absent a strategy for what will replace 

it and how to get our allies to join us in countering Iran’s malign 

activity outside of the nuclear program and deal with the sunset 

issues within the nuclear portfolio. 

Once again, this President is hurling toward a crisis. He is creating unnecessary risks with the very allies we need to confront 

Iran. 

So I ask again, Mr. Director, what is your plan? Will you be a 

voice of reason, or will you support the President’s worst instincts? 

If confirmed as the Secretary of State, you will no longer be operating in the shadows of American foreign policy, but you will be the 

face and voice of the United States, the representative not just of 

a bombastic President, but of the American people. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

9 

Will you champion our values? When the President embraces dictators who quash the free press or suggests doing away with elections, will you stay silent? When the President and those closest to 

him balk at the very idea of diplomacy and instead advocate unnecessary wars that will cost the blood of our children and the treasure of our coffers, will you go along with them? Or, as our Nation’s 

top diplomat, will you champion diplomacy and offer actual plans? 

Will you stand up to President Trump and advise him differently 

when he is wrong, or will you be a yes man? 

So, Mr. Director, I look forward to hearing your testimony, and 

the answers to these questions and others, as we go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Director, you have been well backgrounded with the three Senators who came before us, so I will not do that. But we thank you 

for being here. If you could summarize your testimony in about 5 

minutes or so, any written documents you have, we will be glad to 

enter into the record. 

But with that, thank you for being here. We look forward to your 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO 

OF KANSAS, TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure I can do 

it in 5 minutes, but I will give it my level best. 

The CHAIRMAN. We always try to set a high bar, realizing we are 

never going to achieve it. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Chairman Corker. Ranking Member 

Menendez, thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to appear here 

today as the nominee to be the United States Secretary of State. 

I am grateful to each of you for the attention that you have given 

us over the past weeks. So many of you have given so much time, 

and there are so many global matters before us, I am deeply appreciative of that. 

Should I be confirmed, this regular contact will continue. You 

can talk to Senator Burr. I worked at that diligently. As a former 

Member of Congress, I understand the importance of that continued relationship and advice that comes from outside of the executive branch. 

I would like to take a moment here, too, to thank Secretary 

Tillerson for his service to the United States and his commitment 

to a smooth transition, and I would like to thank Secretary Sullivan as well, for him serving in the gap. 

A personal thank you also to every living former Secretary of 

State. They each took my call. They found time to spend. I have 

actually talked to many of them multiple times. Democrats and Republicans, from Secretary Kissinger to Secretary Kerry, were kind 

enough to visit me and share with me their thoughts on how, if I 

am confirmed, I would most likely be a successful Secretary of 

State. 

And if you know me at all, the two people sitting to my right rear 

provide my ballast, my balance. Susan keeps the home front humming and is always there to remind me of family issues that affect 

not just the Pompeos but the family issues that affect every officer 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

10 

at the Central Intelligence Agency as well. And that keeps me 

humble. It keeps my sense of humor alive. 

Since I left the private sector and entered public service, they 

have had lots of opportunities to tell me to step back, to step away, 

but they have not. They have encouraged it. They have promoted 

it. And they are incredibly supportive of my efforts to serve America. 

A moment here, too, to the men and women of the CIA, to say 

that it has been an honor and a privilege and a joy doesn’t do justice to these past 15 months. I have demanded an awful lot of you. 

I have set the expectation bar high. I have pushed responsibility 

and authority down to each and every one of you, and along with 

that, the required accountability. And you, the warriors of the CIA, 

have delivered for America, for President Trump, and for me. 

Perhaps the highest compliments of our work come from our adversaries who fear and are in awe of the institution, and from our 

partner services around the world who have ask for more training, 

more intelligence, more joint operations than ever. To you, if I am 

confirmed, this will not be goodbye, because no matter how this 

nomination process ends, I will be with you, I will support you, and 

I will admire you. 

Finally, I want to thank the President for his confidence and 

trust in me. My job at the CIA has been to deliver world-class data 

and facts to help inform he and the other senior policymakers in 

America. I am honored that he selected me to help carry out many 

of those same decisions as his chief diplomat. 

Senators, if I am confirmed, I will raise my hand and swear an 

oath to defend our Constitution for the seventh time in my life. The 

first time, I was 18 years old, a West Point cadet. With this oath, 

I will swear to defend the exceptionalism enshrined in our Constitution, which provides for our obligation to engage in diplomacy 

and model the very best of America to the world. 

Make no mistake, America is uniquely blessed, and with those 

blessings comes a duty to lead. As I have argued throughout my 

time in public service, if we do not lead for democracy, for prosperity, and for human rights around the world, who will? No other 

Nation is so equipped with the same blend of power and principle. 

Two things I want to try to answer for you in the time I have 

remaining. Who is Mike Pompeo? And who are his thoughts and 

plans to lead our State Department? I am sure we will get to talk 

about that some more as well. 

I was born in Orange, California. We did not have a whole lot 

of money in my family, but I enjoyed school. And my brother and 

sister and I, we all had fun learning. When I was a teenager, I was 

employee of the month at Baskin Robbins, not once, but twice. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. POMPEO. I am a movie buff. I have a soft spot for my golden 

retrievers. I love meatballs that I make from my dad’s recipe. And 

I enjoyed being a fifth grade Sunday schoolteacher for kids that 

just did not want to sit still. 

And although he will dispute this, I can beat my son in cornhole 

every day. I love Revolutionary War history, country music, show 

tunes, and college basketball. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

11 

But it was my appointment at the United States Military Academy that changed my life. It was when I traveled, it was the first 

time I had ever been east of the Mississippi River. 

I have seen some describe my leadership style as blue collar. Fair 

enough. I am not afraid to get my hands dirty, and you will seldom 

find me ensconced on the senior level of any building. I have no 

discomfort with directness or confrontation. I prefer face-to-face as 

opposed to email. I do not hold grudges. I work toward a mission. 

And I will always make room for student programs and youth 

groups. They are what will set our Nation on its correct course. 

They are our future. 

Just this past Monday, I got to swear in a big group of CIA officers. It was always a very special moment. This one was very 

unique. 

Now let me turn to how I intend to work as a Secretary of State, 

if I am confirmed. 

Throughout my time in Congress and the CIA, I have met hundreds of State Department employees. I know them. And in the 

past few weeks, I have had a chance to meet dozens and dozens 

more in briefings. To a person, they expressed to me their hope to 

be empowered in their roles and to have a clear understanding of 

the President’s mission. That will be my first priority. 

They have also shared how demoralizing it is to have so many 

vacancies and, frankly, many of them said to not feel relevant. I 

will do my part to end those vacancies. I will need your help. And 

I will work every day to provide dedicated leadership and convey 

my faith in their work, their professionalism, just as I have done 

with the workforce at the Central Intelligence Agency. 

When I took over as Director, the CIA had just completed a massive restructuring. Immediately after my arrival, I began speaking 

at every meeting, every conversation about the agency’s mission. I 

talked about commander’s intent. We do these small things that 

are called, ‘‘Meet with Mike.’’ Not a very original name, I will concede. But we gather up the first 50 to come talk to me, so that I 

have a chance to listen to them. I wanted them to know what the 

President’s and America’s desire was for them, and I wanted them 

to understand that I was depending on them. 

And you should know, when the team needed additional resources, I defended them. I asked for them. I demanded them. And 

the President, so long as he found value, never hesitated to provide 

them. I was able to persuade him. And with your help, I will do 

the same thing at the Department of State. 

You have my commitment, too, with respect to this. I will work 

with each of you to fill the vacancies that are at the State Department. This is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps 

in the world, and America and the world needs us to be that. 

The second thing I would like to highlight is workforces and their 

culture. I will spend a lot of time on this. It is important. I will 

proceed on, but without getting that part right, if the team doesn’t 

understand the mission and isn’t working toward the same goal, it 

is incredibly difficult to think you would achieve it. 

I have always done that. When I have traveled as part of the 

agency, I have met with State Department officials. I met with my 

own team. I spoke to them about the things that I was going to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

12 

demand of them, the things I was going to permit them to do, and 

how I was going to hold them accountable to that task. 

I remember, I want to a location. The housing for officers was 

simply inadequate. None of you would have allowed your families 

to be there. I didn’t have a lot of time, but I went and spoke with 

the Ambassador and told him it needed to be fixed. I wanted the 

State Department families and ours to know that we cared about 

them enough to provide living quarters that were sufficient for 

Americans. 

And you should know I believe deeply that the State Department’s workforce must be diverse in the same way I have I worked 

for that at the CIA, diverse in every sense of the word, race, religion, background, and more. I will work to achieve that diversity, 

just as I have done in my current role, by focusing on the mission 

and demanding that every team member—every team member—be 

treated equally, with dignity and respect. 

And I will listen. I had an old, crusty sergeant first class when 

I was a brand-new second lieutenant who said, ‘‘Lieutenant, if you 

will just shut up and listen for a bit your, life will be a whole hell 

of a lot better.’’ He was right about that. He taught me a heck of 

a lot about how to be a good platoon leader. I intend to do that 

with the talented people that reside at the State Department. 

Let me talk a little bit about the work itself. By definition, the 

job description of the Secretary of State is to serve as the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. This was driven home to me in 

those conversations with every former Secretary of State. To a person, they were remarkably consistent by saying that job number 

one is to represent the President. 

For me, this means building substantial relationships with our 

allies, relationships that President Trump and I can utilize for both 

tough conversations and productive cooperation. It also means 

working with our adversaries where needed to make clear objectives and let them know the means by which we intend to achieve 

them. 

In this regard, I am fortunate to have a sizable head start. As 

many as a third of the days at the agency, I was engaged with foreign counterparts. I have led the CIA to forge stronger relationships with those partners all across the world, in the Middle East, 

Europe, Africa, and Latin America. I have traveled to these regions 

to demonstrate the commitment that America has to working as 

their partners. 

I have also met some folks who did not share many of our objectives. I have tried to find and I have asked my team to find those 

narrow slivers of common ground where we can work together to 

deliver the results that America needs us to. 

Representing America also calls for promoting America’s ideals, 

values, and priorities, because they ultimately determine the trajectory of geopolitics, and we need to do that well. 

You know, I will close here, as I am approaching the 5 minutes. 

You should know that I have been an enormous beneficiary in 

my life of some of the most remarkable diplomatic achievements in 

American history. I served, as Senator Roberts spoke about, I 

served on the border between East and West Germany, and I 

watched diplomats over an extended period of time from both parFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

13 

ties achieve an outcome against the Soviet Union and the communist east that prevented my team from having ever to conduct 

the battle, which we prepared for every day. 

It was remarkable work from Foreign Service Officers over these 

many years. I thank them for that. It was the right approach. It 

was the approach that worked for America. 

I know some of you have read the story that I am a hawk, I am 

a hardliner. You know, I read that, and there is no one, as you just 

heard in what I described, there is no one like someone who served 

in uniform who understands the value of diplomacy and the terror 

and tragedy that is war like someone who has served in uniform. 

It is the last resort. It must always be so. And I intend to work 

to achieve the President’s policies with diplomacy rather than by 

sending our young men and women to war. 

Know that I am serving a President who feels the same way, and 

that while the military balance of power—you all did good work to 

assist us in continuing to build our military to be the finest in the 

world. It can set the stage and create leverage, but the best outcomes are always won at the diplomatic table. 

You know, America’s diplomatic engagement, political engagement, foreign policy engagement around the world has always been 

a big topic of debate. I am sure we will debate vigorously today. 

All through my life, I have been reminded that once the debates 

conclude, the carrying out of foreign policy, the actions that America does, make it real. It is a matter of duty to get it right. 

And while we might agree to disagree today on the what or the 

how of global involvement, we rarely disagree on why. It is to defend the safety of our families, the prosperity of our Nation, and 

the survival of freedom in the world. Diplomacy gives us the chance 

to achieve these goals peacefully. 

And I thank you for the time, Senator Corker. 

[The Mr. Pompeo’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, 

DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCV

Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Menendez, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee for U.S. Secretary of State. I’m 

grateful for your attention to my nomination over the last several weeks, particularly at a time when so many matters of global importance demand your focus. 

Should I be confirmed, the regular contact we’ve established throughout this process will continue. I’ll do my best to pick up your calls on the first ring, and I’ll be 

a regular visitor to the Capitol. Your counsel and support will, if I’m confirmed, be 

critical to my leadership of the Department of State. 

I’d also like to recognize former Secretary Tillerson for his dedicated service and 

commitment to a smooth transition, as well as Deputy Secretary John Sullivan for 

serving in the gap. 

A personal thanks to all of the former living Secretaries of State, each of whom 

has fielded my calls these past weeks. Democrats and Republicans, from Henry Kissinger to John Kerry, you were kind enough to visit with me, offering candid and 

valuable advice. As I did with former CIA Directors, I will continue our contact 

should I be confirmed. 

And, if you know me at all, you know that I derive balance and support from my 

wife, Susan, and son, Nicholas, who are with me today. Susan keeps our home front 

humming and is always there to remind me of the family issues affecting not just 

the Pompeos but every family under my leadership. And Nick? Well, Nick keeps me 

humble, keeps my sense of humor alive, and provides me, unfiltered, a millennial 

point of view! Since I left the private sector and re-entered public service, either of 

them could have asked me to step back into less-visible, less-consuming work. InFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

14 

stead they’ve encouraged me to give everything I can for as long as I can to this 

country that we love so much. Thank you, Susan and Nick. 

To the men and women of the CIA: To say that it has been an honor, a privilege, 

and a joy doesn’t do justice to the gratitude I feel to have served as your leader. 

I’ve demanded much over the last 15 months, setting expectations high. I’ve pushed 

responsibility and authority through the organization to every officer and, along 

with that, the required accountability. And you, the warriors of the CIA, have delivered—for America, for President Trump, and for me. Perhaps the highest compliments on our work come from our adversaries, whose fear and awe for our institution have steadily increased; and from our partner services around the world, 

which ask for more training, more intelligence sharing, and more joint operations 

than ever. This is not goodbye, because no matter how my nomination process ends, 

I will be with you, I will support you, and I will admire you. 

Finally, I want to thank the President for his confidence and trust. My job at the 

CIA has been to deliver him world class intelligence, data, and facts, to help inform 

his decisions. I’m honored that he has selected me to help carry out many of those 

decisions as his chief diplomat. 

Senators, if confirmed, I would raise my hand and swear an oath to defend our 

Constitution for the seventh time in my life. The first time was as an eighteen-yearold West Point cadet. With this oath, I would commit to defend the exceptionalism 

enshrined in our Constitution, which provides for our obligation to engage in diplomacy and model the very best of America to the world. 

Make no mistake: America is uniquely blessed, and with those blessings comes 

a duty to lead. As I have argued throughout my time in public service, if we do not 

lead the calls for democracy, prosperity, and human rights around the world, who 

will? No other nation is equipped with the same blend of power and principle. 

During this hearing, I anticipate that you are duty bound to learn and draw out 

information on two fronts: ‘‘Who is Mike Pompeo?’’ and ‘‘What are his thoughts and 

plans to lead our State Department?’’ Here’s a good start. 

I was born in Orange, California and spent every summer on our family farm in 

Kansas. We didn’t have a lot of money growing up, but my sister and brother and 

I loved school and had fun. When I was a teenager, I was given the ‘‘Employee of 

the Month’’ award twice in my job at the local Baskin-Robbins ice cream store. I’m 

a movie buff and admit to a soft spot for my golden retrievers. My family says my 

Italian meatballs, my Dad’s recipe, are the best. I loved the challenge of teaching 

Sunday School to 5th graders who couldn’t sit still. Although he would dispute it, 

I can beat my son, Nick, in corn hole on any given day. I love Revolutionary War 

history, country music, show tunes, and college basketball. My appointment to the 

United States Military Academy at age eighteen marked my first travel east of the 

Mississippi, and those four years at West Point changed my life forever. 

As a leader, I have been described as ‘‘blue collar’’—that is, I’m not afraid to get 

my hands dirty. I don’t ever stay sequestered on the executive floor of any building. 

I have no discomfort with directness or confrontation; I prefer face-to-face conversations over email; I don’t hold grudges and I always make time for student and 

youth programs in the organizations that I run—they are our future. Just this past 

Monday, I swore in another class of freshly minted CIA officers. It was a very special moment for me. 

That’s a look at who I am. Now for the question of how I would lead the United 

States Department of State. I will focus on what matters most in any leadership 

role: actions—not words. 

Set the Mission & Empower the Diplomatic Corps 

Throughout my time in Congress and at the CIA, I’ve met hundreds of State Department leaders and officers, and I’ve met even more over the past month. In a 

recent series of Department briefings with team members at State, they all, to a 

person, expressed a hope to be empowered in their roles, and to have a clear understanding of the President’s mission. That will be my first priority. They also shared 

how demoralizing it is to have so many vacancies and, frankly, not to feel relevant. 

I’ll do my part to end the vacancies, but I’ll need your help. And I will work every 

day to provide dedicated leadership and convey my faith in their work—just as I 

have done with my workforce at the CIA. 

When I took over as Director, the CIA had just completed a massive restructuring 

that caused considerable turbulence—as these things do. Immediately after my arrival, I began speaking in every meeting and every conversation about the Agency’s 

mission, providing the team with the ‘‘Commander’s Intent.’’ I worked relentlessly 

to break down unnecessary layers of approval, reached out to the career professionals, did a lot of listening, and encouraged our officers to be creative and take 

risk when required. Further, I encouraged our officers to make independent deciFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

15 

sions. If I couldn’t add value, I wanted them to execute and be accountable. And 

understanding that any organization will experience failure when reaching for great 

things, I promised to have their backs. And I did. No one will ever take calculated, 

lawful risks to reach greatness if they feel it could end their career. And, when our 

team needed extra resources, I never hesitated to ask the President—and so long 

as he found value in the task, he never hesitated to provide them. I will, with your 

help, do the same at the Department of State. 

You have my commitment, too, that I will work with each of you, the White 

House, and the entire Senate to fill the senior vacancies. This is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps in the world. America and the world need us to 

be that. 

Strengthen Workforce Culture and Communication 

The second action item I’d like to highlight is strengthening workforce culture and 

communication. 

I learned many years ago from a crusty Sergeant First Class that good leaders 

need to shut up and listen. A lot. Just as I’ve done in each of my previous leadership 

roles, I will rely on those around me to achieve the team’s goals. And we will listen 

to our foreign partners as well. At the CIA, I launched regularly-scheduled, small 

group town halls, not very originally titled, ‘‘Meet with Mike.’’ The first 75 or so officers to sign up had the chance to spend an hour with me listening to them. I not 

only enjoyed these sessions, but I learned a great deal. Further, I almost never travelled abroad without meeting with my local team on the ground. They were crucial 

to my understanding of the nuance of each country and its people. I also wanted 

the chance to ask them if they had everything they needed. 

It matters deeply to me that our staff and their families are safe and thriving. 

When traveling on behalf of the Agency, it was always important to me to be able 

to assess security and medical resources, housing, schools, and other support for our 

families. Not long ago, I was traveling on an overseas trip when it became apparent 

there were serious housing safety issues for Agency and State Department families 

at one post. While I was only on the ground a short time, I was able to talk with 

the Ambassador to lodge my concerns and ask that action be taken. I do not want 

to send any family where I would not send my own, nor will I send an officer where 

I would not go. 

The State Department’s workforce must, by necessity, be diverse in every sense 

of the word—in terms of race, religion, background, and more. I’ll work to achieve 

that diversity, just as I have successfully done at CIA, by focusing on mission and 

demanding that every team member be treated equally and with dignity and respect. 

But there is one more ingredient critical to our success—and that is listening to 

and working alongside each of you and your staffs. I have used, at CIA, the model 

former Director Panetta suggested to me: fewer hearings, more cups of coffee; shorter conversations, more frequently. I found it most useful with your colleagues on 

SSCI and hope that you, too, will find it valuable. 

All of this—listening, leveraging differences, unleashing talent, teamwork—will 

become the fabric of a State Department culture that finds its swagger once again. 

We will be effective, expeditionary, diverse, and successful in fulfilling our mission. 

Serving the Commander in Chief 

So far I’ve talked about how I would empower the Department of State to succeed 

in its work. Now let me talk a little about the work itself. By definition, the job 

description of the Secretary of State is to ‘‘serve as the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser.’’ 

This definition was driven home to me in recent conversations with former Secretaries of State. I asked each of them how they had defined the core responsibilities 

of the job. They were remarkably consistent in their answers: job number one is to 

represent the President. 

For me, this means building substantial relationships with our allies—relationships that President Trump and I can utilize for both tough conversations and productive cooperation. It also means working with our adversaries to make clear 

America’s objectives and the means by which we intend to achieve them. In this regard, I’m fortunate to have a sizeable head start. 

On as many as a third of my days at the Agency, I’m engaged with foreign counterparts. I have led the CIA to forge stronger relationships with our closest partners 

in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I’ve travelled to these 

regions to demonstrate our commitment to working alongside them. I’ve also met 

with leaders in countries with which we share very few common objectives. I’ve 

asked my team to find those narrow slivers of common ground to stand on, so that 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

16 

we can deliver results for America. I would do the same at the State Department. 

We must do so not simply to be collegial, but to find partners who will help us 

achieve our objectives. I deeply believe this. 

Representing America also requires promoting America’s ideals, values, and priorities to those who ultimately determine the trajectory of geopolitics: the voters and 

citizens of the world. To succeed in our diplomacy, it is important to appeal directly 

to key populations, and not to forfeit the perception of our country to misleading 

state media or other faulty information channels. 

Whether speaking to foreign leaders or the foreign public, it is important for the 

Secretary of State to clearly communicate the President’s directives and goals. Every 

former Secretary I spoke with stressed the importance of maintaining a close relationship with the President. 

I’ve worked to build that kind of relationship with President Trump over the past 

15 months through hundreds of hours of intelligence briefings. My relationship with 

President Trump is due to one thing: we’ve demonstrated value to him at the CIA. 

So, in turn, he has come to rely on us. I intend to ensure that the Department of 

State will be just as central to the President’s policies and the national security of 

the United States. We need to be nimble, smart, and relevant to the difficult issues 

the President confronts every day—always delivering value. I cannot deliver effective diplomacy worldwide on my own. I will need the men and women of our diplomatic corps exercising their skills to deliver this value to our country. 

One of the many values of robust diplomacy is that it increases our chances of 

solving problems peacefully, without ever firing a shot. I saw this as a young cavalry officer in the United States Army, where I led troops patrolling the Berlin Wall 

from 1986 to 1989. The remarkable work of Foreign Service officers, over many 

years, no doubt saved my soldiers and me from military confrontation with the Soviet Union—a war for which we were preparing, and a conflict that the world thankfully avoided. 

I know firsthand the painful sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. So 

when journalists, most of whom have never met me, label me—or any of you—as 

‘‘hawks,’’ ‘‘war hardliners,’’ or worse, I shake my head. There are few who dread war 

more than those of us who have served in uniform. And there is a great deal of room 

between a military presence and war. War is always the last resort. I would prefer 

achieving the President’s foreign policy goals with unrelenting diplomacy rather 

than by sending young men and women to war. 

I am serving a President who feels the same way. While the military balance of 

power can set the stage and create leverage, the best outcomes are won through negotiations and the gains they can achieve. 

Diplomacy is for the Brave and the Bold: Global Challenges and Opportunities 

At this time I’d like to talk about the substantive challenges facing the State Department around the world. These challenges are well known to this committee, but 

I’ll briefly share my views on a few of the most critical. 

First, diplomatic efforts are underway to rid the world of a nuclear North Korea. 

There is no higher diplomatic task for the State Department team than solving this 

decades-in-the-making threat to our nation. The stakes are high for everyone, but 

I believe them to be the highest for the North Korean regime. The State Department has successfully rallied the world to cut ties and impose sanctions that have 

had a profound impact. But there is much diplomatic work left to do, including supporting the President’s intent to meet with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. 

That meeting will take place against a backdrop of commitment by our President 

to achieve denuclearization and prevent America from being held at risk by a North 

Korean arsenal of nuclear weapons. I have read the CIA histories of previous negotiations with the North Koreans, and am confident that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. President Trump isn’t one to play games at the negotiating 

table—and I won’t be either. 

Next, Russia continues to act aggressively, enabled by years of soft policy toward 

that aggression. That’s now over. The list of this administration’s actions to raise 

the cost for Vladimir Putin is long. We are rebuilding our already strong military 

and recapitalizing our nuclear deterrent. We have imposed tough sanctions and expelled more Russian diplomats and intelligence officers from the U.S. than at any 

time since the Cold War. We are arming brave young men and women resisting 

Russian expansionism in Ukraine and Georgia. This list is much longer, and I’m 

confident I’ll have the opportunity to add to it today. But the actions of this administration make clear that President Trump’s national security strategy, rightfully, 

has identified Russia as a danger to our country. Our diplomatic efforts with Russia 

will prove challenging, but as in previous confrontations with Moscow, must continue. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

17 

Iran, meanwhile, has been on the march and has paid too low a price for its dangerous behavior. Our administration has developed a strategy to counter Iran that 

will raise that cost. The issues surrounding Iran’s proliferation threat are real and 

we, along with our allies, must deal with the long-term risk that its capability presents. But we cannot let the nuclear file prevent us from acting against Iran’s cyber 

efforts or its attempts to provide missiles to the Houthis to attack Saudi Arabia and 

Americans who travel there. Iran’s activities in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon threaten 

the very existence of Israel, and the global reach of Hezbollah threatens us right 

here in the homeland. Iran freed American hostages for the sake of a deal and then 

turned immediately to holding still more. I will work for their freedom every day. 

President Trump is prepared to work with our partners to revise the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to fix its most egregious flaws. If confirmed, it will be an 

immediate personal priority to work with those partners to see if such a fix is 

achievable. The stakes are high for everyone, but especially Tehran. If confirmed in 

time, I look forward to engaging key Allies on this crucial and time-sensitive topic 

at the G7 Ministerial Meeting on April 22nd and the NATO Ministerial Meeting 

later that week. 

Even while America has reestablished a position of strength in our diplomatic relationship, China continues its concerted and coordinated effort to compete with the 

United States in diplomatic, military, and economic terms. For years, through IP 

theft and coercive technology transfer, China has exploited weak U.S. trade policy 

and leeched wealth and secrets from our economy. Militarily, it continues its provocation in the South and East China Seas, in cyberspace, and even in outer space. 

This administration is determined to work diplomatically with the Chinese government in an effort to develop a more productive bilateral partnership. We have been 

pleased with China’s support of our efforts to apply pressure on the North Korean 

regime, but it must do more. The State Department must be at the center of formulating and executing our China policy. 

Those are just a few of our challenges. The failed state of Syria poses a mounting 

threat to human rights, national security, and regional stability—and it deserves an 

increasingly severe response. Similarly, our nation faces unique and pressing security, governance, and development challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America 

and Africa, where our diplomacy must support people’s efforts to improve their lives. 

The State Department must also be at the forefront of America’s efforts to ease humanitarian crises in Burma, Yemen, Venezuela, parts of Africa, and elsewhere. 

Couched in all of our global challenges are opportunities—opportunities to promote security, stability, and human rights in key regions. I also believe we have opportunities for increasingly robust and fair trading relationships that benefit the 

American people. 

Should I be confirmed as Secretary of State, I will execute diligent and firm diplomacy, working alongside the world’s finest diplomatic service, to help our President 

confront the challenges and seize the opportunities of our time. 

Bound by Duty 

Before I take your questions, I want to speak for a moment about duty to country—which is something I feel today in great measure. I know all of you feel the 

heavy weight of it in your positions, as does President Trump. 

The desire we all feel to fulfill our duty to the best of our ability often manifests 

itself in a fierce competition of ideas, including on the subject of foreign policy. 

America’s engagement with the world has always, rightfully, been a topic of debate. 

I’m sure we’ll engage in a healthy amount of that in just a moment. Yet, all 

throughout my life, I’ve been reminded that once the debates conclude, the carrying 

out of our foreign policy—the actions that make it real—must be a matter of duty. 

It’s a reminder that while our country might disagree on the ‘‘what’’ and the 

‘‘how’’ of our global involvement, it rarely disagrees on the ‘‘why’’—which is to defend the safety of our families, the prosperity of our nation, and the survival of freedom in our world. Diplomacy gives us the chance to achieve these goals peacefully. 

I believe our Commander in Chief has made historic strides already in pursuit 

of this mission. If I have the honor of serving him as Secretary of State, I pledge 

to work with each of you, to strengthen our State Department, to champion the patriots who serve there, and to deliver on our shared diplomatic objectives—on behalf 

of every American. 

I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for the testimony. I am going to withhold my time and use it for interjections along the way. 

And with that, I will turn to our distinguished ranking member, 

Senator Menendez. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

18 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, thank you for your testimony. Director, the Washington 

Post reported last year that, on March 22nd of 2017, you and Director of National Intelligence Coats attended a briefing at the 

White House with officials from several government agencies. 

The article says, ‘‘As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked 

everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director 

Pompeo. The President then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey’s handling of it, said officials familiar with 

the account Coats gave to associates. Two days earlier, Comey had 

confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau was probing 

whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 

2016 race. After the encounter, Coats discussed the conversation 

with other officials and decided that intervening with Comey as 

Trump had suggested would be inappropriate, according to officials 

who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal 

matters.’’ That is the end of the quote. 

So, Director, this account strongly suggests that the President 

asked you and Director Coats to interfere with then-FBI Director 

Comey’s investigations into the Trump campaign’s contacts with 

Russia. 

What did President Trump say to you and Director Coats in that 

meeting? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am not going to talk about the conversations the President and I had. I think—I think it is, in this setting, 

appropriate for a President to have an opportunity to talk with his 

senior leaders. I will do that throughout the day. 

But I will tell you this, the article’s suggestion that he asked me 

to do anything that was improper is false. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Did he ask you to do anything as it relates 

to that investigation? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I don’t recall. I don’t recall what he asked 

me that day precisely. But I have to tell you, I am with the President an awful lot. He has never asked me to do anything that I 

considered remotely improper. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So when you say you are not going to talk 

about that conversation, you are not asserting executive privilege, 

are you? 

Mr. POMPEO. No, Senator. I believe, and I think you will agree, 

we will talk about foreign policy issues. We will talk about—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. This has a connotation of foreign policy, because this is about Russia. And so at the end of the day, understanding how you responded, what you will do as we are looking 

at mandatory sanctions that the administration has yet to impose, 

looking at how we are going to deal with a Russia that not only 

sought to affect our last elections but is doing so even as we speak 

both here at home and across the world, those are substantive 

questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So it is not for me just simply a question of 

interest. It is a question of understanding what you were asked, 

how you responded, and what you did. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, you talked about the important policy 

issues. I am happy to talk about this administration’s work on RusFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

19 

sia. I am happy to talk about our work on sanctions, if that is what 

you—if that was your question—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me ask you this. Did President Trump 

ever discuss the FBI or Special Counsel’s Russia investigation with 

you? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, again, I am not going to talk about private 

conversations I have had with the President. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So whenever you come, if you were to be 

confirmed, in the future, and we want to try to talk about foreign 

policy, and we ask you where is the President at or this or that, 

you are not going to disclose any of the conversations? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am happy—Senator, I am happy to answer questions about our administration’s policies, the work that 

we are doing. You are asking about conversations. You should 

know, Senator, as well, I have provided—I spoke with Special 

Counsel Mueller, who interviewed me, requested an interview. I cooperated. Your colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee 

have asked for information from me and from the Central Intelligence Agency, as has the House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence. I think the leaders of those two organizations in a bipartisan way would say I have been cooperative. And in matters—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. So you have spoken to Special Counsel 

Mueller? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And what was the subject of the conversation? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am not going to speak to that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Did the Special Counsel tell you not to speak 

about these things? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have cooperated with multiple investigations. While the investigation continues, I think that is the appropriate way to approach it. And you should know, and no one here 

today should take away any—because of the fact that I don’t want 

to speak out, there should be no negative inferences with respect 

to anything or, for that matter, positive inferences about the fact 

that I think it is most appropriate that, while these investigations 

continue, I not speak to the conversations I have had with the various investigative bodies. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I am sure that if I asked Director Mueller— 

I mean, Special Counsel Mueller a simple question, whether you 

were told you couldn’t, I don’t think he would say you couldn’t. So 

it is your choice that you are not seeking to do so. 

And for me, these questions being answered truthfully in a forthcoming way are critically important, because it goes to the very essence of how you approach one of the most critical issues that we 

have. And your unwillingness to speak to it is troubling to me. 

Let me ask you this. President Trump has repeatedly said that 

‘‘getting along with Russia is a good thing.’’ Yesterday, he tweeted, 

‘‘Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been.... 

There is no reason for this.’’ And he indicated he would like to help 

Russia with its economy. 

What behavior, if any, has the Kremlin shown that indicates it 

wants to get along with the United States or our allies? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

20 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, this administration has taken a series of 

actions to push back against Vladimir Putin. 

Senator MENENDEZ. That is not my question. Let’s start with my 

question. 

Mr. POMPEO. But, Senator—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. My question is, what behavior has the 

Kremlin shown that it indicates it wants to get along with the 

United States? Is there any? If so, please share it with me. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I take a backseat to no one with my views 

of the threat that is presented to America from Russia. And if I am 

confirmed as the Secretary of State, I can assure you this administration will continue as it has for the past 15 months to take real 

actions to push pack, to reset the deterrence relationship with respect to Russia. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let’s talk about that, because I see that is 

in your written statement, and you suggest that there is a robust 

response to Russia. 

On February 27th, Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Administration and U.S. Cyber Command, warned 

the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Trump administration has not done enough to stop the Russians. ‘‘I believe that 

President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there is little price to pay here and that, therefore, he can continue his activity.’’ 

On April 3rd, the outgoing National Security Advisor, General 

H.R. McMaster, said, and I quote, ‘‘We have failed to impose sufficient costs on Russia,’’ and that the Kremlin’s confidence is growing. 

And then, for your reference, here is a series of mandatory provisions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, part of which I helped write, which have not been implemented by the administration: Section 225, mandatory sanctions 

related to special Russian crude oil products; Section 226, mandatory sanctions with respect to Russia and other foreign financial institutions; Section 228, mandatory sanctions with respect to certain 

transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human 

rights abusers in the Russian Federation; Section 231, mandatory 

sanctions with respect to persons engaging in transactions with the 

intelligence and defense sectors of the Government of the Russian 

Federation. There are more. 

That is not a robust response to Russia. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Before I turn to Senator Risch, I want to welcome Senator King. 

I would like for the people of Maine to know he does this often. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. When things are serious, he comes and actually 

listens to the testimony. We thank you for doing so. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Mike, thank you for your service at intel, at the CIA. That has 

been great. 

For those of you on the committee, Senator Rubio and I are the 

only two that have the crosspollination, I guess. We have the great 

privilege of serving on the Intel Committee. And we hear from the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

21 

heads of all of the 17 agencies that we have that engage in intelligence matters. 

And over the years, over the 10 years I have been on it, we have 

had numerous heads of agencies come in, and sometimes, frankly, 

we feel we are getting stiff-armed. I can tell all of you on this committee that Mike Pompeo has been candid when he came in before 

the Intel Committee. He has been helpful. And he has always been 

straightforward with us. 

So thank you for your service there. You have earned my respect, 

in that regard. And you will certainly get my vote for confirmation 

on this job. 

I think that that service as head of the CIA is going to serve you 

very well, as you know. It served me very well on this committee, 

having some of that in-depth knowledge that you don’t necessarily 

get in the public media. 

Being Secretary of State is unique, I think, as far as the agency 

heads are concerned. You, first of all, have the public duties, and 

it has been referenced here. It is a very high-profile job, in that you 

go around the world being the face of America and doing the kinds 

of things that you do. 

And your predecessor was very good at that. I thought he carried 

the flag as well as anyone could carry it. 

This job, however, as Secretary of State, has a couple other facets 

to it that you have to do at the same time, and it is hard to keep 

all the balls in the air. One of them, of course, is being part of the 

management team with the President, as far as managing, really, 

the United States. 

And, thirdly, and I think very importantly, is the actual management of the bureaucracy. And I don’t use ‘‘bureaucracy’’ here in a 

pejorative way. The thousands of men and women who are in Foreign Service who are working with the State Department make us 

proud every day. They are bipartisan. They do a great job. 

I think that there has been a fair amount of criticism, everyone 

knows, that your predecessor did have, was hampered a bit because 

he did not have some of those jobs filled that are so important 

there. And we all know that, in order to manage an agency like 

that, you have to have really good, solid people around you to be 

able to make the bureaucracy work in the things that aren’t the 

high-profile meetings and what have you around the world. 

Could you give us your thoughts, give all of us your thoughts on 

how you are going to go about that, because it needs some work. 

There is no question about it. And it is going to make your job better. It is going to make the State Department work better. So could 

you give us your thoughts on that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, first, thank you for your kind words. I did, 

as a CIA Director, I have consistently tried to work closely with 

you and provide you everything that you have asked for in a timely 

fashion. I think we have succeeded often, if not always. And we 

have worked diligently at that. I promise to do that with this committee as well. 

With respect to building a team out of the State Department, 

this is something I have done multiple times in my life. I did it as 

a tank platoon leader. I did it as a cavalry troop. I did it for two 

small businesses in Kansas. And then I worked hard at it at CIA. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

22 

I will it leave to others to judge the success. But I did it because 

I knew it was an imperative. 

At the State Department, there are too many holes, too many vacancies, too many unfilled positions. When that happens, everyone 

is stretched thin in the subject matter expertise that is needed to 

deliver America’s diplomacy around the world, to conduct its mission, its humanitarian missions, its development missions. Each of 

the missions which are entrusted to the State Department require 

talented people on station doing their part, working alongside it. 

The way I will think about it is the same way I did at the CIA. 

I will start with those things that I think are the biggest gaps and 

present the biggest risk to America’s capacity to execute its diplomacy. We don’t yet have an Ambassador to South Korea. We need 

one. There are a handful of other places that have a requirement 

for immediate attention. 

With respect to each of those positions, I am a talent hawk. I will 

find what I believe to be the best fit to execute America’s diplomatic mission around the world. And I will encourage, demand, cajole them to come join the team and be part of our organization in 

a way that can successfully deliver. Some of them will be fantastic 

civil servants and Foreign Service Officers, others from the outside. 

But in each case, I will try to identify the right person to occupy 

the position at this challenging time in America’s history. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. You made reference to the 

fact that there are ambassadorships that are empty. I think there 

are 37 of them. And the good news is that you have a really deep 

bench at the State Department. And a good example is in South 

Korea. 

I had the good fortune of being there, as you know, recently, 

doing some things. And the charge d’affaires who is in charge there 

has done a fabulous job, as you know. 

And we do have that deep bench at the State Department. But, 

again, we do need the ambassadorships filled, and we do need, particularly, I think, the top positions in the department filled, and 

people with the authority to act and people with the authority to 

do the things that need to be done. 

So thank you for that. I have every confidence you will be able 

to do that. 

Your candor with the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that, 

if you can come in front of that committee and disgorge in a candid 

fashion, I have every confidence you are going to be able to do that 

here. 

So thank you again for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Pompeo, first of all, thank you for your career of public service. I want to thank your family, because this 

clearly is going to be a family sacrifice. It already has been. But 

it will be even more deeply felt by your family. So I very much appreciate all that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to follow up on the chairman’s opening 

comments about the need for the Secretary of State to be a strong, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

23 

independent voice in the White House, particularly in this White 

House, and with the President’s announced policy of America first, 

which has been interpreted globally as America alone, which is 

your mission, if you are confirmed, to use diplomacy to engage the 

international community. 

So I want to ask you a couple questions, and I would ask that 

you give your views, not the President’s. I want to know your 

views. 

Secondly, I would hope that you would briefly answer the questions, because I have a lot of questions I want answered. Please respect the time restrictions that we are operating under. 

And let me start first, if I might, with the Iran nuclear agreement that has been referred to. There is no question that Iran is 

a bad actor here, and they continue to be a bad actor. And this 

Congress, with your help, we passed very strong legislation to provide additional sanctions against Iran for its nonnuclear violations, 

including its ballistic missiles. And we want strict enforcement of 

the nuclear agreement. 

But it is clear from what the President has announced that he 

wants to see changes in the nuclear agreement. It has also been 

very clear that Europe has said pretty directly we cannot unilaterally, the West, modify the agreement, and that Iran is in compliance with the agreement. 

General Dunford has said, unless there is a material breach, we 

have an impact in others’ willingness to sign other agreements if 

we pull out of this agreement, with reference to North Korea, the 

challenges of entering into diplomacy. 

So my direct question, if the President determines that you cannot modify this agreement, and Iran is in compliance, what is your 

view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the 

Iran nuclear agreement? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I know clearly what my mission is going 

to be. The President has made very clear what the Secretary of 

State’s mission has been, and I expect no change to that. 

Senator CARDIN. I didn’t ask—I asked, what are your views? I 

understand that. We have had nominees come before this committee and express their views—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN.—and are doing very well in this administration, 

and who have disagreed with the President, and the President gets 

the last word. I understand that. 

Mr. POMPEO. I have done it many times. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to know your views. 

Mr. POMPEO. I have done it many times, Senator. 

I cannot answer that question. Here is why. But let me tell you 

how I approach it. Let me tell you how I you how I think about 

it. Here is how—— 

Senator CARDIN. I—— 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. If you will, if you will let me tell you 

how I think about it, then you can—I want to fix this deal. That 

is the objective. I think that is in the best interest of the United 

States. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. But if the agreement cannot be 

changed—my question is pretty simple. We are running very close 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

24 

to a deadline on certification. What is your view? Is it better to pull 

out of an agreement that Iran is in compliance with if we can’t fix 

it? Or is it better to stay in the agreement as the—— 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Senator—— 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. Yes or no? 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Senator, it is not a yes or no question, 

because it is a hypothetical. We are not at that point. 

Let me tell—— 

Senator CARDIN. The President has to certify on May the 12th. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Yes, sir. That is yet almost a month 

away. 

It depends, clearly, if we are close—imagine, just as a hypothetical matter, imagine we are close to achieving the fix that the 

President has asked the State Department to achieve. If we are 

close, if there is some opportunity—— 

Senator CARDIN. Do you pull out, if you are close? 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. In the event—in the event that we conclude that we can’t fix this deal, that these serious shortcomings 

that you, Senator Cardin, yourself, have identified, then the President is going to be given best advice, including by me. 

And if there is no chance that we can fix it, I will recommend 

to the President that we do our level best to work with our allies 

to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. 

Senator CARDIN. By—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Even after May 12th, Senator, even after May 12th, 

there is still much diplomatic work to be done. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. I think you have answered the 

question. You have been—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, just to be clear, it is more than just Europe. 

Senator CARDIN. You have been pretty clear about the outcome 

you would like to see in North Korea, which I believe—if I am misstating this, please, let me know—which is regime change. Is that 

accurate? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, you have misstated that. 

Senator CARDIN. Okay. Are you in favor of regime change in 

North Korea? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, my mission is—and I have articulated my 

own personal views on this. We have a responsibility to achieve a 

condition where Kim Jong-un is unable to threaten the United 

States of America with nuclear weapons. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that. So are you saying now you 

don’t favor regime change? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have never advocated for regime change. 

I have all along—— 

Senator CARDIN. It is a simple question. So you are not—you do 

not believe—— 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. I am happy to answer today that I am 

not advocating for regime change. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. Thank you. I appreciate that. I 

want to get that clear. 

Let me go on to—— 

Mr. POMPEO. And, Senator, just to be clear, my role as a diplomat is to make sure that we never get to a place where we have 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

25 

to confront the difficult situation in Korea that this country has 

been headed for now for a couple of decades. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. So let me get to the international 

climate talks and agreements that were entered into in Paris, the 

fact that every Nation in the world has now joined in that, this is, 

as I explained to you as we talked in our office, as you understand, 

these are self-imposed goals enforced only by ourselves. 

The President has indicated his intentions to withdraw from the 

international agreement. It takes a period of time before it becomes 

effective. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. But he has already initiated the process. If it, 

in fact, takes place, we would be the only country that is not part 

of the agreement. 

Do you support the United States withdrawing from the climate 

agreements? 

Mr. POMPEO. I share the President’s position precisely, which is 

that the Paris Agreement put an undue burden on the United 

States of America and that we should work to find a place where 

that is not the case. And when that moment arrives, we will be 

part of that discussion and reenter that agreement. 

Senator CARDIN. So you stand by your—— 

Mr. POMPEO. That is both my view, and I believe I am speaking 

for the administration’s view. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. So you believe self-imposed requirements working with the international community, I think I am 

quoting you accurately, is dangerously wrong, bows down to radical 

environmentalists, and the science is inconclusive. You stand by 

those statements today? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, we need to work to arrange a situation 

that treats American citizens in the same way that others around 

the world—— 

Senator CARDIN. And do you—— 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. —So there is a shared burden to attack 

this challenge. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. Do you see the challenge, that that 

is going to make your job, if confirmed, more challenging? 

Your job is to work with the international community, our 

friends and foes alike—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. To try to get diplomacy to work. 

And yet, the United States would be the only country saying we 

do not want to talk to you about climate under the arrangements 

that every other country is dealing with. You don’t see a conflict 

with that position and trying to be the top diplomat of America, the 

leader of the world? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, there are many times that we work with 

our allies, and there are many other times when we just don’t see 

it the same way. 

I give you many indications, many examples of where this administration has worked with those same allies. 

Just recently, the work that we did against Russia in response 

to the attack that took place in Britain, we worked with our EuroFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

26 

pean allies. We did so very closely. This would be after the President’s announcement that he intended to withdraw from Paris. 

So it can still work. I will give you another example. 

The coalition that this administration has built to put pressure 

on Kim Jong-un is unique and historic and important. 

So there will be places that our allies come alongside us, and others that they don’t. And my task as the chief diplomat will be to 

get America’s position well-known and to rally the world to the 

causes that benefit America. 

I look forward to doing that, if I am confirmed, as well, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I turn to Senator Rubio, I am going to use 

30 seconds of my time. 

Just on the Iran issue, it is my sense in personal conversation 

with the President that if the Europeans do not come along with 

a framework agreement by May 12th, it is likely that he will withdraw. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, the President has made that very clear. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so I do not think Senator Cardin fully—I 

don’t think he heard the same thing I heard. 

And your sense is that, should that happen, then you would continue after that time to try to create a better agreement. Is that 

what your answer was? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. Senator, the President has stated his objective. 

I have heard him say it to my predecessor or, excuse me, to Secretary Tillerson. I have heard him say that his goal is to take the 

three shortcomings that he identified and fix them. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I need to correct the record. I 

understand the President’s position. I was asking the nominee’s position. I wasn’t asking the President’s position. I want to know your 

view on it, not the President’s. I understand the President’s view. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I think—again, I know this is going to be 

highly discussed publicly. I think what Director Pompeo is saying 

is that is also his opinion, and that should the agreement then be 

negated, he would work for a better agreement after that, should 

the framework agreement not come in place by May 12th. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

First, just an editorial statement at the front end. 

One of the reasons why I have been—apart from how well I know 

the nominee and the work he has done in intelligence, is I think 

one of the critical components to be a successful Secretary of State 

is that, when the Secretary of State comes to town, leaders and 

diplomats need to know that this is someone who is in the inner 

circle of the President, that has the President’s trust and speaks 

for the administration. 

And I can just tell you from experience from the work that we 

have done with Director Pompeo that, if confirmed, when he comes 

to town, leaders around the world will know that someone who has 

not just access to the President but is part of the President’s trusted inner circle and speaks for the President and for his policies— 

is just critical for the success of the Secretary of State. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

27 

And I would imagine, if you have spoken as you have to all the 

living Secretary of States, they would have told you that that component of that relationship is so important. 

And I would just say anything that would undermine that, obviously, is something that would undermine the ability to do the job 

in that way. 

I have a series of quick questions, and they are important, because it gives people some context about your views on foreign policy and America’s role in the world, which, by the way, predate 

your time at the Central Intelligence Agency and includes your 

time in the House of Representatives and perhaps even before that. 

You still agree, do you not, on the matter of the Russian invasion 

of Ukraine, that the United States has an obligation to help 

Ukraine defend its sovereignty? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. 

Senator RUBIO. And you still agree that, far from being a great 

public service, WikiLeaks is more of like a nonstate actor hostile 

to the national interests and security of the United States? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator Rubio, I do believe that. 

Senator RUBIO. And I think you still agree that Vladimir Putin’s 

government actively interfered in our presidential elections and 

elections at large in 2016, and they did so because it is part of a 

longstanding theory or belief that, through disinformation and 

propaganda, they could win ‘‘bloodless wars’’ against democracies 

in the West, including the United States? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. That is correct. 

Senator RUBIO. Of the five main threats facing the United 

States—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and radical jihadists— 

they all have one common thread: authoritarianism. Would you 

agree that, today, the major faultline in global affairs repeatedly is 

the competition, really a global competition between autocratic systems of governance and the democratic system, that that, in many 

ways, has played out over and over again in the foreign affairs of 

this country and in global issues? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it is with striking consistency the case 

that the countries that share our vision of the world and share our 

democratic values are not authoritarian, and those that don’t are 

not. 

Senator RUBIO. And so, in that vein, you would again agree that 

promoting democracy isn’t just a nice thing to do or a good thing 

to do, or promoting democracy is not us butting into other people’s 

business or invading their sovereignty. So it is more than just a 

moral imperative. Promoting democracy is, in the context of that 

competition as we have just discussed, promoting democracy is in 

the vital national interests of the United States. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, indeed, Senator. And our effectiveness at doing 

that is an important tool of American foreign policy. 

Senator RUBIO. And there is this ridiculous argument out there 

when people talk about Russian interference and their efforts and 

so forth that that is no different than what America does when it 

moments democracy. There are huge differences, are there not? 

For example, when they interfere in an election, they are trying 

to influence the outcome. When we promote democracy, we are trying to improve the process, not necessarily who they elect. SomeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

28 

times democracies elect leaders that are not as friendly towards the 

United States. 

When they interfere in elections, they use government and their 

intelligence agencies and the like. When we promote democracy, it 

is largely through the work of nongovernmental organizations, who 

may receive assistance from our government. 

When they undermine democracy, they do it in secret. They hide 

it, and they deny it. We do it openly. We brag about it. We are 

talking about it here today. 

And when we promote democracy, we do it at the invitation of 

someone in those countries, whether it is a political party, an organization, oftentimes the government itself. When they undermine 

democracy, they do so against the will of the people of that Nation 

and of the governments in place. 

There is no equivalence between the promotion of democracy and 

Russian and other attempts to interfere in democracy. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, there is neither an operational equivalence, as you have described it, that is, the methodologies used are 

very different, nor is there a moral equivalence between the two efforts. They are fundamentally different in every way, and America’s democracy promotion around the world is conducted in way 

that America should be incredibly proud of. 

Senator RUBIO. And one of the first things autocratic rulers do, 

almost by definition, is they violate the human rights of their people and, of course, have no problem violating the human rights of 

others, as we have recently seen through war crimes and atrocities 

repeatedly committed by an autocratic government in Syria with 

the support of autocratic governments in Iran and Russia. 

Therefore, I believe you would agree that defending human 

rights isn’t just a good thing to do or just the right moral thing to 

do, which it most certainly is. Defending human rights is also in 

the national interest of the United States of America? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do believe that, Senator. 

Senator RUBIO. And it would be a priority at the State Department. 

Mr. POMPEO. It would. And not only do I believe it, I think history would reflect that to be the case. 

Senator RUBIO. Now, after the end of the Cold War, we had this 

belief that history had ended, and everyone was going to be a democracy, and everybody was going to embrace capitalism, as we 

understand it, with free economics and the like. 

That hasn’t really worked out in the case of a lot of places, particularly China. They have most certainly not embraced democracy. 

They have actually gotten more autocratic. And they have embraced a definition of the world economic order that basically 

means we will take all the benefits of global trade and global economics, but we do not intend to live by any of its obligations. And 

so I personally believe that it was a terrible mistake that leaders 

in both parties have made. 

And now, as part of their strategy, you see China doing things 

like trying to create strategic depth in Eurasia, their efforts to establish all these different programs, the Belt and Road Initiative, 

Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road. They are not just efforts to create new overland trade corridors. They are efforts to, basically, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

29 

make these nations economically, politically, and, eventually, militarily dependent on and vulnerable to China. 

And their maritime borders in the South and East China Sea, 

you see that they feel vulnerable and insecure. They see American 

allies in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan. 

And so what they are working on now is fracturing our economic 

and defense alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. That is why they 

are investing billions of dollars in building up their navy and their 

air force to be able to establish air and sea denial to the U.S. military and, ultimately, make the argument: Don’t count on America’s 

defense and/or partnership, because it is just paper. They can’t live 

up to it anymore. 

What are your recommendations for the President, as far as how 

important that challenge is? Otherwise, we are going to wake up 

one day and find out we have been driven from the Asia-Pacific region. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, as the CIA Director, I have often been 

asked, what is the greatest threat to the United States? It is always hard to prioritize and rank. We have a handful. We have lots 

of opportunities as well. 

China certainly presents a strategic challenge to the United 

States of America. You laid out the various tools and mechanisms 

that they are using, mostly economic. The United States needs to 

be prepared to respond across each of those fronts, so that we can 

find the right ground, the right place, where we can cooperate with 

the Chinese where it makes sense for America. And in those places 

where it does not, we can confront them and make sure that it is 

America’s vision, a democratic vision, that continues to provide 

strength and resources for the world. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Pompeo, thank you for being willing to consider taking 

on this responsibility at such a challenging time for the United 

States and the world. 

This morning, President Trump tweeted out that much of the 

bad blood with Russia is caused by the fake and corrupt Russia investigation. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. POMPEO. The historic conflict between the United States and 

the Soviet Union, and now Russia, is caused by Russian bad behavior. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

When you were installed as Director at the CIA, as you said in 

your testimony, you swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As you pointed out, you have taken that oath six times. You 

have graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. You 

are an attorney. 

Do you think Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation is a witch 

hunt? 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, I am going to not speak about any of the 

three investigations that I have been a participant in today. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Do you think the President has the authority, 

recognizing your legal background, does the President have the authority to fire Special Counsel Mueller on his own? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

30 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am in no position to make a comment 

on that legal question. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Would you consider the President firing Rod 

Rosenstein over his role in the Special Counsel investigation to be 

an abuse of power? 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, I came here today to talk about my qualifications to be the Secretary of State. I am not going to weigh into 

the active investigations that are going on in the House, the Senate, and the Special Counsel’s investigation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And I appreciate that. That is what we are all 

here to talk about. But the fact is, in your testimony, you talk 

about the actions of the administration making clear and rightfully 

identifying Russia as a danger to our country. And yet, the President tweets out his opinion that the problem with Russia is Bob 

Mueller and the investigation. 

I think those two are in conflict. And it is hard for me to understand how we can have a Secretary of State who is able to go to 

Russia and come to Congress and talk about the challenges and the 

threats that Russia faces to our democracy when we have this conflicting position from the President of the United States who you 

would work for. 

And let me just say, you have talked about the actions that have 

been taken by this administration, but the fact is the sanctions 

that were passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate that 

had bipartisan support have not been fully implemented by this administration. 

So we have mandatory sanctions related to Russian crude oil 

products that haven’t been implemented. We have sanctions with 

respect to Russian and other foreign financial institutions not implemented. Sanctions with respect to transactions with foreign 

sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the Russian 

Federation not implemented yet. 

I could go on, but, as the Secretary of State, will you argue that 

we need to go ahead and implement the rest of these sanctions in 

a way that holds Russia accountable for its interference? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am, every day. And if I may take just a 

moment? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Please. 

Mr. POMPEO. So there is still more work to be done on CAATSA. 

There is more work to be done on other sanctions provisions as 

well. I readily concede that. 

Vladimir Putin has not yet received the message sufficiently, and 

we need to continue to work at that. 

But it hasn’t just been sanctions. The largest expulsion of 60 

folks was from this administration. This administration announced 

a Nuclear Posture Review that has put Russia on notice that we 

are going to recapitalize our deterrent force. In Syria now, a handful of weeks ago, the Russians met their match. A couple hundred 

Russians were killed. 

The list of actions that the administration has taken, I am happy 

to walk through each of them, but I don’t want to take up more 

time. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. POMPEO. The list is pretty long, ma’am. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

31 

Senator SHAHEEN. And I certainly agree with that, and I think 

those actions are important. But they get undermined by a President who consistently refuses to hold Vladimir Putin accountable 

for what Russia has done in the United States. And that presents 

a challenge as we go into the 2018 elections, and it presents a challenge as we work with other democracies around the world where 

Russia has done everything possible to undermine Americans’ and 

other countries’ citizens’ belief in the workings of democracy. 

In response to Senator Rubio, you talked about the importance 

of defending human rights as Secretary of State. Certainly, as Secretary of State, you would be this country’s top diplomat, representing America’s values in support of diversity and inclusion. 

And yet, during your tenure in Congress, you have made statements that have been described as anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT 

rights. 

So how would you, as Secretary of State, reconcile those positions 

and statements that you have taken in Congress with the need to 

represent America’s values and defend human rights? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I appreciate the question. Look at my 

record, not just these past 15 months. There were the same questions when I was to be confirmed as CIA Director. 

As a CIA Director, I have honored and valued every single CIA 

officer, regardless of race, color, you pick it, gender, sexual orientation. I have treated every one of our officers with dignity and respect. I have promoted them when they deserved it. I have held 

them accountable when they deserved that as well. 

I promise you that I will do that as the Secretary of State. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I appreciate those sentiments, and I appreciated your comments in your testimony saying that you would 

support the State Department’s workforce, that it be as diverse in 

every sense of the world, race, religion, background, and more. And 

yet, you were criticized at the CIA for undermining policies of the 

previous administration to improve diversity at the CIA. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, I don’t know the criticism that you are referring to. I have to tell you, I didn’t undermine a single policy. We 

have emphasized it. We have talked about it. We have worked on 

it. I think I am proud of the work that I did to continue to develop 

and increase the capacity for the CIA to deliver a diverse workforce, to meet the challenges, the intelligence challenges, in that 

case, around the world. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, I would just say Michael Weinstein, who 

is a former Air Force officer who founded the Military Religious 

Freedom Foundation, says that he has been seeing increasing complaints from those inside the intelligence community under your 

leadership. So I think there have been a number of concerns raised. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, if I might? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Please. 

Mr. POMPEO. The number of we call them no-fear complaints, the 

statutory requirement decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 40 percent. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. 

Mr. POMPEO. And I am proud of that. It is not enough. Whatever 

the final tally was, it was too many. But I am proud of the record. 

Not just—and I do not want to take full credit for that. The work 

that my team has done on this, I am incredibly proud of. I supFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

32 

ported their efforts, and I will do the same—I will behave the same 

way, if I am confirmed as the Secretary of State. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I am out of time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Before turning to Senator Johnson, I just wanted to highlight 

that I don’t think enough has been said or made of the fact that 

Russia crossed the Euphrates with their own troops and were annihilated. It was really a strong statement that I don’t think many 

are paying as much attention to as should. And I appreciate you 

highlighting that, incredible steps by our Pentagon. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Pompeo, thank you for your past service. I also want to 

thank you and your family for your willingness to serve in this capacity. It is a sacrifice. 

As you were walking by me, I mentioned that I have read a lot 

of testimony for nominees, and this written testimony is probably 

as good as I have seen. So anybody interested in this nomination 

should really read it. 

One of the reasons I liked it is I could see the concepts required 

for effective management in it. And, of course, you are going to be 

in charge of managing relationships. But the concepts I am talking 

about are in your conclusion, the areas of agreement. That is how 

you accomplish things, concentrate on the shared purposes, the 

shared goals. 

Obviously, in your handling of the CIA, you had a strategy in 

how you were going to manage that prioritization of tasks. So as 

I ask these questions, I want you keeping those concepts in mind. 

In managing your relationship with almost all nations, there is 

an economic relationship and there is a security relationship. Obviously, you are not Secretary of Commerce. You are not the U.S. 

Trade Representative. You are the Secretary of State. You are concerned, obviously, about security. But our negotiations in terms of 

trade are going to have a great effect. 

I just joined Steve Daines’ delegation to China, and I was struck 

by what they were primarily concerned about. It was the Taiwan 

Travel Act. We thought we were going to hear all kinds of things 

about tariffs, and they were most concerned about that core area 

of their interest, and don’t meddle with that. 

But I just want you to comment on, how are you going to deal 

with that conflict between the trade relationship and the security 

relationship? And the reason I am pointing it out with China is we 

were there. We also crossed into the DMZ. We were in the Blue 

House, walked into North Korea. And from my standpoint, talking 

about priorities, our number one priority with China, the relationship with China, is to get them to continue, and they are effectively, enforcing those sanctions, so that we can bring to conclusion 

the dismantlement of the North Korean threat. 

So can you speak to that conflict between trade, economic relationship, and security relationship? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it is complex. At times, they are conflicting. At times, they are actually additive. That is, they work together. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

33 

You can achieve a good economic outcome with a partner country. You can get assistance in other places on a diplomatic matter 

that you care about deeply or on a military matter, a place that you 

want them to assist the United States. So there are places that 

good diplomacy can lead to making those not in conflict, not zerosum alternatives where you have to sacrifice an economic relationship for a security relationship. 

How do you do that? You build out teams. The State Department 

has an enormous—Under Secretary E has an enormous an economic team that, in my judgment, from what I can see over an extended period of time, has not been able to deliver as much value 

as some of the other parts of the economic apparatus of the United 

States Government. I am intent on finding the right people to 

make sure that we have the tools so that we can make a fullthroated, a broad effort across all elements of the diplomatic spectrum. 

And where it comes into conflict with security issues, I suppose 

it is highly factual and contextual, but the idea—and certainly, we 

have seen this with the issues with China today. We thought 

through the risks. We identified relative priorities and attempted 

to level set them, and then engaged in diplomatic activities such 

that challenges that have been presented to China through the actions that have been taken by this administration over the past 

weeks didn’t upset the apple cart with the good work that the Chinese have done helping us on the North Korea challenge. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you agree with me that, in our relationship 

with China, our top priority is their cooperation on North Korea? 

Mr. POMPEO. It is. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, currently. 

Mr. POMPEO. It is. Today, that is the number one priority for this 

administration. I agree with that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would you agree that, in terms of the best 

way to bring China into full compliance with all the trade agreements, that working with the other—our other trading partners, 

having a good relationship with them, and having us as an alliance, working with China and making sure they actually follow the 

rules, would that also be probably the best way of achieving that? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do believe that, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. What do you think—again, I went over to 

China. I really wanted to hear their perspective. 

What do you think their primary goal is? What is their strategy? 

What are they trying to achieve? 

And let me just say the three things they listed to us: bring a 

billion people out of poverty, improve their environment, and avoid 

a financial crisis. Those are their three top priorities that they told 

us. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have heard similar things. I have actually, in my interactions, have heard the economic crisis listed first. 

That is, they have this challenge of leverage inside of China today 

they have to wind their way out of, and they have to do it through 

economic growth. That was their priority. 

That has the secondary benefit that you described of bringing the 

next several hundred million people into middle-class China. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

34 

When I have spoken with them, those were their two fundamental priorities. 

Senator JOHNSON. So they have enormous challenges. So I guess 

one of my points being is, rather than look at our relationship with 

China as a win-lose situation, it sure makes an awful lot of sense 

to me to try to redefine that and try to obtain a win-win situation. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I would agree that in most situations in 

the world, with a handful of exceptions, there are opportunities to 

not make the negotiation, the diplomacy, a zero-sum game. 

And with respect to China in particular, I know that is true. 

Senator JOHNSON. So to quickly switch to Russia, I think it is a 

historic tragedy that Putin has taken this path. Can you describe, 

in your words, what path has he taken? What are Russia’s aims? 

Mr. POMPEO. I will take Vladimir Putin at his word, that the 

greatest failure of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I think he believes that in his heart. And I think you 

see his actions follow from that, attempts to regain power 

through—and to maintain his power and maintain his popularity 

through activity taking place outside, by poking America, to maintain his not only capability and enormous nuclear arsenal, but also 

his desire to be perceived as such, as being perceived as a superpower. 

So I think each of the actions you take are to undermine democracy in the West, such that the Soviet model, the now-Russian 

model, is the one that is painted to the world as the one that will 

lead the world to greatness. We know that is not true, and we can’t 

let that happen. 

Senator JOHNSON. So to prevent that from happening, we need 

to be fully engaged, particularly in Europe, but anywhere Russia 

is pushing and being aggressive. 

For example, in the Balkans, I have been over to Serbia and 

Kosovo a number of times. I think they are at a hinge point. I want 

to encourage you—I think your Assistant Secretary Mitchell has 

done a great job of certainly encouraging all of us to pay attention, 

so that they decide to continue to look to the West because Russia 

offers them nothing. 

Can you just quickly comment? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I agree. I would add to that, when you say 

everywhere, I would add to locations we see them being adventuresome in is Latin America as well. 

So I agree. We need to push back in each place that we confront 

them in by every vector, cyber, economic. Each of those tools that 

Vladimir Putin is using, we need to do our best to make sure that 

he doesn’t succeed in what we believe his ultimate goal is. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, thank you for your willingness to serve. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Corker. 

Thank you, Director Pompeo, for your willingness to step forward 

and once again serve our country, and to your family and to you 

for what has been a long career of public service in the United 

States military, as an elected official, as the Director of CIA, and 

now for this position. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

35 

I appreciated the conversation we had yesterday, and the opportunity to follow up on some of the issues we discussed. And I am 

optimistic you would follow through on your commitment to fight 

for the State Department, for USAID, for resources and their personnel. 

I think many of us on this committee have heard over the last 

15 months real concerns about management, morale, budget cuts 

and the State Department, USAID. And I am optimistic you would 

fight for those professionals and you would respect their service. 

I am also well-aware that you have a strong and close relationship with the President. And as we discussed, I think a key role 

for America’s chief diplomat is to advance not just our narrow interests, our security or economic interests, but to also see our values as being a key part of those interests. 

And I hope that you will both advise the President and, on occasion, stand up to him, if he is doing things with which you disagree, and that you will ensure that he considers the vital role of 

diplomacy in responding to the threats we face around the world. 

So let me just follow up, if I might, for a moment on a line of 

questioning two of my colleagues pursued. 

You are a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. I 

couldn’t get into Harvard. I went to Yale Law School. As such, I 

would assume that you would agree that rule of law is absolutely 

essential to the values that define our democracy. Is that correct? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I only spoke publicly six—five times as a 

CIA Director. Each time I spoke publicly, I spoke to—and maybe 

there is an exemption. But each time, I spoke at some length about 

the importance of the rule of law at the CIA, how we were a creature of law and how, if we didn’t do that, the fundamental failure 

that that would lead to. 

I believed it as a CIA Director. I believed it all my life. And I 

will believe it as the Secretary of State, if I am confirmed, as well, 

Senator. 

Senator COONS. I think you made a strong statement that, if confirmed, it would be the seventh time you would raise your hand 

and swear an oath to the Constitution. 

So let me just go back to a line of questioning. 

President Trump described Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation as an attack on what we all stand for, and he has repeatedly 

threatened to fire Robert Mueller. He has threatened the investigation. He has threatened the attorney general in his tweets in ways 

I find troubling. 

Do you believe Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation is an attack on our country and all we stand for? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I hope you will take—I hope you will take 

this the right way. As the Director of the CIA, I have been involved 

in that investigation. I have worked with Senators Burr and Warner and with congressmen on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I have been a participant in Special Counsel 

Mueller’s activity. 

I think anything I say with respect—I just—I want to avoid that 

today. I apologize that I can’t speak more fully to that, but I hope 

you will respect the fact that everything that I was asked to do in 

my role as CIA Director related to any of these investigations I 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

36 

have done with as much thoroughness, as much depth, and as 

much alacrity as our organization could achieve. 

Senator COONS. I am convinced that if the President were to fire 

the Special Counsel, or to interfere with his investigation by firing 

Rod Rosenstein with an intention to then interfere with and shut 

down this investigation, that it would put the rule of law genuinely 

at risk. 

If that were the case and if that happened, would you resign 

your post as Secretary of State in order to demonstrate that we are 

a Nation of laws, not of men? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I haven’t given that question any thought. 

My instincts tell me no. My instincts tell me that my obligation to 

continue to serve as America’s senior diplomat will be more important at increased times of political domestic turmoil. 

We have seen this in America before, right? This wouldn’t be the 

first time that there has been enormous political turmoil. My recollection of the history is that previous Secretaries of State stayed 

the course, continued to do their work, continued to do the requirements statutory and constitutional that they had. 

Having not given—having not given it a great deal of thought, 

I am confident that that is the path that I would take. 

Senator COONS. Well, Director Pompeo, I would urge you to give 

it some thought. Many of us are giving it some real thought and 

have had to do so for months. 

And it is regrettable, I think, that we are in a place where we 

are seriously discussing this rather than diving into the policy 

questions that face us around the world. But I think there are moments when our values and what we do teaches to the world. 

And whether the right course is to resign or engage and to speak 

out against it and to counsel against it and to then work to restore 

the rule of law, we could debate. But I think it is vital that we 

have as our chief diplomat someone who understands our values, 

as I believe you do, and who is willing to fight for them, even by 

taking dramatic steps, like a resignation, in order to signal vigorous disapproval of what the President has done or might do. 

Let me move on to another area, if I might. 

When discussing Saddam Hussein, President Trump has said, 

and I quote, ‘‘He was a bad guy, a really bad guy. But you know 

what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They 

didn’t read them their rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. It was over.’’ 

And while we could debate whether or not Saddam Hussein was 

a good guy or a bad guy, I think it is important—this is another 

example, much like something we discussed, the President of the 

Philippines and his conduct, where challenging an ally or challenging the historical record on behalf of our rights is important, 

and our values. 

So to what extent do you think that actions that curtail humans 

rights and erode processes like due process and the rule of law by 

foreign governments actually fuels instability, strengthens terrorist 

threats, that when we are perceived as being on the side of a quick 

and violent result, rather than the rule of law and a just result, 

it actually makes us less safe? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

37 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think I agree with the—if I understood 

the premise of the question correctly, I think I agree with it as laid 

out, but I will try and repeat it for you and see if I got it right. 

I agree. American behavior matters. The way we behave around 

the world, our activities, the things we choose to do and not to do 

matter. They are reflective. 

One of the best memories I have had so far as CIA Director is 

I was with a partner intelligence service leader who had been at 

this a lot longer than I had, and we were walking in a dusty place. 

And the CIA had done great work alongside them. They had been 

a great partner for us as well. 

He turned to me, and he said, ‘‘You know, the most important 

thing that America has done for my team? It is great that you give 

us some help. It is great that you teach us some technology and 

some tools. The most important thing you have done for us is you 

have set an example. You see officers behaving professionally, having boundaries, existing under the rule of law, communicating. All 

the professional behavior that your officers have exhibited has been 

the most important thing you have done for our organization. You 

have made us better.’’ 

And so to your point, I think that is an example where, put aside 

the policy or the work we did, the substantive work we did, it was 

America’s norms that had proven truly valuable to this foreign 

partner. I was incredibly proud to be the Director. 

Senator COONS. I am glad to hear that example and to hear you 

repeat our shared commitment to the rule of law as a core American value. But I do think that we are in a time when we are going 

to have to confront questions about what we are willing to do in 

order to demonstrate our fealty to the rule of law as a foundational 

principle of our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Just to give everyone a state of play, it is my understanding we 

may have a vote at 2 o’clock, so we won’t have one soon. It is my 

plan just to keep going. 

So until that time, if our witness needs to take a break for other 

reasons, Mary Elizabeth, just text Todd, and we will make that 

happen. 

And with that, Senator Flake. 

Mr. POMPEO. Any good diplomat can outlast the folks he is talking to, Senator. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed you haven’t been drinking any water. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Director, for the testimony so far. I had to pop 

out for another hearing, so I apologize if I plow any old ground. 

But can we talk about Iran for a minute? With the JCPOA, Iran 

has already realized much of the benefit from this agreement, in 

terms of money being released. Is that correct? 

Mr. POMPEO. They have received great benefit from the JCPOA, 

economic benefit from the JCPOA. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator FLAKE. If we were to somehow get out of the agreement, 

would there be an attempt to claw some of that money back? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I haven’t considered that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

38 

Senator FLAKE. I do not think that is a—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I would think that unlikely. 

Senator FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. There is not a tool inside the agreement to achieve 

that. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. That is my understanding, as well. 

So, in effect, Iran has already realized much of the benefit from 

the agreement. But if we were to exit the agreement now, we 

would give them reason to renege on the agreements that they 

have made on the nuclear side. Is that right? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, they are still receiving enormous economic 

benefits, even as we sit here this morning. So there is continued— 

so there is continued interest on the part of Iran to stay in this 

deal. It is in their own economic self-interest to do so. 

And I guess I would add, Iran wasn’t racing to a weapon before 

the deal. There is no indication that I am aware of that, if the deal 

no longer existed, that they would immediately turn to racing to 

create a nuclear weapon today. 

Senator FLAKE. My concern is certainly that they have realized 

the benefits of the agreement. 

In the end, I voted against the agreement. I applauded the last 

President for negotiations. I thought that it should have been presented as a treaty before this body. I think it would have been a 

better agreement, and something that I could have supported. 

But now that it is in effect, and Iran has realized the benefits 

of it economically, I think that we ought to think long and hard 

about giving Iran now the ability, if we exit the agreement, to continue on, on the nuclear side and not uphold the obligations that 

they agreed to under the treaty. I know that is being considered. 

And then the other, with regard to North Korea, I am happy that 

the President is talking, that discussions at the highest level are 

had. I have always agreed that Presidents and Secretaries of State 

and others ought to talk to rogue leaders. But I am concerned, I 

think a lot of Americans are, that these discussions that usually 

take place in that regard at the head of state level are preceded 

by a lot of negotiations, meetings, and deliberation by people like 

yourself and your able diplomats, who, if you are confirmed, you 

will have at the State Department. 

Do you have some of those concerns as well, that this first meeting that is being discussed will take place perhaps prematurely before the hard negotiations that must be done by skilled diplomats 

simply will not have been done? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, there is work being done today in preparation for the President’s proposed meeting with Kim Jong-un. So the 

American people and you should know, there is work being done 

in preparation for that. 

The President’s view has been, and I agree with him, that the 

model that we have used previously, long negotiations to get the 

two leaders to the table, hasn’t happened. We haven’t had that opportunity to have these two leaders sit together to try to resolve 

this incredibly vexing, difficult challenge. 

So the President has judged that if the two of—there will be lots 

of work to do. No one is under any illusions that we will reach a 

comprehensive agreement through the President’s meeting. But to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

39 

enable, to set out the conditions that would acceptable to each side, 

for the two leaders who will ultimately make the decision about 

whether such an agreement can be achieved and then set in place, 

I am optimistic that the United States Government can set the conditions for that appropriately, so that the President and the North 

Korean leader can have that conversation and will set us down the 

course of achieving a diplomatic outcome that America so—America 

and the world so desperately need. 

Senator FLAKE. Is there some concern that exiting the Iran 

agreement might play poorly with regard to a possible agreement 

with the North Koreans? It would seem that, if you are the North 

Korean leader or negotiators on that side, they might be concerned 

about our reliability, in terms of signing an agreement, if the next 

President can simply exit it. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, while I will concede we do not know precisely what Kim Jong-un is contemplating, how he is thinking 

about his option set today, I have read lots of the analysis with respect to what his concerns—how he is thinking about the challenges he faces today with the enormous economic pressure that 

has been placed upon him. And the list of things that he is thinking about do not involve other deals throughout history. It is not— 

it is not the case he is focused on how—did we pull out of the 

START Treaty? 

He is thinking about how it is he can set conditions so that we— 

while we talk about complete, verifiable, reversal of his nuclear 

program, he is thinking about the sustainment of his regime. What 

are the tools, what are the assurances that can be put in place that 

aren’t reversible? He is going to be looking for something more 

than a piece of paper. He is going to be looking for a set of conditions to be put in place so that he can undertake a task of 

denuclearizing his country that, for decades, no one believed could 

occur. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Turning to Africa for a minute, Senator Coons and I just traveled to four countries in Africa, including 

Zimbabwe. 

Zimbabwe is going through a transition, and they have a new 

leader. Elections are scheduled for July and August. And we don’t 

have an Ambassador there. 

Will you commit to ensure that we have an Ambassador on the 

ground—and a lot of that depends on us, but we move tend to move 

it through as quickly as we can in this committee—but an Ambassador on the ground in Zimbabwe when that transition occurs, 

when the elections are held? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. It will, actually, in the first instance, 

depend on me and the President to get a nomination to you, and 

I commit to doing that post haste, if I am confirmed. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. I will take offline some additional 

questions on Cuba. We have had some private discussions on this. 

I am concerned, in a similar vein, that we have just a skeletal 

staff there in the Embassy, given the issues that occurred there. 

But I think that it is an important time there. We are going any 

a non-Castro head of state for the first time later this month. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

40 

Senator FLAKE. So anyway, if we could beef that staff up, it 

would be great as well. Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for your service, Director Pompeo. And we really 

appreciate having your family here, and look forward to you answering our questions. 

I want to follow up. I have worked with Senator Flake quite a 

bit on Cuba, and follow up on the Cuba issue. Cuba is about to 

choose its first leader who is not a Castro. Yet, the U.S. presence 

in the country has been reduced significantly. And as a result, 

other countries are filling this vacuum. 

Will you work to help improve ties with Cuba, a relationship that 

benefits many States hoping to increase trade with the island? As 

you know, when I visited with you in my office, I talked about how 

many Governors have gone to Cuba with their agricultural folks, 

and said we—Cuba has 11 million people. We want to sell food 

products to them, agricultural products to them. 

So will you work to improve ties with Cuba? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I recall joking with you about Kansas 

wheat. 

The answer to your question is, yes. Senator Flake had asked 

about the diplomatic presence there. I think everyone is aware of 

some of the concerns, but I will assure you, and I will assure Senator Flake, as well, we will, consistent with making sure we can 

keep these folks safe, we will build out a team there that will deliver American diplomacy to Cuba in a way that represents the finest of America. 

Senator UDALL. Now, as you know, U.S. internet companies, 

Cuba has very, very little internet capacity. And this is one of the 

things that I think really could open Cuba up to the world. 

Do you believe United States companies should lead the effort to 

help bring the internet to Cuba? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that question sounds like there may be 

something buried there that I may not be aware of. So if I 

might—— 

The CHAIRMAN. There is. [Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Now, come on, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMPEO. So at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, I would 

prefer the chance to talk to my experts at the State Department 

and work my way through it. 

Senator UDALL. Okay. And there is not really a trick there. I 

mean, I have worked with a number of members of this committee 

and others outside the committee to try to push the effort to have 

the internet be a big part of our first push in Cuba. 

As you know very well, and we talked about this in my office, 

too, the State Department and the Defense Department work handin-glove on these crucial issues. The job of the State Department 

is to try to make sure we don’t get into unnecessary wars. Your 

work, I think, is to work hard at diplomacy, search for peace, do 

what we can, and make sure that we don’t get into another war. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

41 

Are you committed to robust diplomacy, as our Ranking Member 

Senator Menendez talked about, and committed to do everything 

you can to prevent future wars? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

I am going to follow up also on several members, on the Iran 

deal. Director Pompeo, the Iran deal has effectively cut off all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Compliance has been 

certified repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency 

and both Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies, one which you oversee. Yet, you have said that, and I quote here, ‘‘Iran will have the 

freedom to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons at the end of the 

commitment.’’ 

However, even when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 

sunsets under the current deal, Iran will still remain a signatory 

of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a party to the IAEA’s additional protocol. IAEA inspectors are not going anywhere. And if 

they did, the United States and the global community would have 

ample time to react to any breakout. In fact, the international community, through the Secretary General, spoke out as to the importance of the JCPOA very recently. 

This position, in light of your apparent support for U.S. policy of 

regime change in Iran, really, the contrast there really upsets me. 

In 2014, you said you would have preferred military strikes to 

the JCPOA, and I quote here, this is your quote, ‘‘It is under 2,000 

sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.’’ 

Is this your current position? And are you for a first military 

strike? 

Mr. POMPEO. I am not, Senator. I am absolutely not. I don’t think 

that is what I said that day. I would have to go back and review, 

with respect to the quote that you provided. 

I know a little bit more about what it would take today. But in 

terms of what I described as the capacity to achieve what I was 

speaking to that day, I think I am still pretty close. 

But there is no doubt that this administration’s policy and my 

view is that the solution to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear 

weapon, to finding ourselves in the same place we are in North 

Korea in Iran, is through diplomacy. 

Senator UDALL. Do you have any evidence to dispute the IAEA 

assessment that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, with the information that I have been provided, I have no—I have seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today. I think your question is, do you have any? The answer is no. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. And I would just hope—I am very near to 

the end of my time here. I would just hope that you understand 

that the international community and the United States working 

together is what got us to the point where we are. And so I think 

it would be very unfortunate if we are the one that pulls back and 

sets the stage for a very chaotic future. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

42 

The CHAIRMAN. Before turning to Senator Cardin, on that note, 

do you have any sense that, Chancellor Merkel and Macron’s visits 

here, will that subject matter be discussed? They will be here before May 12th. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have not seen the agenda, but I would 

be shocked if it didn’t come up. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so there is still the possibility of the three 

that matter coming together on a framework. And as we get closer 

to that time, maybe people will be a little more focused on that occurring. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, having had some interactions with my European counterparts, I am confident that issue will be discussed at 

some length. It is important to them, and I know they will raise 

their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the United 

States in the coming days. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Pompeo, congratulations on the nomination. 

To your family, thank you for your commitment to service. This 

is no easy task that you are about to take part of, and I appreciate 

your willingness to serve our country once again. Thank you. 

Director Pompeo and I had an incredible opportunity to serve together on the House Energy and Commerce Committee for a numbers of years. 

Mr. POMPEO. We were with Senator Markey. 

Senator GARDNER. There are several of us on this committee. 

And we had the opportunity to sit next to each other, to work 

together, and I can tell my colleagues on the committee that there 

is no one who came better prepared with more understanding of 

the issues and always looking for a creative answer. And the diligence that he pursued that work to find that creative solution I 

think is something that I always admired about his work in the 

House. I know that continued as Director of the CIA and will continue upon his confirmation at the State Department. 

I have one request, Director Pompeo, that is very important to 

me. As Secretary of State, Kansas will have no greater authority 

over water than they do right now—so anyway, we won’t get into 

water fights between Colorado and Kansas right now. 

I would like to submit, for the record, if I could ask consent to 

submit a letter written by former senior government officials with 

national security experience and administrations of different parties or on Capitol Hill, people including General Alexander, Michael Allen, Jeremy Bash, General Mukasey, ask, for the record, it 

to be submitted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The material referred to above is located at the end of this transcript beginning on page 278.] 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Pompeo, you and I have had a number of opportunities 

to talk about Asia. And if you look at Asia, it was written once that 

this is the most consequential region for America’s future. The 

largest armies in the world will camp in Asia. The most powerful 

navies in the world will gather. Over one half of the world’s comFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

43 

merce will take place. Two-thirds of the world will travel. Five of 

America’s seven defense treaties, located in Asia. It is the region 

where two superpowers will compete to determine which world 

order will prevail. 

Director Pompeo, several us on the committee, Senator Markey, 

Senator Rubio, and I, are working on legislation that would help 

speak with one voice, the administration and the Congress, when 

it comes to Asia, creating a reassurance initiative that will allow 

us to focus on three areas: economic matters; security matters; rule 

of law, democracy matters. 

Over the last Congress, we held a numbers of hearings, focusing 

on those three areas, and in addition, a fourth hearing that focused 

on this reassurance initiative and our effort to understand the future of the U.S.-China relationship, something that at times has 

been described as a Thucydides Trap by both Graham Allison and 

I believe President Xi when he was here. 

Director Pompeo, do you believe it is important that Congress 

and the administration speak with one voice as it relates to Asia 

and our Asia policy? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do. You shared the outlines of that legislation to me. I look forward to working with you to see if we can 

get it right and do good for America by joining together to accomplish that. 

Senator GARDNER. Can you share with me some of the priorities 

you think should be in a comprehensive Asia policy? 

Mr. POMPEO. Goodness. So step one, obviously, is diplomacy, 

making sure that there aren’t mistakes, that we don’t talk past 

each other. We don’t end up—you talked about Thucydides Trap. 

The ability to avoid that almost certainly depends on the capacity 

for the two nations to speak to the things that they have as their 

central interests, their core interests, and then those things that 

are second-order importance, where cooperation will be the mark of 

the day. I think diplomacy leads that effort. 

As I think we would all agree, absent a strong America, the rest 

of the things pale in comparison. We have to make sure we have 

robust economic growth. The underpinnings of our capacity to have 

the leverage to achieve good diplomatic outcomes depend on that. 

And so we need to be sure that America does the things it needs 

to do so we have not just 2018, 2019, and 2020, but a long-term 

horizon of economic prosperity. 

Senator GARDNER. I think you would agree with me as well that 

the creation of a long-term policy, a generational policy, so to 

speak, on Asia, an Indo-Pacific strategy, is what we need, not just 

a 4-year, 8-year presidential-term strategy. 

Mr. POMPEO. That is right. That is why what you describe is important, because when questions get asked about China, we can 

never forget that they live in a complicated region with lots of 

countries with widely varying interests, and a Chinese Government 

that is intent on expanding their capacity to have not only economic influence in those countries, but using that economic tool to 

achieve political influence in those countries, as well. 

We need a thoughtful, long-term strategy that prevents that from 

taking place. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

44 

Senator GARDNER. We will get into China a little bit more either 

now or during the next round of questions, but I think it is important to note that, even today, China has announced live-fire exercises in the Taiwan Strait. We have seen the clear militarization 

of the South China Sea. And these are just a few of the challenges 

we have that have been lingering for a number of years, but, certainly, increasing in their importance today. 

I want to shift right now, though, to North Korea. Do you agree 

with Secretary Mattis that North Korea is the most urgent security 

threat the United States faces? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do. 

Senator GARDNER. This committee has led the efforts over the 

past several years to increase maximum pressure on North Korea 

and Kim Jong-un regime with passage of legislation, the North 

Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act, and also working together to assure maximum pressure is applied. 

Senator Markey and I have introduced legislation known as the 

LEED Act, the Leverage to Enhance Effective Diplomacy, which 

would impose a trade embargo on Pyongyang and its enablers. 

Will the administration’s maximum pressure and engagement 

policy mean a continued pursuit of third-party entities and financial institutions who engage in significant trade with Pyongyang? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator GARDNER. Will you commit to advance this LEED Act 

and others like it that include mandatory sanctions against these 

entities? 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, I am not familiar with the details. 

Senator GARDNER. It is a great bill. [Laughter.] 

Mr. POMPEO. The President has made clear, the continuation of 

the pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to 

achieve a successful diplomatic outcome in North Korea. 

Senator GARDNER. And, briefly—we have about a minute left 

here—can you share with me the exact goals of the presidential 

summit between the United States and North Korea? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, I believe I can. It is to develop an agreement 

with the North Korean leadership, such that the North Korean 

leadership will step away from its efforts to hold America at risk 

with nuclear weapons, completely and verifiably. 

Senator GARDNER. To be clear, again, the only goal the United 

States has as it relates to North Korea is the complete and 

verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the North Korean regime. 

Mr. POMPEO. I want to be careful about ‘‘complete.’’ North Korea 

also has a significant military arsenal, one of the largest armies in 

the world. We need to ensure that we continue to provide a strategic deference framework for our allies in the region, the South 

Koreans, the Japanese, and others as well. 

But the purpose of the meeting is to address this nuclear threat 

to the United States. 

Senator GARDNER. And our goal remains, the complete and 

verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

45 

Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Pompeo, congratulations for this nomination. 

During the negotiation over the Iran nuclear deal in 2014, you 

opposed the deal and you stated, ‘‘It is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable 

task for the coalition forces.’’ 

A number of people opposed the deal, but you were somewhat 

unique in publicly venturing the thought that military action might 

be preferable to a deal or easier than some folks were suggesting. 

Where did you get the notion that destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity could be accomplished with 2,000 air sorties? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it was based on things that I had learned 

as a Member of Congress. 

Senator KAINE. Your military career and as a member of the 

House Intel Committee? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, yes. I think that is right. I am trying to 

remember the timing of the statement. I think I would have been 

serving on the Intelligence Committee, at that point in time. 

Senator KAINE. Would you have—at the time, did you have any 

reluctance to share that assessment publicly? That seems like a 

pretty specific sort of assessment. To say I am confident in our capacity, is one thing. To publicly discuss that it would be 2,000 sorties to wipe out the Iranian nuclear capacity struck me as odd. 

Did you have any reluctance to share that, at the time? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that wasn’t—no classified information was 

contained in that simple statement. 

Senator KAINE. Wouldn’t that sort of specificity probably rely on 

an awful lot of classified information or—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, 2,000 is a pretty big, round number. This 

was—this was—there was no effort here to make any—it might 

have been 1,000. It might have been 3,000, all right? There was no 

aim to communicate it. 

But I actually, to your point—— 

Senator KAINE. Well, you weren’t trying to be inaccurate in 

your—— 

Mr. POMPEO. No, Senator. Absolutely not. I never try to do that. 

But if I might, and we may disagree about this, Senator, I do 

think it is important—I absolutely think it is important to provide 

diplomats with the opportunity to be successful. Countries that are 

adverse to us do not often accede to our desires absent a rationale 

for doing so, right? So diplomats—— 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask you—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Diplomats without any strength, diplomats without 

any capacity, are just sitting there talking. 

Senator KAINE. And I agree. I think stating that we have a lot 

of capacity is one thing. I was just struck by the specificity. 

Would it be your norm to share that kind of information publicly 

in such specific detail? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am confident, if I had done it multiple 

times, you would raise them with me here today. 

Senator KAINE. Your assessment, I wonder whether your assessment, did you assume that Iran might respond to an attack by the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

46 

United States, or were you just assuming that they would do nothing? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I don’t know that I was—I don’t know in 

the context of that statement that I was thinking about—— 

Senator KAINE. But you would agree with me that the extent of 

force that the U.S. would need to use to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity would depend pretty significantly on whether Iran would 

fight to protect against an attack on its own soil. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator KAINE. And then you venture that the attack would not 

be an insurmountable task for coalition forces. And I curious that, 

too. 

Most of our coalition forces in 2014 were sitting around the table 

with us, trying to do a peaceful negotiation to end Iran’s nuclear 

capacity. It sounds as though you had confidence that the U.S. 

could not do a deal and then convince coalition partners to join us 

in bombing Iran. 

I am curious what coalition partners you were thinking about as 

you made that comment. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I wasn’t—I wasn’t thinking of any particular coalition partners when I made that statement. 

Senator KAINE. Okay. Those comments when I heard them about 

the relative ease of a war against Iran reminded me of the run-up 

to the Iraq war. Vice President Cheney said we would be greeted 

as liberators. The President said there were definitely weapons of 

mass destruction. Secretary Rumsfeld said the invasion would 

largely be self-financing and would last ‘‘5 weeks or 5 months. It 

is certainly not going to last any longer.’’ 

Of course, we know that the cost to the United States was 4,400 

soldiers dead, 500,000 Iraqis dead, a price tag now topping $3 trillion, and unprecedented turmoil in the region. And most of those 

facts were known at the time that you made that statement in 

2014. 

Let me say this, I am one of two Senators who serve on the both 

the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committees. I represent a State that is deeply committed to the Nation’s military 

mission. I have a son in the military. I honor your military service, 

your entire public service. 

I think my mission on these two committees is sort of two things: 

dramatically reduce the risk of unnecessary war; raise the probability that we decisively win any war that we need to be in. 

I also firmly believe that we shouldn’t be at war without a vote 

of Congress. And your actions as a House Member suggest that you 

and I probably see this somewhat the same way. 

In 2011, I criticized President Obama for putting us into military 

action against Libya without a vote. And you voted twice to oppose 

military action unless it was authorized by Congress. 

In 2014, President Obama came to this committee to ask for the 

military authority to strike Syria. You supported that in the House. 

I supported it here in the Senate. The committee supported it. 

Now, President Trump has fired—ordered missile strikes fired at 

Syria last year. He didn’t seek congressional approval. The U.S. 

conducted airstrikes against the Syrian military in February without congressional approval. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

47 

The President is tweeting that he might do additional military 

strikes in Syria now, and he is also aiming words directly at Russia. 

As far as I know, Syria has not declared war against the United 

States. 

Has Congress given the President specific authority to wage war 

against Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think you and I actually do share similar 

bias for the executive and legislative branches both to be involved 

when such momentous decisions about war are undertaken. 

Now that I am in the executive branch, my views on that have 

not changed. 

Senator KAINE. And you would agree with me that waging war 

requires a both a domestic and an international legal justification? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. Yes, Senator, I would. 

With respect, you asked—I don’t want to dodge your very specific 

question. You asked about Syria. 

For a long time, multiple administrations have found that the 

President has authority to act and take certain actions without 

first coming to Congress to seek approval. Whether it was Kosovo, 

the list from Democrats and Republicans is long and like. 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Just to close, I share your view. In each case where 

it is—where we can, America and our soldiers and sailors, airmen 

and marines are better off if we have the entirety of the United 

States Government working together in having authorized the activity. 

Senator KAINE. For the past year, I have been trying to secure 

the administration’s detailed legal justification for last April’s 

strikes on the Shayrat military base in Syria. The administration 

has not fully provided it. And there is reportedly a memo that is 

laying out a description of what the President or the administration feels are the appropriate executive powers. 

Would you support the release of the unclassified portion of that 

memo to Congress so that we can see what the President thinks 

his powers are and engage in a productive dialogue about that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I learned about this memo. I think you 

shared it with me. I was unaware of that. I promise I will work 

alongside you to do the best I can to get you that information. And 

if it is a classified version of it that you have a right as a member 

of the legislative branch to see, I will work to get you that. And 

if it is an unclassified version, we will work to achieve that as well. 

Senator KAINE. Excellent. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Before turning to Senator Young, so then, specifically, a surgical 

strike against—let’s just use the last one that occurred with 59 

Tomahawk missiles. Do you believe that does require an authorization from Congress? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, multiple administrations have taken those 

kinds of activities under the President’s authority. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. So I was ranking member when our chairman and I and the committee wrote an authorization for the use 

of force against Syria, that, unfortunately, was not used and has 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

48 

changed the course of history, unfortunately, and displaced millions 

of people and hundreds of thousands of people are dead. And not 

to say that that would have necessarily prevented all of that, but 

it certainly would have changed the trajectory significantly. 

I agree with you, and I have shared that with the President just 

in the last very short period of time, that I do not believe that 

should he choose to take a surgical strike against Syria, that an 

authorization from us is necessary, just based on a body of evidence 

that we have and the things that have occurred in the past. 

And I, like you, opposed strongly what we did in Libya. And I 

think that is complicating our efforts in North Korea, because of 

obvious reasons. 

So with that, Senator Young? 

Senator YOUNG. Welcome, Mr. Director. Congratulations on your 

nomination. 

My point of emphasis, as I start here, won’t be on trying to identify some areas of principled disagreement. I suspect, if we worked 

hard enough, we might be able to find some of those. But I want 

to emphasize the importance of having a smart, experienced individual as our next Secretary of State. Based on my time serving 

with you in the House of Representatives, you have certainly 

checked those boxes. 

And we also need a leader who is credible, not just with our own 

President, but with leaders around the world. And you have also 

checked that box. 

So I want to encourage you, and I anticipate supporting you. 

In our March visit in our office, we spent much of our time talking about crises around the world. You will certainly be immersed 

in these, should you be confirmed. But we also spent a lot of time 

talking about communication, the level of responsiveness of the 

State Department. And I was quite candid with you about my unhappiness from time to time with the Department of State and the 

level of responsiveness I had seen over the last year or so, though 

it has significantly improved. There has been an uptick in dialogue 

between the department and my office, and I think this committee 

more generally, in recent months. 

We have an Article One responsibility, which you understand 

very well. This is the committee of jurisdiction that oversees the 

State Department. And I just want to get you on record here. 

You indicated in your prepared statement that you are prepared 

to pick up our calls on the first ring. I think that is exactly the sort 

of message that you ought to be sending. 

So to be clear, do you commit to ensure that the Department of 

State provides timely and responsive answers to me and my office? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, as the CIA Director, I adopted the Leon 

Panetta model, which was, more time, more cups of coffee, have 

real interactions, whether you agree or disagree with a particular 

Member. To do that and to provide the committee the documents 

to which they are duly entitled as elected officials, I promise to do 

that for you. 

Senator YOUNG. That is refreshing. Thank you. 

Mr. Director, do you agree that the U.S. national security—our 

national security depends in large measure on a vibrant and growing economy? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

49 

Mr. POMPEO. I do. 

Senator YOUNG. In your prepared testimony, you mentioned China’s systematic policies of stealing our intellectual property, of 

forced technology transfer, and associated activities. You also mentioned just moments ago that China is using mostly economic tools 

against us to achieve broader geopolitical, geostrategic ends. 

Do you believe these policies by Beijing have already undermined 

and, if they continue unabated, will continue to undermine our 

ability as a country to realize our potential for economic growth, to 

incentivize investment in key technologies and key sectors of our 

economy, and to sustain the financial wherewithal that is required 

to defend our country and advance our values worldwide? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator, I do. I think those risks are real. I 

think they are on us today. That is, I think we are in the midst 

of that. This is not some future risk that is presented to the country. I think we have to confront it today. 

Most directly on point is the enormous amount of intellectual 

property that has left the hands, sometimes taken, sometimes coerced out of the hands of U.S. companies. The imagination, creativity of the American workforce has delivered it, and the Chinese 

have taken it away from us. We have to develop a robust set of 

tools—there are a bunch of tools that we need, and to do that well, 

such that we can prevent that from continuing to happen in the future. 

Senator YOUNG. Relatedly, earlier, you spoke of the need for, my 

words, a China strategy. So my sense is, you believe we need a 

whole-of-government, well-coordinated, informed, strategic response 

to China’s coercive, illicit, and deceptive economic and trade practices. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. POMPEO. That is correct, Senator Young. 

Senator YOUNG. I do, too. That is why I intend to introduce this 

month some legislation on this very topic. 

I am going to require, through this legislation, working with my 

colleagues and the administration, the periodic production of a national economic security strategy. I welcome the opportunity to 

work with the administration, you, in particular, and any colleague 

who shares these goals. 

I think we will get this across the line. It is needed now more 

than ever. 

Do you believe that a U.S. response, Mr. Director, to China will 

be more effective if we assemble a multilateral coalition of allies 

and key trade partners who also suffered, due to Beijing’s economic 

policies and trade practices, to create a unified international front 

to apply maximum pressure on Beijing to achieve our objectives, as 

opposed to a merely bilateral dynamic, which I perceive we have 

now? 

Mr. POMPEO. I agree with that. I mean, conceptually, if we can 

get the countries of Southeast Asia, more broadly in Asia, and others to jointly set up a framework that achieves what it is that you 

have described as our objective, we are far more likely to achieve 

most or all of it. 

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Director, given the challenges we confront 

with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and beyond, do you believe 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

50 

our Nation’s need for effective diplomacy will decrease in the coming year or 2? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that seems unimaginable. But if I am good 

enough, I am hopeful that we can begin to take some of these challenges away. 

I was mindful, I had all the former CIA Directors in, nearly all 

of them attended. And to a person, they had been there, some of 

them, 20 and 25 years ago. They said, Mike, the stack has only gotten longer. We have not pulled one of these problem sets from the 

pile. 

And we need to do that. We need to start to solve some of these. 

Senator YOUNG. So your response, though humorous, actually is 

something I would like to shine a light on. Because the previous 

occupant of the Secretary of State position once indicated that part 

of the rationale behind his funding request for the Department of 

State was that there would be less of a need, on account of highly 

effective, near-term diplomacy, for as much funding. 

Now, any large organization here in Washington or beyond can 

be made more efficient, and we can identify funding decreases that 

might be made. But I would regard it as a risky strategy to assume 

that your highly effective diplomacy is going to be a strong rational 

for funding cuts. 

Are you operating under the premise that highly effective diplomacy will lead to lower funding requests in the international account? 

Mr. POMPEO. No. When I said that I am optimistic, I hopeful. 

This is the task in which we are engaged, but I can’t see anything 

in the 6- or 12- or 24-month time horizon that would permit us to 

have any less demand for diplomatic resources. 

Senator YOUNG. That strikes me as responsible. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Former House Energy Committee cohort to the witness, Senator 

Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. Along with Senator Gardner and 

many others, many, many members. 

So welcome, sir. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. I want to talk about the threat of nuclear war. 

In North Korea, I am glad to hear that you believe that we 

should exhaust all options before resorting to military conflict. I 

agree with you. But I do not believe that we have yet exhausted 

all options. You have spoken about setting conditions for success in 

advance of President Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un, and I am 

right now very concerned that the lack of a coherent policy in 

North Korea could lead to a very poor meeting. 

And if that meeting goes poorly, some might reach the conclusion 

that both economic pressure and diplomatic engagement have 

failed. National Security Advisor John Bolton has recently outlined 

the case for preventative military strikes on North Korea. 

Are there any conditions under which you would support preventative military strikes against North Korea as Secretary of 

State? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, thanks for the question. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

51 

That phrase, ‘‘preventive military strikes,’’ has a long history. 

Lots of folks have different views. I want to be careful. There is a 

legal view. There is preemption. I want to stay away from the 

legal. 

Let me give you my judgment, my diplomatic and national security judgment, on that. I want to start with the predicate of your 

question. 

While I don’t want to speculate or hypothesize on how the negotiation might go, it is my full anticipation that however that meeting goes, there will be enormous diplomatic work yet remaining. To 

your point, we have not yet exhausted our capacity there. I think 

there is an awfully long way to go. 

The President has made clear, and I agree with him, that there 

may come that day. There may come the day when we see an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of striking the United States of 

America. The President has made clear his intention to prevent 

that from happening. And to the extent that diplomatic tools and 

other tools that America has as its foreign policy power are unsuccessful, I know that Secretary Mattis has been directed to present 

to the President a set of options that will achieve the President’s 

objective. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. Secretary Mattis has said that we are 

never out of diplomatic options. And let me get your response to 

this, because they are going to be some who make that recommendation, that we have tried our diplomatic and economic 

sanctions, and Kim was absolutely unresponsive in this meeting 

with the President. 

Let me remind you that the Pentagon has stated that, ‘‘The only 

way to locate and destroy with complete certainty all components 

of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs would be through a 

ground invasion.’’ 

And as you know, projections for a conventional war on the peninsula estimate that between 30,000 and 300,000 U.S. personnel 

could die in the first days of a conflict. 

You are a military man. You understand this. Is there any circumstance under which you would concur with John Bolton that, 

with the exhaustion of economic sanctions, from his perspective, 

that a ground invasion of North Korea would be necessary, in order 

to rid that country of its nuclear weapons program? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I suppose I could hypothesize such situations. So I will answer your question as, could I imagine one? Yes. 

Yes, Senator, I could. 

I mean, I suppose it is possible that we would get to the condition where—and I think there would be wide consensus on this 

panel—where Kim Jong-un was directly threatening, and we had 

information about his activities. Yes, I can imagine times when 

America would need to take a response that moved past diplomacy. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, well, I would say to you that the consequences of the United States initiating an attack against North 

Korea would be catastrophic—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I agree with that. 

Senator MARKEY.—if we had not been attacked—if we had not 

been attacked. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

52 

And that is what concerns me about John Bolton. And I think 

the American people will want reassurances from you, that you 

would not consider such an action, because, ultimately, he already 

has nuclear weapons. And it would be catastrophic almost immediately, if we decided to make a first strike against him. 

So I don’t feel comfortable with you not taking that off the table, 

but I would like to move on to Saudi Arabia and the 123 agreement 

that is being negotiated with them. Again, I am going to quote Mr. 

Bolton, that civil nuclear cooperation, or 123, agreements between 

the U.S. and other countries must include the gold standard, a 

commitment to forgo any uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, two technologies critical to the development of nuclear 

weapons. 

Do you believe that any agreement that we negotiate with Saudi 

Arabia should, in fact, have a gold standard? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, yes. One of my critiques of the arrangement we reached with Iran was that it was insufficiently close to 

such a standard. 

Senator MARKEY. So, I do not feel comfortable with you not taking that off the table, but I would like to move on to Saudi Arabia 

and the 123 agreement that is being negotiated with them. And, 

again, I am going to quote Mr. Bolton, that ‘‘Civil nuclear cooperation, or 123 agreements, between the U.S. and other countries 

must include the gold standard, a commitment to forgo any uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, two technologies critical to the development of nuclear weapons.’’ Do you believe that 

any agreement that we negotiate with Saudi Arabia should, in fact, 

have a gold standard? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, yes. One of my critiques of the arrangement we reached with Iran was it was insufficiently close to such 

a standard. 

Senator MARKEY. So, you support the gold standard. 

Mr. POMPEO. I do, and I—while I have not been part of the negotiation, Senator, I know that the State Department and the Department of Energy are working towards achieving that. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. So, would you oppose any agreement 

that was less than the gold standard; that is, that ultimately permitted for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing technology on the soil of Saudi Arabia? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I cannot—I cannot answer that. I can 

imagine that we got close, but not quite to the full definition of the 

gold standard. I do not want to hypothesize. So, the answer, I 

guess, is, yes, I can imagine such a scenario. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, how you think Iran would respond if we 

pulled out of the agreement with Iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where Saudi Arabia could receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment equipment? How do you think they 

would respond? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, this is precisely my concern with the Iran 

agreement. 

Senator MARKEY. Right, so that is the question I am asking you. 

What would be the response? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, they—— 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

53 

Senator MARKEY. If we were providing nuclear weapons material 

to the Saudi Arabians? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator, I think they would take it into account. And remember, when we are talking about nuclear weapons, 

we are most often talking about multiple components. We are talking about fissile material, the capacity to weaponize in a delivery 

mechanism often through missile systems today Iran has the capacity to do. 

Senator MARKEY. Right, but—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I am just speaking to the challenge that the Saudi 

Arabians also see—— 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. POMPEO.—from our failure to negotiate a sound agreement 

with Iran. 

Senator MARKEY. This is going to be a very dangerous concoction. 

If we pull out of the Iran deal, give nuclear weapons materials to 

or permit them to obtain nuclear weapons making materials in 

their country, the juxtaposition of abandoning the Iran deal while 

simultaneously giving their arch rival, Saudi Arabia, a sweetheart 

deal is going to lead to a highly combustible condition in the Middle East that is avoidable if we reinforce the Iran deal, ensure that 

it is being complied with, while also maintaining a gold standard. 

Otherwise, what the Saudi Arabians are going to want is to put on 

third base with a lead with nuclear weapons construction materials. And I think this Administration will be making a terrible 

mistake if it negotiates a deal that allows the Saudi Arabians to 

do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Before turning to Senator Isakson, 

we have talked with Secretary Perry, and I could not agree more 

that we need to stress a gold standard. I at the same time I understand that, I mean, when you have given Iran the right to enrich, 

everybody in the region is going to want the right to enrich. So, you 

have got your work cut out for you over the next period of time, 

and it is quite a—it is very difficult to tell an Arab nation that they 

cannot when we said that the Shia can, so. Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on 

your nomination. Best of luck to you, and we will be here to support you in any way that we can. I certainly can. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. Let me start off by saying thank you to the Department, to the State Department, and to this Administration on 

the open skies agreements, which you may or may not be familiar 

with. But if you are not, they are essential to the aviation industry 

and for our country. And this Administration and the Bureau of 

Economic Development at the State Department have done a great 

job seeing to it that open skies is enforced. And I hope you will 

commit when you get to the State Department that you will continue that help and enforcement. 

Mr. POMPEO. I will, Senator Isakson. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. Secondly, I think Ambassador Haley is gone, but let me say this anyway. I am a big fan 

of Africa, and I have developed an affinity for Africa since I have 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

54 

been on this committee, Foreign Relations, and traveled there extensively. And I think it is kind of the 21st century in many respects for our country and for everybody else. China is demonstrating they think it is important because they are spending a 

lot of money and building a lot of buildings and things of that nature. 

Strategically, the Straits of Hormuz and many of the locations 

they have, and what has been going on in the Persian Gulf where 

Africa is tremendously powerful, helpful. There are a million and 

a half people there, 150 million alone in Nigeria. Lots of opportunity economically, but it is important that we focus and help 

them build, and develop, and grow. Are you familiar with the Millennium Challenge Corporation? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator, I am familiar with it at some level. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I am a big fan. I think President Bush 

did a phenomenal job by establishing that program as sort of a 

partnership economically to help build infrastructure in those countries and have developed boards—governing boards of the Millennium Challenge accounts that held the African countries who receive the investment responsible for ending corruption, having better worker laws in their country, and being a partner with the 

United States to economically developing their country. So, I hope 

as Secretary of State when you have the chance, you will focus on 

the Millennium Challenge account, Challenge Corporation, and 

what they are doing because it is a great—— 

It is part of that soft power that we have the capability to use 

to win a lot of friends and influence a lot of enemies. And the reason I use Ambassador Haley as an example, we from time to time 

need a lot of money—votes in the UN. The more friends we can 

make in countries like Africa, the more votes we can influence to 

help us on big issues that we need in the United Nations. So, I 

hope you will focus on Africa when you have the chance and realize 

what the State Department has done. 

Lastly, I want to—this is kind of an editorial statement. My experience with the State Department has been that it has been in 

a blue funk for about a year and a half. And one of the things, and 

I told you this when you came to my office, I thought there was 

a real need for a perk or an adjustment and for an attitude improvement at the State Department. I think you are the opportunity to be that catalyst at the Department. To your credit, your 

critics and your complimenters, or whatever that term should be, 

at the—at the CIA give you high marks for bringing that Agency 

back in enthusiasm, and motivation, and in mission. 

And I think your meetings with Mike that you referred to you 

in your opening and your printed statements were exactly the seed 

for them because all of sudden, employers had a chance to speak 

out to you, tell you what they needed to be done. And you had the 

chance in that environment to tell them what they could be as a 

partner with you to help that happen. 

And as I understand it, and I am not shilling for anyone, but as 

I understand it, the attitudes of the State Department are the best 

that they have probably ever been because the unity there is 

strong. And the understanding of the mission of the rank and file 

employees is great. So, I want to challenge you to replicate where 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

55 

possible in the State Department that same energy and fire that 

you have at the CIA because the State Department needs it desperately. And the State Department is our hope for peaceful settlements of difficult problems and putting our best foot forward early 

so we do not have to put our biggest foot forward late. And if you 

can do what you did at the CIA at the State Department, you will 

be a great Secretary. 

Would you commit to trying to replicate what you have done 

there already? And please free to brag about yourself. [Laughter.] 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, well, I would like to do just the opposite 

of that. What you have described took place because of the talented 

officers, the expertise, the professionals at the Central Intelligence 

Agency. That is, I had enormous human capital with which to build 

a team. And I know the State Department is the same way. I know 

that the local employees, the civil servants, the Foreign Service officers have that same esprit, that same desire for mission and to 

be relevant, and to be important, and to do the—— 

If you sign up to be a Foreign Service officer, if you decide to devote your life to that, you have a special commitment. And my 

task, if I am confirmed, will be to free them up to go to do the great 

work that they signed up to do when they came aboard at the State 

Department. I will work at that every day. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, you just demonstrated by giving the credit to the employees of the CIA exactly why you were such a popular 

director there, and I am sure will continue at the State Department. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Pompeo. I do want to just say, again, I appreciate you coming by 

and showing me the respect and deference, to give me some time 

yesterday so we could talk in private. 

Mr. POMPEO. You are most welcome. 

Senator BOOKER. I want to pick up on one of the themes we 

talked at length about, and that involves many of your past statement concerning Muslim-Americans. And perhaps I just want to 

start with some of your language. In a speech, you talked about 

folks who ‘‘worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.’’ 

You sort of mourned that we live in a country where that happens. 

Do you have any views that the Muslim faith or people who believe 

in worshiping ‘‘other gods,’’ is that just something negative in our 

country? 

Mr. POMPEO. No, Senator, you can look at my record. You do not 

have to take my word for it here today. My record is exquisite with 

respect to treating people of each and every faith with the dignity 

they deserve, to protect their right to practice their religion or no 

religion for that matter in the way that they want to. I have done 

that when I ran Thayer Aerospace—— 

Senator BOOKER. My time is limited, so if I could follow up. 

Mr. POMPEO. But it—but it is important because I have heard— 

I have heard these critiques, and you raised it yesterday. I have 

worked closely with Muslim leaders, with Muslim countries. The 

CIA has saved countless, thousands of Muslim lives during my 15 

months. This is—this is at the core of who I am, Senator Booker, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

56 

and I promise you that I will treat persons of each faith or no faith 

with the dignity and respect that they deserve. 

Senator BOOKER. Your words right now are really encouraging. 

Words do matter. It is not just actions. In a Nation of bigotry 

where you see too much bigotry and hatred, you and I both know 

words matter. So, I do understand your actions, and I will stipulate 

to the actions you just said, but I really want to get to the bottom 

of people who are going to be reading your past statements and 

give you a chance to further explain them. 

And I would like to go back to what we talked about, you and 

I, about this idea, and I’m quoting you, ‘‘the special obligation falls 

on Muslims in regards to terrorist attacks in our country.’’ And you 

said something very dramatic, and I know you know this. You said 

that people who are silent are complicit in those terrorist attacks. 

Do you think that Muslim-Americans in this country who serve in 

our military, who serve in the State Department, their failure to 

speak up, is that their—are they complicit in terrorist attacks? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, each and every human, not just Americans, each and every human being has an obligation to push back 

against this extremist use of violence from whatever faith. 

Senator BOOKER. So, you do not create a special class of people 

in this country based upon their religion that have a special obligation, as you said, to condemn terrorist attacks. 

Mr. POMPEO. No, Senator. Having said that, and you and I had 

a chance to talk about this yesterday. I am not sure we ended up 

completely agreeing, but perhaps we did. I also do believe this firmly, that for certain places, for certain forms of violence, there are 

certain who are better positioned, folks who are more credible, 

more trustworthy, have a more shared experience. And so, when it 

comes to—when it comes to making sure that we do not have a terrorist brewing in places where Muslims congregate. 

There is a special place, right? They have an—it is more than a 

duty. It is more than a requirement. It is an opportunity, right, to 

be treated—when someone from another faith says it, it can get 

characterized—— 

Senator BOOKER. If I can go on because I have some more questions. So, you think that Muslims in America who are in positions 

of leadership have a different category of obligation because of their 

religion. That is what I am hearing you saying. 

Mr. POMPEO. I do not see it—it is not an obligation. It is an opportunity, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. So, it is interesting because I would 

agree with you that silence in the face of injustice. We have seen 

this in the Holocaust. We have seen this in the Civil Rights Movement. I do agree with you that silence in the face of injustice lends 

strength to that injustice. I do have a problem, though, when you 

start creating, dicing up American people and saying ‘‘certain 

Americans.’’ I do not care if it is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Muslims 

that serve on my staff, that they are in positions of leadership that 

suddenly have a special obligation. I do believe, though, all of us 

when it comes to violent actions or even violent words have an obligation. 

And so, I am wondering, sir, do you—do you know Frank 

Gaffney? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

57 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOOKER. And you have been on his show dozens of 

times. 

Mr. POMPEO. I was on his show some, yes, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. I have here over 20 times. And he has talked 

about Muslims should be—who abide by the adherence of their 

faith should be considered—should be tried for acts of sedition and 

should be prosecuted. Did you remain silent when you were on his 

show? Did you ever question because I have a lot of his statements 

here. Did you remain silent on the—and from my notes at least, 

you are a friend of his. Were you silent in your position against 

these words that are violative of the American Constitution? Were 

you silent with him? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, my record on this is unambiguous. 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, then that is your response, you did not say 

anything to call out his remarks. What about Brigitte Gabriel? Do 

you know her? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do. 

Senator BOOKER. Someone who has been—runs an organization 

that has been considered a hate group by the Anti-Defamation 

League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Have you—were 

you silent? Did you ever call her out on her remarks that are hateful or bigoted? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have spoken to a number of groups in 

my—I believe my record with respect to tolerance—— 

Senator BOOKER. But you were—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I think—— 

Senator BOOKER. Yes or no, did you ever call her out? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I could not tell you. I do not recall each 

statement I have made over 54 years. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. Well, I believe that special obligation 

that you talk about for Americans to condemn things or attacking 

our Constitution or our ideals would obligate you in your own definition to speak out. When it comes—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, if I might, I have called out. We had a terrible fellow in Kansas named Fred Phelps. 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, I have a minute left in my—— 

Mr. POMPEO. And I called him out. 

Senator BOOKER. I have a minute left because I do want to give 

you a chance to speak about your comments on gay and lesbians. 

You said in a speech that ‘‘mourning an America that endorses perversion and calls it an alternative lifestyle’’ is your words. Is being 

gay a perversion? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, when I was a politician, I had a very clear 

view on whether it was appropriate two same-sex persons to marry. 

I stand by that today, sir. 

Senator BOOKER. So, you do not believe it is appropriate for two 

gay people to marry. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I continue to hold that view. It is the same 

view for the record that—— 

Senator BOOKER. And so, people in the State Department, I met 

some in Africa that are married under your leadership. You do not 

believe that that should be allowed. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

58 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, we have—I believe it is the case, we have 

married gay couples at the CIA you should know. I treated them 

with the exact same set of rights—— 

Senator BOOKER. Do you believe—do you believe that gay sex is 

a perversion, yes or no? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, if I can—— 

Senator BOOKER. Yes or no, sir. Do you believe that gay sex is 

a perversion because it is what you said here in one of your speeches. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator—— 

Senator BOOKER. Yes or no, do you believe gay sex is a perversion? 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Senator, I am going to give you the 

same answer I just gave you previously. My respect for every individual regardless of their sexual orientation is the same, and it will 

be so if I am confirmed. 

Senator BOOKER. So, I will conclude—I will conclude by saying, 

sir, you are going to be Secretary of State of the United States at 

a time that we have an increase in hate speech and hate actions 

against Jewish-Americans, Muslims-Americans, Indian-Americans. 

Hate acts are on the increase in our Nation. You are going to be 

representing this country and their values abroad in nations where 

gays individuals are untold persecution, untold violence. 

Your views do matter. You are going to be dealing with Muslim 

states and on Muslim issues. And I do not necessarily concur that 

you are upholding the values of our Nation when you cannot 

even—when you believe that there are people in our country that 

are perverse and where you think you create different categories of 

Americans and their obligations when it comes to condemning violence. So, I will have another round, but thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Portman. Senator Paul. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator PAUL. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony, and 

thanks for going through this grueling enterprise and your willingness to serve the country. You discussed with Senator Kaine a little 

bit about whether or not the President has the authority to bomb 

Assad’s forces or installations in Syria. And you mentioned historically, well, we have done in the past. 

I do not think that is a complete enough answer. I mean, my 

question would be do you think it is constitutional. Does the President have the constitutional authority to bomb Assad’s forces? Does 

he have the authority absent congressional action to bomb Assad’s 

forces or installations? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, as I think I said to Senator Kaine, I am 

happy to repeat my view on this. Those decisions are weighty. 

Every place we can, we should work alongside Congress to get that. 

But, yes, I believe the President has the domestic authority to do 

that. I do not think—I do not thin that has been disputed by Republicans or Democrats throughout an extended period of time. 

Senator PAUL. Actually, it is disputed mostly by our Founding 

Fathers who believe they gave that authority to Congress, and actually they are uniformly opposed to the executive branch having 

that power. In fact, Mattis wrote very specifically. He said, ‘‘The 

executive branch is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, we 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

59 

have with studied care vested that authority in the legislature.’’ So, 

the fact that we have in the past done this does not make it constitutional, and I would say that I take objection to the idea that 

a President can go to war when he wants where he wants. 

With regard to Afghanistan, some have argued that it is time to 

get out of Afghanistan. What do you think? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think the course of action that President 

Trump has taken there is the right one. It is humble in its mission. 

It understands that we have been there an awfully long time and 

has an objective of leaving, but is not prepared to leave until such 

time as we can put America in a position where we can greatly diminish the threat to our homeland from terrorism that may emanate from there. And with an effort alongside that which will be 

required to achieve that first objective to create—I want to be humble—more stability in Afghanistan. 

Senator PAUL. Well, actually, the President has been very specific at times on this, and he said it is time to get out of Afghanistan. ‘‘We are building roads, and bridges, and schools for people 

that hate us. It is not in our national interests.’’ That is a direct 

quote. So, the President said it was time to get out. It sounds like 

you say it is time to stay. Is that a difference in opinion? 

Some here worry that you are going to be too much in agreement 

with the President. I actually worry you are going to be too much 

in disagreement with the President. One of the things I have liked 

about the President is he says it is time to come home, let us declare a victory and come home, but it sounds to me like you are 

saying we need to stay. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it sounds like I have a Goldilocks problem, 

too close, too far, different porridge for each. Senator, the President 

also said in the summer at Fort Myer that he was committed to 

the mission that I outlined there. That is consistent with what the 

Secretary of State has been trying to do diplomatically. It is consistent with what Secretary Mattis has been trying to do by supporting Afghan forces in the country. I believe, and I share the 

President’s view, that we have a continued role there. 

And while I want to get out in the same way you do—I have 

friends who are serving there. I have had friends, as I know you 

do, who have been injured—we are not a place yet where it is appropriate. 

Senator PAUL. Here is the problem is, are we ever going to be 

at that place? I mean, so you have got people, the Administration, 

yourself now saying in your written questions back to me that 

there is not a military solution. So, we are sending our GIs out 

there to risk life and limb when there is no military solution hoping that we—it sounds a little bit like Vietnam, hoping that we get 

to a little position, let us bomb the crap out of them to get them 

to negotiate, and we will get to a little better negotiation. In the 

end it was no better in Vietnam. It was still a disaster in the very 

end, and a lot of people wasted their lives in the end for that. 

I think that there is no military mission, and when you admit 

there is no military mission, it is hard for me to square with your 

desire still to stay. And we say, oh, we want to leave, but when? 

We have been there 18 years. I think we should declare victory and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

60 

come home. I think we won the battle. We did. We literally did 

win. There is nobody left alive who plotted to attack us on 9/11. 

I have asked people repeatedly, tell me the names of those left 

alive in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, anywhere in the world. We are 

now sending people to war who were not even born when 9/11 was. 

And every Administration comes, not just Republican, Democrat, 

they come and say, oh, well, it is, you know—it just fine. We are 

going to keep fighting these wars, and it has something to do with 

9/11. No, it has nothing to do with 9/11. 

Everybody around the world that is a radical Islamist we now 

are at war with because we said, oh, we got permission to go at 

9/11. But when you were in Congress, you had a little bit different 

position, you know? Your position with Libya was that we should 

get authorization. Your position in 2013 was also—you wrote an 

op-ed with Tom Cotton saying, well, we should give the President 

the authority he needs to go into Syria, not because you were like 

me that we should not get involved in another war, because you 

were eager to get involved, and you wanted to give the President 

to say, please, President Trump, let us go to war in Syria. But I 

think we need to think these things through, and we need to not 

to be so carte blanche that the Constitution does give just carte 

blanche, you know, permission for the President to do whatever he 

wants. 

Do you think the Iraq War was a mistake? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I was running a machine shop in Kansas 

at the time, so I do not have a contemporaneous view that I expressed. 

Senator PAUL. No opinions back then? How about opinions now? 

Mr. POMPEO. I may well have had an opinion. But, no, my opinion now is, look, we clearly had—we had bad intelligence. I have 

been one of the few CIA directors who has been willing to say we 

get it wrong. In spite of all the enormous resources—— 

Senator PAUL. But it is not just bad intelligence—— 

Mr. POMPEO. But we did—we did have bad intelligence. 

Senator PAUL. We did geopolitically the wrong thing. We got rid 

of the enemy of Iran. We emboldened Iran. We made it worse. We 

brought chaos to the Middle East. We are still suffering the ramifications and repercussions of the Iraq War. But your President 

said it very clearly. He said that the Iraq War was the single worst 

decision ever made. So, once again, I am concerned that you will 

not be supporting the President, that you will be influencing him 

in a way that I think his inclinations are actually better than many 

of his advisors, that the Iraq War was a mistake, that we need to 

come home from Afghanistan. 

He was against being involved in Syria at many times in his career. So, I think he does have good instincts, and my main concern 

is that will you be one who will listen to what the President actually wants instead of being someone who advocates for us staying 

forever in Afghanistan, another Iraq war, bombing Syria without 

permission. So, this is the advice you will give. 

And I guess that is my biggest concern with your nomination is 

that I do not think it reflects the millions of people who voted for 

President Trump who actually voted for him because they thought 

it would be different, that it would not be the traditional bipartisan 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

61 

consensus to bomb everywhere and be everywhere around the 

world. So, that is my main concern, and I just want to make sure 

that that is loud and clear to everyone that that is my concern. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Paul. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director. Good to see you. This is an extraordinary article, I believe, 

from late last year in the New Yorker that speaks to China’s rise 

coinciding with an American retreat from the globe. And I think we 

have all seen that as we have traveled the world that the presence 

that United States used to have just simply is not there, and other 

countries are taking advantage. 

This article in part describes a relatively routine meeting of the 

WTO in which they were negotiating trade rules for agriculture 

and seafood, something the United States used to have a big role 

at. It quotes someone in attendance as saying, ‘‘For two days of 

meetings, there were no Americans, and the Chinese were going 

into every session and chortling about how they were now the 

guarantors of the trading system.’’ The article makes the case that 

Trump is China’s biggest strategic opportunity. 

I have seen this. We have all seen this at multilateral meetings 

that we used to see major U.S. Administration presence. There is 

virtually no presence, and other countries are taking advantage of 

that. What do you think about the scope of our presence at some 

of these rule-setting meetings, and what are your plans for the future? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, we need to be there. We need to be active. 

We need to be capable. We need to be value added. We need to 

come prepared to engage and work for America’s interests in these 

multilateral discussions that you described. I think this was the 

WTO that was in this article. It sounds like we share that sentiment. 

I could not tell you why we were not there. I do not know if it 

was the absence of people or the absence of focus. I view those as 

important places to get the international rule of law that is in accord with our view and not the Chinese in that particular instance. 

You have concerns, and I will do my best to make sure that we are 

there and we are capable. 

Senator MURPHY. I appreciate that answer. I want to get a little 

bit of a clarification with respect to an answer that you gave Senator Menendez at the outset coming back to this meeting with the 

President on March 22nd. Senator Menendez asked you whether 

there was a discussion about steps you could take to try to frustrate the investigation. And you said that ‘‘I do not recall what the 

President asked me that day.’’ Is that your testimony that you do 

not recall what he asked? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, and I want to be—I want to be—I do not recall 

if he asked anything that particular day. I know the date. I know 

the meeting to which you are referring, and I do not have—I do not 

recall the specifics. And I have answered every question about that 

meeting and others. 

Senator MURPHY. I ask the question because it is—because you 

answered two different ways. You said, ‘‘I do not recall what he 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

62 

asked me that day,’’ but then you also said, ‘‘He has never asked 

me to do anything that I consider inappropriate.’’ Those are not 

consistent. 

Mr. POMPEO. Those are entirely consistent, Senator. If he asked 

me to do something inappropriate, I would remember. 

Senator MURPHY. Let me give you another chance at a different 

question. Senator Coons asked you in an earlier round whether you 

agreed with the President’s characterization of the Mueller investigation as an attack on America, an attack on all we stand for. I 

do not understand why your participation in some of the elements 

of that investigation would render you unable to tell us that you 

do not believe the investigation is an attack on America or an attack on all we stand for. I do not think it compromises any of the 

work that the CIA did or does in that investigation. 

So, I think it is—I think it is really—I think it would be really 

troubling if you could not say here today that you do not believe 

that the Mueller investigation is an attack on America, so I want 

to give you a second chance at that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, you can give me a third chance. These are 

complex legal issues the special counsel is involved in. I have done 

my best as CIA director to separate each and every element of that. 

There is just—it is—it is a minefield, Senator Murphy, and I want 

to be—I want to be on the far side of the line with making sure 

that I do not create challenges for the Special Counsel’s Office, for 

the two legislative committees that are engaged in this. And so, 

with all due respect, I just—— 

Senator MURPHY. I think—— 

Mr. POMPEO.—things that relate to the special counsel as where 

this about anyway—— 

Senator MURPHY. By refusing to condemn attacks on the special 

counsel, I mean, really over the line attacks that are not shared by 

Republicans here in Congress, you are frustrating the work of the 

special counsel because you are associating yourself with some very 

poisonous political attacks. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have worked diligently myself, and I 

have put demands on the team that works for me to go out of our 

way to make sure we were delivering for each of those three investigations. And it is—it is difficult. They have asked for complex information that was classified. We have shared information that 

goes well beyond what has previously been shared, and we have 

done so with the aim of ensuring that the special counsel and the 

Senate Intelligence and House Intelligence Committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations. And you 

should know we will do that today and tomorrow, and if I am confirmed at the State Department we will do it there as well. 

Senator MURPHY. In the time that I have remaining, I want to 

come back to the authorization question in Syria. You said you believe that the President has the authority to strike Syrian forces. 

What is this—what statutory authorization do you draw on to 

make—to come to that conclusion? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I believe that the President has that authority. He certainly has it under Article II of the Constitution. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

63 

Senator MURPHY. What is the limiting factor then with respect 

to Article II powers if he can strike Syrian forces with no existing 

statutory authorization? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, there are reams of law review articles 

written in answer to that very question. It gets—it is a highly factbased analysis. There are scores of attorneys strewn throughout 

the CIA, throughout the State Department, throughout the White 

House, throughout the Justice Department—— 

Senator MURPHY. Well, just give me one limiting—give me one 

limiting factor. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. Senator, I would—if you go—if you make a 

commitment, right? If you make a commitment that would be traditionally viewed as a classical case for war, then the Constitution 

is required. This has been a tussle between the executive and legislative branch for an awfully long time, and you know my views. I 

think it was Senator Kaine who said that—coming from the place 

that you do on the congressional side have deep respect for what 

it is that you all are looking for. 

Senator MURPHY. So, normally a limiting factor would be an imminent threat or an attack on the United States. 

Mr. POMPEO. But there is—there is a definition in the War Powers Act, right? So, there is a statutory definition that is contained 

there as well. I cannot recite it—— 

Senator MURPHY. Well, it is an attack on—it is an attack—the 

War Powers refers to an attack on the United States. There has 

been no attack on the United States from the Syrian regime, correct? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that is correct. 

Senator MURPHY. And there is no imminent threat of attack on 

the United States from the Syrian regime. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am just trying to be very careful. Yes, 

I think that—I think that is correct. 

Senator MURPHY. I am at the end of my time, but I might want 

to follow up on this. I do not think we are to the bottom of this 

question yet. Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, these are—I am trying to—you are asking 

me today to conduct complex legal analysis with—— 

Senator MURPHY. No, I—— 

Mr. POMPEO.—with legal conclusions. And so, I do—I know it is 

important, and so I am trying to do my best. I am at the same trying to make sure that I do not have some statement I made that 

I parced the language incorrectly. 

Senator MURPHY. No, I understand, but to the extent that there 

is not an identifiable constraint on Article II power, then we are 

all out of the business of declaring war. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could, I will use another 30 seconds of my 

time. I think that even on this committee, there is wide disagreement over that. I know Senator Shaheen and I—I saw her public 

statements over the last few days—both agree that the President 

has the ability to make surgical strikes. President Obama carried 

on for months activities against Libya that I disagreed with on a 

policy basis, but he had that authority to do so, at least he claimed 

he did. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

64 

So, look, I think this is a subject of debate, and I think it is prudent of our witness to not try to analyze the very details of that. 

On our own committee, we would debate that on both sides of the 

aisle at length. But I thank you for having this conversation, and 

I look forward to the follow-up. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Pompeo, 

congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for your service to 

the Nation. Thanks for coming by and visiting with me, taking the 

time to discuss the critical issues of national security. And I concur 

completely with you and the presidential authority to use military 

force in Syria. And I wanted to stay with Syria for a few moments 

if I could because what we have seen, Assad has continued to use 

chemical weapons killing thousands, and most recently it sounds 

like another attack a few days ago. Reports emerged from the regime killing men, women, children outside of Damascus, another 

terrible chemical weapons attack. 

How would you suggest that the U.S. hold Assad and the regime 

accountable for its use of chemical weapons? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, if I may, I would prefer not to—this is a 

live discussion, one that as intelligence director I am actively a 

part of. So, I would prefer not to talk about plans and intentions 

with respect to how it is or whether it is that the United States 

intends to respond to the most recent use of chemical weapons by 

the Assad regime. 

Senator BARRASSO. Moving to a different topic, you and I had a 

chance to discuss Russia and how it uses energy as a weapon, a 

geopolitical weapon. And Putin continues to use Russia’s natural 

gas to extort, to threaten, to coerce our allies and our partners 

overseas. While we have been working our allies with energy security and diversification, Russia continues to attempt to expand its 

near monopoly over European energy supplies with the construction of the Nord Stream II pipeline. 

On March 15th, I led a bipartisan group, 39 senators, sending a 

letter to both Secretary Mnuchin and Secretary—the Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan opposing the pipeline. We all agree. We requested the Administration utilize all the tools at our disposal to 

prevent the construction of that pipeline. I think it is going be— 

have a detrimental effect on European energy security, and it 

would further reinforce Russia’s influence on that region. 

So, as Secretary of State, I ask could you utilize all the tools at 

your disposal, including the Countering America’s Adversaries 

Through Sanctions Act, to ensure that the Nord Stream II pipeline 

is never built? And, you know, how do you view energy security of 

our allies and partners in Europe as important to our own national 

security? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, actually, while there is definitely risk 

here, I actually view this as an enormous opportunity for the 

United States and for others as well. If we—if we can achieve a 

condition where Russia has less capacity to turn off natural gas 

pipelines or to create risk and threats to our allies and to our 

friends around the world, we will—we will have reduced the risk 

to the United States of America and to those countries greatly. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

65 

And so, I look forward to being part of the discussion about Nord 

Stream II in particular to make sure that there are alternatives 

there that are in the West’s best interests and not in Vladimir 

Putin’s best interests. 

Senator BARRASSO. And then turning to Iran, they continue to be 

a threat to the United States, to Israel, to the international community. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. They 

are financing terrorist groups around the world. And a lot of it has 

to do with massive influx of cash that Iran received from the Iran 

nuclear deal, and they are continuing to support destabilizing activities in the region. There is incredible amounts of evidence of 

that. 

I think the United States has to enforce and impose sanctions on 

Iran for what they are doing with arms trafficking, with terrorism, 

the development of ballistic missiles. So, if you would visit a little 

bit about how you plan to respond to Iran’s illicit activities, including what they are doing to support terrorism, and arms trafficking, 

and missile developments. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, the President has laid out a strategy to 

push back against each of those elements of threat to America that 

you have described. Maybe focus just on sanctions for a moment. 

There are still more arrows in the quiver. There is more work to 

do there. As CIA director, we have been part of providing the intelligence so that we can target those sanctions in the right way, we 

understand who it is and who is moving weapons around the world, 

and who is engaged in the malign activity which we are trying to 

stop. But ultimately those designations are placed by Treasury and 

State, but the intelligence community has big a role. I have been 

part of it. We got a big team working on it. We will continue to, 

and I am—if I am confirmed I will be part of that. 

I will tell you that the other element of that is also a diplomatic 

task. It is important when America places sanctions. It is really 

powerful when we get out partners to do it as well, when we can 

share the burden that comes with placing sanctions because Americans cannot trade in those places. And when we can share that 

burden and truly create global prohibitions on trading with the entities we designate, we have the most likelihood—the greatest likelihood of achieving the outcome we are looking for. 

Senator BARRASSO. And could I turn briefly to North Korea and 

the nuclear program there? You know, last month President Trump 

agreed to meet with the North Korean, Kim Jung Un. You know, 

the United States, I believe, should be engaged in talks if they’re 

not just for the purpose of talking. So, I think we should only be 

engaged in credible opportunities to discuss the denuclearization of 

North Korea. So, it is also important that you guys continue to 

pressure this regime, imposing sanctions, conducting joint military 

exercises, keeping the regime fully aware of the consequences of 

their actions. 

So, could you talk about if you believe there is a scenario in 

which North Korea would actually dismantle its nuclear weapons 

program, and, you know, how maximum pressure might work 

there? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, the historic analysis is not optimistic. That 

is, it has—it is almost a talisman that there is not enough coercion. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

66 

There is not enough capacity for Kim Jong Un to make the decision 

to give us up his nuclear weapons arsenal. I hope that that talisman is wrong, and that is the effort that we have been engaged in. 

Your point about the sanctions, I think, is relevant. I have had 

a chance to talk to a whole handful of people who were involved 

in the agreed framework, the Leap Day deal, the six-party talks. 

In each case, America and the world released their sanctions too 

quickly; that is, we did not have the verifiable irreversible deal 

that we hope that we had had. And in each case, the North Koreans walked away from that deal. 

It is the intention of the President and the Administration to not 

do that this time, to make sure that before it is the case, as we 

did with the JCPOA, before we provide rewards, we get the outcome permanently, irreversibly that it is that we hope to achieve. 

It is a tall order, but I am hopeful that President Trump can 

achieve that through sound diplomacy both personally and through 

the offices of the United States State Department. 

Senator BARRASSO. And the final question with regard to human 

rights, the rule of law. I appreciate your opening statement and the 

comments about your commitment to human rights around because 

if we do not, who will. You know, as Secretary of State, your commitment to promoting and protecting these important principles 

across the globe I think are key, so I appreciate your comments. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. Earlier it was noted 

what an oath of office involves, and as you know, you have taken 

it several times, to support and defend the Constitution of the 

United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Recently, 

President Trump has talked about a domestic enemy, saying that 

the execution of a search warrant by the U.S. law enforcement authorities on Michael Cohen’s office constitutes an attack, and I 

quote, ‘‘attack on our country in a true sense.’’ Do you agree with 

the President’s evaluation that that is an attack on our country? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have always believed that the rule of law 

matters. I continue to believe that. Multiple times individuals have 

asked me to comment on statements that others have made, 

friends of mine have made, adversaries of mine have made, those 

who are coming after me. Today what I want to talk about is the 

things that I believe. I believe deeply in the rule of law and will 

continue to do so. 

Senator MERKLEY. And do you think that the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants to be executed to this? 

Mr. POMPEO. Oh, yes, sir, absolutely? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Turning to North Korea, John 

Bolton said it is perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to respond to the 

current necessity posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first. Secretary of Defense Mattis had a different view saying 

that war with North Korea would be catastrophic. Do you lean 

more towards John Bolton’s view or Secretary of Defense Mattis’ 

view? 

Mr. POMPEO. I lean more closely to the President’s view, which 

is to continue the pressure campaign, to build a coalition, a diploFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

67 

matic coalition around the world, to put pressure on Kim Jong Un 

such that we can achieve the United States goals without ever having to put one of our young men or women in harm’s way. 

Senator MERKLEY. Does the President have the constitutional authority to conduct a first strike on North Korea without authorization from Congress? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, again, I am not going to comment on hypothetical situations or complex legal matters. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, you have done so before back a while 

when the question was in regard to committing resources in Libya. 

You put out a statement regarding a letter to Barack Obama informing him that the Administration would be in violation of the 

War Powers Resolution unless either authorization from Congress 

is obtained or the military withdraws operations from Libya by 

Sunday, June 19th. And then you commented and you said specifically, ‘‘The country—that country, Libya, does not pose a threat to 

the United States, nor do we have vital interests there.’’ Did you 

believe as you said then that there is a constitutional limitation on 

the ability of the President to conduct war without an authorization from Congress? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. In that context, not so long ago 

there was a lot of discussion that in regard to Syria, if President 

Obama put troops on the ground in Syria without constitutional 

authorization, it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. 

We had members of the Senate, including members of our Armed 

Services Committee, members of the House, and I will quote. Representative Walter Jones said, ‘‘No President’s, Democratic or Republican, should have the authority to bypass the Constitution or 

the will of the American people.’’ And he said, ‘‘If one of our troops 

goes to Syria and is killed, I will introduce articles of impeachment.’’ 

So, at that time of that discussion, did you share the view that 

for President Obama to put troops on the ground Syria would be 

a violation of the Constitution? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do not recall if I did or if I made a statement with respect to that at that time. I simply do not recall. 

Senator MERKLEY. But just to clarify, in the case of Libya, you 

did see that there was a line being crossed. 

Mr. POMPEO. Oh, yes, Senator, I believed that. 

Senator MERKLEY. The argument at that point was that under 

our NATO mutual defense and NATO action, but you still felt that 

did not give the foundation for action in Libya. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. I believed what I think you described 

as a letter, not a statement. I believed what I said in that statement. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is an issue of great concern here on the 

boundaries, and certainly I think some of your earlier caution 

about Presidents exceeding their constitutional authority is caution 

that we would like to hear in your role as Secretary of State. It is 

often a case when make the journey down Pennsylvania Avenue, 

the War Powers in the Constitution granted to Congress seem to 

be forgotten. Will you—will you not forget those constitutional delineations of responsibilities? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

68 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I promise you that. I will—I will take— 

I will take equal consideration in the same way I did that day in 

2011 as I have done as the CIA director, and if I am confirmed as 

Secretary of State I will continue to do that. 

Senator MERKLEY. John Bolton noted that it was legitimate for 

the U.S. to respond to the current necessity posed by North Korea’s 

nuclear program by striking first. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. POMPEO. I am sorry. Might you repeat it? 

Senator MERKLEY. John Bolton argued that it is legitimate for 

the U.S. to respond to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program by 

striking first. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, again, I do not want to wade into a hypothetical about under what conditions it might be appropriate or not 

appropriate. We are a long ways from that. We are working diplomatically to get the right outcome in North Korea. 

Senator MERKLEY. John Bolton argued that Cuba was developing 

biological weapons, and it was appropriate for the United States to 

go to war against Cuba. Did you agree with him on that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am not going to—his words speak for 

himself. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, it speaks for him, but he is not here. 

Mr. POMPEO. Tell me what the question is. 

Senator MERKLEY. You are here. I am asking your opinion. 

Mr. POMPEO. I am deeply aware of that. I am sorry, Senator, 

might you ask—there is a factual predicate there about Cuban and 

weapons? 

Senator MERKLEY. Did you agree with Bolton’s viewpoint that we 

should go to war with Cuba? 

Mr. POMPEO. No, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. How about—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I have not at any time stated that I believe we 

should go to war with Cuba. 

Senator MERKLEY. How about in regard to his belief that Hussein had hidden weapons of mass destruction and we should go to 

war with Iraq? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think—I may not have expounded sufficiently. I have read the history. The intelligence community had 

that assessment—was incorrect about its assessment at that time. 

Senator MERKLEY. I will just note, the reason I am asking you 

these questions is there is a lot of concern in America, and a lot 

of people are paying attention to this hearing. And they are asking 

the fundamental question, are we assembling a war cabinet of John 

Bolton and Mike Pompeo that are going to result in devastating 

consequences, bypassing Congress’ authority in regards to the use 

of military force, and perhaps engaging in another poorly thought 

through mistake like our war on Iraq that has resulted in a huge 

loss of American lives, a huge loss of American resources, enormous 

instability including Iran developing an enormous track of influence from Iran, through Iraq, through Syria, to Lebanon and 

Yemen. 

And people want to know whether or not your views are close 

enough to Bolton’s in his advocacy of force in virtually every situation, that we are going to have a very dangerous arrangement on 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

69 

the key two advisors to the President of the United States. If the 

chair will indulge, can you just answer that? 

The CHAIRMAN. I really will not. I really will not. We are getting 

ready to start a second round. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, many people have gone 

significantly over their time, and I am still just within 1 minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, since you are begging, go ahead. [Laughter.] 

Senator MERKLEY. Not begging, considering fairness. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am sorry, might I get you to reframe the 

question or ask the question one more time. I apologize. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. Many people in America—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the question. Just answer it. Are you 

forming a war cabinet? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. I have been part of this Cabinet. I 

have watched it thoughtfully deliberate about all of these things, 

and I can tell you every day at the—at the forefront of our mind 

is how can we find solutions that avoid us—that achieve the American objective, but avoid us having to put a single American harm’s 

way. You have my commitment that as the Secretary of State or 

if I continue as the CIA director, that I will continue to hold that 

in the forefront of my mind. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator 

Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Pompeo, 

thank you for your willingness to step up and serve again. I imagine it is hard to leave the CIA after only 15 months given your tenure there which was successful and where you developed a lot of 

close relationships. But you are taking on a new task, and it is a 

different task. You know, CIA is primarily an organization that informs policymakers. Now you are going to be a policymaker. 

And I think you have got a good background to do so. I enjoyed 

our meeting. I have enjoyed getting to know you over the years. We 

have talked about some tough issues, and we talked about soft 

power. And, you know, kind of to the suggestions that were made 

here today that as a guy with your background, particularly your 

military background, do you really believe in diplomacy and soft 

power. 

And, you know, you have got a pretty impressive background. 

You were on the House Intelligence Committee. You were number 

one in your class at West Point. You also went to Harvard Law 

School—I will not hold that against you—and you were magna cum 

laude, Harvard Law School. But you did serve in the military. You 

served as a cavalry officer patrolling, as I recall, the Iron Curtain 

at the time. And so, I guess my question for you is, because there 

have been suggestions that you would be too quick to turn to military options. How would you respond to that? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I said this, or at least—I cannot recall if 

I read it this morning, but it was certainly in my opening statement. There are few people like soldiers who appreciate diplomats 

and good diplomatic work. You train. You prepare. You want—you 

want very much to be prepared if America calls upon you, but you 

are counting on the fact that there will be diplomats around the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

70 

world resolving these challenges, pushing back on these conflicts, 

preventing the very activity for which it is your are training and 

preparing. And so, as Secretary of State, you have my commitment 

that I will endeavor to do that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you know who you sound like? You sound 

like Colin Powell. 

Mr. POMPEO. I will take that as high praise. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yeah. Well, look, for those who wonder can 

you be a military officer and also be a good diplomat, I think he 

is someone who proves the point. Highly regarded at the State Department. Combat officer like yourself. Someone who had a strong 

military background, and he was very effective at the diplomacy 

part and of managing the Foreign Service as well. 

And something you and I talked about a lot in our meeting was 

your management approach. And I told you I thought that our morale problem at the State Department was real and that we needed 

a fresh start there. I enjoyed working with Secretary Tillerson. I 

think his lack of appointees being confirmed by this body was one 

of the problems, but for whatever the reasons, there is a morale 

problem. And I am not going to ask you to repeat what you said 

to me in private, but I was encouraged because you talked about— 

you did not talk about that drill sergeant list. You heard that today 

because I have been—I have been listening as well today. But you 

did in our meeting talk about the respect you have for the Foreign 

Service and your belief that you cannot just improve that morale, 

but get people motivated, feeling like they are important and make 

a difference. 

There was a lot of talk about Libya today and your views then. 

There was talk about Syria today and what is going on in terms 

of the decision-making. Let me broaden this a little bit and ask 

about something that our committee is struggling with right now, 

which is this notion that we have an AUMF, the authorization for 

the use of military force, that dates back to 2001 and 2002, and has 

not been updated. How do you feel about that? Do you think we 

should update the AUMF? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do, Senator. And if I may elaborate, I actually 

was part of a team on the House side some years to—that worked 

on that, worked on that with the White House. We were not ultimately able to be successful. I do believe that it is important that 

we achieve that, that we have a new set of leaders in the United 

States Congress who also provide that authorization. I think the 

one that we have works. I think it provides the authorities that the 

President needs today, but I would welcome working alongside you 

to achieve, I think you used the term ‘‘refreshed,’’ AUMF. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, I think it is very important. You know, 

honestly, I do not think it is inappropriate to say that some in the 

Administration have not been as forthcoming to try to get to a decision here because a number of us believe that it ought to be flexible 

as to reach and as to groups. We do believe the President inherent 

authorities within the Constitution and as commander-in-chief that 

need to be respected. But it is just not tenable to say we are relying 

on an AUMF that goes back to 2001. That was, you know, 17 years 

ago, so we would like to work with you on that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

71 

In our meeting, we talked about how Russia and other countries, 

China included, have pursued extensive disinformation and propaganda campaigns. And I think we are kind of missing out on that 

both on the diplomatic front with the State Department and on the 

military front. People call it the new hybrid threat. It is kinetic, it 

is military, but it is also disinformation. And other countries have 

figured that out, and most of them, like Iran, and Russia, and 

China, and others, are using North Korea—using disinformation in 

a very sophisticated way. 

It was not just about election, which I believe the Russians did 

meddle in our election, and I think it is well beyond that. And by 

the way, it happened before, and it is going to happen after unless 

we do something about it. These operations use a range of tools— 

cyberattacks, hacking, troll farms, go on social media. They fund 

useful think tanks, political organizations. Senator Murphy and I 

have done a lot of work on this, and we have legislation, as you 

know, to set up this Global Engagement Center to really give it the 

personnel and the funding it needs to be able to push back. 

I would like to know your views on that, and specifically do you 

agree with me on the severity of the threat that is posed by foreign 

government propaganda, disinformation, to U.S. interests and to 

our allies? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, I do. Senator, I think it is a real threat, one 

that has been underappreciated for years now. It has become 

cheaper, faster, less attributable, so its power has increased, the 

capacity for malign actors to use these information tools in ways 

that they just did not have available them 20 or 40 years ago. It 

also makes stopping it more difficult and requires a more comprehensive effort. 

We have had a small role at the Central Intelligence Agency at 

pushing back against it, and I know that there has been lots of talk 

about the Global Engagement Center. And in the event that I am 

confirmed, I promise you I will—I will put excellent Foreign Service officers, excellent civil service officers on the task of developing 

out that capability and using it in a robust way. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, I am encouraged to hear that. And as 

you know, we have made some progress recently getting some 

funds there and starting it up. Will you commit to helping implement this in an aggressive way, including ensuring we have the 

right staff there to be able to pursue this critical mission? 

Mr. POMPEO. I will, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. I just got back from Ukraine, and I see I just 

have a minute and a half left based on what everybody else took, 

so I will take it. [Laughter.] 

Senator PORTMAN. I just got back from Ukraine, and as you and 

I talked about, Ukraine unfortunately is ground zero for what is 

going on with regard to disinformation, but it is beyond that. I was 

out at the contact line and saw the military activities as well. Do 

you support the continuation of providing defensive lethal weapons 

to the Ukrainians so they can defend themselves? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you pledge that the United States while 

you are Secretary of State would never recognize the annexation of 

Crimea? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

72 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator, I will fight to make sure that that 

does not happen, and obviously it will be the President’s decision. 

But, yes, I think it would be completely inappropriate to do that. 

Senator PORTMAN. And do you believe sanctions on Russia imposed because of its aggression in Ukraine should remain until 

Russia implements the terms of the Minsk cease fire agreement, 

halts its aggression? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are beginning the second round 

now. There will be 5 minutes. And I have not heard from Mary 

Alice, so are you ready—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Might we take just 5 minutes, Senator? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. We will take—we will take a 5-minute 

recess and convene again at 1:40. Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. [Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will begin our second round. 

With that, Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my time, I 

have received a number of letters from members of Congress and 

a variety of groups expressing their views about Director Pompeo’s 

nominations. I would like to introduce these letters into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The material referred to above is located at the end of this transcript, beginning on page 282.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. Director, I want to go back to my first line 

of questioning. And, you know, for me, all of these hearings, whether it be about a witness on a subject or a nomination, and certainly 

for a nomination to the Secretary of State, which is the fourth in 

line to accession to the presidency, is super important. And when 

I asked you about the March 22nd, 2017 meeting, your first answer 

to me was—I am reading directly from the transcript—‘‘I am not 

going to talk about the conversations the President and I had.’’ 

Mr. POMPEO. Mm-hmm. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Then when I pressed you further, you said 

you did not recall. ‘‘I do not recall what he asked me that day precisely.’’ Now, that seemed to be going from I had a conversation, 

I know what the conversation was about, but I am not going to talk 

about it, to that I do not recall it now what was asked. And then 

you gave a blanket conversation that you have never been asked 

to do anything wrong or improper. Well, if you do not want to talk 

about it and then you cannot remember it, I do not know how you 

jump to that conclusion. So, it is concerning to me because we need 

a Secretary of State who will be forthright with us and who will 

be forthcoming as well. 

Let me ask you this. Let me turn this picture up for you. On 

April 4th this picture was taken. Can you tell me what is wrong 

with the photo? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, you will have to help me. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Okay. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

73 

Mr. POMPEO. I have seen this picture before or a similar before. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I would hope you could tell me what is 

wrong, but here, I will give it to you in the interest of time. What 

is wrong is that the United States of America is not there. What 

is wrong is that Iran, Russia, and Turkey, supposedly a NATO ally, 

who is purchasing an S–400 missile system from Russia in contravention of the mandatory sanctions that this institution passed 

98 to 2 and is law. Turkey is supposed to be our NATO ally who 

is fighting the same Kurds that we have depended upon to defeat 

ISIS. These three leaders are engaged in the question of what to 

do about Syria, and the United States is not even present. 

So, what is the implications, for example, for our ally, the State 

of Israel, if a Russia, Turkey, Iran alliance is unchallenged in shaping the outcome of Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I largely agree with the predicate of your 

question. We need to have a robust diplomatic effort related to the 

very set of issues you are describing. They were there for the purpose of discussing what was—how they were going to carve up 

Syria. That is a rough statement of their mission, but that is what 

they were for. The American people need to be represented at that 

table so that we can be part of that conversation. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, what is our strategy? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I will walk you through what we are trying to accomplish in Syria. It is difficult. I will concede it is incredibly complex, and Turkey’s entry into Afrin took an already incredibly complex situation and put another twist in the cartwheel. So, 

if you will bear with me. 

We have the primary mission that we have been engaged in to 

defeat ISIS. We did so using a group of men who did great work, 

and we took the caliphate down, and we ought to be proud of it. 

There is still work to do. That mission is not yet complete. 

Senator MENENDEZ. The next element of it. I need you to be precise because the chairman, even though I asked for a longer period 

of this questioning like we did with Secretary Tillerson, is going to 

be rapping that gavel. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, to talk about Syria strategy in 2 minutes 

is an enormous challenge. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Just give me the elements of the strategy. 

Mr. POMPEO. So, the—so the other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome such that there is more stability. We can take down 

the violence, and so this is a diplomatic task so that we get to a 

place where the Syrian people can ultimately govern themselves. 

And our goal is to make that a post-Assad Syria one day. It is a 

very difficult thing to accomplish. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me move to another part nearby in the 

world, Iran. Is it in the United States’ national security interest to 

unilaterally withdraw from the Iran agreement without a strategy 

for what comes next? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am confident that whatever course the 

Administration takes, we will have a strategy. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, you are answering, yes, it is in the national security interest to withdraw because you will have a strategy. Is that what your answer is? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

74 

Mr. POMPEO. Is in the national security interests that no matter 

which course we take on, we should develop a strategy to achieve 

the objectives that I think we all share to prevent Iran from having 

a nuclear weapon. 

Senator MENENDEZ. If the President unilaterally withdraws from 

the JCPOA in May, what does the Administration intend to do? 

What will you be recommending in terms of reinstituting the preJCPOA sanctions on Iran and on those countries who engage with 

Iran? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, there is an active policy discussion around 

all of these issues about how this will proceed in the next 30 days 

and the days thereafter. The objective is very clear. The objective 

is to fix the shortcomings of the Iran deal. That will be true on May 

11th, May 12th—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. But does that mean snapping back sanctions? 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. May 13th. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Does that mean snapping back sanctions? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do not want to speculate on what we will 

do. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You know, I will tell you what a nominee 

should do, Director. You want me to put my faith in you, but I cannot do that blindly. I have to have some sense of what you will be 

advocating even if it is not what the President decides. Is it to put 

back sanctions? Does the sanctions depend upon whether the Europeans are going to be in sync with us? And if we are not and we 

put back sanctions, are they going to ultimately come along with 

us, or are they going to reciprocate and say we are going to put 

sanctions and tell our companies not to do it? And if we do not 

snap sanctions back, are we nothing but a toothless tiger? 

See, these are the critical questions that I am looking to understand what you will advocate for. And it is not that you come as 

a candidate here who has not had dealings with this issue because 

in a different context as the CIA director, you have had dealings 

with this issue. So, that is why I am trying to glean here, and I 

am not getting it from you—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I have, Senator. I have had dealings with it, Senator, and I have had at the deep urging of some avoided being part 

of the policy discussions around this. As you will know, some have 

critiqued me for entering those discussions too much. So, with your 

permission, it is hard to hypothesize about what the conditions will 

be in May and how close we may be to achieving the President’s 

objective through diplomacy to speculate on how we might respond. 

It is just—it is difficult. I know that is what you are asking me to 

do, and I simply—I cannot—it is a hypothetical situation about 

which we still have a number of facts that are unavailable. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I was asking you for a strategy, not 

goals. And I do not think that a strategy is one that invades the 

space that you presently occupy with the space you hope to occupy. 

And so, it would just make it a lot easier for me when I have to 

vote on you to understand what you will be advocating for. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Pompeo, 

thank you again for your testimony. I think you have an incredible 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

75 

job today challenging us and also being forth—being very forward 

in your answers. And I appreciate that today, and it will serve you 

well as Secretary of State, and I look forward to supporting you. 

There has been some news that was made while you were in the 

testimony earlier today President Trump. I think he has directed, 

according to news reports, Ambassador Lighthizer, along with 

Larry Kudlow, to open up the new possibility of reengaging in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership. And so, leading into this question on 

China, the national security strategy released in 2017 says ‘‘China 

and Russia challenge American power, influence, and influence attempting to erode American security and prosperity. China seeks 

to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand its 

reaches of state-driven economic model, reorder the region in its 

favor. China is using economic inducements, penalties, influence 

operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to 

heed its political and security agenda.’’ 

I talked earlier about the clear militarization of the South China 

Seas. I talked about the fact that they are now conducting, or at 

least planning to conduct, live fire exercises in the Taiwan Straits, 

Straits of Taiwan. Can you talk about this, perhaps including even 

TPP, how that can counter China’s influence and what we need to 

do to make sure that we have a policy toward China? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I was—that news was news to me, but I 

have—I have watched the Administration, and my record was 

clear. I supported TPP when I was a member of Congress. There 

is an economic—there is an economic component to what China is 

trying to do. We need to be engaged. There is a diplomatic component to the economic activity as well. We need to be deeply engaged 

there. And I am confident this Administration will do that. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Director Pompeo. Talking a little 

bit about Southeast Asia and our challenge right now, how many 

fighters right now from Southeast Asia do you think are in Syria 

today? 

Mr. POMPEO. How many? 

Senator GARDNER. How many Islamic fighters from Southeast 

Asia do we estimate are in Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do not recall the number. There are 

many. 

Senator GARDNER. And have we seen those go and return to 

Southeast Asia as well? 

Mr. POMPEO. We have. 

Senator GARDNER. And how is our coordination with those Southeast Asian nations—Philippines, other places—in terms of terms 

addressing, monitoring, and combatting as they move back? 

Mr. POMPEO. Without giving too much detail, it is better in some 

places than in others. But much as we do with our European partners and our partners in the Middle East, we do our best to track 

these terrorists as they move around the world so that we can together identify ways to prevent them from conducting their terror. 

Senator GARDNER. The fighters that may have been in Southeast 

Asia went to Syria and then returned. Do we know if any of them 

were involved in the incidents in Mawari? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do not recall sitting here today. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

76 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. In relation—in regards to Taiwan, 

the Taiwan Travel Act signed into law March 18th, 2018, I supported that, commend the President for signing that. Do you agree 

with the policy provisions, and just at what level would you authorize State Department personnel to visit Taiwan? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do not know the answer to that. I am familiar 

with the act. I am familiar with America’s One China policy 

through communication, and I think there were six assurances. So, 

I know American policy. I know what is there. With respect to the 

level of appropriate authorities, I just need to look at that and, 

frankly, turn to the professionals at the State Department to help 

give me guidance before I opine on that issue. 

Senator GARDNER. And would you support regularized arm sales 

to Taiwan? 

Mr. POMPEO. I think it is important, much as America has done 

for quite some time, frankly under both—every Administration, Republican, Democrat alike, that we provide the arm sales necessary 

consistent with that—consistent with that One China policy. 

Senator GARDNER. Yeah, and should we invite Taiwan to U.S.- 

led multilateral exercises, RIMPAC in Hawaii, Red Flag in Alaska? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I do not know the answer to that. 

Senator GARDNER. Okay. And obviously, I want to turn a little 

back again to North Korea, if you do not mind. Does North Korea 

present a nuclear proliferation threat? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, one of the things that is talked about too 

little, we talk about the missile systems. We talk about delivery. 

We talk about risks to the homeland. To the extent the capacity, 

the nuclear capability, the technology, and the capacities that 

North Korea has continue to exist, they present an enormous proliferation threat throughout the world. They have demonstrated 

that through history, and there is no reason to think, absent us 

being successful, they will stop their proliferation. 

Senator GARDNER. Does that currently include Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I cannot speak to that. 

Senator GARDNER. Do you know if North Korea provided any of 

the elements, tools, supplies, to Syria that could have been a part 

of the recent gas attack in Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I cannot speak to that. 

Senator GARDNER. Just quickly, what are your plans at the State 

Department for the cyber position, the cybersecurity position? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have not done—had the org shown to me. 

I have not seen the whole speed on that. I have not given a great 

deal of consideration to people filling particular positions. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO. I can—I can only say that every element of government has a piece of cyber duty. One of the challenges is that it is 

so deeply divided that we do not have a central place to do cyber 

work. At the CIA we have been—we have spent a great deal of resources. I hope we have delivered value on our cyber efforts. I 

would hope to do the same thing at the State Department. 

Senator GARDNER. I just look forward to working with you on 

that. I think it is an important element of what the State Department can carry out. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

77 

The CHAIRMAN. I will note he has an outstanding gentleman 

named Rob Strayer who is there now who not only has dealt with 

homeland security issues, but foreign policy issues. And I know he 

is working, in essence, right below that position now. He has done 

an outstanding job on your behalf. You should know that. Senator 

Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me—tomorrow 

Vice President Pence will be heading to Peru for the Summit of the 

Americas. I had a chance to meet with him with some other members of our committee. The theme of the conference is on how 

democratic governments deal with corruption, and I mention that 

because you have been very strong at this hearing on protecting 

American values, our democratic principles, et cetera. 

Corruption corrodes democratic institutions. This committee has 

passed out legislation that would task the State Department to establish rankings for countries in fighting corruption, similar to 

what we do in trafficking in persons. But there is always resistance 

within the State Department for more work being given to them. 

Do we have your commitment that anti-corruption is so important that we need to have an effective means of using our influence 

in other countries through our development assistance, et cetera, to 

develop the anti-corruption tools to fight corruption? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. I promise not to complain about 

workload. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. I take that as a—I really do. 

As you know—— 

Mr. POMPEO. At least publicly, Senator, I promise not to complain about it. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. This committee has also been in the 

forefront of providing the executive tools to deal with human rights 

violators from the Magnitsky statute to the Global Magnitsky statute. We have gotten really good cooperation from both State Department and Treasury on implementing the Magnitsky statutes. 

Do we have your assurance that you will work with us? 

It is a cooperative effort between the Congress and the Administration to identify human right violators that are not being held accountable in their own country so they cannot take advantage of 

our banking system or visiting our country. Do we have your assurances that you will work closely with us in implementing that statute? 

Mr. POMPEO. Those are both—both the Magnitsky Act itself and 

the Global Magnitsky Act are powerful tools. You have my commitment we will work to use those tools to the full capacity that the 

State Department can. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that. On the budget for your Department, we have seen the Administration, primarily through 

OMB, come in with dramatic cuts to the State Department’s budget. We need a champion in the State Department, and I heard you 

say you would ask for the resources you need. I heard you say that. 

One of the other problems we have had is there have been appropriated funds that have not been spent. Do we have your assurances that you will follow the direction of Congress on how we establish priorities, and when we establish a priority through the 

budget, you will carry out those priorities? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

78 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have a lawful requirement to do so. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you—— 

Mr. POMPEO. And I have seen this from both sides as a member 

of Congress, and now I have seen it in the executive branch. I 

know—I know the rules. You have—I will try to make sure that 

I am doing so in a way that delivers value, right? But, yes, you 

have my commitment that I will work towards doing that. 

Senator CARDIN. And that happened in Russia. It happened in 

regards to us providing a way to defend against their propaganda, 

and the State Department did not take the money that we provided. It was authorized by us and the appropriators put the 

money in the budget, and we had a hard time getting it spent. 

You obviously know a lot more information than any of us do in 

regards to Russia as far as intelligence information. But can you 

acknowledge publicly that Russia was involved in our 2016 elections? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. And then I want to get to a 

topic that you and I talked about in my office, and that is torture. 

And I am going back to your prior hearing, but I want to take it 

from a little bit different point of view. If confirmed as our top diplomat, torture is one of the major issues that we talk about in global human rights. And if you give a dictator any room on torture, 

on the definition of ‘‘torture,’’ they will use it with impunity. 

And, yes, I have confidence in our professionals and how they go 

about getting information. But if there is any ambiguity on 

waterboarding or issues that are clearly within the purview of 

being abused for interrogation, it leads to the erosion of global 

human rights in regards to people who are under custody. So, can 

you just clarify for me how you would as Secretary of State be clear 

as to America’s commitment against torture? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I will, and I have 15 months of data that 

you can take a look at in terms of—I had a very similar question 

asked of me when I was being confirmed as the CIA director. Torture is illegal. It is never permitted. And today the techniques, one 

of which you mentioned, are unlawful. Today there are limits on 

that, legal limits that came from Congress and were signed by a 

President. At the CIA and at the National Security Council table, 

I have not heard anyone seek to undermine that particular piece 

of legislation. We have—we are all committed to that. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to compliment the nominee for giving concise answers. It is refreshing to 

have a person who really answers our questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. You could compliment him, not me, if you wish. 

While we are on the issue of human rights that Senator Cardin 

brought up on the front end, the committee has worked to—and all 

of Congress and a President has signed legislation to end modern 

slavery around the world. We have got about 27 million people 

minimally that are in slavery today, more than at any time in the 

world’s history. We have set up—there is an effort underway. The 

State Department has funded $25 million, the he United Kingdom 

has done the same, to utilize best efforts around the world to end 

this scourge on mankind. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

79 

I know you are aware of it. I hope you also—I know you committed to numbers of things with Senator Cardin, but I hope you 

will commit to working with us to improve this to make it even 

stronger than it is and to continue this effort. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I will. I worked on some related issues related to human trafficking when I was a member of the House of 

Representatives. You have my commitment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you were in 

my office, we discussed the role of the State Department in empowering women around the world and since women make up half of 

the world’s population. As we get more information about what empowering women does, we learn that women are more likely to give 

back to their families and their communities when they are able 

to go to work and benefit economically, that countries that have 

empowered women generally do better on everything from how 

they deal with human rights to a democracy scale. And one of the 

things that we have also learned, and the United States is the first 

country to in legislation agree that we need to try and make sure 

that when there is conflict resolution, that women are included in 

those conversations and are at the negotiating table because that 

means that those negotiations are going to last better and longer. 

So, we have an Office of Global Women’s Issues. There has been 

an ambassador in that office, and right now it is unfilled. It has 

in the past reported to the Secretary. I appreciate your concerns 

about the organizational chart. But I hope that you will take a look 

at this position again and that you will commit to ensuring that 

not only do we have a qualified ambassador in that role, but that 

that is a position that works directly with the Secretary. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, you have my commitment to find that 

qualified person and get them into their position and confirmed as 

quickly as possible. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. It has been reported that State 

Department officials have been asked to pare back language on 

women’s rights, on sexual discrimination, on international family 

planning in the annual human rights report. Again, can I have 

your commitment that countries and groups that continue to discriminate against and abuse women are exposed in this report as 

they have been for many years prior to the current upcoming report? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator. I am only just a little bit familiar, I 

think, from what you raised, and then I had a briefing over at the 

State Department, too, with respect to the issue of concern that you 

raised. You have my commitment that we will keep things that 

ought not be influential in making the determination about how 

that is put together to influence those decisions. We will—just as 

I have done at CIA, we will try and do it straight up and get the 

facts so that we can do that well and properly. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good, I appreciate that. We also discussed the 

issue of refugees when you were in my office. As of April 1st, halfway through the Fiscal Year, only 10,548 refugees have been resettled. That is just 23 percent of the 45,000 admission ceiling that 

has been established. So, can you talk about, first, will you ensure 

that the State Department makes a good faith effort to meet the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

80 

refugee admission ceiling in Fiscal Year 2018, and how you will 

look at trying to make sure that happens? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, two questions. The answer to your first 

one is about will I commit to go find out what has driven that and 

try and—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Correct. 

Mr. POMPEO.—unpack it. You have my commitment to that. I do 

not know. You also have my commitment—I think America has an 

important role here with respect to refugees. We have an important 

role to provide humanitarian assistance for those that are seeking 

refuge in as close to the place that they are. I have had a chance 

to meet with some of these refugees in very difficult situations. You 

have my full commitment that we will work on these issues together. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. And, of course, 

as the director of the CIA, you have a very good idea how extensive 

the vetting is for refugees who are invited into the United States. 

Mr. POMPEO. We play a small part of that, but, yes, I am familiar 

with that process. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I very much appreciate your statements with 

respect to addressing morale at the State Department, to addressing staffing at the State Department. I hope you will also look at 

promotions. That is another place that has been an issue at the 

State Department. And you—one of the—it is my understanding 

that there is still a hiring freeze at the State Department. That is 

the only department within the Federal government that still has 

a hiring freeze in place. I hope you will commit to repealing that 

hiring freeze and move forward as quickly as possible on filling the 

vacancies that exist within the State Department. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator Shaheen, I will. I do not—I have heard different things about the exact status of the hiring freeze, but I want 

to go one further. I spent a lot of time working on recruiting of 

human capital at the Central Intelligence Agency, making sure 

that we had the best Americans in the world applying to become 

CIA officers. We were not resourced, we were not structured properly to do that in my view. We devoted more resources to it. In 15 

months I am not sure I can point to success yet, but I think we 

have the building blocks in place to do that. 

I want to do that at the State Department, too. I want—I want 

the best of America, and the way that it had traditionally been part 

of the State Department to say I want to be a professional officer 

at the State Department. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. As Senator 

Murphy said, what we are seeing in China is that there are 

plussing up their diplomatic activities, so it makes no sense for us 

to be undermining ours. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Corker, and thank you, 

Director Pompeo. On those same topics, we had a very constructive 

conversation yesterday, and I am confident that you would be a 

good advocate for the career professionals of the State Department 

and USAID. And so, rather than focus on some of the management 

and budget and so forth, I am going to focus on areas where I still 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

81 

have got some unresolved questions and would rather have a more 

pointed exchange. But I wanted to make sure I recognized that I 

think you have got clarity about the importance of the mission and 

the role and deep respect for the professionals who carry out this 

job. 

You said in your prepared statement that ‘‘Representing America 

also requires promoting America’s ideals, values, and priorities for 

those who ultimately determine the trajectory of geopolitics, the 

voters and citizens of the world,’’ and I agree with you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record an article from the 

Pew Research Center which reflects trends that other surveys of 

the world and world leaders have also revealed. 

[The material referred to above is located at the end of this transcript, beginning on page 319.] 

Senator COONS. The Center’s 2017 annual survey looked at global levels of confidence in President Trump, in Russian president, 

Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President, Xi Jinping, and German 

chancellor, Angela Merkel, and their confidence that they would do 

the right thing for the world. And it was striking that for the first 

time there has been real slippage. Are you concerned to see polls 

such as this that for the first time ever, say more people around 

the world or more leaders around the world trust Vladimir Putin 

and Xi Jinping to lead the world in the right direction than America under Donald Trump’s leadership? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I definitely want people to understand accurately. It is not an attempt to deceive, but rather to accurately 

have the people of the world understand the beacon of democracy 

that the United States of America is. We talked just a moment ago 

with Senator Portman about misinformation and the capacity to 

move that around the world diligently to make sure it does not 

have an impact. I do not know. I could not tell you the depths of 

the poll, and I do not know of it. But it is—it is the case there are 

actors in the world seeking to achieve exactly the perception that 

you laid out there, and we need to make sure that we are doing 

all that we can to counter that perception of the United States. 

Senator COONS. I am sure you would agree that the United 

States has and promotes quite different values than China. 

Mr. POMPEO. Deeply. Deeply. 

Senator COONS. And so, I would be interested in both what your 

strategy would be for investing in the resources needed to push 

back on this difference, and what role do you think our values 

should play, both in our bilateral relationship with China and in 

how we engage in the world. I have had a concern that over the 

last 15 months, our values were not as front and center as our interests more narrowly understood. How do we change that in our 

bilateral relationship with China and, more broadly, around the 

world? 

Mr. POMPEO. I believe that our values drive—often drive—sometimes you will see people characterize our interests as being in juxtaposition or in conflict with our values. That may well from time 

to time be the case. I think most often, Senator, that actually our 

values drive those interests. We should be unashamed about that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

82 

We should speak to the reason we operate the way we do. We 

should defend American values every place we go. 

It means with respect to China perhaps, but certainly with respect to other countries, hard conversations. Some days perhaps, 

Senator, tradeoffs as well. We do end up having to deal with unsavory characters from time to time to achieve an outcome that we 

deem important to American national security. But we should 

never do that to the—we should never do that exclusively. That is, 

we should never put away this American vision for the thing that 

make societies most successful and people be able to achieve what 

it is that they seek. We should—we should be proud of that, and 

we should always have that part of the discussion. 

Senator COONS. And I think that is a vision that does not just 

tolerate, but celebrates, our differences. 

Mr. POMPEO. Absolutely. 

Senator COONS. And as the co-chair of the Senate Human Rights 

Caucus with Senator Tillis, I am concerned about how we make 

sure that we make that celebration of difference a piece of our foreign policy. I would be interested in whether you think LGBTQ 

rights human rights and whether you would advocate for them as 

a piece of a broader agenda of advocating for diversity, and what 

your strategy is for preventing partners, like Turkey, and Egypt, 

and the Philippines, that have genuinely slid on their respect and 

recognition for rights, broadly understood, from moving further 

away from our core values. 

Mr. POMPEO. I think there were three questions there, Senator. 

Let me try. I deeply believe that LGBTQ persons have every right 

that every other person in the world would have. We have many 

countries in the world that do not honor that, that do not reflect 

that, that behave—that conduct heinous activity against those persons. We have a responsibility when we are dealing with those 

countries to do our best to have an impact, to make—to make—to 

make them recognize the fundamental dignity of every human 

being in the same way that we do here in the United States. 

Senator COONS. Last question if I might, Mr. Chairman. There 

was some exchange you had previously about statements you made 

as an elected official right after the Boston Marathon bombing in 

2013, and whether that sends a message to America’s Muslims, 

their community within our country, and the leaders around the 

world you will need to work with as a chief diplomat. Just tell me 

something about who the leaders are in the Muslim world you will 

be willing to work closely with, and what priority you would place 

on changing that perception of your views given by a few statements that, as we discussed yesterday, you think were taken out 

of context. I think it is important to have a sense on the record of 

your view of the religion of Islam and of our partnerships in the 

Muslim world. 

Mr. POMPEO. Let me—let me try and do that, but let me try and 

give evidence. I have worked with—I have worked with our—with 

our intelligence partners throughout, a broad range of Muslim majority countries. I have worked with them closely. We have done 

very difficult things together. It might be difficult for you to chase 

some of them down, but I think if you could speak to them, you 

would find that the view that you suggested that some have seen 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

83 

from that remark, it would be very different to them. I think they 

have come to understand that I deeply honor their religion. I honor 

their commitment to that. 

Where it causes some of the challenges that you asked in your 

previous question, we have tried to push back even at the—even 

at the lowly intelligence level. We have taken on some of these 

human rights issues in a crisp and square way. I assure you that 

I will continue to do that if I am confirmed into this new position 

as well. 

Senator COONS. Thank you for your answers. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Pompeo, this 

question has been asked by, I think, several members, but I am 

going to ask it in just a little bit different way. We are living in 

kind of an extraordinary time in terms of our Constitution and 

what is unfolding. My understanding is that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has been called over to the White House. As you 

know, Director Comey was fired by the President. And I understand you have—you know, you went to the best law school in the 

country. You are a Harvard-trained lawyer, and so I think you 

really understand the difference between right and wrong here. 

If we had this circumstance, and, I mean, when we look very 

close to it, I do not think it is—I do not think we can dismiss this 

as a hypothetical. If you either had the firing of the deputy attorney general, Rosenstein, or you had the firing of the special prosecutor, Mueller, this would be an unbelievable, extraordinary event 

in our history. I think it is clear it would be a violation of law, of 

the statutes allowing this kind of investigation. It would be obstruction of justice. It would violate rule of law as known in this 

country and around the world. I think it would put us in a constitutional crisis. 

And so, I am wondering as—you are nominee to be Secretary of 

State, would you refuse this position if this happened? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I did answer this question once before. 

Senator UDALL. Well, I do not think you quite answered it this 

way. 

Mr. POMPEO. Maybe not. I think the answer is no. Again, I have 

not had a long time to think about it. When domestic turmoil 

arises, all the more important I think to have leaders representing 

America around the world. I mean, I have seen this. We have all 

lived this, right? There was a time when we had a President impeached, right? We had a United States President impeached. 

Enormous domestic turmoil, and it is my recollection that most of 

the Cabinet members chose to continue to do their best to defined 

American democracy and to do their roles around the world. 

So, my thought here as I sit here before you today is that I would 

continue to endeavor to do that. 

Senator UDALL. Well, I think if you remember, you are speaking 

of the impeachment of Nixon. Many officials that were in the line 

decided as a moral matter to step aside. They were not going to 

have anything to do with it, and then everything happened very 

quickly after that. But we are in a situation now where I think, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

84 

you know, this is going to be one of the biggest moral issues of our 

time. I do not think—— 

You know the difference between right and wrong. To just dismiss this and just say, oh, I am just going to continue to do my 

job, I mean, as the rest of the government and our Constitution 

crumbles around us. I mean, would you resign as CIA director if 

that is the position you are in? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think that is the same question. I was 

asking thinking of a more recent impeachment of the President 

when President Clinton was impeached. That is what I actually 

had in my head when you asked the question. 

Senator UDALL. I think—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I think his Cabinet members decided that it was— 

it was incumbent upon them in this time of domestic political turmoil to continue to perform their functions ably on behalf of the 

United States. 

Senator UDALL. Yeah, well, I think the closer parallel is Nixon. 

But would you take any action if—this constitutional crisis that I 

have described here, would you take any action to do anything 

about it to express your opinion in terms of right and wrong? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, we are a long way down—we are a long 

way down into a hypothetical. 

Senator UDALL. Yeah, but it is a hypothetical that may happen 

in the course of you getting your nomination before the Senate and 

having debate. I think you should answer the question. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am going to give the same answer I gave 

previously. 

Senator UDALL. So, your answer is you would not do anything. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I did not say that. 

Senator UDALL. Well, tell me what you would do. You did 

not—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, again, we are—— 

Senator UDALL. Tell me what you would do. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, Senator, again, I have to tell you, you are 

down a hypothetical. Just steadfastly, even if it was to my advantage not to speculate on hypotheticals today, I am going to continue 

to do that. 

Senator UDALL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say I am very 

proud of many of the Republicans in the—who serve in the United 

States Senate standing up and saying that they think that this 

would be intolerable and they would not accept it. And I think they 

are going to step forward, so thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Murphy, or Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you again, Director 

Pompeo. In 2016, you wrote ‘‘congress must act to change Iranian 

behavior and ultimately the Iranian regime.’’ I think the topic of 

Iran has been amply discussed today, but I—but you and I chatted 

about this in my office and I am curious. I want to ask you, do you 

think regime change in another nation is an acceptable foreign policy goal for the United States. And if I can just follow up, and if 

you do, I would like you to tell me whether our earlier efforts at 

regime change have shown any success, and also describe for me 

how we can embrace regime change as a foreign policy goal without 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

85 

encouraging other nations, including our adversaries, to think it is 

an appropriate goal for them. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, let me try and unpack I think three or 

four questions there. First, with respect to the specific comment, 

some have suggested this was by use of force. It was not intended 

as such. I expressly did not say that in that piece. I talked about— 

I talked about the fact that we have a theocratic regime that is the 

world’s largest state sponsor of terror. And to the extent we can 

take—engage in activities to free the Iranian people, right? 

And I am proud of what the Administration did when there were 

protests earlier this year or perhaps it was in the fall of last. I was 

proud of the way this Administration responded. It did so forcefully. It did so in support of the Iranians that were demanding a 

change to the theocracy that was inside there and, frankly, economic change as well. Those are the kind of things that I was 

thinking about when I was speaking to what U.S. policy ought to 

be aiming to achieve. It is the kind of democracy promotion that 

I think is entirely appropriate for the United States government to 

be engaged. 

Senator KAINE. Okay. Now, democracy promotion, I am a hundred percent with you. 

Mr. POMPEO. That is what I was talking about. 

Senator KAINE. But if you say that regime change should be an 

official policy, the U.S. should have the regime change of Iran or 

any nation as an official policy, then why would Russia not be completely justified in saying, well, regime change in the United States 

should be our official policy? Do we really want to go down the 

route where we take upon our own shoulders the decision about 

whether there ought to be a regime change in another country? 

And, again, there is ample examples of us thinking that we could 

and finding out that we do not know so much about other countries 

as we think. 

Mr. POMPEO. I am familiar with the list of which you are referring, Senator, and I do not disagree with you about our success at 

achieving that in a way that benefitted America or the world. I do 

not disagree. 

Senator KAINE. And you would agree with me if we embrace the 

regime change in other nations, we can hardly say that this is 

something that only the U.S. gets to do. If we say that is an acceptable foreign policy goal for us, other nations can conclude it is an 

acceptable foreign policy goal for them or may have already so concluded. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yeah. Senator, I must say I do not find the—I do 

not find the moral equivalency there in each case that you are describing. This is a—this is a unique, exceptional country. Russia is 

unique, but not exceptional. It behaves in ways that are deeply different from whatever ought to contemplate in terms of—I mean, 

the words ‘‘democracy promotion’’ and ‘‘Vladimir Putin’’ are unlikely to be used in the same sentence, paragraph, or document. 

Senator KAINE. Maybe the same zip code. 

Mr. POMPEO. Maybe the same—maybe the same century. I am 

sensitive to your concerns. I appreciate them, but I do want to be 

careful that we are all cognizant of the fact that—I mean, look at 

the election meddling, right? It is different in kind in terms of the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

86 

way we engage with the peoples of the world, and I think that is 

important. To your point, I think we should be proud of that and 

continue to make sure that we stay on the right side of the line 

there. 

Senator KAINE. I think this came up earlier, but I want to make 

sure. The President announced earlier this week that he was not 

going to attend the Summit of the Americas. And I think this action, together with some other actions—the threat to pull out of 

NAFTA, the bellicose rhetoric back and forth between the President and Mexico—is suggesting that the Administration does not 

put a high priority in the Americas. And so, what would you do as 

Secretary, if confirmed, to show our Caribbean and American 

neighbors that we value these relationships? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, that is a great question. I have seen firsthand. I have traveled there a couple of times, I think, as the CIA 

director. These are places of enormous opportunity and immense 

economic opportunity for America, and a place that is at risk if 

America walks away and is not engaged. We see—we see places in 

turmoil in Venezuela. The Administration has been pretty focused 

on trying to achieve the outcome there to try to get the Venezuelan 

people to be successful at getting what they need in terms of leadership and government. And we have seen the refugee crisis that 

has flowed from that into Colombia and other places. 

Deeply important place. I assure you that I will work to get an 

undersecretary for Western Hemisphere confirmed as quickly as 

possible and all of the right people in place so that we can deliver 

good diplomatic solutions in Latin America as well, Latin and 

South America. 

Senator KAINE. Finally, as far as you know, is it the Administration’s policy, consistent with previous Administrations, that the 

U.S. wants to find ways to promote a peaceful two-state solution 

in Israel and Palestine with independent nations of Israel and Palestine living peacefully with each other? 

Mr. POMPEO. It is, Senator. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I enjoyed the line of questioning. I was somewhat 

talking a little bit with Senator Menendez. You know, the regime 

change issue, I remember—it seems like that everybody on this 

committee, except maybe Senator Paul from Kentucky, agreed with 

the previous Administration’s policy that Assad had to leave. Assad 

must go. It seemed that was unanimous. Maybe that was not the 

case. But that to me is indicative of some feeling of a regime 

change. 

Senator KAINE. That he is brutal and a dictator and subject to 

sanctions, international criminal prosecution, even military action 

to punish him for civilians is one thing. But I do not think the 

United States has a right to decide who should be the leader of another country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it seems to me that a President stating 

that someone has to go is going way down that road. It was the 

stated policy of the United States of America that Assad had to go. 

Senator KAINE. It was the stated policy of the President’s, and 

that statement, I thought, was very, very unfortunate because it 

raised expectations that were then dashed. I do not think—when 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

87 

the U.S. tries to do regime change, we—you know, it was going to 

be great with Gaddafi gone. It was going to be great with—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I did not agree with the Gaddafi issue. I do remember Secretary Kerry being here and being pummeled by committee members to ensure that it was the policy of the Administration that Assad had to leave. I do remember that. Maybe not every 

single person on this committee believed, but I am sorry, I would 

say most every person on this committee. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. Mr. Pompeo, thank you 

very much. My last line of questioning I want to move on to something else, but I do appreciate your religious freedom, my religious 

freedom, and that being one of our core ideals, for you to hold beliefs, whatever you think about homosexuality, whatever you think 

about Muslims. But obviously, in this country it is really important 

to create the climate of freedom, that you insist that are you treating people equally even if past statements might put a chill on people that might work for you. 

Somebody that worked with you, two folks sent me a letter 

today, and I would like just to enter into the record this letter from 

Andre Carson. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, and Senator Coons’ paperwork 

a minute ago without objection. But go ahead. 

[The material referred to above is located at the end of this transcript on page 322.] 

Senator BOOKER. Yeah, Andre Carson and Keith Ellison, two of 

the Muslim members of the United States Congress. It is a very 

heartfelt, very personal letter about your nomination and their feelings. But I want to move down a little bit or move on a little bit 

into our Bill of Rights and talk about the freedom of the press if 

you do not mind. 

This Administration’s treatment of the press has been adversarial, let us say, at the least. Maybe that is a generous way of putting it, but I think it has actually been a little probably more towards vicious. The President in his first day in office attacked the 

media on their reporting about the inauguration and deemed the 

press the enemy of the people. And that’s very dramatic. His fake 

news accusations have become something that has almost become 

a meme of sorts in our country, but very tragically around the 

planet. 

As you know, we are at a point now where we have the imprisonment, according to the Committee to Protect Journalism, we have 

journalists being imprisoned around the world at a pretty significant rate that is at a historical high. And there are actually about 

24 journalists or, excuse me, 21 journalists that are now in prison 

in places like Turkey, in China on fake news charges. 

You recently—you are currently the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, which understandably should be a lot more opaque 

and does not engage. I think I heard you say earlier in this hearing 

that you have had just a handful of public engagements. But now 

you are going to be our Secretary of State and traditions going back 

from Jefferson to the more recent people you have talked to has a 

culture of much more openness towards the press. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

88 

And so, let me just ask you just for the record real quick. You 

do not believe the press is the enemy of the state, do you? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do not, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. I did not think so. And you are going to engage 

with the press in an open, be transparent, allow a robust engagement if I can say. I imagine that a yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. It is my every intention, yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Great. And then it comes to your posture towards the press as you travel internationally, you are going to become in many ways like the American that you are, sort of an apostle of the idea of the free press. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. I want to move on to 

Syria, if I may. The President, and you and I talked about some 

of the—you and I both commented, I believe, that we need to 

counter Iran, the threat of Iran. And then I talked to you yesterday 

about sort of the incongruency about our policy in Syria. The President has announced that he would freeze $200 million in stabilization assistance, and that the U.S. would pull out of ISIS as soon 

as—as soon as ISIS is defeated, he wants to pull out of—pull out 

as soon as possible. And I am wonder what is your—what is your 

view on that presidential intention is. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it is an active discussion. I want to be a 

little bit careful. With respect to the longer-term strategy in Syria, 

I can speak to that as opposed to the near-term events that are— 

that are before us now. I do not want to prejudge what the Administration is going to choose to do. 

With respect to the President’s statement about departing from 

Syria, which I think is at the core of your question, I think the 

President made clear he wants to get out, that he does—he does 

want to have fewer American men and women there. We have 

fewer there today, men and women there today than we had some 

period ago, all right? We are trying to, Secretary Mattis is trying 

to get the footprint right there to achieve the American objective. 

It is also the case that we hope that we can find partner forces 

to help achieve some of the very same goals that you referenced in 

your question. But I think—I think we would all agree to the extent we can achieve those objectives for America, do it with fewer 

American men and women on the ground and better diplomacy, 

that is the task that is before us. 

Senator BOOKER. And I know this was explored before, I just 

want to ask it very simply. Does the President have the authority 

to launch strikes against the government of Syria? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, yes, I believe that he does. 

Senator BOOKER. You believe he does. So, you do not believe 

there should be a new—there is a need for a new authorization for 

the use of military force to cover such an attack. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I believe that he has the authority he 

needs to do that today. I do not believe we need a new AUMF for 

the President to engage in the activity that you described. I think 

I said earlier, if I am confirmed, I am looking forward to working 

with you. I do believe it is important that we refresh the AUMF, 

that we bring it—bring it forward, and we have current members 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

89 

serving who have supported the policies of the United States with 

respect to the use of force. 

Senator BOOKER. And let me just say in closing because I was 

very grateful for our conversation privately, but I just want to have 

it said out there in the public. Myself and Senator Flake, and especially who I would consider a specialist on our—on our committee, 

Senator Coons, our focus on issues in Africa from the Sahel region 

down to what I think Senator Flake asked you directly about, 

which was Zimbabwe. 

Mr. POMPEO. Zimbabwe, yes. 

Senator BOOKER. The feeling that I got from my trip recently was 

this feeling of neglect, not just from our foreign countries, but in 

many ways a yearning for more engagement from the State Department. Clearly, they are essential U.S. interests there. Clearly, 

the Chinese activities are something that I know you find concerning. I just want to make sure and hear for the record what you 

told me privately, that this will be a priority for you, that you will 

invest your time and attention to in a significant way, not only in 

boosting morale, filling positions, but also putting forth a real 

strategy to deal with everything from the humanitarian crisis in 

Sudan and Congo to the political crises and challenges we see in 

places like Zimbabwe and South America—South Africa. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think I confirmed that for you yesterday, 

but I am happy to confirm it here as well. Full scale, right, from 

humanitarian needs to all the other elements of U.S. diplomatic 

power. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before moving to Senator Markey, the refreshing 

of the AUMF you are talking about was the 2001-2002. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, sir. I was thinking in particular at that point 

the 2001 AUMF. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I assume, again, when you talk about the 

strikes in Syria, the President having the authority, you are talking about surgical strikes, not prolonged efforts. 

Mr. POMPEO. That is correct. Yes, Senator Corker. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pompeo, I 

would like to like at your record on human rights a little closer. 

Next Monday is the fifth anniversary of the Patriot’s Day Marathon bombing in Boston. And it, of course, was a horrific day in our 

history, and it was something that proved once again that we are 

Boston strong. But following those attacks, you falsely alleged that 

American Muslim leaders were ‘‘potentially complicit’’ in violent 

acts for failing to speak out, even though the American Muslim 

community and its leaders had already condemned that attack. 

Because words matter, Mr. Pompeo, I have to ask you, do you believe that your statements falsely accusing American Muslim leaders of being complicit in the Boston Marathon attacks exemplifies 

the kind of moral leadership that our country should have in the 

post of Secretary of State? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I think I answered this for you yesterday, 

but I am happy to do it here again. I will answer it the same way. 

I felt then and feel now that everyone has a responsibility to speak 

out about these terror attacks. The threat from extremist terror 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

90 

around the world remains in spite of all the good efforts and all the 

resources that have been provided. That is what I was speaking to 

that day in the aftermath of the attacks to which you refer, those 

horrific attacks. That is what I was speaking to. 

It is true that many leaders speak out about it. I am not sure 

that we ever get to a point where it is enough. And what I said 

to Senator Booker yesterday I am happy to share with you as well. 

We talked about it in a different context, but it is the case that different people have greater and lesser credibility on particular 

issues, and that is what I was speaking to there. It is—I’m sorry. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you—do you apologize to the Boston Muslim 

leadership for those comments in relationship to that incident? Do 

you apologize to them? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it was not my intention in any respect to 

suggest that they were part of the chain of events that led to the 

attack. That was not my point at all. 

Senator MARKEY. In your opinion—in your opinion, were they 

complicit? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, my statement is clear. We are all to the 

extent we are silent, to the extent we do not respond to this, to the 

extent we do not make sure that our educational system—— 

Senator MARKEY. Well, that is what I am asking you. 

Mr. POMPEO. This is it. We all—we all, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. The Boston Muslim community came out and 

condemned it. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, then—— 

Senator MARKEY. Is there any way in your mind—is there any 

way in your mind that they are complicit? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, to the extent they condemned the attacks, 

they did what it was that I think we all have the responsibility to 

do. 

Senator MARKEY. All right. To the extent to which they did. Well, 

they did. 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, then, Senator, then yes. I am happy that they 

did that. I think that is a good thing. I think it decreases the risk 

that an event like this is ever likely to happen again. 

Senator MARKEY. Yeah. Well, you are being nominated for the 

position of Secretary of State, and of course the Rohingya are largely Muslim. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. And the Burma military are engaged in a vicious destruction of this culture, and this brutal campaign has already driven over 600,000 Rohingya survivors to Bangladesh. What 

is your message to the Burma military with regard to how you 

view Muslim leadership inside of Burma who are fighting to protect the very existence of this Muslim minority inside of Burma? 

Mr. POMPEO. American diplomats have and must continue to do 

our level best to stop this tragic activity. And that is the Burmese 

military in particular who is responsible for that. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. Well, I think it is important that there 

be a moral clarity that is uttered by the Secretary of State, by the 

President of the United States about the Muslim population of the 

planet. You know, leaving an impression that somehow or other 

they are less entitled to full protection or respect for their commitFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

91 

ment to human rights, I am afraid it says to those who wish to use 

the Muslim population as an excuse for actions that would otherwise be condemned is something that the United States leadership, 

and you as Secretary of State potentially, have to be responsible for 

dispelling on an ongoing basis. 

And that is what I am afraid of in terms of the message that is 

sent, unless you explicitly make clear that in your opinion, there 

are isolated incidences of abhorrent Muslim activity. But in the 

whole, these are good people. They are religious people, and they 

have to be given all the full protections that every other religion 

of people are given. And that is your responsibility. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I agree with you. I am happy to say that. 

I agree it is a tiny fraction. I think I have said that previously publicly as well. No one has brought that forward today. Perhaps I 

should have done so myself, but I agree. I agree with almost everything you just said. Maybe everything, but I would need to go grab 

the record. With respect to treating them each with the individual 

dignity they deserve, and to treating their faith in that way, I am 

with you, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do wish the Buddhist leadership in Burma 

would conduct themselves a little better as it relates to the 

Rohingya. I will say that. 

Senator MARKEY. And I agree with you a hundred percent. There 

is a religious struggle there, and I do not think that any demonization by any American of Muslims in general, those being not respectful of human dignity, human rights, is very important. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree. 

Senator MARKEY. And I just think we have to hear it consistently 

on a bipartisan basis at every level, especially when we reach this 

level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Merkley. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought it was Merkley, but I will go to Murphy. [Laughter.] 

Senator MURPHY. Markey, Merkley, Murphy. It is hard. Our ears 

are not—[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, I do not want to be saying it incorrectly. 

Actually, it is Senator Murphy. I have an early bird rule here, and 

I sometimes get confused. Go ahead. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are belaboring 

these questions of authorization, and I suspect you know why. 

Many of us have had misgivings about how the executive has expanded the ability to act unilaterally without congressional authorization both in this Administration and in prior Administrations. 

There are differences, though. President Obama did not think he 

had the authority to launch missile strikes against Syria without 

congressional authorization, this Administration believes it does, 

but the concern spans both. So, I will ask one last question on this 

subject. 

The rationale for U.S. military troops in Syria has been to fight 

ISIS, and I think many of us support that even if we do not believe 

the authorization exists. We believe in the mission. The Administration has started to signal publicly that there is a follow-on misFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

92 

sion for our existing presence, which is to combat the influence of 

Iran in the future settlement of accounts inside Syria. Do you believe that U.S. troop presence is necessary inside Syria to try to 

stem Iran’s influence? And if so, what is the legal basis for that activity? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I will concur with you. While it is complicated, the legal basis gets much more difficult. The clarity that 

I think we have today—it sounds like you may disagree about the 

clarity today, I think we are coloring inside the line there—becomes much more difficult. 

Senator MURPHY. and do you believe that a troop presence is 

needed there to try to combat Iranian influence? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, it depends on precisely how that mission 

is constructed. No, I think there are other places, lots of other tools 

in the American foreign policy toolkit that will allow us to achieve 

that. It may be the case that the President concludes that we have 

got to do it that way in order to achieve his goal there. And I am 

confident that the Administration will comply with the law if it 

chooses to do that. 

I think—I think it is hard to—we talked about the JCPOA singularly. We have talked about now this element of countering Iran 

singularly. We talked about sanctions on Iran singularly. The truth 

of the matter is that the strategy that has been laid out by the Administration comprises multiple parts. And to the extent one piece 

or another is succeeding or delivering the outcomes we are looking 

for, right, today the rial—I guess this is yesterday—58,000 to the 

dollar. That is a very weak Iranian economy. 

The Iranian people are about done with trying to figure out how 

it is that they are going to benefit from the place they find themselves today. They are frustrated with the economic failures of the 

administration in Iran. There are lots of tools in the toolkit, Senator Murphy, and I cannot answer without considering each of 

them, precisely how I think about the continued presence there 

while I will concede the legality is more complex. 

Senator MURPHY. More complex. I think it is charitable to call 

what we are doing in Syria today a strategy I think as we watch 

a President move troops in, then propose to pull them out. It is 

hard for us and our allies to figure out exactly what the strategy 

is there. 

Finally, I just wanted to ask you a question that we talked about 

privately, and that is how you perceive the utility of the toolkit 

that is given to a secretary of state. And I am of the belief that, 

you know, our foreign policy toolkit is badly mis-resourced today. 

I am a big believer in peace through strength, but I am not sure 

it makes sense to spend 20 times as much money on the military 

as it does on diplomacy, especially when, you know, countries like 

Russia are standing up all sorts of non-kinetic capacities in order 

to win friends and influence adversaries. 

And one of the frustrations we had with Secretary Tillerson was 

that he was fond of telling this committee that if we gave him one 

more dollar, he would no idea how to spend it. This was one of his 

favorite phrases when he met with us. And it just seemed to belie 

the reality of the world in which there are lots of threats that you 

cannot meet with all of the great military equipment we make in 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

93 

Connecticut. You have to go to actually stand-up capacities that the 

State Department and USAID has alone. 

So, I just wanted to get your thoughts on that theory of the international case. 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I will—if I can broaden out just a little bit, 

I will answer that one. I will take the extra dollar. I am convinced 

that I can figure out ways to add value, to create American national security value with resources. And by the way, when I do not 

need the dollar, I will send it back, too; that is, if I conclude that 

a program does not work, I will let you know I think this does not 

work, and we will work our way through that. 

We have come through 15 years at a Nation where the CT fight 

has been at the front of much of the way we have thought about 

the world, and now these challenges, I think, do move on. I think— 

I think we are out of balance with respect to how we are thinking 

about using these tools and these levers of power. So, I think—I 

think your sense of that is correct. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Will you work to have our President be a visible, vocal, forceful advocate against the genocide and 

ethnic cleansing in Burma? 

Mr. POMPEO. I am sorry, was that a question? 

Senator MERKLEY. That was a question. Will you—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Will I work? Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. We would love to hear President 

Trump speak out on that topic. Transparency in resource extraction payments is a principle designed for situations like that in 

Equatorial Guinea where the oil payments go directly to the family 

rather than to the treasury of the country. It has vast wealth, but 

most people live under $2 a day. Do you believe in transparency, 

and we should work to increase transparency in resource extraction 

payments? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I know it sounds right, but I do not know 

much about the situation there in that country in terms of where 

the resources are going. So, if I might take that question and get 

you an answer. Yes, as a general matter, I think that is appropriate. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is an issue in many, many countries where 

the country is more or less robbed while the people live in abject 

poverty. 

The War Powers Act you referred to earlier, and we talked about 

it in the context of Libya. It says that the President can send U.S. 

armed forces into action abroad only under statutory authorization 

by Congress or in case of ‘‘a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions.’’ Do you 

believe in a situation in Syria where neither of those two qualifications are met that, in fact, the President has the power to send 

U.S. military forces into action? 

Mr. POMPEO. I do with the—with the clarification that Senator 

Corker so gratefully provided to me in response to the previous 

time I answered that question. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

94 

Senator MERKLEY. That is a longer conversation, but that does 

go against most of the international findings of law, that there has 

to be a threat, and it is our law as well. 

The 2018 CIA assessment presented to Congress said the impacts of long-term trends towards a warming climate are likely to 

fuel economic and social discontent, and upheaval. Secretary Mattis 

and General Dunford have said that climate change is a national 

security threat multiplier. Do you believe that climate change is a 

threat multiplier, and will you undertake to help lead the world in 

reducing this threat by reducing carbon dioxide pollution that is 

heating the planet? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I am familiar with the report that the 

agents that I was leading issued. I see no reason to take any fault 

with what it committed to. I also believe that the climate is changing, that there is a warming taking place. I am happy to concede 

that there is likely a human component to that. And I am equally 

prepared to tell you that as we find tools that are effective to prevent risk to the United States that are national security challenges, 

the State Department ought to appropriately be involved in them. 

Senator MERKLEY. You are heading in the right direction. We do 

not have you quite—on a major threat to the planet. It is interesting that our own EPA this year said greenhouse gases from 

human activities are the most significant factor in climate change 

since the mid-20th century. I see all the impacts in Oregon, but we 

also see it in national defense situations around the world, including Syria where it was a prolonged drought that drove people into 

the cities, and was the spark that ignited the civil war that became 

the complete fiasco and mess that we have now. And that is the 

sort of thing the Defense Department is talking about when they 

are talking about a threat multiplier. 

And I just saw this in Northern Africa as well. The president of 

Somalia, who is also an American citizen, made a powerful case 

that that is a huge source of disruption of his ability to restore normal rule of law in the—in the country. So, I do hope the world is 

looking at this and saying where is the U.S. leadership. I hope you 

will be a leader in taking on the carbon pollution because we do 

not have a lot of time on this. We have continued to investigate it 

and—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I will, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY.—and wrestle with it. 

Mr. POMPEO. I will, Senator, I promise you. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is a—— 

Mr. POMPEO. We had a good discussion about this yesterday. 

Senator MERKLEY. I also saw in Africa the role the UNFPA, and 

it is providing healthcare to women who are coming from extreme 

conflict and duress, a combination of corruption, and climate 

change, and civil conflict. And, in fact, 61 percent of the maternal 

deaths in the world take place in humanitarian crises in fragile 

settings where healthcare services are unavailable. 

The Administration has not wanted to restore funding to the 

UNFPA under the concern that they might possibly be involved in 

supporting programs that provide abortions, but there has been absolutely no evidence. Will you look into that issue, and if there is— 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

95 

if that test of the Administration is not met, fight to restore this 

funding for the health of women around the world? 

Mr. POMPEO. I will look into it, and if the data set is as you described, if we become convinced of that, you have my word, we will 

work on it. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, and my time is up. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I know Senator Murphy had some 

questions also about Syria and the AUMF. I know you did also. 

Having been involved in that and working with Senator Menendez 

to write the AUMF on Syria, the Administration’s position was 

they had the authority without Congress, but numbers of seniors 

convinced the Administration that our country would be stronger 

if they came to Congress for an AUMF. I think they fully felt they 

had 100 percent authority to make the kind of strikes they were 

going to make. It was going to be a 10-hour operation. There were 

going to be no ground troops, and they felt they had that authority. 

Senator Menendez I know wants to have some closing questions 

and comments, and I am glad to offer that time for him to do so. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would just, 

on your comment, remind us that when we passed that Authorization for the Use of Force, which then-President Obama took to the 

G20 summit, it convinced Putin at the end of the day to have 

Assad give up the chemical weapons that he had, at least at that 

time, which were internationally supervised and destroyed. And so, 

I think it is a powerful use of an authorization that got a goal at 

the time resolved without the firing of a single shot. 

Director, this breadth and scope of your potential job is so large 

that even with the hours you have spent, and I admire your tenacity there, we have not even really touched the surface. So, there 

are just a couple of things that at least, while I will submit a whole 

host for the record, but there are just a couple of things I want to 

ask. 

[The material referred to above (Additional Questions for the 

Record) is located at the end of this transcript, beginning on page 

115.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mexico is the second largest export market 

for goods and services produced by United States companies with 

American jobs—second largest in the world—yet our relations with 

them are the worst since the 1980s. The President using language 

and tactics reserved for our most ardent adversaries, has personally insulted the Mexican people, calling them ‘‘murders’’ and ‘‘rapists,’’ has threatened to deport young Dreamers, threatens to cut 

security assistance and cooperation, unilaterally suggested that 

that Mexicans are going to pay for a $25 billion wall that is offensive to them, to their people, and their culture. 

How are you going to deal with this if you become the Secretary 

of State? Do you think this is really the type of rhetoric that promotes the national interests and security of the United States with 

one of our more significant neighbors? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I agree with you that Mexico is important, 

you called it significant. They are neighbors. My task, if I am confirmed, will be to work to develop a set of relationships there that 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

96 

benefit both countries, especially ours, as the Secretary for the 

United States. On the trade agreements, I have watched the team 

move forward trying to put America in a position that we have a 

trade deal that the President deems is fair and reciprocal. That is 

the objective. There are others. I have worked—I and my team 

have worked in Mexico extensively on the counter narcotics challenges that face us coming from that country. I will still be committed to doing that if I am the Secretary of State there—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I think your job is a lot more difficult 

in promoting our interests with the Mexicans if that continues to 

be the language of this Administration. I do not think we can meet 

the challenge of the opioid, heroin, and fentanyl crisis without 

Mexican cooperation as part of our challenge. 

Let me ask you this. I am glad to hear you are going to support 

a robust State Department. That is important for the Secretary of 

State. Will you oppose rescissions that are being contemplated on 

the State Department’s budget? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I have not seen the rescissions that have 

been talked about in the press. I will look at each one. I will determine whether they are—they are resources that are needed, and if 

they are, I will fight to—I want to make sure I get this right—to 

oppose the rescissions. I will make—I will make the case in the Administration to say that these resources—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. To oppose. Oppose. Is that what I heard? 

Mr. POMPEO. I will make the case to defend the resources that 

the State Department needs. So, if there are rescissions to resources I believe we need, I will be there arguing for—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. We talked about human rights. What do we 

in a country like Egypt which just had a sham election, you know, 

violates the rule of law with NGOs, both of the United States and 

others, ultimately violates the rights of its own people? What is our 

value-driven mission there? 

Mr. POMPEO. Senator, I spoke earlier, perhaps generically and 

not about Egypt in particular, about places we find complex challenges where different interests come into play. Our obligation is 

to do our best. We have a—we have a population of 80 million 

Egyptians with a weak economy that is subject to the threat of terror from its—many of its neighbors. There are multiple tasks that 

are—many of which are diplomatic, that we have to do with Egypt. 

As I have said before, when we come across a country that is engaged in human rights violations, things that are inconsistent with 

our values, we should call them out. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mm-hmm. You know, as we close here, I am 

trying to think about which is the Mike Pompeo that I am being 

asked to vote on. Is it the one that today said the solution for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is through diplomacy, 

which I would agree, or is the one that said the only way to do 

that, in my judgment, is a regime change, in a speech of 2015. Is 

it the one that said, ‘‘I have never advocated for regime change 

here today,’’ or is it the one that said, ‘‘should Mr. Kim vanish, 

given the history of the CIA, I am just not going to talk about it?’’ 

The most important thing we can do is separate those two, right? 

Separate capacity and someone who might well have the intent to 

break those two. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

97 

Is it the one that says the historic conflict between the United 

States and the Soviet Union, and now Russia, is caused by Russian 

bad behavior, which I agree, or is it the one that stood alongside 

the President when he said much of the bad blood with Russia is 

caused by the fake and corrupt Russia investigation headed by all 

Democratic loyalists or people that work for Obama? 

Is it the Mike Pompeo who said in his 2013 speech that the failure of Muslim leaders to repudiate acts of terrorism done in the 

name of Islam make them ‘‘potentially complicit’’ in these attacks 

and that this alleged behavior ‘‘casts doubt’’ upon the commitment 

to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith? Is it the one that in 

2010 in a congressional campaign tweeted out to your supporters 

an article calling your opponent, an American of South-Asian heritage, a ‘‘turban topper,’’ stating that you thought it was ‘‘a good 

read,’’ an article that you tweeted that said your opponent, ‘‘could 

be a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, who knows;’’ or as a member 

of Congress when you co-sponsored legislation that sought to slow 

the spread of marriage equality. When the Supreme Court endorsed marriage equality in 2015, the highest court in the land, 

you said it is a shocking abuse of power, it flies in the face of centuries of shared understanding of our Constitution. Co-sponsored a 

bill to defund Planned Parenthood, called Roe v. Wade one of the 

worst decisions of the Supreme Court, versus against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that funds programs designed to help victims of violence that passed annually 

since 1994, and on and on. 

So, the Pompeo I hear today, is much more different than some 

of the Pompeo of the past. And so, I am trying to figure out which 

is the one that is going to act if he gets confirmed as the Secretary 

of State, because some of these things of the past I could never 

support. Some of the things you have said here today I could actually be supportive of. So, I hope you can help me understand this 

as we move forward in your nomination. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Well, Director Pompeo, thank you for 

being here today. I think you have answered questions succinctly 

and fully when necessary. And we are going to keep the record 

open until the close of business tomorrow. There will be numbers 

of QFRs from members. We hope you will answer them promptly. 

I know that you will. 

The CHAIRMAN. And just from my perspective, unless there is 

something that glaringly occurs between now and the time that we 

vote, I have to say I have not known Director Pompeo. Maybe we 

shook hands a couple times in years past. I do not remember if we 

did. No offense. I have not had much contact with you as the CIA 

director. But based on my personal meetings, and the phone calls, 

and certainly your outstanding testimony today, I think you are a 

person of high intellect. I think your background could not better 

to serve in this capacity. 

I think you have the personal characteristics to lead the State 

Department in a way that generates the kind of culture and leverage that we need around the world for active diplomacy. And for 

that reason, I plan to avidly support your nomination and confirmation. And I thank you for being here today. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

98 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Senator Corker. Thank you, Senator 

Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(101) 

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Members of the Committee 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

(Questions 1–10) 

Question 1. Massive crises persist in sub-Saharan Africa, each of which has incalculable human costs and represent a threat to United States interests. What priority do you place on addressing the underlying drivers to such man-made crises 

such as poor governance and massive state corruption? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize improving governance and curbing corruption in sub-Saharan Africa. My understanding is that the Department is increasing 

the capacity of governments to develop stronger law enforcement partners; build 

transparent, accountable institutions; and strengthen compliance with international 

anti-corruption standards. It is also important to support efforts that empower civil 

society, the private sector, and media. I will also support continued enforcement of 

sanctions that impose consequences on corrupt foreign officials and deter others 

from committing corrupt acts. 

Question 2. How will you balance cooperation with important regional allies such 

as Ethiopia and Nigeria, with institutional reforms that will improve the prospect 

for stability and sustainable development? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue balanced approaches in cooperating with allies 

such as Ethiopia and Nigeria, deepening our partnerships when appropriate and 

pushing for needed institutional reforms where possible. This will enhance regional 

stability while improving the prospect for long-term growth and sustainable development. I will review relevant U.S. strategies to ensure they reflect such balanced approaches. 

Question 3. The President’s emphasis in the South Asia strategy last August was 

on a strong regional and broader diplomatic effort. In order for reconciliation to be 

achieved internally, and a sustainable outcome established in the region, far more 

regional and global diplomacy will be required to establish a foundation for peace. 

This includes the national elections now on the horizon. As such a foundation is laid 

for negotiations on a political resolution among difficult neighbors and interested 

states, and as electioneering overtakes an already unsettled political environment, 

does the situation warrant State Department’s reconsideration of a dedicated senior 

diplomat to shuttle among critical capitals from China to Europe and the Gulf countries, across many regional jurisdictions, to help achieve a nearer term outcome for 

Afghanistan? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to evaluate progress these areas and will assess whether the Department requires the appointment of a Special Envoy or other 

personnel to facilitate reconciliation between the Afghan government and the 

Taliban. 

Question 4. OPEN SKIES: It is my understanding that on January 29, 2018, the 

U.S. and Qatar reached a set of formal Understandings to address concerns that 

U.S. carriers have raised with respect to government support of Qatar Airways. The 

Understanding preserves the terms of the 2001 U.S.-Qatar Air Transport Agreement, gives carriers with the flexibility to exercise the rights provided by the agreement, and includes commitments for greater financial transparency and commercial 

terms of financing for Qatar Airways. As you may know, there are two distinct viewpoints among U.S. stakeholders regarding concerns over Open Skies agreements 

with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E). On one side, we have the three 

largest U.S. airlines (American, Delta, and United) seeking changes to these agreeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

102 

ments. On the other, we have other U.S. passenger and cargo airlines, and the 

broader tourism industry strongly opposing any such changes. It is encouraging, 

however, that both sides of the debate applauded the resolution that was reached 

between the U.S. and Qatar, which permits carriers to continue exercising the 

rights provided under Open Skies and ensures greater transparency. As similar negotiations take place with the U.A.E., will you commit to doing what you can to ensure that a similar resolution is reached, where the terms of the U.S.-U.A.E. Open 

Skies agreement are preserved, the rights provided under agreement may still be 

exercised and perhaps additional financial transparency measures are put in place? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to support our international agreements 

and maintain Open Skies to ensure U.S. companies have the opportunity to grow 

and succeed globally. I would support the Department’s efforts to implement the understandings reached with Qatar that address U.S. industry concerns regarding subsidized competition. I would also ensure that any conversations with the United 

Arab Emirates (UAE) regarding unfair subsidies are conducted in a manner that 

provides beneficial results for as many stakeholders as possible. As you indicate, industry stakeholders with different interests have responded favorably to the understandings with Qatar. I commit to making an effort to find a similar solution with 

the UAE. 

Question 5. NORTH KOREA: If confirmed, how do you plan to direct the State Department to approach preparations for the expected summit between President 

Trump and Kim Jong Un in order to break the long pattern of failed policies to 

achieve the successful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? Is it possible to 

craft a comprehensive North Korea policy that is based on experience, specifically 

the lessons learned from the failed policies of successive administrations, rather 

than the false hope that has driven North Korea policy for nearly thirty years? If 

so, what does such a policy look like? 

Answer. In past negotiations, North Korea has used tactics such as 

brinksmanship, deliberately ambiguous language, and last minute changes to drive 

wedges among other parties and to improve its position before and during talks. 

History also shows North Korea has a record of reneging on agreements, often by 

reinterpreting the conditions of a deal or by withdrawing and blaming other parties 

for the failure. North Korea has also set itself up to walk away from past deals by 

offering reversible tokens in exchange for tangible gains, such as economic aid. 

While ruling out no diplomatic tools, we could counter these tactics in four ways: 

by clearly defining terms and specific bilingual text in any agreement with North 

Korea; by constantly solidifying a unified position with our key allies and partners; 

by keeping up pressure until a deal is made; and by starkly identifying consequences if North Korea backs out of an agreement. 

Question 6. TIBET: The core piece of legislation guiding U.S. policy toward Tibet— 

the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002—established the Office of the Special Coordinator for 

Tibetan Issues at the State Department, a position that is currently vacant. If confirmed, do you commit to continue the past practice of filling this position? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support implementation of the Tibetan Policy Act. 

Question 7. I am concerned about the risks of withdrawing from Iraq again too 

soon. What can be done to consolidate post-ISIS gains in Iraq? How can we bolster 

our stabilization and outreach efforts there? 

Answer. Setting the conditions for the safe and voluntary return of civilians to 

their homes in liberated areas is key to preventing the return of ISIS. I understand 

that the U.S. government is working through the United Nations to help Iraqi counterparts achieve that. After the liberation of a town, clearance of explosive remnants 

of war, including deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs), is prioritized. This is 

followed by quick-impact projects to restore essential services, such as electricity 

and water; efforts to restore livelihoods; the promotion of reconciliation within local 

communities; and the building of capacity of local leaders to respond to immediate 

needs. I further understand that this model is bearing fruit and has made it possible for 3.6 million Iraqis who were displaced by ISIS to return to their homes. As 

the Iraqi government transitions to longer-term stabilization and recovery projects, 

continued U.S. security cooperation will be necessary to build Iraqi capacity to ensure the lasting defeat of ISIS. 

Question 8. SPECIAL ENVOYS: In August of last year, Secretary Tillerson sent Congress a letter regarding his plan for organizing the dozens of special envoys at the 

State Department. My staff provided extensive feedback to the Department regarding the plan, and I was supportive of this attempt to deal with what I view as the 

unnecessary proliferation of these positions. At the time Secretary Tillerson left the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

103 

Department, it is my understanding that the implementation of this plan was already under way. Do you plan to continue implementing the organizational plan for 

the special envoys that was begun under Secretary Tillerson? 

Answer. I understand that Secretary Tillerson presented a proposal to Congress 

on Special Envoys. I look forward to reviewing it thoroughly and discussing it with 

the Committee, if confirmed. 

Question 9. HAITI: According to a recent report, most trade between Haiti and the 

Dominican Republic occurs as contraband and does not pass through Haitian Customs, depriving Haiti of as much as $400 million in revenue. What more can the 

U.S. do to work with the Government of Haiti to have effective border control measures, crack down on illicit contraband trade between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and bring sorely needed revenues to the Government of Haiti? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would pursue the successful completion in this fiscal year 

of the U.S. AID Customs Support project, which I understand is a $4 million, threeyear initiative with the objective of modernizing the Haitian customs service processes for revenue collection, traveler processing, and contraband interdiction. If confirmed, I would also continue the Department of State’s efforts to provide training, 

material support, and technical expertise to build the capacity of the Haitian National Police (HNP) and strengthen the rule of law. The graduation and deployment 

of professionally trained security personnel from the Haitian National Police School 

is critical to establishing and maintaining border and internal security. 

Question 10. HONDURAS: Division K, Title VII, Section 7405(a)(3)(B) (xii) of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 requires the Secretary of State to certify that 

the Government of Honduras is ‘‘resolving commercial disputes, including the confiscation of real property, between United States entities and such government.’’ In 

general, how many cases of commercial disputes and the confiscation of real property has the Secretary of State certified as having been resolved in Honduras? Specifically, what steps remain to be resolved in the case of the dispute between 

CEMAR owned by U.S. citizen Oscar Cerna and the Government of Honduras and 

on what specific basis, including actions by the Government of Honduras, has the 

Secretary of State previously certified that Honduras is resolving the CEMAR case? 

Answer. My understanding is that, while certifications have not yet been made 

under the 2018 Act, on November 28, 2017, the Department certified that the Government of Honduras is taking effective steps to resolve commercial disputes, including the confiscation of real property, between U.S. entities and Honduras. For 

example, the Honduran government’s interagency working group met 19 times between October 2016 and September 2017 to discuss ways to resolve disputes with 

U.S. citizens. 

I understand the U.S. embassy has effectively assisted U.S. investors, including 

Oscar Cerna, who have disputes with the Government of Honduras by scheduling 

meetings with key actors in the Honduran government and by supporting meaningful dialogue and encouraging both sides to take advantage of neutral dispute resolution. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JAMES RISCH

(Questions 1–12) 

Question 1. The 2018 National Defense Strategy declared that ‘‘great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. National security.’’ Do you 

agree with the Defense Department’s assessment? How do you believe U.S. diplomacy should change to reflect greater importance on China and other great powers? 

Answer. Yes, I agree with the DoD assessment. Yet, the terror threat against the 

U.S. homeland remains a significant risk to our citizens. If confirmed, I am committed to implementing the President’s goal of seeking a constructive and resultsoriented relationship with China that corrects the imbalances in our relationship. 

If confirmed, I will not shy away from speaking forthrightly about, and contesting, 

Chinese policies and actions that undermine the international order that has fostered peace and prosperity for the world for decades. At the same time, the United 

States should continue to cooperate with China when in our national interest, including in addressing the threat posed by North Korea and the flow of illegal opioids 

from China. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

104 

If confirmed, I will also continue to use our diplomatic and foreign assistance tools 

to pursue critical counterterrorism objectives around the world to protect the homeland and American interests overseas. 

Question 2. We now have confirmed reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong 

Un agreed to meet with President Trump and discuss the ‘‘denuclearization’’ of the 

Korean Peninsula. However, the North Korean definition of denuclearization often 

refers to the U.S. presence on the peninsula. What does ‘‘denuclearization’’ mean to 

you? Would you support the removal of U.S. forces from Korea? 

Answer. Denuclearization means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible abandonment by North Korea of its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear and delivery 

programs. For 65 years, the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) Alliance has served U.S. 

interests, those of our allies and partners, and the broader international community 

by promoting stability, security, and prosperity in the region. Our commitment to 

the U.S.-ROK Alliance is ironclad. 

Question 3. NATO is one of the most successful military alliances in history, and 

while it faces a number of challenges, including ensuring the proper amount of defense spending, it is also a political alliance that nations aspire to join. With a robust set of requirements to join, do you fully support NATO’s Open Door Policy? 

Answer. I do. U.S. support for NATO’s Open Door policy has been unwavering 

since the Alliance’s foundation. 

Montenegro’s accession last year demonstrates that NATO’s Open Door policy remains viable and no third country has a veto on NATO membership. NATO’s door 

remains open to those European countries that share our values, contribute to the 

common defense, and strive to achieve security, prosperity, and freedom for their 

people. If confirmed, I will continue to work with aspirants, both bilaterally and 

through NATO structures, to assist them to make the reforms necessary to meet 

NATO’s high standards, contribute to security, and to accept the risks and responsibilities of membership. 

Question 4. The Obama administration’s policy toward Russia was to contest Russia where we must and cooperate where we can. We are now confronting Russia on 

a growing set of issues: Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, assassinations on NATO territory, North Korea, election interference. Do we need a new policy approach that reflects all these issues? What would be your strategy toward Russia? 

Answer. I share the concern about Russian aggression, and will work to implement the Administration’s strategy toward Russia, which balances strength and deterrence with the need to maintain communication on core issues of national security concern. We must be clear-eyed in calling out Russia’s transgressions, frank in 

our dialogue with Moscow, united with Allies and partners in confronting Russia, 

and resolute in raising the costs of aggressive Russian behavior. We must actively 

expose to the world Russia’s destabilizing activities, and build the resilience of U.S. 

Allies on NATO’s eastern flank to improve their defenses and counter 

disinformation and malign influence. I also believe we need to ensure NATO has 

the right deterrence and defense posture in light of our assessment of Russia’s actions. At the same time, we must be open to cooperating with Russia where important to our national security interests. 

Question 5. From your time as CIA Director, do you believe the U.S. government 

has the expertise within its ranks that is necessary to understand and craft a longterm response to the Russia threat? What additional resources are needed at the 

State Department? 

Answer. The Department of State is fortunate to have a broad range of experienced professionals focused on U.S. relations with Russia, including on areas of 

global and bilateral concern. This includes our Ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman, his staff, as well as a strong team of experts at the Department of State. Despite Russia’s actions against U.S. mission diplomatic staffing, both the Russiangovernment imposed drawdown of our personnel last year and the expulsion of 60 

U.S. diplomats in April, the U.S. Mission team continues to serve with professionalism and an unwavering commitment under difficult conditions. I understand 

the Department has planned to expand its Russia expertise in Washington as it 

ramps up the work of the Global Engagement Center. If confirmed, I will aim to 

foster a diverse and inclusive team and work to ensure our personnel have the resources necessary to carry out their work on behalf of the American people. 

Question 6. A number of issues, including U.S. support for Kurdish groups in 

Syria and imprisonment of U.S. citizens, have strained the U.S.-Turkish relationship. While there is still strong defense cooperation with Turkey, there seems to be 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

105 

little agreement elsewhere. Do we need to have a relationship with Turkey that balances military cooperation and the development of strong institutions in Turkey, or 

should the U.S. consider Turkey a lost cause? 

Answer. It is in the U.S. national interest for Turkey to be a stable, democratic, 

prosperous, and reliable Ally. The United States has long supported Turkey’s democratic development because it believes that respect for the rule of law, judicial independence, and freedom of the press can again be sources of Turkey’s strength and 

expand our potential for partnership. If confirmed, I will continue efforts to 

strengthen Turkey’s democratic institutions while advocating for satisfactory resolution in the cases of U.S. citizens detained on dubious charges under state of emergency provisions. As a frontline Ally facing profound internal and external challenges, Turkey requires patience and careful diplomacy to keep it anchored in the 

West, on the Euro-Atlantic path, and committed to playing a constructive role in 

its neighborhood. Turkey is a key member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, 

hosts U.S. forces at Incirlik Airbase in Adana, and contributes forces and support 

to NATO missions, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Where divergences exist 

on Syria, it is my understanding that there are ongoing diplomatic efforts to work 

through the issues. If confirmed, I look forward to overseeing such important efforts. 

Question 7. Chinese influence in Europe continues to grow. It has invested billions 

across Europe and has sought to acquire strategic infrastructure and companies in 

Europe. European countries are just starting to raise concerns and consider laws to 

limit Chinese investment in Europe, but some countries already limit their criticism 

of China due to the vast amount of investment. How should the U.S. respond to 

growing Chinese influence in Europe? 

Answer. China is playing a greater role in the international system and it clearly 

seeks to expand its influence. The National Security Strategy recognizes that the 

United States is operating in a ‘‘competitive landscape’’ in foreign affairs. If confirmed, I would deepen our collaboration with our Allies and partners to contest 

China’s unfair trade and economic practices and influence campaigns, as well as 

closely review its acquisition of sensitive technologies. We have a shared interest 

with European countries to ensure inward investment does not undermine our prosperity or threaten the security of our energy supply, telecommunications, transportation networks, and other critical infrastructure. Some of our European partners 

are considering establishing or strengthening mechanisms for the national security 

reviews of inbound investments. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department of the Treasury and other U.S. government agencies to deepen our engagement with European partners on these issues. 

Question 8. President Trump has been clear that flaws in the Iran nuclear deal 

must be addressed if the U.S. is to remain in the deal. We engaged the Brits, 

French, and Germans to see if an agreement could be reached to address issues with 

the JCPOA. Do you support these efforts? How would you go about seeking agreement with our allies on the future of the JCPOA? 

Answer. President Trump is prepared to work with partners to address deficiencies in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There has been an active, ongoing policy discussion with E3 and EU allies regarding how to address these 

issues, and the goal of that discussion is clear: to fix the flaws in the nuclear deal. 

If confirmed, it will be my immediate priority to work with those partners to determine if such a fix is achievable. 

Question 9. If ultimately the President decides to walk away from the JCPOA, 

how would you recommend the U.S. proceed? How would you ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon? 

Answer. This Administration is committed to preventing Iran from developing or 

obtaining a nuclear weapon. No option is off the table. Regardless of the future of 

the JCPOA, Iran’s nuclear activities must remain exclusively peaceful and Iran 

must cooperate fully with its continuing Non-Proliferation Treaty and related IAEA 

safeguards obligations. In this regard, the United States will continue to strongly 

support the IAEA’s important work. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

Congress and our international partners toward a solution that prevents the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran and prevents Iran from developing intercontinental 

ballistic missiles that undermine regional and international peace and security. 

Question 10. While the JCPOA suspended nuclear sanctions against Iran, the U.S. 

has retained the right to enforce and impose new sanctions on Iran for its support 

of terrorism, human rights abuses, arms trafficking, and development of ballistic 

missiles. What steps will you take to respond to Iran’s illicit activities, including 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

106 

support for terrorism, arms trafficking, human rights abuses and ballistic missile 

development? 

Answer. The Administration’s comprehensive Iran strategy focuses on neutralizing Iran’s malign activities, particularly its support for terrorism and militants, 

cyberwarfare, ballistic missiles, and use of proxy forces in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. 

Since the beginning of the Administration, the U.S. Government has sanctioned 

more than 100 Iranian individuals and entities under a range of sanctions authorities. If confirmed, I will continue the Administration’s policy of enforcing sanctions 

on the full range of Iran’s illicit activities as well as utilizing all the diplomatic tools 

at my disposal to build strong coalitions to counter Iran’s destabilizing behaviors. 

Question 11. Iran has played a leading role in insuring the survival of the Assad 

regime, providing Assad with senior military advisors, ordered Hezbollah and Shi’a 

militants from around the region to fight, and provided weaponry, cash, and oil to 

the war effort. It appears Iran is seeking a permanent presence in Syria. What are 

the strategic goals for the U.S. in Syria? Do you believe we have a strategy to accomplish these goals? 

Answer. The Administration’s primary mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS and that 

mission is not yet complete. The other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome 

that leads to stability and a decrease of violence so that the Syrian people ultimately can govern themselves in a post-Assad Syria. The Administration also has 

a new comprehensive strategy to counter the broad array of Iran’s malign activities, 

including its support for the Assad regime, Hizbollah, and other proxies. If confirmed, I will use all of our diplomatic tools at the State Department to advance 

the President’s strategies. 

Question 12. Hezbollah remains one of the deadliest terrorist organizations, and 

their growing arsenal of missiles and military hardware along Israel’s border is 

greater now than it has ever been. Hezbollah is also firmly entrenched in the Lebanese government. How can we stop Iranian resources from going to Hezbollah? 

What are your thoughts on continued U.S. assistance to the Lebanese Armed 

Forces? Should we consider stopping aid? 

Answer. I share your concern about Hizballah’s destabilizing role in Lebanon and 

in the region. To curb Hizballah, the Departments of State and Treasury have utilized their respective sanctions authorities to target Hizballah and its resources as 

well as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a key Hizballah supporter. If confirmed, I will support exercising these authorities to the fullest extent possible and 

encourage our partners around the world to enhance their own efforts to degrade 

Hizballah’s capabilities and dismantle its global financial network. 

The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are an important counterterrorism partner 

and led the defeat of ISIS in Lebanon. If confirmed, I will ensure that future U.S. 

assistance to the LAF continues to serve our objectives, enabling the LAF to reinforce Lebanon’s sovereignty and secure its borders, counter internal threats, build 

up legitimate state institutions, and undermine Hizballah’s false narrative that it 

is the guarantor of Lebanon’s security. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JEFF FLAKE

(Questions 1–5) 

Question 1. As the U.S. has worked to get a better understanding of what caused 

our personnel to fall ill while serving in Cuba, dialogues between the two countries 

have continued to take place to address a broad range of issues related to our bilateral relationship. If confirmed as Secretary of State, do you commit to continuing 

these dialogues? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 2. If confirmed, do you commit to rescinding, rewording, or otherwise 

amending the travel advisory to Cuba dated March 2, 2018, to reflect the change 

in status of embassy operations and more accurately depicts the risks to American 

tourists visiting Cuba? 

Answer. If the Department deems a place unsafe for U.S. diplomats to live and 

work, the Department informs all U.S. citizens of the same. My understanding is 

the Department’s policy requires a Level 3 (Reconsider Travel) or Level 4 (Do Not 

Travel) Travel Advisory if a post is on authorized departure, ordered departure, or 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

107 

permanent unaccompanied status. The Level 3 Travel Advisory for Cuba was updated on March 2, simultaneously with the designation of Embassy Havana as an 

unaccompanied post. The updated advisory informs U.S. citizens about the embassy’s unaccompanied status and states that it is particularly difficult to assist U.S. 

citizens outside Havana due to reduced staffing. 

The Department will further update the Travel Advisory if and when the Department’s assessment of the safety of U.S. citizens and diplomats has changed. Nothing 

is more important than the security of U.S. citizens overseas, and, if confirmed, I 

will ensure the Department continues to provide U.S. citizens with as much information as possible so they can make informed decisions before they travel to Cuba 

or any other country. 

If confirmed, you have my commitment that I will personally review the advisory 

and, with the support of the State Department team, evaluate its appropriateness. 

Question 3. The Foreign Affairs Mannual that outlines the Department of State’s 

organization and structure notes that ‘‘the Under Secretary for Management (M) 

has the authority to designate posts in imminent danger areas or in areas with severe hardships as ‘‘unaccompanied’ or ‘partially unaccompanied.’ In making this determination, M takes into consideration post and geographic bureau recommendations.’’ If confirmed, do you commit to working with the Under Secretary of Management to review the status of our embassy in Havana and making changes to its operating status, if they are warranted? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 4. Right now our embassy in Havana is operating without an ambassador, but also without a Charge ́ D’Affaires or Deputy Chief of Mission. As you 

know, it is difficult to conduct diplomatic relations with any country without a having a designated chief in charge of our mission there and this is no less true in 

Cuba. If confirmed, do you commit to nominating an ambassador to Cuba or appointing a permanent Charge ́ D’Affaires or Deputy Chief of Mission who will serve 

in that position for several years? 

Answer. I understand the interim Charge ́ d’Affaires in Havana is an experienced 

Senior Foreign Service Officer who has previously served as an ambassador at multiple posts abroad. I am aware that the Department also recently assigned a Senior 

Foreign Service Officer as permanent Deputy Chief of Mission. The Officer will arrive this month in Havana for a three-year tour of duty. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring appropriate senior level staffing to Havana. 

Question 5. The operating status of our embassy in Cuba continues to present 

problems not just for diplomacy, but for the collection of intelligence in that country. 

As I know you are aware, it is even more difficult to formulate and provide strategic 

guidance to our diplomats in-country when there are significant gaps in intelligence 

collection. If confirmed, do you commit to taking steps to ensure there is appropriate 

collection of information in Cuba? 

Answer. Yes. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR TODD YOUNG

(Questions 1–4) 

Question 1. You mentioned Yemen in your prepared remarks. I have been quite 

active on Yemen over the last year. It is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. If 

confirmed, do you commit to working with me and my staff on Yemen? 

Answer. Yes. I look forward to working with you on Yemen. Yemen’s continued 

deterioration is not in our interest. The longstanding political and security vacuum 

has expanded space for Iran and violent extremists. 

Question 2. In your prepared statement, you said that you have reviewed CIA histories of previous negotiations with the North Koreans. You wrote that, ‘‘We will not 

repeat the mistakes of the past.’’ With respect to North Korea, what were the ‘‘mistakes of the past?’’ How can we avoid those mistakes? 

Answer. The North Koreans have confirmed to us directly their willingness to talk 

about denuclearization. The incremental, phased approaches of past negotiations all 

failed, in part because the international community eased pressure prematurely. 

The Trump Administration is not interested in negotiations that would allow North 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

108 

Korea to simply buy time. While we will negotiate, we will not ease up on the pressure campaign until North Korea denuclearizes. 

Question 3. A report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies identified as 

many as 23 ballistic missile launches by Iran since the conclusion of the July 2015 

Iran Deal. Do you agree that Iran’s ballistic missile program today represents a serious threat to our regional allies and our forward deployed troops? Do you agree that 

Iran’s ballistic missile program could eventually represent a threat to our homeland? Do you agree with the consistent intelligence community assessment that 

‘‘Tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear 

weapons, if it builds them?’’ Consistent with a letter that Senator Rubio and I led 

to the President on February 6, signed by 14 senators, is the is the administration 

considering designating—using authorities under Executive Order 13382—all remaining agents, affiliates, and subsidiaries associated with the designated entities 

and their parent companies? Would you recommend sectoral or secondary sanctions 

on Iran for its ballistic missile program? 

Answer. Iran’s missile programs remain a serious threat to our regional allies and 

forward-deployed troops and a significant proliferation challenge, contributing to regional and international instability, as well as representing a threat to our homeland. Iran deploys a wide array of short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles 

capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear weapons—and 

is exploring multiple pathways to expand its longer-range missile capabilities, including under the guise of its space launch vehicle programs. If confirmed, I will 

not hesitate to designate where appropriate, pursuant to EO 13382, any individual 

or entity found to be engaging in Iran’s ballistic missile activity, or any agents, affiliates, and subsidiaries associated with previously designated entities and their 

parent companies. Under EO 13382, we can sanction any person who has engaged, 

or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

Question 4. According to their website, there are 103 open Government Accountability Office recommendations that the Department of State has not adopted—including 20 priority recommendations. This is an improvement from last year, but 

still too many. Some of these open recommendations go back as far as 2012. Do you 

believe the Department of State should either implement the GAO recommendations 

or explain to this committee why it will not? What is your assessment of S. 418, 

which I introduced along with Senators Coons, Menendez, and Rubio? Do you commit to ensuring the Department of State is responsive to my office in addressing 

these open and priority GAO recommendations without delay? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department responds to GAO recommendations in an expeditious manner, and that the Department is transparent 

with your office and the Congress in reporting actions taken in response to GAO 

recommendations. If confirmed, I also look forward to further consulting with you 

on your legislation (S. 418). 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

(Questions 1–6) 

Question 1. Like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces significant trade barriers 

around the world. It is a key manufacturing component of glass, detergents, soaps, 

and chemicals. Soda ash is also used in many other industrial processes. U.S. ‘‘natural soda ash’’ is refined from the mineral trona. It has long been regarded as the 

standard for quality, purity, and energy efficiency in production. The Green River 

Basin in Wyoming is the world’s largest area for naturally occurring trona. As part 

of your effort to promote U.S. industries in international markets, can you commit 

to me that you will be an advocate for eliminating trade barriers for soda ash and 

other important U.S. industries in the international marketplace? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to advocate 

for free, fair, and reciprocal trade that advances U.S. economic prosperity by reducing trade barriers for all U.S. goods and services exports, including soda ash. 

Question 2. In Wyoming, we have a veteran memorial located on F.E. Warren Air 

Force base that honors 48 U.S. soldiers that were massacred in their sleep in the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

109 

Philippines on September 28, 1901. This memorial displays the bells that Filipino 

insurgents used to signal the attack on our U.S. troops. Despite the fact that veterans in Wyoming overwhelmingly oppose the dismantling of this veteran memorial, 

the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines publicly pledged to move the bells to the 

Philippines. In Wyoming, we have a strong tradition of never forgetting the sacrifices of our brave men and women. I believe that when evaluation of the management of war memorials takes place, Congress must be fully informed and the views 

of the local communities and veterans are fully respected. Will you commit to me 

that you will not support any efforts to deconstruct our war memorials that honor 

our fallen soldiers and move them to foreign countries? 

Answer. The Bells of Balangiga are an important memorial to the fallen soldiers 

of the U.S.-Philippines War. I understand the significance of preserving America’s 

military history and honoring our veterans. If confirmed, I will examine this issue 

carefully, consult with you and other members, and support an inclusive process 

with the U.S. Department of Defense to ensure that Congress is fully informed and 

the views of local communities and veterans are fully respected and considered 

when evaluating the management of war memorials. 

Question. 3 Will you ensure that the U.S. Department of State is consulting with 

Congress and the veteran community prior to making the type of statements issued 

by the U.S Ambassador to the Philippines last year? Answer: 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consulting with Congress and the veteran community on this and other important veterans and foreign policy issues. 

Question 4. People who live in poor and developing nations want and need a stable energy supply that helps them grow their economy and improve their lives. Energy can be a tool to help countries alleviate poverty as well as improve the education, health, and wellbeing of its people. The United States should be working to 

promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We should be helping countries develop 

their traditional energy resources, which are the most affordable, reliable, and abundant forms of electricity. As Secretary of State, would you ensure that the State Department is promoting all forms of energy projects across the globe, including oil, 

gas, and coal? 

Answer. The Trump Administration supports an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach to energy policy. If confirmed, I will work closely with the interagency, industry representatives, international organizations, and partner countries to help communities 

around the world develop their energy resources, including oil, gas, and coal, in line 

with a market-based approach to advance universal access to affordable and reliable 

energy. 

Question 5. Coal provides an affordable and reliable energy source, which is important to countries looking for assistance in poverty alleviation and economic development. Multilateral development banks, like the World Bank, have imposed restrictions on public financing of high-efficiency power stations fueled by coal in the 

developing world. What are your thoughts regarding multilateral development 

banks restricting financing for these projects, which in many instances are the more 

reliable and affordable electricity source available? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support exercising the voice and vote of the United 

States within multilateral development banks to promote projects that increase the 

access and use of fossil fuels, including coal, more cleanly and efficiently, and would 

support the development of robust, efficient, competitive, and integrated global markets for energy. 

Question 6. In January, the State Department successfully negotiated an agreement with Qatar to protect American aviation workers from Qatari carriers’ unfair 

trade practices, and I understand the State Department is seeking a similar agreement with the UAE. How do you plan to use the ongoing negotiations with the UAE 

to ensure a level playing field for U.S. carriers? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support enforcing Open Skies agreements and leveling the playing field to ensure U.S. companies have an opportunity to succeed 

globally. This means fighting practices that adversely affect fair and equal competition. I would also support the Department’s leadership on efforts to implement understandings reached in January 2018 with Qatar that address U.S. industry concerns regarding subsidized competition, while maintaining the Open Skies Framework of U.S. international aviation policy. I understand that stakeholders have responded favorably to those understandings with Qatar, and I would work to reach 

a similar outcome with the United Arab Emirates. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

110 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKSON

(Questions 1–6) 

Question 1. As you know, former Sec. Tillerson began implementing the Impact 

Initiative in order to modernize certain parts of the department. Have you had the 

chance to review the initiative and its implementation to date? 

Answer. I have been briefed on certain aspects of the Impact Initiative but have 

not had the opportunity to review its various elements in depth. If confirmed, I look 

forward to learning more about the Initiative and its progress to date. 

Question 2. Do you plan to continue this effort as it currently stands? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative 

and make a determination quickly about how to proceed, in consultation with, 

among others, the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the 

Department’s foreign service and civil service officers. 

Question 3. Will you expand the scope of the Impact Initiative? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative 

and make a determination quickly about how to proceed, in consultation with, 

among others, the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the 

Department’s foreign service and civil service officers. 

Question 4. How will your efforts with the Impact Initiative affect the Joint Strategic Plan that Ambassador Green recently announced at U.S. AID? 

Answer. It is my understanding that many of the goals associated with the Impact 

Initiative were established as part of the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with Ambassador Green to ensure that State and U.S. 

AID work to deliver foreign assistance effectively and efficiently. 

Question 5. If confirmed, will you commit to working with me on these efforts? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with you frequently on foreign policy and management issues facing the State Department. 

Question 6. As part of the response to the Benghazi attack in 2012, which showed 

a lack of planning and available State Department resources to respond to crises, 

it is my understanding that State’s Bureaus of Medical Services and Diplomatic Security now contract aircraft that are ready 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They 

are able to respond in less than 12 hours to crises around the world. Over the last 

few years, these contracted aircraft have been effective and efficient. Do you intend 

to keep these contracted aircraft services under the direction of the Bureaus of Medical Services and Diplomatic Security, allowing them to be effectively managed and 

rapidly deployed when the need arises? 

Answer. I understand that the Department’s Bureau of Medical Services manages 

the contract you referenced, which provides the United States with unique biocontainment transport capabilities and combined medical and security response options in the aftermath of emergencies overseas. If confirmed, I would intend to 

maintain this unique capability in a manner that optimizes its efficiency, flexibility, 

and responsiveness in times of need, consistent with the Department’s legal authorities and subject to evolving operational requirements. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR ROB PORTMAN

(Questions 1–19) 

Question 1. I know the GEC is expecting the imminent transfer of $40 million 

from DoD and will continue to press them to move forward on that. However, the 

recent FY18 Omnibus also appropriated up to $20 million to the State Department 

to directly support the GEC’s counter-state mission. Will you commit to making full 

use of the resources allocated to you by Congress to carry out this critical mission? 

Answer. Yes, I commit to utilizing the up to $20 million in additional funds to 

support the GEC’s counter-state mission, including countering state-sponsored 

disinformation that undermines U.S. national security interests. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

111 

Question 2. IDo you commit to fully staffing the GEC so that it is able to carry 

out its mission as intended by Congress? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to fully staffing the GEC to ensure its ability 

to carry out its mission. 

Question 3. Director Pompeo, when our military footprint begins to gradually decline in Iraq and Syria, the State Department will assume ever greater responsibility for helping to establish and maintain stability in those countries. Part of the 

recently published National Security Strategy deals with diplomacy and statecraft 

and within that section, there is a portion that deals with information statecraft. 

To that end, I have taken notice of the UK government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) which has achieved significant successes in Iraq using information statecraft in the form of strategic communications and media operations. If confirmed, I would like to ask you to examine that program and determine whether 

the United States should contribute to the CSSF or whether the United States 

should establish a similar program. Will you commit to doing that? 

Answer. I fully agree that as the U.S. military footprint in Iraq and Syria declines, the U.S. government and our partners’ focus must shift to maintaining stability and consolidating progress. If confirmed, I will examine all options for supporting stability in those countries, including through examining the UK government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. 

Question 4. The JCPOA is just one aspect of our engagement with Iran. The 

Obama administration subordinated everything else in pursuit of the deal, and we 

are still seeing the consequences of that decision in the increased chaos and instability throughout the region. How do you think the deal relates to our broader strategic objectives for Iran? 

Answer. The Trump Administration has expressed its concerns about the JCPOA, 

and is intent on taking a broader approach addressing Iran’s malign activities. The 

Administration remains committed to ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear 

weapon. At the same time, the U.S. government will also continue to work with our 

allies and partners in the region to aggressively push back on Iran’s destabilizing 

regional actions. 

Question 5. What is our path forward for pushing back on Iranian support for the 

Houthi rebels in Yemen, given Russia’s obstruction of efforts to single out Iran for 

condemnation and pressure at the U.N. Security Council? Specifically, what are we 

doing about Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen? 

Answer. This matter requires a whole of government response including a number 

of different measures. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control 

sanctioned six Iranian-based subordinates of Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group in 

July 2017 in an effort to counter Iran’s ballistic missile program. The United States 

also provides a limited degree of military support to the Saudi-led coalition to expand the capability of our partners to push back against Iran’s regionally destabilizing actions. The Administration is strengthening its engagement with regional 

governments to improve their support for, and compliance with, the arms embargo 

contained in UN Security Council Resolution 2216. The United States publicly displayed recovered materiel from Houthi missile attacks and shared this information 

with the Secretariat and Panel of Experts. The Administration is also using national 

and international authorities to intercept illicit cargo, and it is helping regional governments and the United Nations to improve and expand border security and cargo 

screening procedures. 

Question 6. By precipitously withdrawing all our troops from Iraq, the Obama administration created a political and military power vacuum that Iran has eagerly 

and successfully filled. What is our plan to resist increasing Iranian influence over 

the Iraqi military (through the Popular Mobilization Forces) and government? 

Answer. The Administration is under no illusions about the destabilizing nature 

of Iran’s activities, and we remain committed to helping the Iraqi government 

counter these activities. 

The United States agrees with Prime Minister Abadi on the importance of ensuring that all Iraqi security institutions are under Iraqi government control. U.S. security cooperation will support the Iraqi government as it continues to reform its 

security sector and begins to demobilize some Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) elements and absorbs others as part of the Iraqi Army, Federal Police, or other security structures and institutions under the full control of the Iraqi state. 

The Iraqi government and the United States are reinvigorating the Strategic 

Framework Agreement (SFA), which provides a broad basis for bilateral economic, 

diplomatic, cultural, and security cooperation. Leveraging these U.S. comparative 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

112 

advantages—while helping tie Iraq more closely to Arab neighbors, the West, and 

international financial institutions—will counterbalance Iran and diminish its malign influence. 

Question 7. What would be the ramifications of a U.S. troop withdrawal from 

Syria? Do you believe such a withdrawal will serve our long-term goals in the region? 

Answer. As we near the defeat of the ISIS ‘‘caliphate,’’ it is reasonable to review 

our overall military and civilian footprint and make adjustments as conditions warrant. Any such process will ensure that broader U.S. interests are protected in the 

wake of ISIS’s defeat. It will also be undertaken in coordination with our D-ISIS 

Coalition partners. The United States will continue to call on those partners to 

share an increasing burden on the ground militarily and for post-military stabilization initiatives to ensure that ISIS’s defeat in Syria is lasting. To date, ISIS has 

not reclaimed any significant ground from areas liberated by our coalition partners, 

and we are determined to ensure that record continues as we adjust the U.S. commitment in the wake of ISIS’s pending defeat. If confirmed, I will consult regularly 

with Congress as we continue the campaign to defeat ISIS and consider adjustments 

to U.S. resources on the ground in Syria. 

Question 8. Would you agree that brutality and violence by Assad regime—aided 

and abetted by its enablers Russia and Iran—has been the main driving force behind the violence and instability that led to the rise of ISIS in the first place? 

Answer. The Administration realizes that the brutal dictatorship of Bashar alAssad is a main driver of conflict and violence in the country. Russia and Iran, as 

the Assad regime’s principal political and military allies, bear responsibility for the 

horrific violence that the Syrian regime has inflicted on its people over the course 

of the war, including the regime’s use of chemical weapons. 

Question 9. Would you agree that one of the main flaws with the Obama administration’s (belated) Syria strategy was that it focused solely on ISIS, while ignoring 

the broader context within which it was created (the Syria conflict)? 

Answer. The U.S. cannot ignore the broader context of the Syrian conflict. The 

current Administration’s accelerated strategy for the enduring defeat of ISIS and its 

focus on de-escalation creates the space for political resolution. We are working with 

allies and partners on this effort, including de-escalation efforts in the southwest 

and a deconfliction channel as part of the defeat ISIS campaign in east Syria. With 

de-escalation, some of the worst effects of this conflict—the death, destruction, millions of refugees, and growth of terrorist groups and Iranian influence are mitigated. 

It will be critical to continue to work with regional partners to address these issues. 

Question 10. Are you concerned that this administration risks making the same 

mistake if we don’t develop a comprehensive strategy for the conflict in Syria that 

addresses the underlying drivers of this conflict? 

Answer. The United States cannot ignore the complexity of the Syrian conflict, 

and the Administration has a comprehensive strategy to attain U.S. policy goals in 

Syria. The Administration realizes that the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad 

is a main driver of conflict and violence in the country. As such, the current Administration’s acceleration of the Defeat-ISIS campaign and focus on de-escalation of violence in Syria through multiple efforts will help create the space for a political resolution to the conflict. These undertakings mitigate some of the worst effects of this 

conflict, including civilian casualties, destruction, displacement, and the growth of 

terrorist groups and Iranian influence in Syria. I believe it is critical that the Administration continue to work with regional partners to address these issues. 

Question 11. Should the U.S. do more to bring about an end to Assad’s rule and 

a negotiated transitional government? 

Answer. A lasting peace in Syria ultimately means a Syria without Bashar alAssad, who has caused too much destruction in Syria to return to or remain at 

peace under his leadership. The nature of the Assad regime, like that of its sponsor 

Iran, is malignant—and his leadership leads to instability and destruction. It has 

promoted state terror, and it has empowered groups that kill American soldiers, 

such as al-Qa’ida, and even ISIS. It has backed Hizballah and Hamas, and it has 

violently suppressed political opposition. Assad’s regime is corrupt, and his methods 

of governance and economic development have increasingly excluded certain ethnic 

and religious groups. His human rights record is notorious, and his continued rule 

will only further fuel instability in Syria and beyond. Ultimately, it is not a U.S. 

decision whether Assad stays or goes—that decision rests with the Syrian people. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

113 

We will continue to work to ensure that the Syrian people get that choice in a free 

and fair election. 

Question 12. If the U.S. is serious about countering Iran, we need to do more to 

address their growing influence in Syria. What more should the U.S. do to counter 

Iran’s influence on the ground in Syria? 

Answer. Iran views Syria as a crucial route to supply weapons to Lebanese 

Hizballah and a key pillar in its regional influence. Iran continues to provide arms, 

financing, and training to the Assad regime, and funnels Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani foreign fighters to support the Assad regime. 

Among other actions, this Administration is working to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region by imposing sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for 

their support to the Assad regime, as well as calling on Moscow to use its influence 

over Tehran to encourage Iranian withdrawal from Syria. If confirmed, I will closely 

consider if there are additional actions that should be taken. 

Question 13. As you know, there is a growing international campaign to coerce 

and delegitimize Israel by imposing boycotts, divestment, and sanction actions. I am 

cosponsoring legislation with my colleague, Ben Cardin of Maryland, that would prohibit U.S. entities from responding to requests from the UN Human Rights Council 

or other international governmental organizations designed to blacklist and boycott 

companies engaged in legal commerce with Israel. The legislation is based on the 

40 year old Export Administration Act (EAA) which has been repeatedly upheld by 

federal courts and protects the rights of individual Americans who want to criticize 

Israeli or American policies. What are your views on the global boycott, divest, and 

sanctions (BDS) movement? Will you commit to fighting efforts led by organizations 

like the UN Human Rights Council’s to pressure U.S. companies not to do business 

in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories? 

Answer. The United States government strongly opposes boycotts, divestment 

campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel. Boycotts of Israel are 

unhelpful and do not contribute to an environment conducive to peace.It is my understanding that the Department of State and its embassies overseas regularly engage with governments, international organizations, and other entities to oppose 

such activities. If confirmed, I will continue the fight against all efforts to isolate 

or delegitimize the State of Israel. 

Question 14. The President is right about the need to do more to ensure our trade 

deals support job creation and economic growth at home and to increase efforts to 

hold accountable those who engage in unfair trade practices. However, free trade 

also solidifies relationships with key allies and partners, promotes U.S. influence, 

and serves as a bedrock principle of the U.S.-led international system. At a time 

when strategic competitors like China are using trade deals to advance their own 

interests and objectives, the United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. How 

do you view trade as it relates to U.S. foreign policy goals and strategic interests? 

Answer. Fair and reciprocal trade can solidify our relationships with our allies 

and create U.S. jobs. The Administration’s trade policy is intended to advance our 

national interest consistent with our national security strategy. If I am confirmed, 

I will work to ensure that foreign policy goals and strategic interests are factored 

into our trade policy. 

Question 15. The wrong trade policies could cause serious rifts with longstanding 

allies and security partners around the world. How do you plan to ensure that strategic considerations will be heard in senior administration discussions on trade policy? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, I intend to make a broad effort across all elements 

of the diplomatic spectrum—employing both economic and security tools—to 

strengthen America’s alliances with our partners. The Department has an essential 

role in ensuring that national security and foreign policy interests are fully factored 

into trade policy. If confirmed, I will do my best to make sure we play this role. 

Question 16. Data from the Department of Commerce shows that in 2016 foreign 

students attending U.S. institutions of higher education spent $39.4 billion in foreign funds on U.S. services. In other words, a $39.4 billion export that reduces the 

trade deficit. A recent estimate by the University of California at Santa Barbara 

puts that number as high as $50 billion, on par with U.S. exports of semi-conductors, passenger cars, and civilian aircraft. As we look at ways of securing our nation 

and resolving trade imbalances in the U.S. ’s favor, how can we protect and grow 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

114 

the considerable value of higher education as a premier U.S. export, and maintain 

the significant benefit it has for communities across the country? 

Answer. The United States has the finest, most open, and diverse system of higher education in the world. Our higher education institutions attract students, professors, and researchers from across the globe. U.S. colleges and universities help 

America lead the world in innovation, research, and next-generation science and 

technology. While we must always be vigilant against potential counterintelligence 

or intellectual property risks, international students are a critical part of U.S. leadership in higher education. If confirmed, I will seek to responsibly foster this important component of our economy and international leadership. 

Question 17. Do foreign adversaries exploit or seek to influence our education system in ways that undermine our national security? If so, how? 

Answer. America has the finest higher education system in the world. While we 

enjoy the benefits of attracting talented students from around the world, we must 

also be vigilant in safeguarding the independence, integrity, and intellectual property of our institutions of higher learning. If confirmed, I will work with my government colleagues and the leaders of American higher education to ensure that we 

protect this invaluable national asset. 

Question 18. How should the State Department be involved in implementing sufficient screening procedures to ensure that foreign funded educational institutes in 

the U.S., like the Confucius Institute, are not being used to manipulate U.S. public 

discourse and/or undermine U.S. national security? What more can or should the 

State Department be doing in this area? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my government colleagues and the leaders 

of American higher education to ensure that we protect our system of higher education, which is admired around the world. While we reap the benefits of having 

international students on our campuses, we recognize that not all foreign actors 

share our values of open intellectual and scientific inquiry. If confirmed, I will encourage the American higher education community to continue its role in sharing 

American values, including the importance of academic freedom, with Chinese and 

other international students who study here each year. 

Question 19. The FY 2018 U.S. budget is set to provide assistance to Eastern European countries, including Georgia, to counter ongoing and potential Russian aggression. I am interested which steps of assistance do you deem necessary, especially to enhance the self-defense capabilities, as well as to deepen bilateral trade 

relations with countries, such as Georgia and Ukraine? Our assistance in this regard would be of high significance considering Georgia’s vital challenges, as an important reward. 

Answer. The United States strongly supports Georgia and Ukraine’s sovereignty 

and territorial integrity. If confirmed, I would continue to prioritize efforts to 

counter Russian aggression and to increase the security and stability of both 

Ukraine and Georgia, as well as other partners vulnerable to Russia’s malign influence. For example, I understand the Department’s security assistance to Ukraine 

and Georgia focuses on training, equipment, and advisory support to help these 

partners and others in Europe secure their borders, deter aggression, and increase 

interoperability with NATO. I support the President’s decision to provide enhanced 

defensive capabilities to Ukraine and sell the Javelin missile system to Georgia. If 

confirmed, I will continue to evaluate the specific needs of these partners to ensure 

they are most effective. 

I understand the Department is also helping Ukraine and Georgia build resilience 

to Russian aggression by bolstering energy security; increasing transparency and 

creating a more friendly business climate conducive to western investment; 

strengthening the rule of law and good governance; and supporting independent 

media to counter Russian disinformation. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

(Section 1—Questions 1–55) 

Section 1—Question 1. While I have certainly supported the additional sanctions 

that both the United States and the UN Security Council have put in place against 

North Korea—indeed three years ago I authored a bill to start the pressure camFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

115 

paign moving—what evidence is there that ‘‘maximum pressure’’ is slowing or stopping North Korea from moving forward with its nuclear and missile programs, or 

correlated with negative effects on North Korea’s economy? There is some evidence 

that sanctions might be biting, but by all appearances, North Korea’s economy appears resilient and North Korea remains undeterred—over the last year, on this administration’s watch, it achieved an operational ICBM and possibly a thermo-nuclear device—and its economy largely unaffected. Indeed, the pledge to seek 

denuclearization made by North Korea that serves as the basis for the Trump-Kim 

meeting is the exact same pledge that North Korea has made several times in the 

past and, for Pyongyang, seems predicated on the U.S. pulling its forces off the Peninsula and ending our alliances with both South Korea and Japan. So while ‘‘maximum pressure’’ appears to be part of the mix, it is equally possible that the diplomatic outreach by the North is something that is moving on Pyongyang’s logic and 

on Pyongyang’s tempo, not ours. While I fully support the need to maintain additional pressure on North Korea—through additional sanctions, military posture 

moves, and through strengthened alliances—pressure is not the end of our policy, 

but a means to achieve our end; a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. What is the administration’s strategy to utilize pursue successful diplomacy with North Korea? 

Answer. I agree with the President’s assessment that the maximum pressure campaign has made North Korea’s current position untenable and is one of the main 

reasons the regime is seeking negotiations. The pressure inflicted is a means to an 

end: the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Administration will explore the diplomatic opening by North Korea, but 

will maintain the pressure campaign until North Korea denuclearizes. 

Section 1—Question 2. Following President Trump’s acceptance of Kim Jong-un’s 

offer you stated that ‘‘These are conditions that the North Korean regime has never 

submitted to in exchange for conversations.’’ Can you be specific about what conditions you believe North Korea has never submitted to before? 

Answer. Kim’s actions of late have broken with his predecessors’ conditions for 

dialogue and with his own patterns as a leader. Kim made the unprecedented decision to cross into South Korea to meet with President Moon later this month. The 

U.S. and South Korean militaries are conducting combined exercises much as they 

do each year, but North Korea has restrained its public response and has not used 

these drills as a pretense to avoid talks. Likewise, Kim has maintained a monthslong freeze of missile and nuclear testing despite mounting international pressure, 

which is a departure from his pattern of behavior over the last two years. Up until 

this year, Kim has held a hard line about North Korea’s unwillingness to give up 

its nuclear weapons. Kim’s recent openness to discuss denuclearization is in contrast 

to his previous rhetoric and signals a potential opportunity. 

Section 1—Question 3. Even a cursory review of the history indicates that in the 

past North Korea has accepted military exercises, suspended missile and nuclear activities, pledged denuclearization, and so forth. What do you consider new or different about North Korea’s statements—statements we have only heard through 

South Korea? 

Answer. I am limited to the details I can discuss in an unclassified setting, but 

as the Administration announced, the North Koreans have confirmed to us directly 

their willingness to talk about denuclearization. This creates the opportunity for negotiations, even as the Administration is clear-eyed about the DPRK’s track record 

and will maintain the pressure campaign until North Korea denuclearizes. 

Section 1—Question 4. You have stated that you will not repeat the ‘‘mistakes of 

the past’’ when dealing with North Korea. Can you provide me, in detail, an enumeration of what you think those mistakes were, and how you will avoid them? 

Answer. The North Koreans have confirmed to us directly their willingness to talk 

about denuclearization. The incremental, phased approaches of past negotiations all 

failed, in part because the international community eased pressure prematurely. 

The Trump Administration is not interested in negotiations that allow North Korea 

to buy time. The Administration will negotiate, but we will not ease up on the pressure campaign until North Korea denuclearizes. 

Section 1—Question 5. Following President Trump’s acceptance of North Korea’s 

offer to meet, you stated that Kim Jong Un must ‘‘continue to allow us to perform 

our military-necessary exercises on the peninsula . . . ’’ It was not previously my impression that our joint military exercises with our Korean ally were something that 

North Korea was given a vote in either allowing or not allowing. Why did you use 

that phrase? Are you concerned that you might have sent a wrong signal to either 

North or South Korea with that sort of phraseology? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

116 

Answer. Our combined military exercises with the ROK are not a bargaining chip 

with the DPRK. Our exercises with the ROK are transparent, defense-oriented, and 

have been carried out under the Combined Forces Command for over 40 years. Kim 

Jong Un has pledged to refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests and has 

said that he understands our routine combined military exercises will continue. The 

United States must hold him to his word. 

Section 1—Question 6. Given the critical importance of getting our alliance with 

South Korea and Japan right if we are going to get our North Korea diplomacy 

right, what measures would you recommend to reassure our allies and to deepened 

and strengthen our alliances? Do you think that having a U.S. Ambassador in Seoul 

is important to navigate a nuclear crisis or, as other administration officials have 

suggested, unimportant? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States is in close communication and coordination with our allies and partners around the world, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan, on North Korea. As I stated during my testimony, we need an ambassador in South Korea. One of my priorities if confirmed 

will be to ensure vacancies in important Ambassadorships and other senior positions 

are filled. 

Section 1—Question 7. China’s official development assistance to African countries 

has increased by more than 780% since 2003. And last year, while the Trump Administration proposed deep cuts in our diplomacy and development budget, President Xi pledged $124 billion for a new global infrastructure and development initiative called ‘‘One Belt One Road.’’ At the same time, the Administration is proposing 

to close USAID missions and eliminate economic and development assistance to numerous countries in Asia and to slash the budget of the East Asia and Pacific Bureau by over $380 million. Are you concerned that your cutbacks could provide an 

opening for China to exert additional influence in Asia and around the globe? 

Answer. The United States is advancing economic development and prosperity 

across the Indo-Pacific region and around the globe. The Administration will remain 

engaged internationally to maintain U.S. power and influence, to work with allies 

and partners to address China’s growing influence and ambitions, and to identify 

ways to ensure America’s continued presence and leadership. A significant part of 

this is ensuring strong, well-resourced diplomatic and development assistance capabilities. 

Section 1—Question 8. Do you assess that Chinese development assistance efforts 

will help bolster China’s relationships, ties, and image with those countries into 

which it invests? 

Answer. China is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure across the globe 

in part to expand its influence. The United States is working to ensure that China’s 

activities do not undermine development best practices, including openness and 

transparency in market access, debt sustainability, good governance, and high environmental and labor standards. If confirmed, I will press China to ensure that its 

development assistance efforts and economic initiatives align with the needs of recipient countries, global standards, and time-tested safeguards for investment. 

Section 1—Question 9. The conduct of foreign policy is inseparable from a nation’s 

value. I believe that Chinese leaders evaluate the importance of human rights in 

U.S. foreign policy in part, by how frequently our diplomats raise the issues. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that a human rights case or issue is raised in 

every senior meeting during your tenure? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will raise human rights and specific cases with counterparts, including when I travel. The National Security Strategy prioritizes support 

for the dignity of persons. It affirms that we will use diplomacy, sanctions, and 

other tools to isolate states and leaders who threaten our interests and whose actions run contrary to our values. As Vice President Pence told the United Nations, 

‘‘Under President Trump, the United States is fully committed to the cause of 

human rights.’’ 

Section 1—Question 10. If confirmed, will you express concern about violations of 

the freedom of belief equally across all faiths? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will speak out forcefully against violations of religious 

freedom across all faiths. Religious freedom is a universal human right and may 

never be arbitrarily abridged by any government. As I stated during my testimony, 

I believe that people of each and every faith deserve dignity and the right to practice their religion, or no religion, in the manner they choose. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

117 

Section 1—Question 11. How will you assist U.S. NGOs—or their grantees or partners in the mainland—when those groups’ or their work is restricted or prohibited 

by authorities under the new Foreign NGO management law? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support State Department programs that promote the 

development of an independent Chinese civil society. At the same time I will raise 

our concerns with my Chinese counterparts about the restrictions that the Foreign 

NGO Management Law imposes on NGOs seeking to continue their work in China. 

Section 1—Question 12. The Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1989, under 

Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Reagan are the foundation of the U.S.-PRC relationship, along with the Taiwan Relations Act that guides U.S. policy towards Taiwan. 

Could you tell us your understanding of the core principles of these communiques 

and the TRA? 

Answer. The three Joint Communique ́s, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the ‘‘Six 

Assurances’’ form the basis for the U.S. ‘‘One-China policy.’’ If confirmed, I will work 

to ensure that cross-Strait differences are resolved peacefully, without the threat or 

use of force or coercion, and in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of 

the Taiwan Strait. The Administration’s commitments and assurances to Taiwan 

are firm and long-standing. 

Section 1—Question 13. In that connection, since the establishment of relations 

with the PRC no President has challenged our One China Policy. Do you believe 

that policy remains valid, or needs revision? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the United States’ One-China Policy, based on the three U.S.-China Joint Communique ́s, the Taiwan Relations Act, 

and the Six Assurances. Our One-China policy remains valid and has helped ensure 

peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the region for decades. 

Section 1—Question 14. The Trump Administration’s policy on China appears to 

be highly ‘‘transactional.’’ Making policy via twitter and one liners, the President 

has hinted at being willing to trade the One China Policy for a trade deal with 

China, or that he wouldn’t press them so hard on trade if they performed on North 

Korea, and even that the US-Taiwan relationship might be subject to bargain with 

Beijing. Would you agree with this characterization? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will firmly support the United States’ One-China policy, 

based on the three U.S.-China Joint Communique ́s, the Taiwan Relations Act and 

the Six Assurances. I do not believe that the relationship with Taiwan is negotiable. 

Strengthening our longstanding friendship with the people on Taiwan remains a key 

element of U.S. policy toward the Indo-Pacific. Our relationship with Taiwan is 

undergirded and animated by shared and enduring values. If confirmed, I am committed to strengthening our unofficial relationship with Taiwan. 

Section 1—Question 15. What should be the underlying interests that guide the 

U.S.-China relationship and how do you plan on prioritize them? 

Answer. The U.S. relationship with China must be guided, first and foremost, by 

American interests. We will not shy away from directly challenging Chinese policies 

that are against U.S. or international interests. As we pursue areas of overlapping 

interests with China, such as the denuclearization of North Korea, establishing fair 

trade and investment relations, and stopping the flow of dangerous opioids from 

China into the United States, the United States will adhere to our commitments to 

allies and partners and our values as a nation. 

Section 1—Question 16. During a visit to the region last year, Secretary Tillerson 

characterized the U.S. China relationship as a ‘‘very positive relationship built on 

non-confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect, and always searching for win-win solutions.’’ Would you agree with that characterization of the U.S.-China policy? 

Answer. The Trump Administration is determined to work diplomatically with the 

Chinese government in an effort to develop a more productive, results-oriented bilateral relationship. The United States seeks to cooperate with China where our interests overlap, but we will not shrink from responding to China’s unwelcome behavior. 

We will remain mindful that, as the U.S. National Security Strategy states, ‘‘A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking 

place in the Indo-Pacific region.’’ 

Section 1—Question 17. What do you believe should be the U.S. position on President Xi’s proposal that the United States and China should seek to build a ‘‘new 

model of major country relations’’ based on the principles of ‘‘non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation’’? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

118 

Answer. The actual advancement of U.S. interests with China is more important 

than labels. If confirmed, I will pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship 

with China. The United States should work with China to narrow differences between us, while ensuring that China respects international rules. If confirmed, I will 

speak forthrightly and contest Chinese policies and actions that undermine the 

international order that has fostered peace and prosperity for decades. 

Section 1—Question 18. In 2014, Xi told President Obama that the ‘‘mutual respect’’ part of that formula means; ‘‘the two countries should respect each other’s 

sovereign and territorial integrity as well as political system and development path, 

instead of imposing one’s will and model on the other.’’ Should the United States 

agree to such a definition of ‘‘mutual respect’’? 

Answer. As the U.S. National Security Strategy states, China has expanded its 

power in recent years at the expense of the sovereignty of others. The Trump Administration does not believe ‘‘mutual respect’’ means giving another country a pass 

when its actions harm U.S. interests and those of its allies and partners. If confirmed, I will work with China in areas that align with U.S. interests, while seeking 

to narrow differences and ensure that China respects international rules. 

Section 1—Question 19. The Obama Administration’s ‘‘rebalance’’ to Asia was intended, at least in part, to constrain and shape Chinese behavior and to seek to support the emergence of a constructive China that plays by the rules on the global 

and world stage. Is China undermining international rules and norms, and if so, 

how should the U.S. enforce those international rules and norms with respect to 

China? Does President Trump’s efforts to walk away from and undermine international commitments and institutions undermine our ability to utilize them to hold 

China accountable? 

Answer. The President’s National Security Strategy reflects the increasing concerns that China’s actions are undermining the international rules-based order. For 

example, China has taken steps to militarize outposts in the South China Sea, 

which endangers the free flow of trade, intimidates other nations, and undermines 

regional stability. China also engages in unfair, predatory trade practices. If confirmed, I will work closely with allies and partners to highlight and contest Chinese 

actions that undermine the international order. (Tranche 1 #20) 

Section 1—Question 20. China has thrived within an East Asian security order 

in which the United States has been the dominant force since the end of World War 

II. But the power and influence China now wields have now created tensions with 

the status quo. Should the U.S. be prepared to consider adjustments to the regional 

security order to strike a sustainable balance between American and Chinese interests? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work diplomatically with the Chinese government to 

develop a more productive bilateral partnership. At the same time, the United 

States needs to be prepared to respond to activities that threaten U.S. interests and 

those of our partners and allies. If confirmed, I will work closely with allies and 

partners to advance U.S. interests across the Indo-Pacific region, including ensuring 

freedom of navigation, the free flow of commerce, and peaceful resolution of disputes. 

Section 1—Question 21. What would those adjustments look like? 

Answer. A stronger U.S. posture in the Indo-Pacific region will enable the United 

States to safeguard our interests, including ensuring that our allies and partners 

are secure from military aggression or coercion. If confirmed, I will work closely 

with allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific region to ensure that the freedom 

of navigation is preserved, the free flow of commerce is maintained, and disputes 

can be settled peacefully in accordance with international law. 

Section 1—Question 22. What is your vision for a modus vivendi of respective 

roles of the U.S. and China in the Asia-Pacific that both are able to live with? 

Answer. As indicated in the President’s National Security Strategy, the Administration seeks cooperation with China within the framework of a rules-based order. 

The U.S. vision for the Indo-Pacific region excludes no nation, including China. At 

the same time, if confirmed, I will highlight and contest Chinese actions that undermine the international rules that have fostered peace and prosperity in the region 

for decades. 

Section 1—Question 23. The National Security Strategy is clear on the competitive 

aspects of the US-China relationship. Do you believe there is space—and where- for 

cooperative elements of the relationship? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

119 

Answer. The United States should cooperate with China when in our national interest, and should find ways to resolve differences. There are opportunities to negotiate with China and not make diplomacy a zero-sum game. While China must do 

more, the Administration has seen positive elements of cooperation in areas like implementing UN Security Council Resolutions against North Korea and stopping the 

dangerous flow of opioids into the United States. 

Section 1—Question 24. China claims all the islands, reefs, and rocks in the South 

China Sea. So does Taiwan. Vietnam claims the Spratlys. Malaysia, the Philippines, 

and Brunei claim some features. What should be the U.S. policy toward the South 

China Sea? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with our allies and partners, and through regional forums, to build maritime capacity, reinforce a rules-based approach to resolving disputes peacefully, and uphold freedoms of navigation and overflight, and 

other lawful uses of the sea in the South China Sea. I will also urge China and all 

of the South China Sea claimants to refrain from new construction on, and militarization of, disputed features. The Administration supports the development of a 

meaningful ASEAN-China Code of Conduct for the South China Sea that accords 

with international law, particularly as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. 

The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law 

allows, including in the South China Sea. 

Section 1—Question 25. Should we get involved in recognition or adjudication of 

claims? 

Answer. It has long been U.S. policy not to take a position on competing sovereignty claims over naturally formed land features in the South China Sea. The 

United States does, however, take the position that all maritime claims should be 

made and pursued in accordance with international law as reflected in the Law of 

the Sea Convention. 

Section 1—Question 26. Do you see the U.S. and China as rivals for dominance 

of the South China Sea? 

Answer. The United States is not a claimant state in the South China Sea, but 

does have a vital interest in maintaining peace, security, stability, freedoms of navigation and overflight, and other lawful uses of the sea in the region. If confirmed, 

I will continue to support these priorities by engaging with countries across the region both bilaterally and through multilateral fora to maintain support for the 

rules-based international order. 

Section 1—Question 27. What should be the U.S. response to China’s militarization of the South China Sea? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will press China and all South China Sea claimants to 

refrain from new construction on, and militarization of, disputed features, and to 

manage and resolve disputes peacefully without the threat or use of force or coercion and in accordance with international law. Working with allies and partners, the 

United States will work to uphold freedoms of navigation and overflight, and other 

lawful uses of the sea in the South China Sea, including by flying, sailing, and operating wherever international law allows. 

Section 1—Question 28. What can the United States do to deter further Chinese 

militarization? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will use all appropriate tools to address China’s troubling 

behavior in the South China Sea. Working with allies and partners, the United 

States should uphold freedoms of navigation and overflight, and other lawful uses 

of the sea, including by flying, sailing, and operating wherever international law allows. 

Section 1—Question 29. In the past, U.S.-Chinese cooperation on climate change 

has been a bright spot in the trans-Pacific relationship between two global powers. 

What is your understanding of China’s domestic and global economic plan for clean 

energy development? How do you intend to maintain or build the constructive U.S.- 

China dialogue on these issues? 

Answer. I believe energy cooperation with China can advance U.S. energy security 

and opportunities for U.S. businesses. If confirmed, I will seek to advance secure, 

stable, diversified, and modern global energy systems that use a broad range of 

market-based energy solutions, with China and other global partners. 

Section 1—Question 30. Do you believe climate change is real? Do you believe 

human behavior impacts climate change? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

120 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I believe that the climate is changing and 

that humans likely play a role in that change. 

Section 1—Question 31. Can you explain how you intend to continue to build the 

credibility of U.S. energy and climate change diplomacy with China in light of the 

President’s action to eliminate all federal regulation on climate change and to eliminate all U.S. assistance that has nexus whatsoever to climate change or clean energy? 

Answer. As a leader in global energy, America is a critical force in advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the world. If confirmed, I will work 

with China and other countries to promote access to affordable, sustainable energy 

that also promotes a clean and healthy environment through continued bilateral engagement and cooperation. 

Section 1—Question 32. In 2017, this administration’s 13 scientific agencies affirmed that humans ‘‘are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the 

mid-20th century.’’ Do you accept that conclusion? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make sure that the United States demonstrates leadership on climate issues to protect and advance the interests of the United States. 

I would promote the U.S. role as a world leader in innovation, particularly in the 

development of next-generation energy technologies. 

Section 1—Question 33. What is your understanding of the link between Chinese 

foreign investment in energy resources and development and Chinese projection of 

their vision of global governance and diplomatic influence? 

Answer. China’s growing overseas investment in many areas, including energy, 

must be watched carefully to ensure that projects meet international standards in 

areas such as debt sustainability, local input, and environmental impact. If confirmed, I will engage with likeminded partners and recipient countries to work on 

ensuring that China’s investments are consistent with the market-oriented, rulesbased international order and does not undermine the sovereignty of any country. 

Section 1—Question 34. Over the past year there have been conflicting reports regarding the status and case of Liu Xia, widow of Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, 

who has been held under house arrest in China since her husband’s death in 2017 

despite the fact that she has never been accused or convicted of any crime. China 

should be held to account both for Liu Xiaobo’s imprisonment and death and for the 

oppressive treatment of Liu Xia, who was subject to arbitrary detention and harassment, including house arrest in contravention of the Chinese Constitution and China’s international obligations during the seven years prior to her husband’s death. 

U.S. officials have reportedly been told on numerous occasions that she will be allowed to leave China but, as of yet, she remains under virtual imprisonment even 

as she faces life-threatening health issues. Will you commit to personally raising her 

case and demanding that she be allowed to leave China immediately—and that the 

U.S. would see it as a positive step for her to be allowed to leave—in all your interactions with senior level Chinese government and Party officials? 

Answer. I am deeply concerned about Liu Xia’s well-being. The Administration 

has consistently advocated with Chinese officials to release her from house arrest 

and allow her to travel abroad according to her wishes. If confirmed, I will work 

with both our likeminded partners and Congress to advocate for Liu Xia’s ability 

to travel freely. Defending human rights is not just a good or moral thing to do; 

it is in the national interest of the United States. 

Section 1—Question 35. What is your understanding of the Administration’s IndoPacific strategy? Given that the Administration’s FY19 budget request dramatically 

cuts Function 150 funding for the Indo-Pacific region, how do you align resources 

with professed policy goals? Will you advocate for a budget that reflects policy? 

Answer. The Administration has been clear that future U.S. security and prosperity will greatly depend on maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific. This requires diplomatic and development assistance budgets capable of advancing peace 

and prosperity in this vital region while prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer resources. If confirmed, I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign and 

civil service is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy at all levels. 

Section 1—Question 36. Do you support ASEAN centrality? What role should the 

United States play in supporting functional problem-solving multilateral institutions 

and architecture in Asia? 

Answer. The United States should continue supporting ASEAN centrality and the 

ASEAN-centered regional architecture. The United States is an active participant 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

121 

in ASEAN fora, which are platforms for promoting freedom, prosperity, and the 

rules-based order. The United States cooperates with ASEAN on political, economic, 

and socio-cultural issues. At the East Asia Summit, the United States engages in 

leaders-led discussions on the region’s most pressing security challenges, including 

North Korea, the South China Sea, and terrorism. At the ASEAN Regional Forum, 

the United States leads practical confidence-building activities in areas such as 

cyber, transnational crime, and nonproliferation. If confirmed, I will continue to support ASEAN unity and centrality while promoting American interests and values in 

the region. 

Section 1—Question 37. The United States for decades has benefited from a strong 

security and economic relationship with Taiwan. However, the United States continues to maintain self-imposed restrictions on high-level exchanges with Taiwan. 

If confirmed, will you encourage China to understand the benefits of exchanges between the United States and Taiwan at all levels? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities for visits to Washington and Taipei 

by senior-level officials. I will also seek authorities that advance our robust unofficial relationship and enable substantive exchanges on issues of mutual concern, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the One China policy. 

Section 1—Question 38. Global health, international aviation security and 

transnational crime are all matters of global importance requiring cooperation from 

stakeholders from all around the world. Congress has passed legislation requiring 

the State Department to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international 

organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Civil Organization 

(INTERPOL). How do you and the administration plan to encourage Beijing to support Taiwan’s participation in international institutions and the international community? 

Answer. The Administration supports Taiwan’s membership in international organizations where statehood is not a requirement. Issues like global health, aviation 

security, and transnational crime require the joint efforts of the international community. If confirmed, I will continue to use all of our diplomatic tools to build likeminded coalitions to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations including the WHO, ICAO, and INTERPOL. 

Section 1—Question 39. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) stipulates that it is the 

policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with ‘‘such defense articles and services in such quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability’’. Will you and the Administration faithfully implement 

the TRA and carry out regular transfers of defense articles and services to the government of Taiwan? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support arms sales to Taiwan, consistent 

with the TRA and our longstanding policies, which have contributed to the security 

of Taiwan and supported the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan 

Strait. Arms sales are a visible demonstration of U.S. support for Taiwan. 

Section 1—Question 40. The Vatican is reportedly moving closer to a deal regarding the appointment of bishops with China, whose Catholics are divided between an 

underground Church loyal to the pope and a government-backed Church. I doubt 

that true religious freedom is possible under tight control of an authoritarian regime 

and I am concerned that Taiwan’s diplomatic ties with the Vatican may be severed 

as a result. What should the State Department do to support the Vatican’s efforts 

to promote religious freedom in China without sacrificing their ties with Taiwan, 

where religious freedom is fully respected? 

Answer. I am deeply concerned about any actions that could harm religious freedom in China. I am similarly concerned about any actions that could harm Taiwan’s 

international space. If confirmed, I will urge the Vatican to consider very carefully 

the impact that a deal with the Chinese government might have on these vital 

issues. 

Section 1—Question 41. Is this administration committed to multilateral institutions in Asia including ASEAN and the EAS or more focused on an a la carte ‘‘likeminded’’ approach like the Quad? 

Answer. The Administration sees ASEAN and ASEAN-centered mechanisms like 

the East Asia Summit as centerpieces of the Indo-Pacific’s regional architecture. The 

Administration remains committed to ASEAN centrality. U.S.-Australia-India-Japan 

consultations, often referred to as the Quad, are one of the multilateral mechanisms 

through which the United States engages with our allies and partners in the region. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

122 

Section 1—Question 42. If an important part of ‘‘competing’’ in Asia is in the 

realm of ideas, values, and principles, how will you bolster the role of State & U.S. 

diplomats to compete more effectively? 

Answer. The advancement of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law has 

been an essential component of the free and open order the United States has fostered in the region for over 70 years. The President’s Indo-Pacific strategy is to join 

with our allies and partners to strengthen this order. If confirmed, an important 

part of my role in empowering our diplomats will be to address the vacancies in the 

Department, and to put in place leaders eager and empowered to execute the President’s strategy. 

Section 1—Question 43. The Trump administration’s own National Security Strategy, which was released in December 2017, accurately notes, ‘‘Governments that respect the rights of their citizens remain the best vehicle for prosperity, human happiness, and peace. In contrast, governments that routinely abuse the rights of their 

citizens do not play constructive roles in the world.’’ This is a concise statement on 

the direct relationship between governments that uphold fundamental freedoms on 

the one hand, and those that contribute to, or detract from, international peace and 

security on the other. One needs look no further than countries like Syria, North 

Korea, Iran, and Russia, to see this link. Despite this assertion, the Administration’s FY19 budget again requests radical, harmful cuts to democracy, rights, and 

governance (DRG) funding to programs, which strengthen political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, promote citizen participation, and strengthen openness 

and accountability in government. Programs that help secure our interests at a fraction of the cost of deploying U.S. military forces to respond to contingencies all too 

often brought about by governments that abuse their people at home and destabilize 

the international system. For example, the Administration proposes slashing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy by 60 percent. Congress has viewed 

the NED as a vital instrument in the global competition for ideas and values. President Ronald Reagan foresaw in creating the NED that ‘‘the ultimate determinant 

in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test 

of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we 

cherish, the ideas to which we are dedicated.’’ Indeed, the brave North Korean defector the President himself brought to the State of the Union received support from 

the NED. At a time when competitors like China and Russia are seeking to fill 

power vacuums and weak and failed states offer fertile openings for our adversaries 

and for extremists seeking to exploit despair, why would the Administration cut 

funding for crucial programs that empower those voices who advocate for a more 

democratic, prosperous and peaceful world? 

Answer. Democracy programs are critical for defending national security, fostering 

economic opportunities for the American people, and asserting U.S. leadership and 

influence. The FY 2019 budget request upholds U.S. commitments to key partners 

and allies through strategic, selective investments that enable America to retain its 

position as a global leader, while relying on other nations to make greater contributions toward shared objectives, including advancing democracy worldwide. If confirmed, I will look to continue support for these critical programs. 

Section 1—Question 44. In your testimony, you stated that if the administration 

is unable to ‘‘fix’’ the Iran nuclear deal, you will ‘‘recommend to the president that 

we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better 

deal.’’ With the May 12 deadline rapidly approaching, how would you fix the deal 

and what would be your diplomatic strategy to do so vis-&-vis our P5+1 partners 

and Iran? 

Answer. I believe fixing the deal is in the best interest of the United States. The 

President has been clear about his concerns regarding the JCPOA and, if confirmed, 

I would take up the task of seeking a new supplemental agreement to address these 

concerns—including addressing the sunset dates to ensure Iran never comes close 

to developing a nuclear weapon, taking strong action if Iran refuses IAEA inspections, and preventing Iran from developing or testing a long-range ballistic missile. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and our international partners toward a solution that prevents the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran and 

prevents Iran from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that undermine regional and international peace and security. 

Section 1—Question 45. Do you believe you would still be able to act as a credible 

international partner and negotiate a ‘‘better deal’’ if the United States has unilaterally withdrawn? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

123 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to maintain the highest possible international 

credibility for the United States, regardless of whether the United States continues 

to participate in the JCPOA. 

Section 1—Question 46. Director Pompeo, in your testimony you said Iran ‘‘wasn’t 

racing towards a weapon before the deal’’ and that ‘‘there is no indication that I’m 

aware of that if the deal were no longer to exist that they would immediately race 

to a nuclear weapon today.’’ This is in contrast with your previous opposition to 

JCPOA on the grounds that it ‘‘left the Iranians with a breakout capacity’’ and that 

Iran is ‘‘intent on the destruction of our country.’’ Please clarify your statements and 

explain why, if you do not believe Iran is racing to acquire a nuclear weapon, the 

United States should withdraw from JCPOA. 

Answer. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) does not address Iran’s 

development of ballistic missiles, which represent a threat to the U.S. and our allies 

and are Iran’s preferred method for delivering a nuclear weapon—if it chose to acquire this capability. The sanctions relief provided under the JCPOA also contributed to an economic recovery in Iran, giving it greater financial flexibility to support 

its nefarious activities in the region without cutting as deeply into its spending for 

domestic initiatives. Over the long run, restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will 

loosen even as Tehran retains the benefits of sanctions relief. For example, JCPOAspecific provisions on Iran’s fissile material production will expire within 10 to 25 

years of JCPOA implementation. Specifically, restrictions on Iran’s ability to stockpile more than 300kg of low-enriched uranium, limits on locations Iran is permitted 

to conduct uranium enrichment activities, and limits on reprocessing nuclear fuel 

expire after 15 years. In addition, after 13 years there are no restrictions on Iran’s 

advance centrifuge R&D program. 

As for Iran’s intent to destroy America, please see: 

1. ‘‘America is the number one enemy of our nation.’’—Khamenei (7 November 

2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa/supreme-leader-khameneisays-u-s-is-irans-number-one-enemy-idUSKBN1D211H). 

2. ‘‘ ‘It seems the Trump administration only understands swear words, and needs 

some shocks to understand the new meaning of power in the world,’ Masoud 

Jazayeri, spokesman for the Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guards 

commander said Tuesday. ‘The Americans have driven the world crazy by their 

behavior. It is time to teach them a new lesson.’ ’’ (10 October 2017, http:// 

www.newsweek.com/trump-needs-be-taught-new-lessons-irans-military-says681447). and 

3. ‘‘At Al-Quds day rallies last week, Khamenei noted appreciatively, You heard 

‘Death to Israel’, ‘Death to the US.’ You could hear it. The whole nation was 

shaken by these slogans. It wasn’t only confirmed in Tehran. The whole of the 

nation, you could hear, that was covered by this great movement. So we ask 

Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran.’’ ‘‘ ‘This slogan 

means death to the policies of the U.S. and arrogant powers,’ he said, ‘and this 

logic is accepted by every nation when explained in clear terms.’ ’’ (18 July 2015, 

https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/middleeast/ayatollah-death-to-america/ 

index.html; 5 November 2015, https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-khameneihails-his-people-for-demanding-death-to-america-and-israel/). 

Section 1—Question 47. General Dunford has stated that the United States’ withdrawal from its commitments, such as the JCPOA, ‘‘unless there’s a material 

breach, would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements.’’ As the administration pursues negotiations with North Korea regarding its nuclear program, 

do you believe the United States will be viewed as a credible negotiator if it withdraws from JCPOA? 

Answer. The United States enjoys high international credibility, and I am confident that the Trump Administration’s decisions on the JCPOA will only underscore our seriousness about nuclear weapons and nuclear diplomacy. 

Section 1—Question 48. Do you believe that America should uphold its diplomatic 

commitments? 

Answer. Yes, the United States should uphold its diplomatic commitments, as 

long as they continue to be in the national security interests of the United States. 

Section 1—Question 49. Sometimes as Secretary of State you need to engage our 

adversaries to advance American interests. Will you conduct direct diplomacy with 

Iran to advance American interests? 

Answer. I am not in a position at this time to prejudge or predict the direction 

that our diplomatic engagement with Iran may or may not take. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

124 

Section 1—Question 50. During the hearing, you stated that you were optimistic 

that the United States could reach a diplomatic deal with North Korea but offered 

few details on how you would approach negotiations. As Secretary, what do you 

think are the most important elements of a diplomatic deal with North Korea? 

Answer. The goal of the Administration’s diplomatic strategy is to achieve the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. To 

do that, there must be a serious and sustained pressure campaign through full implementation of UN and U.S. sanctions, along with a pursuit of negotiations. As we 

explore the diplomatic opening, we will also maintain the pressure campaign until 

North Korea denuclearizes. 

Section 1—Question 51. During your testimony, you said the purpose of Kim Jong 

Un and President Trump’s meeting is to, ‘‘address the nuclear threat to the United 

States’’ so that North Korea will, ‘‘step away from its efforts to hold America at 

risk.’’ Do you believe that the nuclear threat that North Korea presents to U.S. allies should not be on the agenda for the Trump-Kim summit? 

Answer. The Trump Administration has been clear and consistent that the goal 

is to achieve the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and in so doing, ensure that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs 

no longer threaten the United States or our allies. This commitment to our allies 

is ironclad. 

Section 1—Question 52. Many policy analysts believe that North Korea will offer 

some form of limited denuclearization in exchange for the removal of U.S. troops 

from South Korea. While removing U.S. troops in exchange for limited 

denuclearization might lower the risk to Americans, it would raise risks for U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea which are in range of North Korea’s conventional 

weapons. Do you believe that the U.S. should pursue these options? 

Answer. The ROK and Japan are valued, close allies with which we have worked 

closely towards achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization 

of the Korean peninsula via diplomatic means. The Administration will remain in 

close coordination and cooperation with South Korea and Japan about any response 

to North Korea. 

Section 1—Question 53. If you fail to make progress in negotiations with North 

Korea, would you support the preventive use of force to prevent North Korea from 

achieving an ICBM capability that would threaten the homeland even with the potential catastrophic consequences or would you instead recommend a course of deterrence and containment? 

Answer. There is diplomatic work to do, and if confirmed, my focus will be to continue the pressure campaign and achieve our goal of the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea. Without getting into hypotheticals, maintaining the pressure campaign throughout negotiations and increasing pressure 

should talks fail must be a key part of our strategy, and all options remain on the 

table. 

Section 1—Question 54. If the United States is able to reach a diplomatic agreement on North Korea, would you commit to submitting it to the Senate for ratification? 

Answer. The Administration is committed to engaging appropriately with Congress in the course of its efforts to resolve the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear 

program. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging you regularly on the critical challenges to U.S. security. 

Section 1—Question 55. You criticized the Obama Administration for weaknesses 

in the Iran nuclear deal, especially on verification. How do you intend to ensure that 

we get a strong and verifiable a deal on North Korea? 

Answer. The North Koreans have confirmed to us directly their willingness to talk 

about denuclearization. The incremental, phased approaches of past negotiations all 

failed, in part because the international community eased pressure prematurely. 

The Administration’s goal is to develop an agreement with the North Korean leadership such that North Korea will achieve complete, verifiable and irreversible 

denuclearization. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

125 

(Section 2—Questions 1–50) 

Section 2—Question 1. Secretary Tillerson announced last year that he was undertaking a massive effort to comply with the President’s Executive Order on reorganizing the federal government, including consideration of the elimination of a number of bureaus and offices and a goal of large-scale cuts in personnel utilizing 

buyouts. During this review process, the Secretary implemented a damaging hiring 

freeze and hired very expensive outside management consulting organizations to 

make recommendations. Right before the end of his time as Secretary, the Department changed their message and stated there was never a reorganization and that 

it is just a ‘‘redesign,’’ or an ‘‘Impact Initiative,’’ depending on the bumper sticker 

of the week. Most of the ‘‘keystone’’ projects that the Department is now implementing—many with only minimal congressional consultation, transparency, and 

oversight, despite our efforts—are limited and technical in scope, addressing such 

issues as streamlining information systems. What is the status of the current redesign process and the future of the Impact Initiative and keystone projects? 

Answer. I have been briefed on certain aspects of the Impact Initiative but have 

not had the opportunity to review its various elements in depth. If confirmed, I look 

forward to learning more about the Initiative and its progress to date. I will assess 

the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative and make a determination quickly 

about how to proceed, in consultation with the Department’s foreign service and 

civil service officers. 

Section 2—Question 2. What has been the effect on State Department morale and 

functioning that the past years turbulent process created? 

Answer. I understand that the Impact Initiative and Redesign have caused concerns within the State Department and with Congress. If confirmed, I will assess 

the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative and make a determination quickly 

about how to proceed, in consultation with the Committee and the Department’s foreign service and civil service officers. 

Section 2—Question 3. What is the relationship between the reorganization that 

appears no longer to be and the deep cuts to the department’s budget that was proposed by the Administration? 

Answer. My initial understanding is that Secretary Tillerson’s Redesign and the 

Administration’s budget proposals were distinct processes. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing Department management and budgetary issues more closely, in 

consultation with the Committee. 

Section 2—Question 4. As the Impact Initiative moves forward, is the Department 

planning to seek additional input from Congress and the stakeholder community? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative 

and make a determination quickly about how to proceed, in consultation with Congress, stakeholders, and the Department’s foreign service and civil service officers. 

Section 2—Question 5. Will you commit to working with this Committee before 

moving forward with any other reforms to the State Department and our foreign 

assistance agencies? 

Answer. Yes. As a former member of Congress, I have deep respect for the role 

of Congress on these matters. 

Section 2—Question 6. There is continued concern, now a year and a half into the 

administration, that the Department of State lacks nominees for a large number of 

the senior officials critical for the Department’s work. The Senate has yet to receive 

nominations for four Undersecretary posts, as well as eight Assistant Secretary positions and dozens of ambassadorial posts. We have received a nomination for Ambassador to the Bahamas, but not yet for our ally the Republic of Korea at a time when 

the administration describes the situation on the Korean Peninsula as our top national security priority. With Tom Shannon’s retirement, the Department now has 

one Career Ambassador, down from six in January 2017. The Senate can’t move to 

confirm nominees we don’t have. While I have the utmost respect for the career professionals at the Department, they will also be the first to tell you that there is no 

substitute for Senate-confirmed senior officials. What is the logic for the nominations that have been made by this Administration, prioritizing for example the Bahamas over Korea, and with numerous senior management and policy jobs remaining vacant? 

Answer. I fully recognize and appreciate the importance of filling these critical 

senior Department leadership positions, both those located domestically and overseas, and if confirmed, I commit to you that addressing this issue will be one of my 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

126 

highest priorities. Additionally, if confirmed, I will work closely with the White 

House to identify qualified candidates for the vacant senior leadership positions. 

Section 2—Question 7. Are there plans and timeline for filling these vital positions? 

Answer. Addressing and filling vital senior leadership positions at the State Department is one of my highest and immediate priorities. If confirmed, I will work 

closely with the White House to identify and select qualified candidates for these 

vacant positions. 

Section 2—Question 8. There is continued concern, now a year and a half into the 

administration, that the Department of State lacks nominees for a large number of 

the senior officials critical for the Department’s work. The Senate has yet to receive 

nominations for four Undersecretary posts, as well as eight Assistant Secretary positions and dozens of ambassadorial posts. We have received a nomination for Ambassador to the Bahamas, but not yet for our ally the Republic of Korea at a time when 

the administration describes the situation on the Korean Peninsula as our top national security priority. With Tom Shannon’s retirement, the Department now has 

one Career Ambassador, down from six in January 2017. The Senate cannot move 

to confirm nominees we do not have. While I have the utmost respect for the career 

professionals at the Department, they will also be the first to tell you that there 

is no substitute for Senate-confirmed senior officials. 

Does this lack of leadership and these vacancies damage the Department’s ability 

to fully function—either its ability to conduct foreign affairs, its ability to participate 

in the interagency process, or for staff morale and effectiveness? 

Answer. The State Department has a highly talented staff of senior professionals 

who advance U.S. foreign policy goals around the world. At the same time, I agree 

that there are too many vacancies and too many unfilled positions. If confirmed, I 

will do my part to fill vacancies, as soon as possible, but I will need your help and 

that of the entire Senate. Filling senior vacancies is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps in the world. 

Section 2—Question 9. There is continued concern, now a year and a half into the 

administration, that the Department of State lacks nominees for a large number of 

the senior officials critical for the Department’s work. The Senate has yet to receive 

nominations for four Undersecretary posts, as well as eight Assistant Secretary positions and dozens of ambassadorial posts. We’ve received a nomination for Ambassador to the Bahamas, but not yet for our ally the Republic of Korea at a time when 

the administration describes the situation on the Korean Peninsula as our top national security priority. With Tom Shannon’s retirement, the Department now has 

one Career Ambassador, down from six in January 2017. The Senate cannot move 

to confirm nominees we do not have. While I have the utmost respect for the career 

professionals at the Department, they will also be the first to tell you that there 

is no substitute for Senate-confirmed senior officials. 

Is the Department able to actively and successfully implement policy or management directives with no senior staff to carry out guidance? 

Answer. The State Department has a highly talented staff of senior professionals 

who advance U.S. foreign policy goals around the world. At the same time, I agree 

that there are too many vacancies and too many unfilled positions. If confirmed, I 

will do my part to fill vacancies, as soon as possible, but I will need your help and 

that of the entire Senate. Filling senior vacancies is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps in the world. 

Section 2—Question 10. How has the lack of Senate-confirmed ambassadors 

harmed U.S. diplomatic access and entre ́e in foreign capitals, many of which are 

protocol conscious? 

Answer. This is a question that I will be better able to address, if I am confirmed. 

Filling Senate-confirmed vacancies will be among my highest priorities, if confirmed. 

Section 2—Question 11. In April 2017, while the OMB lifted the across-the-board 

federal hiring freeze imposed by the president in January, the State Department 

continued a self-imposed freeze, including the hiring of Foreign Service family members (Eligible Family Members, (EFMs)). In August 2017, Secretary Tillerson ‘‘approved an exemption to the hiring freeze that will allow the Department to fill a 

number of priority EFM positions that are currently vacant. This exemption gives 

posts authority to fill critical vacancies supporting security, safety, and health responsibilities.’’ Deputy Secretary Sullivan told members of the press on August 8 

that ‘‘almost 800 EFMs [that] have been approved since this—the hiring freeze was 

imposed.’’ In lifting the freeze in August, however, the Department by intent, deFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

127 

sign, or otherwise, effectively froze out eligible family members caught between the 

‘‘transfer seasons’’ between Posts, leaving numerous jobs unfilled and unfillable even 

with the ‘‘lift’’ in the freeze. Moreover, according to SFRC staff interviews with numerous Embassies, instructions regarding how to implement the lift have still not 

been uniformly conveyed across the Department and certain Posts are operating 

under instructions to freeze any position that an EFM applies for, with no clear directions or guidance on how to ‘‘unfreeze’’ billets. As I am sure, you are aware, EFM 

jobs are generally a cost-effective way for Embassies to provide important support 

for Posts, and the hiring freeze had the effect of creating significant distortions and 

management challenges for the Department. To take one example, according to 

State/OIG, the AF Bureau’s FY2017 staffing includes 1,147 American Direct Hire 

overseas, 572 local staff, 140 reemployed annuitants (retired Civil Service or Foreign 

Service employee rehired on an intermittent basis for no more than 1,040 hours during the year), and 14 ‘‘rover-employees’’ based overseas. State/OIG also reported that 

the AF bureau relies on 399 EFM employees for its overseas staffing. The 399 EFM 

employees are not specifically excluded from the State/OIG 1,147 count; if the 399 

EFM employees are in addition to the 1,147 count it constitutes a full one quarter 

of the bureau’s overseas workforce. 

Answer. I recognize the value and contributions made by our Eligible Family 

Members (EFMs) in support of our national security interests when employed in our 

missions abroad. I am aware that employing EFMs is a cost-effective way to staff 

many critical safety and security related positions. I understand that the Department has recently increased EFM hiring. If confirmed, I will review the current hiring policies for EFMs to ensure that they are as effective as possible. 

Section 2—Question 12. What measures will you take to undo the damage created 

by the hiring freeze to the Department’s operations and morale? 

Answer. If confirmed, with your help, I will work to ensure that vacancies in the 

senior ranks of the Department are filled as soon as practicable with talented and 

capable people who are prepared to work with all employees of the Department of 

State and that leaders are empowered to fill vacancies. If confirmed, it will be one 

of my first priorities to ensure that State Department employees have a clear understanding of the President’s mission and the critical roles they play in ensuring our 

success. 

Section 2—Question 13. How will you assure that full and complete instructions 

regarding the lifting of the freeze are conveyed across the Department and to all 

Posts overseas? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to developing hiring levels that comply with 

the provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 and that effectively 

advance American interests around the world. All employees will be notified via Department notices, appropriate overseas cables, and, as appropriate, town-hall style 

engagements that can be broadcast to staff at home and posted to our Missions in 

the field. 

Section 2—Question 14. In your testimony, you mentioned the importance of giving the State Department its ‘‘swagger’’ back. Secretary Tillerson set a goal of eliminating 2,000 State Department positions. Do you plan to adopt that goal as your 

own? 

Answer. It is my understanding that funding provided under the Appropriations 

Act of 2018 supports staffing levels at or above 2017 end-of-year levels. If confirmed, 

I will set the Department’s goal on that basis and aim to ensure we have the right 

staff levels to advance U.S. national security interests and the President’s vision 

around the globe. 

Section 2—Question 15. The November 2017 #metoonatsec open letter signed by 

223 prominent women in national security highlighted the threat that sexual harassment and assault pose to national security talent retention and readiness and 

offers a set of actions to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and assault in 

the workplace. They are: provide clear leadership from the very top that these behaviors are unacceptable; create multiple, clear, private channels to report abuse 

without fear of retribution; provide external, independent mechanisms to collect 

data on claims and publish them anonymously; institute mandatory, regular training for all employees; and ensure exit interviews are conducted when people leave 

the Department. Recognizing the deleterious effects such behaviors can have on the 

State Department’s mission objectives, your predecessor, former Secretary of State 

Tillerson, recently began addressing these efforts. Of note, the State Department Office of the Inspector General has also embarked upon an evaluation of State Department policies and procedures with regard to sexual harassment, as detailed in its 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

128 

2018 work plan. If confirmed, what steps will you take to reduce incidents of sexual 

harassment and assault at the State Department and what measures will you undertake to ensure employee safety, welfare, and the fair, thorough, and expeditious 

resolution of allegations when such abuses occur. Further, understanding that such 

abuses are widely understood to be born of gender imbalances in senior leadership 

and that more diverse teams are consistently linked to better outcomes, what steps 

will you take to improve gender-balance, especially at senior levels, and how will 

you hold managers accountable for creating, nurturing, and enforcing a workplace 

culture that respects and includes women as equal peers and colleagues? 

Answer. I understand that the Department has a zero tolerance stance on any 

form of workplace harassment. If confirmed, I will continue to support and strengthen established measures that hold employees who engage in such behavior accountable. As I have done at the CIA, I will work to ensure that every team member is 

treated equally and with dignity and respect. 

Section 2—Question 16. The State Department should accurately reflect the American people. Unfortunately, we currently have a huge diversity gap in our Foreign 

and Civil Service workforce, especially at the higher ranks. This committee has specifically included language in past years outlining that the State Department 

Human Resources Bureau has a responsibility to recruit and manage a talented and 

diverse workforce. How do you plan to address that gap and assure that we have 

a vibrant, robust, and diverse workforce at the Department of State? 

Answer. Throughout my career, I have always worked to establish an inclusive 

and diverse workforce. If confirmed, I will review the Department’s current diversity 

recruitment efforts and work to ensure the Department makes the most of all its 

initiatives to attract, recruit, hire, and promote outstandingly qualified and diverse 

talent. 

Section 2—Question 17. What efforts will you make to address inclusion and retention at the State Department with professional development, unconscious bias 

training, sexual harassment and assault training, and career advancement opportunities? 

Answer. I understand the Department has mandatory requirements for EEO/Diversity Awareness and Anti Sexual Harassment Training. If confirmed, I would continue to support these efforts. In addition, I will ensure all employees, including 

those from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups, have the professional 

development skills and opportunities necessary for current and future work assignments and are treated equally, with dignity and respect. 

Section 2—Question 18. Are you familiar with reports that senior State Department officials have sought to ‘‘clean house’’ by reassigning or purging career employees who are deemed insufficiently ‘‘loyal’’ to President Trump, or based on their 

work for a prior administration, or even ethnic origin or place of birth? 

Answer. I am aware of these reports. The career employees of the Department of 

State—civil service, foreign service, and locally-employed staff—are the Department’s greatest asset. If confirmed, I will ensure that all personnel practices are carried out consistent with all laws and regulations. 

Section 2—Question 19. Do you denounce any such effort to improperly reassign, 

remove, or interfere with the careers of career employees on these bases? What will 

you do to ensure employees are protected from these efforts? 

Answer. If confirmed, my staff and I will make employment decisions based on 

merit and ensure that all personnel practices are carried out consistent with all 

laws and regulations. 

Section 2—Question 20. Will you commit to ensuring that career officials in the 

civil and foreign services are not ‘‘punished,’’ demoted, or otherwise negatively impacted because of their past work in support of prior administrations’ goals? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 2—Question 21. Is it appropriate for your staff or other political appointees to discuss the ethnic or national origins when considering staffing of career 

State Department officers? 

Answer. No, it would not be appropriate for me, my staff, or other political appointees to discuss ethnicity or national origin when making staffing or any other 

employment decisions. If confirmed, my staff and I will make employment decisions 

based on merit and ensure that all personnel practices are carried out consistent 

with all laws and regulations. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

129 

Section 2—Question 22. How would you respond if you learned your staff did engage in such action? 

Answer. It would not be appropriate for me, my staff, or other political appointees 

to discuss ethnicity or national origin when making staffing or any other employment decisions. If confirmed, my staff and I will make employment decisions based 

on merit. I would take appropriate action in response to inappropriate activities. 

Section 2—Question 23. How would you respond to situations, should they arise, 

where your staff have been found to engage in personnel actions that are in suspicion of a career officers political perspectives? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, the Department’s employees can be assured of the 

freedom to express their views as part of the Department’s policy formulation process without fear of reprisal. I would hold accountable the employees who fail to adhere to this policy. 

Section 2—Question 24. Unfortunately much of the last year the senior leadership 

spent considerable time and resources on outside consultants with lofty proposals 

for restructuring the Department, with very little to show for it. These efforts drew 

much needed attention away from running the Department, filling vacancies, and 

strengthening alliances. Further, the Department reportedly spent $12 million on 

consultants alone. Do you commit to immediately review all ongoing contracts related to any redesign or Impact Initiative efforts and report to Congress on whether 

you determine that additional work is necessary, and if so, what those costs will be? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will assess the state and full scope of the Impact Initiative, including the use of consultants, and make a determination quickly about 

how to proceed, in consultation with the Department’s foreign service and civil service officers. 

Section 2—Question 25. The Department has a number of outstanding recommendations that GAO has flagged as priority areas for action. Are you familiar 

with the GAO’s recommendations for diplomatic security? Have you reviewed them, 

and if not, will you do so promptly? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that I am properly briefed on all outstanding 

GAO recommendations related to diplomatic security. 

Section 2—Question 26. Will you make implementing GAO’s outstanding recommendations a priority? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make fully examining GAO’s recommendations a priority. 

Section 2—Question 27. Will you commit to ensuring that diplomats serving at 

posts abroad are able to effectively engage with local communities? 

Answer. Yes, subject to security conditions. 

Section 2—Question 28. Will you ensure that embassy staffs are able, while 

prioritizing safety, to operate freely, throughout their countries of assignment and 

not be solely relegated to Embassy compounds? 

Answer. One of the main jobs of our diplomats overseas is to engage with members of the communities in the nation to which they are assigned. If confirmed, I 

will ensure the Department balances the risks that engagement entails with the 

benefits to our national interest. 

Section 2—Question 29. Hiring and promotions have been at a near standstill. Do 

you commit to revisiting the current hiring and promotion policies in place and report back to Congress on what steps you think are necessary to ensure that we have 

a robust and experienced workforce going forward? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to a thorough review of these two critical 

workforce policies. 

Section 2—Question 30. Many experienced diplomats have expressed extreme concern about the retention of experienced Foreign Service Officers and civil servants 

and the impact on the Department’s short-and long-term ability to carry out its diplomatic function. Do you agree this is a critical area of concern? What will you do 

to ensure that we are not hemorrhaging experienced Foreign Service Officers and 

civil servants, and that the Department will have the experience it needs for the 

next 5 to 10 years? 

Answer. The Department has a highly talented staff of professionals advancing 

U.S. foreign policy interests. If confirmed, I will push hard to retain these individuals in order to execute America’s diplomatic mission around the world. I will enFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

130 

sure that employees understand how their work contributes to the mission of the 

organization. 

Section 2—Question 31. Will you review all current workforce planning and report 

to Congress on what additional steps related to staffing and personnel you think the 

Department should take this year? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing Department of State workforce plans, 

and I plan to utilize funding provided for staffing under the Appropriations Act. 

With your help, I will work to ensure that vacancies in the Department are filled 

as soon as practicable with talented and capable people. I am committed to attracting the brightest candidates and to retaining the talented workforce necessary to 

advance our foreign policy interests. I also commit to staying engaged with Congress 

on personnel issues and workforce plans. 

Section 2—Question 32. As you know, the Department is plagued by numerous 

key vacancies, departures of senior employees, and a shrinking Foreign Service Officer pool. What is your biggest concern and how will you tackle it? 

Answer. If confirmed, it will be one of my first priorities to ensure that State Department employees have a clear understanding of the critical roles they play in ensuring our success. Additionally, with your help, I will work to fill vacancies in the 

senior ranks of the Department as soon as practicable. Funding provided for staffing 

under the Appropriations Act will result in both Foreign Service and Civil Service 

hiring at or above 2017 end-of-year levels. 

Section 2—Question 33. This year, the Department will see the smallest incoming 

Foreign Service Officer class in years. Does this concern you? Do you commit to revisit the incoming class numbers and assess whether additional FSO slots should 

be approved for this year? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to follow the provisions of the recently enacted 

Consolidated Appropriation Act 2018 that advises the Department to hire Foreign 

Service employees at or above 2017 end-of-year levels. It is my understanding that 

this will result in hiring above attrition for the remainder of FY 2018. As such, I 

anticipate that Foreign Service intake classes will return to more traditional levels. 

Section 2—Question 34. It is no secret that low morale has plagued the Department over the last year. Even the Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, 

Heather Nauert, has acknowledged low morale is a challenge. What will you do to 

restore morale? This requires more than a generic commitment but a serious plan 

to reengage with employees and demonstrate that they are a valued part of the Department. 

Answer. In a recent series of Department briefings with team members at State, 

they all, to a person, expressed a hope to be empowered in their roles, and to have 

a clear understanding of the President’s mission. That will be my first priority. They 

also shared how demoralizing it is to have so many vacancies and, frankly, not to 

feel relevant. I will do my part to end the vacancies as soon as possible. I will also 

work every day to provide dedicated leadership and convey my faith in their work— 

just as I have done with my workforce at the CIA. 

Section 2—Question 35. The prior Secretary was seen as disengaged and unwilling 

to communicate directly with employees. Do you commit to meeting and communicating directly and frequently with career employees? How will you achieve this? 

Answer. I learned many years ago from a Sergeant First Class that good leaders 

need to listen more. Just as I have done in each of my previous leadership roles, 

I will rely on those around me, including career officers, to achieve the team’s goals. 

For example, at the CIA, I launched regularly-scheduled, small group town halls, 

not very originally titled, ‘‘Meet with Mike.’’ I would continue similar types of outreach at the State Department, if confirmed. 

Section 2—Question 36. As a member of the Freedom Caucus, you voted in favor 

of zeroing out funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, which works to prevent violent 

conflicts. As currently stated on the Department of State’s website, the department’s 

vision is to ‘‘promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.’’ Given your previous support of curbing the work of 

USIP, if confirmed as Secretary of State, how do you plan to uphold the department’s vision to advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world? 

Answer. The predicate of your question is incorrect. If confirmed, you have my 

commitment to use a range of diplomatic tools to advance freedom, peace, and prosperity. I will use tools like the Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Act. I will 

implement laws like the International Religious Freedom Act. I will use U.S. foreign 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

131 

assistance programs, which fund worthwhile projects carried out by a variety of implementers including USIP. These are powerful tools to advance freedom, peace and 

prosperity. As I said at the hearing, America is uniquely blessed, and with those 

blessings comes a duty to lead. As I have argued throughout my time in public service, if we do not lead for democracy, for prosperity, and for human rights around 

the world, it is not clear who will. No other nation is so equipped with the same 

blend of power and principle. 

Section 2—Question 37. You have stated that the reason for the currently challenging state of bilateral relations between the U.S. and Russia is due to Russia’s 

bad behavior. Yet it is unclear that the State Department has yet developed, or been 

directed by the White House to develop, a coordinated, comprehensive strategy to 

punish, deter, or change this bad behavior. How will you specifically organize and 

mobilize the resources of the State Department to counter malign Russian government behavior and influence. 

Answer. From Russia’s aggression in Ukraine to its flagrant violation of international law in the March 4 Salisbury attack and its continued support for the Syrian regime and ongoing malign activities across Europe, Moscow is demonstrating 

to be a serious threat. The Administration is actively working to counter Russia’s 

aggressive behavior through numerous strategies. I understand the State Department is strengthening deterrence and defense for NATO Allies in the Baltic region, 

and is working with partners and allies to improve their resilience to malign influence and hybrid threats. The Department also currently leads various inter-agency 

efforts to counter Russian malign influence. If confirmed, I will ensure these efforts 

have the attention and resources they need. As seen with the coordinated international response to the Salisbury attack, we are strongest when we resist Russian 

bad behavior and aggression through collective action. If confirmed, I will ensure 

the Department continues to lead in these important efforts. 

Section 2—Question 38. Will you reconstitute and reenergize the State Department’s Russian ‘‘malign influence group’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review all efforts that are aimed at countering 

Russian malign influence to ensure that they are as effective as possible. It is important that the United States undertake a whole-of-government, coordinated approach to respond to Russian efforts to undermine democratic processes and institutions. The Department of State has a critical role to play in addressing this threat, 

and if confirmed I will continue to promote interagency cooperation to address Russian malign activities and impose appropriate costs. 

Section 2—Question 39. Do you commit to convening an international coalition of 

U.S. allies to counter hybrid threats posed by the Russian Federation? If so, what 

is your diplomatic strategy to convene this group? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work together with our partners and Allies to counter 

Russia’s efforts to undermine these democratic processes. I will work within existing 

groupings and organizations (such as NATO and the European Center of Excellence 

for Countering Hybrid Threats), and build other coalitions as necessary to counter 

this threat. 

Section 2—Question 40. Do you commit to meet with Russian political opposition, 

dissidents, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and independent journalists in Washington as well as during any future visit to the Russian Federation? 

Answer. I believe strongly that representing America requires promoting America’s ideals, values, and priorities. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with members of Russian civil society in Washington and abroad. 

Section 2—Question 41. Will you advocate for full appropriations for the Global 

Engagement Center’s effort to counter Russian disinformation? 

Answer. Yes, I commit to utilizing the up to $20 million in additional funds to 

support the GEC’s counter-state mission, including countering state-sponsored 

disinformation that undermines U.S. national security interests. 

Section 2—Question 42. Would you support the lifting of Congressional holds on 

the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund such that this funding could be reprogrammed towards efforts to build resilience in democratic institutions in Europe against interference threats posed by the Kremlin? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would closely review this issue, in consultation with the 

Committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 2—Question 43. How do you plan to elevate the State Department’s role 

in countering Russian aggression through the interagency process? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

132 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to strengthening the Department’s key role in 

countering Russian aggression. I understand the Department currently leads various interagency efforts to counter Russian malign influence as well as to collaborate 

with, and support, Allies and partners. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department 

continues to work closely with other U.S. government agencies to ensure a wholeof-government approach to counter all the threats Russia poses. 

Section 2—Question 44. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions 

Act (CAATSA) included several mandatory provisions with respect to Russia. The 

President has failed to make determinations that Russian behavior over the past 

year is in clear violation of CAATSA, including with respect to its malicious cyber 

activities to undermine democratic processes in the U.S. and Europe. Do you commit 

to following the law and advocating for the imposition of sanctions under sections 

225, 226, 228, 231, 233, and 234? 

Answer. I am deeply troubled by Russia’s malicious cyber activities aimed at undermining our democratic processes. If confirmed, I am committed to using the full 

panoply of new sanctions authorities granted under CAATSA, especially those delegated to the Department of State, to maintain and increase pressure on Russia. 

Section 2—Question 45. Do you commit to personally engage with governments in 

Indonesia, India, China, Turkey, and Vietnam and urge that they significantly reduce the significant transactions with the defense and intelligence sectors of the 

Russian Federation? If they do not, do you commit to work to fully impose the mandatory sanctions under Section 231 of CAATSA? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge any country thought to be engaging in potentially significant transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including Indonesia, India, China, Turkey, and Vietnam, to significantly reduce such 

transactions. I would not hesitate to impose sanctions if I ultimately concluded that 

a transaction is significant under the Act. 

Section 2—Question 46. Would you support the declassification of intelligence on 

Russian government use of assassination as a tool of political influence in the UK, 

across Europe and the United States? 

Answer. I do not support the declassification of intelligence if the declassification 

would have a negative impact on our sensitive sources and methods. If, after a thorough review, it was determined that intelligence on Russian government use of assassination as a tool of political influence could be declassified with no impact on 

sensitive sources and methods, I would support it. 

Section 2—Question 47. How will you engage with British authorities to ensure 

that Russian oligarchs on the U.S. SDN list do not have access to the British banking institutions? 

Answer. I understand that State Department sanctions experts, along with their 

colleagues in the Department of Treasury, are in constant communication with the 

UK government in order to ensure proper implementation of current Russia-related 

sanctions. If confirmed, I am committed to engaging with my counterparts as well. 

Section 2—Question 48. Do you personally commit to engage with the European 

Union and embark on a diplomatic strategy that results in a stronger EU sanctions 

regime on the Russian government, those acting on its behalf, oligarchs, and 

parastatal entities? 

Answer. I greatly value the longstanding friendship and partnership we have with 

the European Union. If confirmed, I am committed to engaging with the EU to continue the sanctions pressure on Russia. 

Section 2—Question 49. Do you commit to advocate in legislatures around the 

world for Magnitsky legislation sanctioning human rights abusers and corrupt actors in Russia and elsewhere, as is required in the U.S. Russia-specific and Global 

Magnitsky laws? 

Answer. I strongly value the sanctions tools created by the Global Magnitsky and 

Magnitsky legislation and commit to raising the issues presented by such legislation 

in my discussions with foreign counterparts. 

Section 2—Question 50. Do you support increased security assistance, including 

increased Foreign Military Financing and loan authorities, to American allies within 

NATO to ensure that they end reliance on Russian military equipment and parts? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support efforts to help our NATO Allies end their reliance on Russian military equipment and parts. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

133 

(Section 3—Questions 1–47) 

Section 3—Question 1. The United States Government stepped back considerably 

in recent years from supporting democracy and governance work in Europe and 

Eurasia, assuming that, as European countries moved closer to European Union 

membership, the need for U.S. engagement on these issues was less necessary. This 

assumption proved faulty, and we have seen the Kremlin exploit and undermine 

nascent democratic institutions, processes, and political parties across Europe with 

corrupt influence and disinformation. Congress, through successive robust appropriations to the Countering Russian Influence Fund (CRIF), has made clear its intent to address this gap, but we hear reports currently of delays by State in directing these appropriations to democracy and governance implementers. We are also 

concerned by reports that the planning for spending CRIF money has been approached as a ‘‘one-off’’ event, rather than as part of a broader, coordinated strategy. 

Do you commit to swiftly disburse assistance funds appropriated to State to support 

democracy and governance promotion in Europe and Eurasia, including under the 

Countering Russian Influence Fund? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring that the Department disburses expeditiously, but responsibly, appropriated funds to support democracy and governance 

in Europe and Eurasia in accordance with the law and regulations. As cited in the 

President’s National Security Strategy, countering Russian aggression and malign 

influence in Europe and Eurasia is among our top priorities in the region. If confirmed, I will ensure that our foreign assistance continues to support those countries 

that are bearing the brunt of Russia’s subversion and aggression, including Ukraine, 

Georgia, Moldova, and the Western Balkans. 

Section 3—Question 2. How will you ensure that funds appropriated in successive 

fiscal years to counter malign Russian government influence are used to build out 

a coherent, effective assistance strategy? 

Answer. Through its diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance, the Department is supporting our partners and allies to build resilience against the Kremlin’s 

malign influence. These efforts are focused on: deterring Russian aggression and 

helping our partners secure their borders and prevent cyber-attacks; recognizing, exposing, and countering Russian disinformation and propaganda; enhancing European energy security and opening markets to Western trade and investment to reduce dependence on Russian markets; promoting good governance, strengthening 

rule of law and combatting corruption, which opens doors to malign activity; and 

building capacity of civil society and independent media to counter Russian malign 

influence. If confirmed, I would continue these efforts. 

Section 3—Question 3. Four years after Russia’s illegal invasion and occupation 

of Ukrainian territory, we have seen an uptick in violence and humanitarian crises 

in Ukraine caused by the conflict waged by Russian forces, and continue to hear reports of human rights abuses and repression of dissent in Crimea. Since 2014, internally displaced people in Ukraine have faced considerable humanitarian challenges, 

including access to housing. How will you work to address this need of the IDP community? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with allies and partners to push 

Russia to end its aggression in Ukraine, which is the cause of the dire humanitarian 

situation there. I will urge the Ukrainian government to do more to provide for its 

over four million conflict-affected citizens. I will also support the State Department’s 

Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration’s (PRM’s) efforts to provide life-sustaining assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless persons, as 

well as vulnerable migrants in Ukraine through its partnerships with the United 

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red 

Cross, and non-governmental organizations. 

Section 3—Question 4. Do you personally commit to engage directly with the 

Ukraine’s leadership on corruption in the country? What steps will you take to make 

clear to the Ukrainian government that this is a priority for the Trump Administration? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage directly with Ukraine’s leadership on corruption. For example, Ukraine must adhere to its IMF reform program, especially its 

anti-corruption and energy sector reform requirements. Most critically, Ukraine 

must establish an anti-corruption court in line with Venice Commission recommendations. Ukraine also needs to raise gas tariffs to import parity levels, eliminating a source of corruption and moving Ukraine closer to a market-driven energy 

sector.Questions for the Record Submitted to Secretary of State Nominee Michael 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

134 

Pompeo by Senator Robert Menendez (Tranche 3 #5) Senate Committee on Foreign 

Relations April 12, 2018 

Section 3—Question 5. Would you support the provision of additional lethal assistance to Ukraine beyond what has been provided in sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the specific military needs of Ukraine’s 

forces in collaboration with the government of Ukraine and our partners. 

Section 3—Question 6. Do you support an international peacekeeping mission in 

eastern Ukraine and, if so, under what circumstances? 

Answer. A robust UN-mandated peacekeeping operation in eastern Ukraine could 

catalyze implementation of the Minsk agreements, which would end the conflict and 

facilitate the restoration of Ukrainian control over its eastern territories. Any UN 

force would be a temporary and transitional force with a mandate to ensure security 

throughout the entire conflict zone, oversee the withdrawal and cantonment of 

heavy weapons, and exercise control over Ukraine’s side of the international border 

with Russia. The United States, France, Germany, and Ukraine have agreed on the 

basic parameters of a mission, while several European countries have publicly 

pledged to contribute to such a mission under the right conditions. Unfortunately, 

Russia has so far only agreed to a force limited to the line of contact that would 

only serve to freeze the conflict at great expense to us and our allies. 

Section 3—Question 7. Please describe your diplomatic strategy for how you will 

counter the Nordstream II and Turkstream energy pipelines in Europe. 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to implement the Administration’s diplomatic outreach to the EU and its member states to convey the Administration’s 

strong opposition to the proposed Nord Stream II pipeline. The Administration has 

encouraged EU member states to employ national legal measures to oppose Nord 

Stream II and to ensure that Nord Stream II complies with EU laws and regulations. The Administration also opposes a multiline TurkStream. 

Section 3—Question 8. Prime Minister Orban has stated that democracy is in decline and that his goal is to emulate ‘‘illiberal’’ states such as Turkey, China, and 

Russia. He has openly cultivated relations with these states, in particular with 

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin. Since the April 8 elections, the Hungarian government has said its first order of business would be to implement the ‘‘Stop Soros’’ 

legislation which it has envisioned to keep Hungarian organizations from ‘‘interfering’’ in elections. This has been widely seen as a signal of an impending crackdown on civil society, on top of prior steps by the government to reduce space for 

independent NGOs and dismantle the independence of the Constitutional Court and 

other democratic checks and balances. Separately, on March 15, Prime Minister 

Orban promised ‘‘revenge’’ against his enemies, and his government has continued 

to foster anti-migrant and xenophobic sentiments. Do you believe that Hungary is 

currently living up to its commitments to democracy, rule of law, and human rights 

under Article 2 of the NATO Charter? 

Answer. The United States works closely with Hungary as a NATO Ally and EU 

member state. As the President and Vice President have made clear, strong partnerships require that Allies meet their commitments to uphold the values enshrined 

in the Washington Treaty. I understand that the State Department has engaged 

with the Hungarian government both privately and publicly on independent media, 

civil society, and democratic governance issues and, if confirmed, I will continue to 

work with Hungary to promote our shared transatlantic principles, as well as to foster bilateral cooperation that advances U.S. interests. 

Section 3—Question 9. Will you support State Department assistance projects to 

build capacity of local and independent media in Hungary, as well as to defend 

space for human rights and democracy-oriented NGOs? 

Answer. Hungary is a NATO Ally and valued partner with whom the U.S. government continues to strengthen the bilateral relationship and develop joint strategic 

interests. I understand that the State Department has previously engaged, privately 

and publicly, in defense of civil society, independent media, NGOs, and Central European University. If confirmed, I will continue to identify the right opportunities 

to support independent media and NGOs as well as to combat corruption, Russian 

pressure, disinformation, and malign influence in Hungary. 

Section 3—Question 10. How will you promote tolerance and non-discrimination 

in Hungary, including the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and migrants and 

countering xenophobic and racist narratives? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

135 

Answer. The U.S. government, through its embassy in Hungary, seeks to build relationships across the full range of Hungarian society. Engagement with Hungarian 

religious groups, civil society, media, and academic communities are important tools 

to strengthen ties and reinforce principles. If confirmed, I will engage with Hungary 

as an ally, encourage my Hungarian counterparts to uphold our shared values, and 

support tolerance and respect for all. 

Section 3—Question 11. How will you work to combat xenophobia and antisemitism in Poland? Will you urge the Polish government to repeal the Holocaust 

Law in its entirety? 

Answer. I understand the Department of State has expressed concerns to the Polish government throughout the course of debate on the law in question. If confirmed, I will promote education, open dialogue, and discussion as the best ways to 

address mischaracterization of Holocaust-era crimes. The United States also welcomes recent statements by Polish leaders condemning anti-Semitism, and, if confirmed, I would encourage continued dialogue and engagement to foster understanding of this tragic era. 

Section 3—Question 12. Do you believe that Poland is currently living up to its 

commitments to democracy, rule of law, and human rights under Article 2 of the 

NATO Charter? 

Answer. The United States works closely with Poland as a NATO Ally and EU 

member state. The United States relies on our Allies to be strong partners. As the 

President and Vice President have made clear, this strength entails meeting their 

commitments to uphold the values enshrined in the Washington Treaty and spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, which Poland does. If confirmed, I will 

continue to work with Poland to promote our shared transatlantic principles, including democracy, rule of law, human rights, and a market economy, as well as to foster bilateral cooperation that advances U.S. interests. 

Section 3—Question 13. In early April, at a White House meeting with President 

Trump and leaders of the Baltic States, the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania urged the United States to bolster defenses in the region against Russian 

military aggression and other forms of Kremlin hybrid warfare. NATO has established Centers of Excellence in the Baltics focused on various aspects of Russian hybrid warfare, and the Baltic governments have developed extensive non-military capacities to counter Russian government disinformation and cyber threats. How will 

you bolster cooperation with the Baltic States in their efforts to counter Kremlin aggression? 

Answer. The Administration announced after the April 3 Baltic Summit that the 

United States will continue to improve defense and security in the Baltics through 

security assistance programs. These programs include Foreign Military Financing 

and International Military Education and Training, as well as participation in the 

NATO Centers of Excellence and the European Center of Excellence for Countering 

Hybrid Threats in Finland. The United States will also work to improve resilience 

in the Baltic energy sector and to build public and institutional resiliency against 

disinformation by strengthening independent media outlets, public service broadcasters, and media literacy skills in the region. If confirmed, I will continue these 

efforts. 

Section 3—Question 14. What role do you see for the U.S. and NATO in this regard, including to promote information-sharing on best practices to counter cyber 

threats and disinformation? 

Answer. As cyber threats and attacks become more common, sophisticated, and 

damaging, the Alliance has made cyber defense a part of its approach to security. 

Allies recognized this in the Cyber Defense Pledge adopted at the NATO 2016 Summit, in which they agreed to work together to better protect their networks and 

thereby contribute to the success of Allied operations. 

Allies are working together daily, and with the EU, to counter disinformation and 

other hybrid threats. Allies regularly exchange information on national experiences 

at all levels. The 2016 Cyber Defense Pledge prioritizes strengthening and enhancing cyber defense of national networks and infrastructures. If confirmed, I will support efforts through NATO and its Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence 

in Estonia to enhance information-sharing and assistance in preventing, mitigating 

and recovering from cyber-attacks. 

Section 3—Question 15. Amidst resurgent ethnic and political tensions, two decades after the Dayton Accords the Western Balkans seem to be again teetering on 

the brink of crisis. Vulnerabilities like these make the region a prime target for RusFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

136 

sian government interference, as seen in the Kremlin’s efforts across the region to 

foster disinformation, exploit ethnic divides, and influence political actors through 

corruption. Do you support an increase in U.S. programmatic and diplomatic engagement in the Western Balkans region to stave off a return to conflict or further 

manipulation or interference in these countries by the Kremlin? What would be the 

priorities of your strategy for the Western Balkans? How would you work with the 

European Union to these ends, given the Western Balkan states’ candidacies for EU 

accession? 

Answer. The Administration’s multi-faceted approach pushes back against Russian malign influence and addresses Western Balkan vulnerabilities, including corruption, weak rule of law, over-dependence on Russian energy, and growing Russian 

media investments. I understand the State Department is countering Russian propaganda by amplifying U.S. messages and correcting false statements as well as supporting independent media and investigative journalism. The Administration is neutralizing corruption—the currency of Russian influence—by increasing transparency 

and accountability in government and business and encouraging civil society and 

independent media to lead the charge for reforms and root out corrupt actors. To 

bolster energy security, the administration is promoting diversity of energy sources 

and routes. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with our European Allies and partners in all these areas. Ultimately, U.S. support and credible prospects of EU accession promote long-term stability and good governance in this region. 

Section 3—Question 16. What will you do to help find a solution in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina to promote an agreement among the country’s three ethnic blocs on 

electoral reform ahead of the October elections? How will you work to reduce Kremlin influence in the Republika Srpska (RS) and the risk of breakaway from Bosnia 

and Herzegovina? What governance gaps do you see in the framework established 

by the Dayton Accords and how will you address these? How do you assess the risk 

of violent extremism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and how will you address it? 

Answer. The Dayton Accords brought stability and peace to Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, while also setting into place a complicated governance structure. The 

Administration is engaging political parties to encourage them to enact critical electoral reforms to bring the system in line with rulings by the Bosnian Constitutional 

Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Some of these reforms relate to 

Annex IV of the Dayton Accords, which serves as the constitution. Russia cultivates 

close relationships with some Republika Srpska leaders who use ethno-nationalism 

to attempt to thwart reform. The Administration supports rule of law, legal reform, 

and anti-corruption efforts to build resilience to Russian malign influence and 

strengthen democratic institutions. If confirmed, I will continue to push back on 

Russian efforts to destabilize the region. Bosnia and Herzegovina is taking the issue 

of violent extremism seriously and is a strong partner in counterterrorism efforts 

and member of the Defeat-ISIS Coalition. If confirmed, I will continue the Department of State’s work with Bosnian religious leaders of all faiths to promote common 

values that counter violent extremist messaging. 

Section 3—Question 17. How will you work to promote democratic accountability, 

independent media and civil society in Serbia, and to counter Russian government 

disinformation that seeks to undercut Serbia’s EU accession process? How will you 

work to ensure the perpetrators of wartime atrocities are held to account in Serbia? 

Answer. A democratic, prosperous Serbia that takes a positive role in the region 

is fundamentally important to the stability of the Western Balkans. If confirmed, 

I will prioritize an approach that will help to integrate Serbia into the rest of Europe and help the country progress towards its stated goal of European Union membership. To accomplish this, Serbia must also improve its democratic accountability, 

increase media freedom, enhance its respect for and protection of civil society, and 

harmonize its foreign policy with that of the European Union. This will cement Serbia and the region on a path towards development and stability—in line with the 

national security interests of the United States. Serbia’s future lies with Europe and 

the West, and our goal should be to help it get there. If confirmed, I will ensure 

the State Department continues to raise Serbia’s obligations to resolve remaining 

cases related to the war in the Balkans, in cooperation with neighboring countries 

and the UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. 

Section 3—Question 18. How will you work to address corruption, criminality, and 

ethnic tensions in Kosovo and to ensure the perpetrators of wartime atrocities are 

held to account, regardless of their ethnicity? Taking into account rising political 

tensions between Serbia, Kosovo Serbs, and Kosovo, would you support the reinforcement of KFOR until after the successful conclusion of EU-led negotiations on 

a comprehensive agreement between Belgrade and Pristina? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

137 

Answer. A sovereign, independent, democratic Kosovo that is fully integrated into 

the international community is key to stability in the Balkans. If confirmed, I will 

encourage Kosovo’s leaders to strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption. 

This includes maintaining support for the ongoing work of the Kosovo Specialist 

Chambers to investigate and prosecute individuals alleged to have committed serious crimes in Kosovo from 1998-2000. 

It is vital that Kosovo and Serbia fully normalize relations in order to contribute 

to regional stability and prosperity and to unlock their Western-oriented futures. 

The Administration has advocated for accelerating EU-facilitated negotiations between the parties, and remains prepared to help to achieve a comprehensive agreement. U.S. troops, along with 27 other contributing nations in NATO’s Kosovo Force 

(KFOR), ensure stability and security, and freedom of movement for all Kosovo citizens. I fully support KFOR’s mission, which is essential to enabling Belgrade and 

Pristina to make progress in political negotiations. 

Section 3—Question 19. What will you do to bolster Montenegro’s role in NATO 

and boost its resilience to Kremlin aggression as seen in the November 2016 coup 

attempt? 

Answer. The long-standing U.S. partnership with Montenegro solidified when 

NATO welcomed Montenegro as its 29th Ally last June. The Administration applauds Montenegro for its commitment to regional and NATO collective security and 

welcomes its concrete plan to fulfill the NATO Wales pledge on defense spending 

by 2024. To boost resilience to the Kremlin’s aggression and malign influence, the 

Administration has implemented a multi-faceted approach to address Western Balkan vulnerabilities, including corruption and weak rule of law, over-dependence on 

Russian energy, and increasing Russian media investments in the region. The State 

Department is countering Russian propaganda by amplifying U.S. messages, correcting false statements, and supporting local, independent media and investigative 

journalism. If confirmed, I intend to continue working closely with Montenegro and 

our other European Allies and partners to reduce vulnerabilities and neutralize corruption—the currency of Russian influence—by increasing transparency and accountability in government and business, and encouraging civil society and independent media to lead the charge for reforms and root out corrupt actors. 

Section 3—Question 20. What will you do to address corruption and malign Russian government influence in Bulgaria? 

Answer. The United States takes the security and stability of our Allies seriously. 

A strong rule of law and rooting out corruption are keys to Bulgaria’s development 

and to a robust partnership. If confirmed, I would support continued State Department engagement with Bulgaria and initiatives to combat corruption. 

The United States is cognizant of the foreign actors—most notably Russia—who 

are attempting to influence our allies in Central Europe, including Bulgaria. The 

threat is real and far-reaching and combatting it requires a comprehensive effort. 

If confirmed, I am committed to continue Administration efforts to combat Russian 

malign influence around the world. 

Section 3—Question 21. What will you do to address corruption and malign Russian government influence in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? 

Answer. The Administration takes the security and stability of our partners, including Macedonia, seriously. A strong rule of law and rooting out corruption are 

keys to Macedonia’s development and a strengthened bilateral relationship. Addressing these issues will also help Macedonia meet the requirements for Euro-Atlantic integration—a U.S. goal. If confirmed, I will continue to support State Department initiatives to combat corruption in Macedonia. 

The United States is cognizant of the foreign actors in the Balkans, most notably 

Russia, whose activities are aimed at undermining stability and complicating the 

path forward towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration. The State Department has developed a multi-faceted approach to push back against Russian malign 

influence and address Macedonia’s vulnerabilities, including corruption and weak 

rule of law. It is working with partners to neutralize corruption, increase transparency and accountability in governments and business environments, and encourage civil society and independent media to lead the charge for reforms and root out 

corrupt actors. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with our European Allies and 

partners in all these areas. 

Section 3—Question 22. Given the hybrid threats the United States and its allies 

face from state and non-state actors, strengthening relationships with our NATO 

partners is more important than ever. A NATO summit is scheduled for July 11- 

12 in Brussels. What are your priorities for this Summit? Will you recognize—and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

138 

articulate to the White House—the non-monetary contributions that NATO allies 

make to advance U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s three key 

priorities for the July NATO Summit in Brussels: increasing defense spending and 

burden sharing; strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defense; and countering terrorism. I deeply appreciate those Allies who make significant contributions in capabilities and personnel to Alliance missions and operations. 

Section 3—Question 23. How do you view NATO’s role in countering Kremlin aggression? What is your position on maintaining NATO equipment and troops permanently in the Baltics and Central and Eastern Europe? 

Answer. NATO is fundamental to countering Russian aggression. I firmly believe 

that the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is ironclad and, 

if confirmed, I will reaffirm that commitment to our NATO Allies. I fully support 

the ongoing rotational enhanced Forward Presence and tailored Forward Presence 

units in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. If confirmed, I commit 

to working with the Department of Defense and our NATO Allies to ensure a robust 

NATO deterrence and defense posture on NATO’s Eastern Flank. 

Section 3—Question 24. Do you commit to full State Department participation in 

the NATO Centers of Excellence on energy, cyber security and strategic communication? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the United States supports the important 

work of NATO Centers of Excellence (COEs), including the NATO Cooperative 

Cyber Defense COE in Estonia, the NATO Energy Security COE in Lithuania, and 

the NATO Strategic Communications COE in Latvia. If confirmed, I would continue 

to support these COEs to the fullest extent possible. 

Section 3—Question 25. The breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia 

remain essentially under Kremlin control, nearly ten years after Russia invaded 

Georgia. Meanwhile, progress on democratic reforms in Georgia has been uneven 

and threatened by rollbacks of independent media and increased pressure on political opposition in recent years. What will you do to support Georgia’s sovereignty 

and territorial integrity and to press for continued democratic reforms? What assistance activities do you see as vital to this, and will you seek assistance budgets on 

par with prior years to support such activities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will use all available tools to support Georgia’s democratic 

and economic development, as well as its sovereignty and territorial integrity within 

its internationally recognized borders. I would ensure U.S. assistance to Georgia 

builds further resilience to Russian aggression and propaganda and promotes effective, democratic governance and economic prosperity. This requires focus on rule of 

law, an independent judiciary, and a level playing field for U.S. investors. It also 

requires a free media and a strong civil society. Georgia is an important partner 

to the United States on a number of issues of strategic importance including supporting operations in Afghanistan, countering nuclear proliferation, and serving as 

a corridor to support European energy security. All of these steps will strengthen 

Georgia and enhance our bilateral partnership. 

Section 3—Question 26. Do you believe that the millions of Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, Aramean, and other Christian victims killed at the hands 

of the Ottoman Empire in its final years were victims of genocide? If not, why? 

Would you support a U.S. Senate resolution that recognizes the Armenian genocide? 

Answer. The U.S. government acknowledges and honors the memory of the one 

and a half million Armenians who were massacred, deported, or marched to their 

deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The horrific loss of life of Armenians and other victims during the final years of the Ottoman Empire resulted in 

one of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century, and this remains a great source 

of pain for all of us who value human rights. I expect that, as he did last year, 

President Trump will issue a statement on Remembrance Day on April 24 honoring 

the victims and outlining his views on the topic. As with any Congressional action 

with foreign policy implications, I would welcome the opportunity for the State Department to review any proposed resolution before presenting my view to the Senate. 

Section 3—Question 27. Despite periodic releases of political prisoners, the Azerbaijani government continues its protracted crackdown on dissent, political opposition, and independent media and civil society largely unabated. Would you characterize Azerbaijan as an authoritarian state? What will be your approach to defending human rights activists, independent journalists, civil society and political opposiFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

139 

tion in the country? How will you seek to hold the Azerbaijani government to account for alleged corruption and human rights abuses? 

Answer. The United States has urged the government of Azerbaijan to release all 

those incarcerated for exercising their fundamental freedoms. I understand the 

State Department is committed to protecting and promoting human rights and combating corruption. If confirmed, I will continue to urge tangible and significant consequences for those who commit serious human rights abuses and engage in corruption. 

Section 3—Question 28. Do you support maintaining the Section 907 restriction 

on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan? 

Answer. U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan promotes U.S. national security interests, 

which is why the President has waived Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act 

every year since 2002. The most recent waiver was signed on April 3, 2018. However, as a matter of policy and in the absence of a change in the situation, I would 

not approve any security assistance or sales that could undermine efforts to find a 

peaceful settlement of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The United 

States remains actively engaged as one of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs to help the 

parties find a way forward. 

Section 3—Question 29. What do you see as the right approach to solving this conflict and how do you plan to engage the various parties in this regard? 

Answer. As a Co-Chair of the Minsk Group, the United States has played an active role in mediating a comprehensive settlement of this longstanding conflict, the 

resolution of which would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the people 

of the South Caucasus. U.S. policy remains clear: the only solution to the conflict 

is a negotiated settlement based on international law that includes adherence to the 

principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity, and self-determination. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of State continues to support the efforts of the 

Minsk Group to help the sides find a lasting solution to this conflict, and to implement increased monitoring activities along the Line of Contact and the ArmeniaAzerbaijan international border. 

Section 3—Question 30. How will you press Azerbaijan to implement the RoyceEngel proposals, an OSCE-backed package of investigative mechanisms and propeace initiatives that call for, among other measures, the deployment of gunfire sensor systems along the line of contact? 

Answer. The United States plays an important role in mediating a comprehensive 

settlement of this longstanding conflict as one of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. A resolution of the conflict would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the people of the South Caucasus. If confirmed, I would support proposals to withdraw 

snipers, launch an OSCE investigation mechanism, and deploy sensors along the 

Line of Contact and the Armenia-Azerbaijan international border. The Administration has been a strong advocate in the Minsk Group process for these confidencebuilding measures, which we believe would reduce violence in areas affected by the 

conflict. 

Section 3—Question 31. Cyprus has worked to explore energy reserves in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). However, in 2018, Turkey threatened the security of 

the EEZ as its warships harassed an Eni vessel. The U.S. has stated its support 

for Cyprus’s sovereign right to explore and exploit energy resources within its exclusive economic zone. If confirmed, would you support the Republic of Cyprus’s sovereign right to explore for hydrocarbon reserves and other natural resources in its 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ)? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support longstanding U.S. policy recognizing the Republic of Cyprus’s right to develop its resources in its EEZ. The island’s oil and gas resources, like all of its resources, should be equitably shared between both communities in the context of an overall settlement. I will discourage 

actions or rhetoric that increase tensions. 

Section 3—Question 32. Do you commit to engage in a strategic dialogue with Cyprus to consider a range of bilateral issues to include the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, security ties and the peace process? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the high-level U.S. engagement 

with the Republic of Cyprus on the settlement process and on the wide range of 

other issues of common concern to both countries. 

Section 3—Question 33. Do you support a reunified Cyprus with a single sovereignty, single international personality and single citizenship; and with its indeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

140 

pendence and territorial integrity safeguarded as described in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will actively support UN-facilitated, leader-led negotiations to reunify the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation as the best means 

to achieve a just and lasting settlement. 

Section 3—Question 34. What is your view on the removal of 40,000 illegal occupying Turkish troops from the Republic of Cyprus? 

Answer. The presence of Turkish troops, as well as the pace and scope of Turkish 

troop withdrawal, has been one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations. The 

issue will have to be resolved through negotiations and as a part of a final agreement that reunifies Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. If confirmed, I will 

actively support efforts toward such an agreement. 

Section 3—Question 35. What is your view on the Turkish citizens who have relocated and settled on the island of Cyprus in increasingly large numbers since Turkey’s military occupation, and what impact do you see from these settlers on prospects for a peace settlement and ensuring the political and cultural rights of the island’s longstanding communities? 

Answer. The issue of Turkish citizens who settled in Cyprus Post-1974 has been 

a sensitive matter. It underscores the need for the communities to find a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. If confirmed, I will actively support efforts toward such a settlement. 

Section 3—Question 36. The government of Sri Lanka has failed to meet the targets of the previous UN Human Rights Council resolutions that oblige the government to advance transitional justice and human rights, including accountability for 

the mass killings, human rights abuses, torture and sexual violence committed by 

government forces during the country’s civil war. The Sri Lankan government has 

made inadequate progress accounting for missing persons, addressing the cases of 

those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and implementing accountability mechanisms and broader governance reforms that promote justice and reconciliation. Meanwhile, reports of security force abuses in the former conflict zones 

continue, and anti-Muslim riots in March supported by some political forces allied 

with the former government in the Kandy district suggest that the risk of ethnic 

or sectarian violence remains acute. What will you do to spearhead a U.S. diplomatic policy, including multilateral efforts, to advance implementation of Sri 

Lanka’s promises on justice, accountability, and reform? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support efforts to press Sri Lanka, both bilaterally 

and with like-minded international partners, including through the UN Human 

Rights Council, to abide fully by its commitments to reconciliation, justice, and accountability. To prevent the recurrence of conflict in Sri Lanka and promote a reconciled, stable, and prosperous future, it is essential that its government act on 

these commitments. 

Section 3—Question 37. How will you emphasize ending sectarian violence and ensuring religious freedom and respect for the rights of the island’s diverse communities, including Muslims and Christians? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will defend and promote respect for the right of all people 

to worship as they choose. If confirmed, I also will call on governmental leaders to 

condemn religious violence swiftly and unequivocally and hold perpetrators accountable. In Sri Lanka, as everywhere, I will press for religious freedom as an Administration priority. 

Section 3—Question 38. Do you support another UN Human Rights Council Resolution on justice and accountability in Sri Lanka? What is your view on elements 

it could include, including the possibility of establishing an international justice 

mechanism, that could help spur progress by the government in this area? 

Answer. The most recent UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka 

asked the High Commissioner to monitor Sri Lanka’s progress on the justice and 

accountability commitments it made in cosponsoring 2015 UNHRC Resolution 30/ 

1 and to issue a written report on this progress in 2019. If confirmed, I will continue 

to support efforts to press Sri Lanka to follow through with these commitments, including by establishing justice and accountability processes to address the past. Further steps, such as a new UNHRC resolution, would need to take into account the 

progress Sri Lanka makes between now and 2019. 

Section 3—Question 39. Based on previously passed legislation in Congressional 

appropriations bills, U.S. security assistance has generally been restricted from supFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

141 

porting the training or equipping of the Sri Lankan military given its past record 

of atrocities and continued impunity for such crimes. What are your views on the 

military-military relationship the U.S. should pursue with Sri Lanka and do you 

support such restrictions on U.S. assistance to the Sri Lankan military? 

Answer. I understand that military-to-military relations between the United 

States and Sri Lanka have undergone measured and incremental growth since the 

election of a reform government in 2015, but remain limited in overall scope and 

focus. I believe that continued growth of these relations and interactions with discrete, carefully vetted units and individuals is in the U.S. interest given Sri Lanka’s 

strategic location and potential to contribute to regional stability. I support the application of the Leahy law to any country’s military found to have committed gross 

violations of human rights. If confirmed, I will examine how the Department can 

best support our growing military-to-military relations with Sri Lanka. 

Section 3—Question 40. Senior Trump Administration officials have asserted that 

the goal of the Administration’s South Asia strategy is to renew talks that reach 

a negotiated political settlement in Afghanistan. But, the U.S. remains a party to 

this protracted conflict and has little progress to show on the diplomatic front. There 

is skepticism among many countries in the region about how serious the U.S. is 

about a peace process, and the President’s repeated comments rejecting outright any 

talks with the Taliban and pledging to ‘‘start what we finished’’ on the battlefield 

suggest the lack of a White House commitment to its own diplomatic strategy. Do 

you believe that the situation in Afghanistan requires a more assertive diplomatic 

strategy? 

Answer. The Afghan government has taken bold steps in developing a peace strategy and it has announced a clear and specific offer to the Taliban to engage in peace 

talks. The Trump Administration fully supports the Afghan government’s outreach 

to the Taliban and its efforts to negotiate a political settlement. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with President Ghani to determine how our diplomatic strategy 

can best create the conditions necessary for the Taliban to accept this offer and start 

a political process that can lead to lasting peace. 

Section 3—Question 41. What do you see as necessary components in a diplomatic 

strategy to pursue a negotiated political settlement in Afghanistan, and will you 

spearhead these efforts? 

Answer. The United States can support and facilitate future peace negotiations 

between the Taliban and the Afghan government. As of April 12, 2018, however, the 

Taliban have not responded to the Afghan government’s peace offer, and the Taliban 

campaign of violence continues. The Taliban must come to understand that they can 

only advance their objectives at the negotiating table, and not on the battlefield. If 

confirmed, I will continue to work with Afghan, regional, and international partners 

to exert military, diplomatic, and religious pressure on the Taliban to join a peace 

process that ends the war in Afghanistan with a sustainable political settlement 

that protects U.S. interests. 

Section 3—Question 42. What will you do to incentivize the Afghan government 

to take steps to ensure credible, inclusive elections processes and hold corruption 

and human rights abuses by Afghan government officials and security forces to account? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the Department of State’s engagement with the 

Government of Afghanistan and emphasize the importance of governance reforms, 

anti-corruption efforts, the protection of human rights, and credible, transparent 

elections. I will also reinforce the Department of State’s efforts to cooperate closely 

with the Afghan government on the Afghanistan Compact, an Afghan-led initiative 

that tracks the implementation of reforms related to security, governance, economic 

development, and peace and reconciliation. I will press top government leaders to 

investigate and prosecute high-level corruption cases, regardless of the political status or military rank of the accused. I will also ensure the Department of State continues to support and encourage the Afghan government to prepare for timely, credible, and inclusive elections. 

Section 3—Question 43. How will you work to ensure transparency and accountability in the delivery of State Department foreign assistance to Afghanistan, and 

to incentivize the delivery of additional aid based on reform benchmarks the Afghan 

government has committed to meet? 

Answer. It is my understanding that all U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, including 

assistance through multi-lateral mechanisms, is subject to multiple tiers of monitoring and oversight, incorporating reporting from implementing partners, recipient 

feedback, third-party monitoring, direct observation by U.S. officials where possible, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

142 

and monitoring through the use of technology where appropriate. If confirmed, I 

look forward to learning more about these mechanisms and how the Department 

can continue to ensure aid is delivered to Afghanistan in a transparent and accountable manner. I also understand that a large share of U.S. assistance is already provided through incentive mechanisms, including the U.S.-Afghan New Development 

Partnership (NDP). If confirmed, I intend to explore how the Department can continue use incentive mechanisms to promote reform with the Afghan government. 

Section 3—Question 44. Do you believe it is in the United States’ interest to pursue robust diplomatic and development efforts in Afghanistan? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 3—Question 45. The Trump Administration suspended security aid to 

Pakistan earlier this year in light of Pakistan’s continued role as a safe haven for 

terror organizations such as the Taliban and the Haqqani Network. But, the Administration’s end-game here is unclear, risking a precipitous downturn in relations 

with no strategy to manage fallout or ensure that a punitive approach is achieving 

our national security objectives. Meanwhile, there have been increasing attacks on 

religious minorities in Pakistan, particularly against Christians. If confirmed, what 

specifically will you do to initiate change in behavior by the Pakistani government 

in its support for terrorist groups? 

Answer. The President’s South Asia strategy recognizes that the United States 

cannot continue with business as usual in our relationship with Pakistan as long 

as Pakistan does not address U.S. concerns about its policies, including its failure 

to address terrorist sanctuaries and fundraising. If confirmed, I will work to ensure 

the Administration uses the full range of tools at its disposal to encourage Pakistan 

to take action against all violent militant and terrorist groups operating on its soil. 

Discussions about which specific tools to use and when to use them are ongoing with 

the Administration. If confirmed, I will also continue the Department’s robust engagement with the Government of Pakistan, as well as civil society, to defend the 

rights of religious minorities. 

Section 3—Question 46. If the aid suspension does not motivate Pakistan to deny 

safe haven to the Taliban and associated groups, please describe your next steps? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Administration uses the full 

range of tools at its disposal to encourage Pakistan to take action against all militant and terrorist groups operating on its soil. I understand discussions about which 

specific tools to use and when to use them are ongoing within the Department and 

the interagency, and I look forward to examining how the Department can best support the Administration’s strategy. The Administration has made clear both publicly 

and directly to the highest levels of Pakistan’s government that the Taliban, the 

Haqqani Network, and other militant and terrorist groups must not be allowed to 

use Pakistani soil to plan or launch attacks against neighboring countries, or to 

raise funds. 

Section 3—Question 47. As Secretary of State, how will you work to promote 

human rights and religious freedom for minorities in Pakistan, and Pakistani citizens more broadly? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to improve the status of human rights and religious freedom in Pakistan by ensuring continued robust engagement on these topics 

with the Pakistani government, as well as civil society groups. I will also support 

programs that work with civil society and other stakeholders to protect minority 

rights, reduce violence against members of religious minorities, combat violent extremism, and promote tolerance. 

(Section 4—Questions 1–48) 

Section 4—Question 1. After the collapse of a garment factory that killed more 

than 1,100 people in 2013, the Bangladesh government made promises to amend its 

labor laws and address low wages and unsafe working conditions that undergird the 

ready-made garment industry and other key sectors, but progress on this front has 

stalled. Meanwhile, there is a perception that the help the international community 

is seeking from the Bangladesh government to manage the Rohingya refugee crisis 

is draining attention away from challenging the Bangladeshi government to uphold 

its own domestic human rights obligations—not just to workers, but to ensure accountability for security force abuses and space for political opposition and dissent. 

Will you continue to direct foreign assistance to support independent labor unions 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

143 

and encourage the government of Bangladesh to enforce labor rights and worker 

safety protocols? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S. government provides programming 

and advocacy for independent labor unions and encourages further improvements to 

occupational safety and health. If confirmed, I commit to helping Bangladesh protect 

workers’ rights and safety. 

Section 4—Question 2. Will you work to hold the Rapid Action Battalion and other 

security force units in Bangladesh accountable for human rights violations, including in the context of counterterrorism operations? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will stress to the government of Bangladesh that its response and investigation of any crime, including during counterterrorism operations, 

must respect international human rights standards. I understand that the Department of State closely monitors reports of human rights violations and abuses, and 

reflects these concerns in the annual Human Rights Report. If confirmed, I would 

continue to use this annual report to press for improvements in human rights in 

Bangladesh. 

Section 4—Question 3. What steps will you take to defend democratic processes 

and space for political opposition, civil society, and dissent in Bangladesh? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to call on the Government of Bangladesh 

to fulfill its commitment to hold genuinely free and fair elections that reflect the 

will of the citizens of Bangladesh. I would support U.S. government efforts to continue to use programming and advocacy to push for space for political competition 

and civil society and the ability for citizens to exercise their freedoms of expression 

and association in Bangladesh. 

Section 4—Question 4. Will you commit to addressing the unfilled positions at 

Embassy Dhaka, including several in the diplomatic security section, and consider 

incentives—including danger pay, linked assignments, and EFM hiring—that can 

help address these staffing challenges? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will request recommendations to staff positions at our 

challenging posts, including Embassy Dhaka. 

Section 4—Question 5. Will you ensure that a permanent refugee coordinator position is filled in Dhaka, given the staggering scope of the Rohingya refugee crisis? 

What will be your approach more broadly to working with the Bangladeshi government on the refugee crisis and other competing challenges or interests? 

Answer. I understand the Department is maintaining a temporary deployment to 

Dhaka of staff experienced in refugee responses while longer-term options are being 

considered. If confirmed, I will work to ensure adequate coverage of this pressing 

issue. 

Section 4—Question 6. Three years after a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck 

Kathmandu killing approximately 9,000 people, injuring thousands more, and destroying more than 600,000 structures in the area, the recovery process has been 

halting and poses continued challenges to Nepal’s fragile democratic government. 

What will you do to ensure the completion of the earthquake recovery process and 

to support continued democratic institution-building in the country? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to support U.S. efforts to help Nepal recover from 

the devastating earthquakes. I understand U.S. assistance has accelerated reconstruction, including distributing more than $827 million in housing grants for seismic-resistant homes, training thousands in seismic resistant construction, and helping homeowners build 13,800 soundly-constructed homes. 

Section 4—Question 7. Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 on 

a range of reform pledges concerning labor rights, women’s rights, and corruption, 

but progress has been uneven. Impunity for violence against women and religious 

vigilante violence continues, with some Hindu extremist groups feeling emboldened 

under Modi’s government. Meanwhile, President Trump’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy emphasizes India as an economic partner, but a host of barriers to 

trade and economic cooperation between our two countries exist (including those 

generated by President Trump himself). If confirmed, how will you work to address 

human rights concerns and extremist violence in India? 

Answer. India has a longstanding tradition of pluralism, rule of law, and protection of minority rights. If confirmed, I will encourage the government of India to 

uphold its domestic and international human rights obligations and commitments, 

in keeping with India’s democratic values, pluralistic society, and history of tolerFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

144 

ance. If confirmed, I will also ensure that our embassy and consulates in India fulfill 

all responsibilities to monitor and report on human rights issues. 

Section 4—Question 8. What will be your approach to promoting economic and 

trade ties to India, and how specifically will you address barriers to this? 

Answer. I understand that U.S.-India bilateral trade has more than doubled in 

the past decade, from $45 billion in 2006 to $125.6 billion in 2017. If confirmed, I 

will build on that momentum to promote fair and reciprocal trade and balance our 

trade deficit with India, which I understand totaled nearly $30 billion last year. If 

confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Trade Representative, the Commerce Department, and others to level the economic playing field in India to allow for greater 

trade and investment in support of U.S. jobs, including by supporting recent growth 

in aviation, energy, and defense sales by U.S. companies. 

Section 4—Question 9. What prospects do you see to engage India more constructively in supporting economic development and stabilization in Afghanistan, per the 

Administration’s South Asia strategy, and how will you manage the heightened tensions this will generate between India and Pakistan? 

Answer. The Administration considers India a vital partner in Afghanistan. Both 

of our countries remain committed to continuing close consultations and cooperation 

in support of a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, including through our trilateral dialogue with Afghanistan, most recently held in February 2018. India’s financial contributions, totaling more than $3 billion in economic and development assistance since 2001, demonstrate its deep stake in ensuring Afghanistan’s stability. 

The normalization of relations between Pakistan and India is vital to both countries, and the region. If confirmed, I will encourage India and Pakistan to engage 

in bilateral dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. 

Section 4—Question 10. Despite recent promising signs of openness in Uzbekistan, 

the Central Asia region remains one of the world’s most closed and repressive, and 

human rights issues have often taken a back seat in U.S. foreign policy as policymakers have pursued other security interests (though human rights are integral to 

long-term stability of the region). Meanwhile, U.S. efforts to promote regional economic integration among Central Asian states have had limited results, while China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative poses a risk of increased Chinese influence in 

the Central Asia region. What do you see as the United States’ interests in Central 

Asia, and will you challenge longstanding authoritarianism and human rights 

abuses in the region? What is your assessment of Chinese and Russian influence 

in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the U.S. policy to support the Central Asian 

states’ sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. I also will use our partnerships to continue to challenge longstanding authoritarianism and human rights 

abuses in the region by raising these issues, including ongoing imprisonment of 

human rights defenders and restrictions on the practice of religion, in meetings with 

the region’s leaders and with civil society. 

The Central Asian countries often turn to the United States to counterbalance the 

close ties they must maintain with their large neighbors, particularly Russia and 

China. The Administration believes it is in the best interest of Central Asian countries to have positive relations with all their neighbors. Russia retains strong links 

to the region through Central Asian migrant laborers and its significant military 

presence. China makes large investments in Central Asia, which some countries 

welcome as a way to diversify their trade with Russia. However, the Central Asian 

countries are wary of disproportionate Chinese influence. 

Section 4—Question 11. How will you jumpstart efforts to promote regional economic integration in Central Asia, including increased freedom of movement, association, and other fundamental rights that undergird people-to-people ties? 

Answer. I understand that the five Central Asian nations have shown progress 

in developing closer economic, political, and security ties since the United States initiated the regional C5+1 format (United States and the five Central Asian states) 

in 2015. The C5+1 pillars focus on counterterrorism, economic connectivity, regional 

energy, and water management challenges. If confirmed, I will lead the C5+1 ministerial and other State Department initiatives to help remove barriers to freedom 

of movement and association, and increase energy trade and connectivity among the 

five Central Asian states. 

Section 4—Question 12. The Administration appears to be adrift when it comes 

to formulation and implementation of strategic objectives in Africa. The President’s 

unseemly comments about Africa, and the steep budget cuts send an alarming sigFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

145 

nal about the disregard the Administration feels towards the continent. The optics 

of firing former Secretary Tillerson right after he returned from the region could not 

have been worse. What policies on the continent will you prioritize and what is your 

plan for digging us out of the diplomatic hole that the President’s remarks and 

Tillerson’s unceremonious firing right after his trip dug us into in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the Administration’s relationships 

with critical partners throughout sub-Saharan Africa in order to advance mutual interests. I am committed to implementing a strategy for sub-Saharan Africa, which 

focuses on advancing our shared peace and security interests; spurring mutually 

beneficial economic growth, trade, and investment; strengthening democratic institutions and human rights; and promoting sustainable, country-led development. 

Section 4—Question 13. There are still significant vacancies in the senior ranks 

of the Africa Bureau at State Department. We have no Assistant Secretary for Africa. Two regional envoys for Africa have been eliminated. There are no Ambassadors 

to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia or Central Africa Republic, each of 

which face enormous challenges. It took ten months to appoint a Senior Director for 

Africa at the White House. Will you commit to working with the White House to 

nominate an Assistant Secretary of State for Africa bureau and to nominate Ambassadors for key posts in Africa as quickly as possible? 

Answer. I support full staffing of positions in the Africa Bureau. If confirmed, I 

commit to working with the White House to identify qualified candidates for senior 

positions in the Bureau as well as for ambassadorial appointments. 

Section 4—Question 14. Will you commit to ensure that senior vacancies in the 

Africa bureau at the Deputy Assistant Secretary and Office Director level are filled 

as quickly as possible? 

Answer. I support full staffing of positions in the Africa Bureau. If confirmed, I 

commit to working to identify qualified candidates to fill vacant positions.Questions 

for the Record Submitted to Secretary of State Nominee Michael Pompeo by Senator 

Robert Menendez (Tranche 4 #15) Senate Committee on Foreign Relations April 12, 

2018 

Section 4—Question 15. What is your position on having a Special Envoy for 

Sudan and South Sudan, and a Special Envoy for the Great Lakes considering the 

lack of progress on the peace process in South Sudan, and the deteriorating political 

and security situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will closely evaluate the need for these positions. 

Section 4—Question 16. Will you commit to consulting with the Committee about 

the reestablishment of these positions once confirmed? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consulting with the Committee about whether 

these positions should be reestablished. 

Section 4—Question 17. According to the Pew Research Center, 30% of inhabitants 

of sub-Saharan Africa are Muslim, representing over 15% of the world’s Muslim 

population. That proportion is expected to increase to nearly 30% by 2050. Fourteen 

countries in the region have majority Muslim populations. Our partnerships with 

these countries are critical if we are to continue to effectively counter ISIS and Al 

Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Would you agree that our partnerships with countries in the region that have majority Muslim populations are critical? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I am committed to working with countries throughout 

sub-Saharan Africa regardless of ethnic or religious makeup of its citizens or government. I believe that mutual respect and the protection of human rights are critical to fostering peaceful and prosperous societies throughout the world. I will stress 

the importance of responding to the economic, humanitarian, and governance challenges that marginalize populations and make them more susceptible to recruitment 

by terrorist organizations, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. 

Section 4—Question 18. The Center for Security Policy listed you as a speaker at 

its 2015 ‘‘Defeat Jihad Summit.’’ According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 

‘‘For the past decade, CSP’s main focus has been on demonizing Islam and Muslims 

under the guise of national security.’’ You secured a room in the Capitol for American Congress for Truth’’ (ACT), ‘‘Legislative Briefing,’’ in 2016. You also are said 

to have spoken at its national conferences in 2013 and 2015. In fact, some reports 

indicate that you were awarded ACT’s ‘‘highest honor,’’ the National Security Eagle 

Award for 2016. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center ‘‘ACT members and 

chapters routinely espouse racist views. ACT’s ‘March Against Shariah’ rallies on 

June 10, 2017 attracted a host of extremists including neo-Nazi Billy Roper ACT 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

146 

for America has been an SPLC designated hate group since 2015.’’ You are moving 

from chief intelligence officer to chief diplomat, where decorum and cordial relations 

are key to effective outreach and engagement with foreign interlocutors. What do 

you think will be the impact of your reported engagement with organizations that 

have been called hate groups? 

Answer. There will not be any impact. Foreign governments and my counterparts, 

including from the Muslim world, have had complete confidence in my abilities to 

work with them as the Director of the CIA and, I believe will continue to have that 

confidence if I am confirmed as Secretary of State. As I said in answering a similar 

question during the hearing, I have and will treat every person both inside and outside of the State Department of each and every faith with the dignity and respect 

they deserve, and to work to protect their right to practice their religion or to practice no religion. As Director of the CIA I have worked closely with Muslim leaders 

and with Muslim countries for the interest of their security and America’s national 

security. My efforts during my tenure as Director of the CIA have saved countless 

thousands of Muslim lives. I pledge to have that same good record as Secretary of 

State. 

Section 4—Question 19. How much confidence do you think foreign governments 

and heads of state will have in working with you given your record of association 

with these organizations that have been called hate groups that espouse racist 

views? 

Answer. I believe that foreign governments and heads of state—including from 

Muslim majority countries—will be critical interlocutors on many issues central to 

U.S. foreign policy. Throughout my career in the military, private sector, as a member of Congress, and at the CIA, I have demonstrated a commitment to diversity 

and the values of religious freedom and pluralism. If confirmed, I am committed to 

articulating these essential American values in my work. 

Section 4—Question 20. The Administration in the National Security Strategy 

stated about its engagement with Africa: We will encourage reform, working with 

promising nations to promote effective governance, improve the rule of law, and develop institutions accountable and responsive to citizens We will continue to work 

with partners to improve the ability of their security services to counter terrorism, 

human trafficking, and the illegal trade in arms and natural resources. The amount 

available for Democracy and Governance in 2017 for Africa is approximately $330 

million. The Administration’s request for the past two fiscal years has been less 

than half that amount. How do you propose to achieve any of these objectives with 

such a drastic reduction in the democracy and governance budget? 

Answer. I believe advancing democracy is critical for defending national security, 

fostering economic opportunities for the American people, and asserting U.S. leadership and influence. I understand the FY 2019 budget request upholds U.S. commitments to key partners in Africa through strategic, selective investments that enable 

America to retain its position as a global leader, while relying on other nations to 

make greater contributions toward shared objectives, including advancing democracy worldwide. If confirmed, I will continue support for these critical democracy 

programs and utilize high-level diplomatic engagements to strategically advance 

democratic norms, foster respect for human rights, fight corruption, and model 

transparent behavior. 

Section 4—Question 21. U.S. leadership has had an enormous impact on halting 

the global AIDS pandemic. In fact, this year’s Report to Congress from the Office 

of the Global AIDS Coordinator states that ‘‘For the first time in modern history 

we have the opportunity to control a pandemic without a vaccine or cure.’’ It goes 

on to say that ‘‘while the gains we have made are remarkable, they are also fragile 

and can be quickly reversed if we slow down or grown complacent.’’ Despite that 

clear warning, the Administration’s lack of commitment to PEPFAR—a program 

that has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and through successive Administrations—could not have been made more clear than when it requested a billion dollars 

less for the program for two successive years. The Administration is further hampering PEPFAR’s success with its hiring freeze. According to data from the OGAC 

office, nearly 40% of its positions are currently unfilled. Will you commit to pushing 

for increased funding for PEPFAR from 2017 levels so that we can achieve the goal 

of eliminating the pandemic? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to support PEPFAR, a program 

that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress and across three successive 

Administrations, to accelerate progress toward controlling and ultimately ending the 

HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

147 

Section 4—Question 22. Will you commit to immediately addressing the staffing 

shortage in the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will examine and address staffing needs across the Department, including in the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health 

Diplomacy. 

Section 4—Question 23. The Nigerian Air Force mistakenly bombed an IDP camp 

in Rann in January 2017, killing as many as 200 people. There has been no report 

to the public about what went wrong. Separately, the Nigerian Army is accused of 

massacring 300 people and burying them in a mass grave in Zaria in December of 

2015. The Nigerian Federal government have not taken up recommendations made 

by the Kaduna Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Zaria massacre. In mid2015, Amnesty International released a report alleging that the deaths of 8000 civilians are attributable to the Nigerian military in northeast Nigeria, and that specific 

commanders had knowledge of torture, extra-judicial killings, and arbitrary detentions in overcrowded facilities. To your knowledge, has there been a transparent, 

comprehensive public accounting for the Rann bombing? 

Answer. My understanding is that the Nigerian government and military immediately assumed responsibility for the disturbing incident. The Nigerian Air Force 

promptly established a six-person panel to investigate the incident and initiated a 

number of corrective actions to prevent future mistakes, including closer coordination with humanitarian organizations in the region. If confirmed, I will look into 

this matter more closely. 

Section 4—Question 24. Has anyone been held accountable for the Rann bombing 

or the Zaria massacre through a transparent legal process? 

Answer. My understanding is that the Nigerian government has established an 

independent, civilian Presidential Investigative Panel with a broad mandate to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by the military, including the events 

at Zaria in Kaduna State. If confirmed, I will closely review developments on this 

matter. 

Section 4—Question 25. Did we condition the delivery of Super Tucanos to the 

government of Nigeria on assurances that the government would share with us the 

findings of the investigation into either incident? 

Answer. I am not aware of any conditionality associated with the delivery of the 

A-29 Super Tucano aircraft. I understand this sale includes training aimed at improving the professionalism of Nigerian security forces, and to help improve their 

targeting process in order to reduce civilian casualties, minimize collateral damage, 

and comply with the laws of armed conflict (LOAC). My understanding is that the 

sale is part of a broader strategy to work with Nigerian partners in developing a 

capable and professional security force that respects human rights, complies with 

LOAC principles, and can protect Nigeria’s people from terrorism. 

Section 4—Question 26. Do you believe that the 2015 Amnesty International report referenced above is credible? What is your assessment of the thoroughness and 

credibility of the Nigerian investigation prompted by the report? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review closely the international reporting referenced 

in your question, as well as the status of the Nigerian investigation. 

Section 4—Question 27. What specific actions will you take as Secretary of State 

to support accountability for the Rann bombing and the Zaria massacre? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will underscore to the Nigerian government that human 

rights abuses and impunity for such violations tarnish Nigeria’s international reputation, undermine the trust of its citizens, impede counterterrorism efforts, and 

hinder U.S. ability to partner with Nigeria. 

Section 4—Question 28. In Northeast Nigeria, humanitarian organizations responding to the humanitarian crisis precipitated by Boko Haram report facing bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the Government of Nigeria that impede their ability 

to reach vulnerable populations. Staff need authorization from the government to 

travel from Maidurguri, which at times restricts access to the most vulnerable communities. They also lack safety assurances from the Government of Nigeria in areas 

affected by active conflict. Aid organizations report that humanitarian goods—especially medical and nutrition supplies for NGOs—are often delayed or held at customs. If confirmed, how will you work with the Government of Nigeria to address 

restriction of access, the lack of safety assurances, and bureaucratic impediments 

to ensure that U.S. assistance is delivered effectively and efficiently to those in 

greatest need? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

148 

Answer. I share your commitment to ensuring that U.S. humanitarian assistance 

is delivered effectively and efficiently to those in need. My understanding is that the 

Nigerian military provides escort and protection to humanitarian workers while also 

conducting offensive operations and protecting the civilian population from attack 

in a large geographic area. If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. assistance 

to increase the capacity and professionalism of the Nigerian military. 

Section 4—Question 29. Since 2014, the U.N. Peacekeeping Mission in Mali, 

MINUSMA, has been the deadliest peacekeeping operation in the world, and security conditions have grown significantly worse in recent months, affecting the Sahel 

region more broadly. The U.N. Secretary General reported in December that ‘‘radical 

extremist and violent armed groups are exerting control over increasingly large 

areas.’’ Mali-based terrorist groups have carried out attacks in neighboring Niger— 

including the deadly October 4, 2017 assault on members of U.S. Special Operations 

Forces—and appear to have helped foment an escalating Islamist conflict in northern Burkina Faso. Implementation of the 2015 Peace Agreement has stagnated. 

Northern signatory groups have not begun the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration process. And the government’s willingness to fulfill its commitments to 

political decentralization, greater inclusion of northerners in national-level political 

institutions, or justice sector reform is questionable. Mali has the potential to destabilize the Sahel. What steps as Secretary of State will you take to push Bamako 

to implement the 2015 Peace Agreement? 

Answer. My understanding is that progress on the 2015 Algiers Accord for Peace 

and Reconciliation in Mali has been exceedingly slow, with both the government and 

the armed groups blaming each other. If confirmed, I will urge all Malian parties 

to fully implement the peace accord, especially through good governance, respect for 

human rights, and provision of services to affected populations. 

Section 4—Question 30. Will you commit to developing a strategy specifically for 

improving peace and security in Mali as part of a broader Sahel-Maghreb strategy? 

Answer. I understand that the security situation in central Mali is deteriorating 

rapidly. Progress on the Algiers Accord for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali has 

stalled, as government efforts are focused on the terrorist threat and presidential 

elections in July. If confirmed, I will review our current strategies to determine the 

best path toward peace and security in the region. 

Section 4—Question 31. Violence has increased throughout the Central African 

Republic. In the absence of an effective government, more than a dozen armed 

groups and a multitude of local militias have usurped control of about 80 percent 

of the former French colony according to some analysts. Civilians are caught in the 

middle, and sometimes targeted, despite the presence of United Nations peacekeepers. An estimated 543,826 people are refugees in neighboring countries; and another 693,932 more are internally displaced. As Secretary of State, what role do you 

think the U.S. should play, both diplomatically and financially, in supporting the 

regional-led peace process? 

Answer. I share concern for the insecurity in the Central African Republic (CAR). 

If confirmed, I will support military and internal security forces that are competent, 

professional, and respect the rights of CAR’s citizens. If confirmed, I will also work 

with our partners to strengthen other critical aspects of good governance in the 

country, including the judicial sector, to ensure accountability and strengthen the 

rule of law. 

Section 4—Question 32. What do you see as the most effective ways that State 

Department can support civil society groups working for democracy, human rights, 

accountability, and peace in the Central African Republic? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing with State Department experts 

our current efforts to support civil society in the Central African Republic (CAR) 

and how those efforts can be improved or strengthened. 

Section 4—Question 33. In many fragile countries like the Central African Republic women and young people have played an outsized role in stabilizing the country—from village mediators to peace marches to political leadership. What do you 

see as the most effective means of supporting women and youth leadership and participation in peacemaking processes? 

Answer. I agree that women and young people can be powerful agents for change 

in pursuing peace. If confirmed, I will ask the Department to identify ways to 

strengthen protections against trafficking, sexual violence and exploitation, and 

child soldier recruitment. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

149 

Section 4—Question 34. Niger is facing increasing security threats on three fronts: 

along its borders with Mali and Burkina Faso and in the Lake Chad Basin region. 

The U.S. military has over 800 soldiers deployed to Niger as part of our effort to 

help that government fight terrorism in Niger and in the broader Sahel. It is also 

ranked 187 out of 188 on the most recent Human Development index. What is the 

diplomatic strategy for helping to ensure continued stability in Niger? How do our 

military and development activities fit into our overall diplomatic strategy? 

Answer. My understanding is that our diplomatic strategy to ensure continued 

stability in Niger consists of helping the government identify and focus on the most 

significant challenges, in coordination with other multinational partners. U.S. assistance seeks to improve Niger’s ability to defend itself against threats from violent 

extremist organizations both within and outside its borders; strengthening its democracy; promoting good governance; and improving health, food security, nutrition, 

and agriculture in Niger. If confirmed, I will continue to support efforts to bring stability to Niger and the region. 

Section 4—Question 35. Given the amount of money USAID is programming in 

Niger, and the significant development challenges facing the country, why is there 

no USAID Mission there? 

Answer. My understanding is that, in Niger, USAID has a limited presence office 

that serves as core advisors for U.S. government development activities in country. 

In addition, USAID Senegal’s Sahel Regional Office, Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster 

Assistance, and Food for Peace regional offices, as well as the USAID’s West Africa 

Regional Mission in Accra, Ghana, share the management responsibility for development and humanitarian programs in Niger. 

Section 4—Question 36. Is the number of people working in the public affairs office at Embassy Niger being reduced? If so, how will that reduction help counter 

the increasingly negative perception of U.S. military presence in the country? If confirmed, what specific steps will you take to address the increasingly negative perception of U.S. military presence in Niger? 

Answer. My understanding is that the number of U.S. direct hire staff in the public affairs office at Embassy Niger remains constant at two. If confirmed, I will take 

steps to ensure that our public diplomacy efforts in Niger and other countries in the 

region are properly resourced. 

Section 4—Question 37. Last October the Administration lifted sanctions against 

Sudan, citing, among other things, its cooperation on counterterrorism. It also signaled that it would consider removing Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, though it has not yet done so. Sudan has a consistently poor human rights 

record, and President Omar al- Bashir is still wanted by the International Criminal 

Court for genocide in Darfur. The latest State Department Human Rights Report 

cited concerns about widespread disregard for rule of law, including the security 

forces committing major abuses, such as extrajudicial and other unlawful killings; 

obstruction of humanitarian assistance; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement; and intimidation and closure of human 

rights and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). And, since 1999, Sudan has 

been designated as a ‘‘Country of Particular Concern’’ (CPC) under the International 

Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe 

violations of religious freedom. As CIA director, what was your position on removing 

sanctions on Sudan? What as been your position as CIA director on removing Sudan 

from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List? 

Answer. I supported removing sanctions on Sudan in conjunction with the interagency view that the Government of Sudan had fulfilled the requirements of the 

US-Sudan Five Track Engagement Plan (5TEP). Policy deliberations on the question 

of removing Sudan from SSTL are ongoing, however, it is my view that the Government of Sudan does not support terrorism. 

Section 4—Question 38. If confirmed, what benchmarks will you insist that Sudan 

meet before any consideration of removing Sudan from the list of State Sponsors of 

Terrorism? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will be clear with the Government of Sudan that any further progress in our bilateral relationship will require sustained progress towards 

key U.S. priorities. These include, among others, progress in expanding counterterrorism cooperation, ensuring compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions 

on North Korea, improving humanitarian access, contributing to regional stability, 

ending conflicts within Sudan, improving protections for human rights and religious 

freedoms, and addressing outstanding judgments for victims of terrorism related to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

150 

Sudan. I will continue to discuss specific benchmarks for a potential ‘‘Phase II’’ 

framework. 

Section 4—Question 39. Will you commit to consulting further with Congress before those benchmarks are finalized should you be confirmed as Secretary of State? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 4—Question 40. If Sudan were to be removed from the State Sponsors of 

Terrorism List, could it be put back on the list if it backslides on the benchmarks 

set forth by the Administration? 

Answer. The conditions for designating a state as a State Sponsor of Terrorism 

(SST) are established in relevant statutes. My understanding is that these statutes 

allow for a state that had been previously designated—and later had its SST designation rescinded—to be designated again. 

Section 4—Question 41. What actions will you take as Secretary of State to ensure 

that Sudanese authorities understand that cooperation on counterterrorism does not 

mean that the U.S. will turn a blind eye as the government willfully disregards democracy and human rights? 

Answer. Under my direction, CIA officials, like officials from the Department of 

State and other agencies, pressed the Government of Sudan to make progress on 

a range of areas, including expanding humanitarian access, improving human rights 

protections, and ending internal hostilities. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department is focused on achieving progress on a wide range of objectives beyond expanding counterterrorism cooperation with the Government of Sudan. 

Section 4—Question 42. An article published dated April 11 by the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) alleges that the government of Sudan is retreating from commitments to simplify access for humanitarians—one of the elements of the Five Track Plan for U.S. engagement—and that benchmarks for assessing progress on improved access are vague. Is the government backsliding on 

commitments to provide humanitarian access? 

Answer. My understanding is that the State Department assessment is that there 

has been important progress in these areas in recent weeks. USAID’s humanitarian 

partners continue to report improvements in humanitarian access to more parts of 

Sudan and reductions in Sudanese government interference and obstruction in aid 

operations. If confirmed, I will press for further progress towards timely and impartial delivery of humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable populations throughout the country. 

Section 4—Question 43. What specific benchmarks is the Administration using to 

measure improved access? 

Answer. My understanding is that the Administration continues to discuss specific 

benchmarks for a potential ‘‘Phase II’’ framework for engagement with Sudan. This 

framework will include a track related to expanding humanitarian access based on 

specific benchmarks, including removing remaining constraints related to travel, 

hiring practices, and independent assessments and oversight, and opening further 

humanitarian corridors to South Sudan, among other issues. 

Section 4—Question 44. What will you do as Secretary, if confirmed, to ensure 

that Khartoum follows through with commitments to humanitarian access on a continuous basis? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will be clear with the Government of Sudan that any further progress in our bilateral relationship will require sustained progress towards 

a range of benchmarks related to key U.S. priorities, including expanding humanitarian access. 

Section 4—Question 45. The conflict in South Sudan continues despite regional 

and international diplomatic efforts. Nearly four million people have been forced to 

flee their homes; half of them children. Famine has been declared in parts of the 

country. A bipartisan group of Senators has asked for the appointment of a Special 

Envoy. The nomination of an Assistant Secretary of State for Africa would be a welcome step as well. If confirmed, what steps will you take as Secretary of State to 

apply diplomatic pressure to all players to the conflict in South Sudan to resolve 

the conflict? 

Answer. The United States has made clear to the Government of South Sudan 

and other parties to the conflict that the U.S. government—both unilaterally and 

in coordination with international partners—will hold accountable those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan. If confirmed, I will employ the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

151 

full range of diplomatic tools to work toward a peaceful South Sudan governed by 

an inclusive and legitimate government that takes care of its people. 

Section 4—Question 46. What further diplomatic steps will you take, if confirmed, 

should the next round of talks through the High Level Revitalization Forum fail to 

result in a sustainable ceasefire? 

Answer. The United States is working with Troika partners (Norway and the 

United Kingdom), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union (AU), the EU, and the United Nations to press the Government of 

South Sudan and other parties to the conflict to reach a negotiated political settlement through the IGAD-led High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF). If the Forum 

fails to achieve its objectives, the United States and others will have to re-assess 

the most promising mechanisms to pursue a negotiated peace for South Sudan. If 

confirmed, I will closely review developments on this issue. 

Section 4—Question 47. What steps should we be taking on a bilateral basis to 

pressure members of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to 

support an arms embargo and targeted sanctions? Please provide an answer on a 

country by country basis for each IGAD member. 

Answer. I understand that the regional organization of IGAD is leading efforts to 

reach a negotiated political settlement through the High-Level Revitalization Forum 

(HLRF). Should this process not yield tangible results, if confirmed, I will carefully 

assess the prospects for enhancing pressure on individual IGAD states, Djibouti, 

Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda, with cleareyed appreciation of the array of complicated bilateral equities we hold with each. 

Section 4—Question 48. Will you support the designation of a Special Envoy for 

Sudan and South Sudan? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will do my utmost to help the people of Sudan and South 

Sudan achieve the security, stability, and development they deserve and will review 

all diplomatic tools available to achieve this objective. 

(Section 5—Questions 1–60) 

Section 5—Question 1. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who was sworn in on April 

2 has stated his commitment to democracy and civil rights. It remains to be seen 

whether under his leadership, the government will engage in actions that effectively 

open political space and respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and guarantee freedom of the press and mass media in keeping with Articles 30 and 29 of 

the Ethiopian constitution. What is the status of the bilateral U.S.—Ethiopia Working Group on Democracy, Governance and Human Rights? If confirmed, will you 

commit to ensure high level participation in the working group by both the U.S. and 

Ethiopia? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the ongoing, successful dialogue represented 

by the Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights Working Group, where both 

sides speak frankly regarding the full range of governance and human rights issues. 

I commit to continuing this effort, and I will seek to ensure our high-level participation in this important bilateral forum. 

Section 5—Question 2. Will you commit to personally advocate for the Ethiopia 

government to release from incarceration all dissidents, members of the political opposition, activists, and journalists who have been jailed, including those arrested for 

reporting about the protests, for exercising constitutional rights, if confirmed? 

Answer. Ethiopia will be stronger as it allows more independent voices in government, parliament, and civil society to legally express popular grievances and propose 

policy solutions. If confirmed, I would urge all parties to continue to refrain from 

violence and will advocate strongly for these voices, including those who may have 

been detained for exercising their constitutional rights. 

Section 5—Question 3. Will you commit, if confirmed to advocating that the government of Ethiopia conduct a full, credible, and transparent investigation into the 

killings, detentions, and instances of excessive use of force that took place in response to protests in the Oromia and Amhara regions starting in 2015, and hold 

accountable security forces accused of such actions through public proceedings, and 

to publicly release written findings from such investigation? 

Answer. I understand that Ethiopia has committed to conducting full and transparent investigations into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of civilians durFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

152 

ing periods of political protest from 2015 until today. If confirmed, I will ensure that 

we continue to advocate that these investigations be conducted credibly and completely, and that they hold accountable those responsible for unlawful violence. I 

will advocate for full public disclosure of the findings of these investigations. 

Section 5—Question 4. Will you commit to advocating for the Ethiopian Government to grant the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and 

United Nations Special Rapporteurs access to conduct a comprehensive and independent examination of the state of human rights in Ethiopia, and work with Ethiopia to improve human rights conditions if confirmed? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to advocate for United Nations human rights officials to participate in the examination of the state of human 

rights in Ethiopia. I commit to working closely with the Government of Ethiopia to 

improve human rights conditions through a strong, cooperative relationship. 

Section 5—Question 5. On March 27, 2018, President Trump issued a Presidential 

Memorandum to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security announcing the termination of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians effective March 31, 2019. The memo states that conditions in Liberia no longer warrant 

a further extension of DED. Do you agree with the Administration’s decision to terminate DED for Liberians? 

Answer. I agree with President Trump’s determination that conditions in Liberia 

no longer warrant a further extension of DED for Liberians but that foreign policy 

interests of the United States warrant affording an orderly transition period of 12 

months to Liberian DED beneficiaries. 

Section 5—Question 6. It is my understanding, based on statements from Administration officials, that the White House had sought, and was awaiting, recommendations from the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security regarding whether to extend DED for Liberia. If confirmed, will you provide 

the State Department’s rationale for its recommendation to this committee? 

Answer. As President Trump stated, he consulted with appropriate executive departments and agencies, which included the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, in advance of his determination regarding DED for Liberia. If confirmed, I will endeavor to be as open and transparent as possible with 

the Committee in response to requests for information. 

Section 5—Question 7. While the Presidential Memorandum noted that Liberia is 

no longer engaged in armed conflict, and that the Ebola epidemic has been contained, it contained little explanation for the conclusion that DED is no longer warranted for Liberia. Indeed, Liberia has only just completed its first democratic transfer of power in decades, and there are serious concerns about the nation’s ability 

to maintain peace and deliver essential services to its population. If confirmed, will 

you review the facts of Liberia’s DED designation and, if appropriate, recommend 

that the Administration reverse its decision to end DED? 

Answer. My understanding is that President Trump’s determination not to extend 

DED for Liberians is a reflection of positive conditions on the ground in Liberia. If 

confirmed, I will continue to monitor the conditions that warranted the President’s 

determination and will advise President Trump appropriately. 

Section 5—Question 8. The Gulf countries are important international actors in 

the Horn of Africa. Analysts have expressed concern that the Gulf crisis may exacerbate regional tensions in the Horn. What diplomatic messages in your view should 

our Ambassadors in Riyadh, Ankara, Abu Dhabi and Doha be delivering about the 

actions these countries are taking that could potentially play a destabilizing role in 

the Horn of Africa? The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have increased their military presence along the coast of the Horn of Africa—should the United States be 

concerned about a potential ‘‘base race’’ in this turbulent region, particularly the implications for fragile states like Somalia and Eritrea? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will closely review these developments in the Horn of Africa given the strategic importance of this region. 

Section 5—Question 9. What impact has the dispute between Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 

and the UAE had on the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea? Has any 

other country stepped in to fill the mediation role previously played by Qatar? Are 

and tensions between Djibouti and Eritrea likely to flare in the near term? Do the 

tensions between Djibouti and Eritrea pose any threat to our military presence in 

Djibouti? Are tensions likely to flare? What role if any should the U.S. play in reducing such tensions? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

153 

Answer. My understanding is that tensions between Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the 

United Arab Emirates have significantly complicated the situation in the region. If 

confirmed, I will urge all parties to disputes in the Gulf region to deescalate tensions and refrain from any actions that could lead to instability among their neighbors. 

Section 5—Question 10. How would you assess the roles played by the United 

Arab Emirates and Turkey in Somalia—are they playing constructive roles in supporting international efforts to stabilize the country? 

Answer. My understanding is that the United Arab Emirates and Turkey are 

among many partners that provide security and humanitarian assistance to Somalia, and that both are also investing in transportation and other sectors of the Somali economy. If confirmed, I will closely review the situation given the significant 

U.S. interests in this region. 

Section 5—Question 11. News reports indicate that the United Arab Emirates engages directly with Somalia’s nascent Federal Members states, bypassing and/or allegedly seeking to circumvent the Federal government at times. How is this direct 

engagement affecting the formation of relations between the Federal and state governments? In your view, does this have the potential to destabilize the Somali state? 

Answer. My understanding is that the United Arab Emirates and other international partners engage with and invest in Somalia’s Federal Member States, and 

in some cases these activities have exacerbated tensions between federal and regional authorities in Somalia. If confirmed, I will closely review the situation given 

the significant U.S. interests in this region. 

Section 5—Question 12. Tensions between the Somali Federal Government and 

the UAE appear very high right now—what messages should we be conveying to 

Abu Dhabi about its actions in the country? How might Al Shabaab seek to exploit 

the current situation? Is the recent disagreement over the legality of Somaliland’s 

Berbera port deal with DP World linked to the Gulf Crisis? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will emphasize to the UAE that its pressure on Mogadishu 

over the Gulf crisis runs counter to our shared goals of promoting peace and stability in Somalia. This would include efforts to combat al-Shabaab and promote reconciliation between Mogadishu and Somaliland. I understand that Mogadishu’s 

challenge of the legality of the DP World’s Berbera port deal with Somaliland has 

exacerbated tensions between Abu Dhabi and Mogadishu and reflects the political 

sensitivities surrounding Somali sovereignty issues. 

Section 5—Question 13. The State Department has a number of important resources to project and support the economic dimension of U.S. international influence, beginning with the Economic Bureau itself, and including USAID’s capacities 

to promote growth in developing countries. To date, it has been difficult to discern 

a comprehensive strategy for supporting U.S. economic interests internationally. 

Criticism of multilateral engagement and institutions do not add up to positive program to meet the challenges of rising powers, new markets, and aggressive national 

economic strategies. Can you articulate the administration’s vision for such a program? 

Answer. The National Security Strategy underscores that economic security is national security. Economic engagement is a key tool of foreign policy. If confirmed, 

I will employ it fully in collaboration with international partners to promote American prosperity and security. 

Section 5—Question 14. Will you commit to work with me and the Congress to 

make such a program a core component of our international engagement? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with Congress to advance American prosperity using the full spectrum of diplomatic tools. 

Section 5—Question 15–19. The President’s budget request calls for a 31% ($425 

million) cut for the Global Fund. U.S. investments in the Global Fund leverage 

other donors to step up and match us 2 to 1. During the last replenishment in September 2016, 8 of the top 10 donors pledged significantly more to the Global Fund. 

Since its founding in 2002, Global Fund-supported programs have saved more than 

22 million lives, put 11 million people with HIV on anti-retroviral treatment, put 

17.4 million on TB treatment, and gotten 795 million anti-malaria bednets to vulnerable children and adults. The Global Fund and U.S. bilateral global health programs—PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) and USAID’s TB program—are interconnected and rely on each other for success. Do you agree that the 

United States has an obligation to lead on this issue? Should our contributions to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

154 

the Fund depend on the magnitude of the health crisis, or on the commitments of 

others? 

Answer. The United States is the world’s leader not only in investment to end 

these three diseases but also in technical support to leverage other donors and to 

ensure that all funds are optimally spent for maximum impact. The United States 

remains the largest donor in responding to the global HIV/AIDS crisis, and since 

2004 has invested nearly $75 billion in this response. The United States also continues to invest in The Global Fund up to three times the rate of any other donor 

country. If confirmed, I will ensure that the United States continues to lead on these 

issues with the same urgency, action, and focus as we always have and that science 

and best practices drive our funding decisions and strategies. 

Section 5—Question 20. President Trump has moved aggressively in recent weeks 

to address the U.S. trade gap with China. Clearly, the U.S. doesn’t just conduct 

trade with China, our companies compete with the Chinese for markets across the 

globe. However, U.S. companies find themselves at a severe disadvantage as the 

Chinese government provides abundant export credit assistance while, for the past 

two years, U.S. companies have suffered from the lack of a fully functioning U.S. 

Export-Import Bank. This puts U.S. manufacturers at a tremendous disadvantage 

when they try to compete with the Chinese and, for that matter, the Germans, the 

French and other countries that provide financing assistance in foreign markets 

where traditional financing is not available. While the Chinese government now offers almost half a trillion dollars a year to purchase Chinese-made products, the Export-Import Bank limits its loans to a mere $10 million per transaction or a total 

of only $3.4 billion a year. As a result, the Export-Import Bank reports that there 

are over $40 billion in export opportunities for U.S. companies that are on hold. If 

you use the Department of Commerce’s jobs multiplier, this figure represents over 

210,000 U.S. jobs not being created or maintained. I understand you opposed the 

re-authorization of the Ex-Im when you were a member of Congress. How do you 

expect to help U.S. companies compete globally if you do not have the same tools 

in your tool box that the Chinese and our other competitors have? 

Answer. The President has nominated board members for consideration by the 

Senate for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. My understanding is that 

the Banking Committee has approved four of the five nominees, and they are pending confirmation by the full Senate. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

the President as he determines next steps with regard to the Export-Import Bank. 

Section 5—Question 21. In your possible future role as Secretary of State how will 

you advise the President on this matter? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this matter closely and working 

with the President as he determines next steps with regard to the Export-Import 

Bank. 

Section 5—Question 22. The Export-Import Bank has opponents in Congress but 

it is not clear what the President’s policy is. There have been reports that President 

Trump supports a fully functioning Export-Import Bank and just yesterday Secretary Mnuchin said President Trump is ‘‘very interested in re-opening’’ the bank 

but President Trump has not weighed in directly. Will you encourage President 

Trump to work with Congress in resolving this impasse? 

Answer. I share the view that Congress has an important role to play in matters 

surrounding the Export-Import Bank. 

Section 5—Question 23. If the President decides to re-impose the sanctions on 

Iran that were suspended in order for the United States to uphold its JCPOA commitments, what is your expectation of the time it will take to reconstitute the preJCPOA sanctions? 

Answer. The Administration’s objective is to fix the JCPOA, and significant diplomatic efforts are underway to achieve that objective. That will be my focus, if confirmed. 

Section 5—Question 24. What do you expect will be the most significant impediment to re-imposing the international nuclear-related sanctions regime on Iran? 

Answer. The Administration’s objective is to fix the JCPOA, and significant diplomatic efforts are underway to achieve that objective. That will be my focus, if confirmed. 

Section 5—Question 25. How, specifically, do you propose to ensure that Iran is 

prevented from developing a nuclear weapon if the JCPOA is no longer in effect? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

155 

Answer. This Administration is committed to preventing Iran from developing or 

obtaining a nuclear weapon. Regardless of the future of the JCPOA, Iran’s nuclear 

activities must remain exclusively peaceful, and Iran must comply fully with its continuing Non-Proliferation Treaty and related IAEA safeguards obligations. The Administration has demonstrated it will hold the Iranian regime fully accountable for 

its actions. 

Section 5—Question 26. Are you recommending to the President that the goal of 

re-imposing the nuclear-related sanctions against Iran is regime change? 

Answer. The Administration’s objective is to fix the JCPOA and ultimately prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability. Significant diplomatic efforts 

are underway to achieve that objective. 

Section 5—Question 27. Iran has unjustly detained and continues to imprison 

American citizens Siamak and Baquer Namazi, Princeton University student Xiyue 

Wang, and has not fully cooperated in the case of Robert Levinson. Do you commit 

to do everything in your power as Secretary of State to secure the release of these 

unjustly detained Americans? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 5—Question 28. Section 103 of the Countering America’s Adversaries 

Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) requires the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a strategy for 

deterring conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats ‘‘not later 

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.’’ CAATSA became public 

law on August 2, 2017, over 253 days ago but the Administration has still not submitted this strategy. What is the status of this strategy and when will it be submitted to Congress? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State, in coordination 

with other federal agencies and departments as directed, works diligently to adhere 

to congressionally mandated reporting deadlines. 

Section 5—Question 29. The Trump Administration has issued repeated statements in support of human rights for the citizens of Iran. Yet the proposed budget 

for the State Department cuts funding for the Near East Regional Development program from $32 million in 2017 to $15 million, a reduction of more than 53%. Do 

you support this cut? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will closely review the Department’s budget on this and 

other issues and make the case to defend the resources that the State Department 

needs to achieve its diplomatic objectives, as needed. 

Section 5—Question 30. Can you explain the thinking and analysis the led to the 

proposed funding cuts to the NERD program? 

Answer. I believe democracy programs are critical for defending national security, 

fostering economic opportunities for the American people, and asserting U.S. leadership and influence. If confirmed, I will closely review the Department’s budget on 

this and other issues and make the case to defend the resources that the State Department needs to achieve its diplomatic objectives, as needed. 

Section 5—Question 31. What actions will the U.S. take to support Iranian human 

rights and democracy, given these cuts? 

Answer. Addressing Iran’s continued serious violations and abuses of human 

rights is a priority for the Administration. If confirmed, I will speak out regularly 

on these issues and use various tools such as the annual human rights and religious 

freedom reports to highlight abuses in Iran. The Administration will also continue 

to promote accountability for Iran through sanctions on those involved in human 

rights abuses and, if confirmed, I will urge our partners and allies to join us in imposing sanctions. I will also work with like-minded partners multilaterally to bring 

international pressure on Iran for its human rights violations and abuses. 

Section 5—Question 32. In your thirteen-page Congressional testimony, Iraq is an 

afterthought, mentioned twice among lists of countries. And yet Iraq remains on the 

frontlines of the still-ongoing fight against ISIS; the political-security contest to prevent Iranian domination from the Middle East; and the struggle to show that different sects and ethnicities can live peacefully together. There is reason to worry 

the U.S., having invested militarily to retake territory, will fail to show up for the 

difficult civilian work ahead. Is Iraq a high priority in U.S. plans to contest Iranian 

influence in the region? 

Answer. The U.S. commitment to partnership with Iraq remains strong. The IraqU.S. Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) underpins the United States’ long-term 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

156 

relationship with Iraq and provides a broad basis for bilateral economic, diplomatic, 

cultural, and security cooperation which can help counterbalance Iran. U.S. engagement with Iraq, including strong support for upcoming national Iraqi elections, bolsters Iraq’s democratic character, strengthens Iraqi sovereignty, integrates Iraq into 

the global economy, and helps Iraq resist malign Iranian influence. The Administration is under no illusions about the destabilizing nature of Iran’s activities in the 

region and remains committed to helping the Iraqi government push back on Iran. 

Section 5—Question 33. Do you believe there is a non-military role for the United 

States in Iraq? 

Answer. Yes. The United States has a significant non-military presence in Iraq, 

and the Administration is working on enhancing a range of economic and political 

cooperation with Iraq. 

Section 5—Question 34. If confirmed, what specific steps will you recommend as 

Secretary of State to diminish Iranian influence in Iran [sic]? 

Answer. In my experience, Iraqi political leaders recognize that U.S. engagement 

provides much of what Iran cannot: a supportive security relationship, global leadership to marshal international aid, and a partner who reinforces Iraq’s sovereignty 

under the rule of law rather than undercuts it. Together, the United States and the 

Government of Iraq are reinvigorating the Iraq-U.S. Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), which provides a broad basis for bilateral economic, diplomatic, cultural, and security cooperation. The United States has also successfully promoted 

Iraq’s regional integration with its Arab neighbors. One example is the recent Iraq 

Reconstruction Conference hosted by Kuwait, where Iraq’s neighbors, excluding 

Iran, provided it with more than $30 billion in reconstruction financing. 

Section 5—Question 35. The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a 

committed, responsive U.S. partner in the anti-ISIS fight. What more, specifically, 

should the United States do to support the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and a reconciliation process with the Baghdad government? 

Answer. The U.S. government supports a united, federal, democratic, and prosperous Iraq of which a viable Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR) is an integral component. Together, Iraqis are stronger, whether facing ISIS or threats to their sovereignty, and the Unites States continues to work actively with the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi government to deescalate tensions and foster dialogue. We are also encouraging the two sides to agree on sharing oil revenues to 

help bolster the IKR economy. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that Iraq’s 

democratic processes and institutions work to fulfill the aspirations of all Iraqis. 

Section 5—Question 36. I understand that there is a review of the U.S. assistance 

program for the West Bank and Gaza. Is the State Department leading this review? 

Answer. The Administration regularly reviews our foreign assistance to ensure it 

is achieving our policy objectives. If confirmed, I look forward to working with colleagues across the Administration to ensure our foreign assistance, including our assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, is serving American interests and providing 

value to the U.S. taxpayer. 

Section 5—Question 37. If not the State Department, who is the lead within the 

interagency for leading this review? 

Answer. I understand that many interagency stakeholders, including but not limited to the State Department, have important contributions to make to the Administration’s evaluation of foreign assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. I understand 

that those discussions are taking place through the usual mechanisms for interagency consultation. 

Section 5—Question 38. What is your goal regarding the timeline for completing 

this review, if confirmed? 

Answer. I understand the Administration’s review of assistance to the West Bank 

and Gaza is ongoing. I look forward, if confirmed, to offering further Department 

of State input to that review. 

Section 5—Question 39. What issues is the review working to address? 

Answer. My understanding is that the review is addressing how U.S. assistance 

to the Palestinians advances U.S. national security priorities. 

Section 5—Question 40. In your view, is it in the security interest of the United 

States to maintain an assistance program to the West Bank and Gaza? 

Answer. The Administration is reviewing U.S. assistance to the West Bank and 

Gaza to ensure American policy and taxpayer interests, including our national secuFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

157 

rity interests, are being served in the best way possible. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with interagency partners to evaluate where our interests are being met, 

and where we can make improvements. 

Section 5—Question 41. Is it in Israel’s security interest for the United States to 

provide assistance in the West Bank and Gaza? 

Answer. Israel’s security is a strong national security priority for the United 

States, and one we support across multiple lines of effort. The Administration is currently reviewing foreign assistance to the West Bank and Gaza to ensure that 

American policy and taxpayer interests are being served appropriately. Israel’s security, as well as regional security and stability, are core aspects of that discussion. 

Section 5—Question 42. The Taylor Force Act would withhold assistance that ‘‘directly benefits the Palestinian Authority’’ (PA), unless the PA takes steps to end violence by Palestinians against Israeli or U.S. citizens and end payments to Palestinians convicted of or killed while carrying out acts of terrorism against Israeli or U.S. 

citizens. What type of U.S. assistance does the Administration consider to be ‘‘directly benefitting the PA’’ for the purposes of the Taylor Force Act? 

Answer. The Trump Administration strongly supports the Taylor Force Act. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with you on how the Department will implement this law to achieve maximum effectiveness and send a message to the Palestinian Authority that the United States does not support payments to terrorists. 

Section 5—Question 43. What actions is the Administration taking to move the 

PA away from the current system that incentivizes terror and towards a general 

welfare system for all Palestinians? 

Answer. The Administration opposes any program that incentivizes acts of violence and terrorism. The Palestinian Authority (PA)’s payments to families of prisoners convicted of terrorist acts and to families of deceased Palestinians responsible 

for such acts are no exception. I understand senior Administration officials have regularly engaged the PA leadership to demand that they stop payments related to perpetrators of terrorist acts. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing the efforts of 

Congress and the Administration to end any incentives or rewards for acts of terrorism, including through enforcement of the provisions of the Taylor Force Act. 

Section 5—Question 44. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the 

White House is holding $200 million in stabilization projects for Syria. Is this the 

$200 million in stabilization funds pledged at the Kuwait Conference? 

Answer. In line with President Trump’s request to review all foreign assistance, 

the Administration continually evaluates appropriate assistance levels and how best 

assistance might be utilized. It is my understanding this review includes the $200 

million stabilization assistance that was announced at the Defeat-ISIS Coalition 

Ministerial conference in Kuwait in February 2018. 

Section 5—Question 45. Which projects are included in the $200 million (please 

include dollar amounts for each project)? 

Answer. I understand the $200 million stabilization funding in question that 

then-Secretary Tillerson announced at the Defeat-ISIS Coalition Ministerial in Kuwait conference in February 2018 covers a range of ongoing State and USAID stabilization programs in Syria. 

Section 5—Question 46. Is humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people inside 

Syria or in neighboring countries affected by this hold? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the $200 million in question did not include 

humanitarian assistance. 

Section 5—Question 47. When will this review conclude? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to expedite this review to ensure this and all 

our assistance is targeted, effective, and set at the appropriate level. 

Section 5—Question 48. What are the issues being considered in this review? 

Answer. The President has asked that we review all foreign assistance for Syria, 

determine appropriate assistance needs, and then encourage our partners in the 

Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to share the burden of consolidating the Coalition’s 

military gains and preventing the resurgence of ISIS. If confirmed, I will guide the 

State Department’s review and ensure our stabilization assistance supports the 

United States’ objectives in Syria. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

158 

Section 5—Question 49. Do you believe that the United States should have a role 

in providing reconstruction assistance to communities liberated from ISIS inside 

Syria? 

Answer. My understanding is that the United States has supported immediate 

stabilization and early recovery efforts in areas liberated from ISIS control, including Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) removal, the restoration of essential services, 

and building local capacity to support longer-term sustainability. The President has 

made clear that, as we move forward, the Administration will press the international community and partners in the region to take a greater role in stabilizing 

liberated areas of Syria. 

Section 5—Question 50. Can military gains against ISIS be sustained without stabilizing those liberated areas? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the diplomatic and assistance efforts necessary 

to ensure that broader U.S. interests are protected in Syria once ISIS’s so-called ‘‘caliphate’’ has been defeated. The United States is working with Coalition partners 

to support immediate stabilization and early recovery efforts in areas liberated from 

ISIS control, including Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) removal, the restoration 

of essential services, and building local capacity to support longer-term sustainability. 

Section 5—Question 51. I understand that funding is on hold, pending an interagency review, for the International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) 

to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most 

Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic 

since March 2011. In remarks to the UN Security Council earlier this year, Ambassador Nikki Haley said, ‘‘The United States strongly supports the IIIM as a valuable 

tool to hold the Assad regime accountable for its atrocities, including its repeated 

and ongoing use of chemical weapons.’’ In notifying these funds to Congress, the 

State Department specifically stated that the U.S. contribution enables the U.S. to 

leverage other countries to contribute on a voluntary basis, including the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, and Qatar. At a time when the IIIM is necessary to advance accountability, especially after the regime used chemical weapons 

against the Syrian people earlier this month, why is funding for the IIIM on hold? 

Answer. The Administration maintains its strong support for holding the Assad 

regime accountable for its atrocities, including through mechanisms like the IIIM. 

In line with the President’s request to review all foreign assistance, the Administration continually evaluates appropriate assistance levels and how best assistance 

might be utilized. If confirmed, I will review this and related initiatives closely to 

determine the most appropriate path forward. 

Section 5—Question 52. Particularly, what should the United States do to diminish Iranian influence in Syria? 

Answer. The President has issued a comprehensive strategy to counter the wide 

array of Iranian threats, including the regime’s destabilizing activities in the region 

and its support to the Assad regime. If confirmed, I look forward to leading the 

State Department in implementing the President’s strategy, which includes targeting sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force and its 

Ministry of Intelligence and Security for their support to the Assad regime. I would 

also look forward to continuing State Department efforts to achieve a diplomatic 

outcome in Syria that brings stability, a decrease in violence, and ultimately a situation where the Syrian people can govern themselves in a post-Assad Syria. 

Section 5—Question 53. If no, what are the United States’ priorities in Syria? 

Answer. The Administration’s priority in Syria is the enduring defeat of ISIS. In 

order to defeat ISIS, President Trump has implemented an accelerated strategy for 

the enduring defeat of ISIS and its focus on de-escalating the violence in Syria creates the space for political resolution. With de-escalation, some of the worst effects 

of this conflict, civilian casualties, displacement, and the growth of terrorist groups 

and Iranian influence, are mitigated. It will be critical to continue to work with regional partners to address these issues. The Administration supports a unified, stable Syria to which all refugees and those displaced by the conflict can safely and 

voluntarily return and in which the rights of all Syrians are protected. 

Section 5—Question 54. Do you believe that the presence of U.S. forces on the 

ground in Syria is required to counter Iranian influence and activities inside Syria? 

Answer. The President has issued a comprehensive strategy to counter the wide 

array of Iranian threats, including the regime’s destabilizing activities in the region 

and its support to the Assad regime. If confirmed, I look forward to leading the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

159 

State Department in implementing the President’s strategy, which includes targeting sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force and its 

Ministry of Intelligence and Security for their support to the Assad regime. 

Section 5—Question 55. Do you believe that the Administration has the legal authority to maintain ground forces in Syria for the purposes of countering Iranian 

influence and activities? 

Answer. The U.S. military presence in Syria is to defeat ISIS. My understanding 

is that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides sufficient legal 

authority to prosecute the campaign against al-Qa’ida and associated forces, including the ISIS. 

Section 5—Question 56. The de-escalation zones in Syria, negotiated by Jordan, 

Russia and the United States, depend on Russian assurances. If Russia is unwilling 

or unable to provide assurances that the Syrian regime or its associated forces, such 

as Hezbollah or other Iranian-backed proxy forces, will cease violence in these areas, 

what is the next option for U.S. policy in Syria? 

Answer. As part of the arrangement in southwest Syria, Russia has committed 

to remove all foreign fighters from the area, including Hizballah or other Iranianbacked proxy forces, and to help to deescalate should the regime violate the 

ceasefire. The Administration does not believe there is a military solution to the 

conflict in Syria, and is committed to the UN-led Geneva process to support a political solution. UN Security Council Resolution 2254 was reaffirmed by both President 

Trump and Russian President Putin on November 11 in Vietnam. 

Section 5—Question 57. Do you believe that the United States should lead international diplomacy to resolve the Syrian civil war? 

Answer. The Administration believes that the Syrian conflict can only be solved 

by reaching a political solution, and as a result, the United States is a leader in 

that effort. The Administration is firmly committed to the UN-led political process 

in Geneva as laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. It demands that all 

parties to the conflict deescalate violence, allow for unhindered humanitarian access, requests that the UN Secretary General convene the parties to engage in formal negotiations, and encourages all like-minded nations to do the same. Additionally, U.S. diplomats engage directly with the Syrian opposition, in regional capitals 

and with like-minded partners to support this effort. 

Section 5—Question 58. If so, how would you approach diplomacy with Russia, 

Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran to achieve that result? 

Answer. To achieve a political solution to the conflict in Syria, it is important to 

engage both like-minded countries and with those who have influence on the Assad 

regime. The Administration works closely with our allies to promote a UN-centered 

political process and put pressure on Russia and Iran to adhere to the conditions 

enshrined in UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 2254. President Trump and Russian 

President Putin both committed to UNSCR 2254 on November 11 in Vietnam. Furthermore, the Administration believes it is imperative to deny Iran and the other 

guarantors of the Astana Process the space to circumvent or in any way create a 

political process parallel to the UN-led Geneva talks. 

Section 5—Question 59. If not, what do you think U.S. objectives should be with 

respect to Syria? 

Answer. The Administration’s priority in Syria is the enduring defeat of ISIS. In 

order to defeat ISIS, President Trump has implemented an accelerated strategy for 

the enduring defeat of ISIS and its focus on de-escalating the violence in Syria creates the space for political resolution. With de-escalation, some of the worst effects 

of this conflict, civilian casualties, displacement, and the growth of terrorist groups 

and Iranian influence, are mitigated. It will be critical to continue to work with regional partners to address these issues. The Administration supports a unified, stable Syria to which all refugees and those displaced by the conflict can safely and 

voluntarily return and in which the rights of all Syrians are protected. 

Section 5—Question 60. As you know, this Committee has jurisdiction over legislation authorizing U.S. military action. When the Obama administration proposed 

using military force against the Assad regime in response to chemical weapons attacks, it sought Congressional authorization. You were still in Congress and you 

supported that measure and urged your colleagues to do the same. You wrote at the 

time that Congress’ ‘‘constitutional role is oversight and advocacy of effective military action.’’ Congress did not authorize President Obama to take military action, 

but the Obama administration was able to secure the removal of a large portion of 

Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. Now that President Trump is considering miliFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

160 

tary action in response more chemical attacks by the Assad regime in Syria, do you 

believe President Trump is required to obtain Congressional authorization prior to 

initiating that military action? 

Answer. I respect Congress’s role in authorizing the use of military force and in 

providing oversight on these issues. While there is a longstanding practice of Presidents of both parties exercising the President’s constitutional authorities to use 

force in certain circumstances without prior Congressional authorization, a determination whether any specific use of military force would fall within the President’s 

authority would require a fact-specific assessment, in consultation with legal experts, at the time the use of military force is contemplated. I believe it is very important to engage actively with Congress on these issues. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue discussing with you and other members issues relating to the use of force and issues relating to the Syrian regime’s unacceptable 

use of chemical weapons. 

(Section 6—Questions 1–43) 

Section 6—Question 1. Last year the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia sent a letter to Secretary Tillerson outlining Saudi Arabia’s commitment toward reducing civilian casualties in Yemen. What specific steps has the Saudi military taken, since 

affirming commitments in the letter, to reduce civilian casualties? 

Answer. The Administration places the highest priority on preventing civilian casualties, and it has conveyed serious concerns on this subject to the Saudi-led Coalition. My understanding is that the Coalition utilizes a No Strike List in its target 

development procedures. The Coalition has stopped the use of cluster munitions, 

changed its rules of engagement to incorporate U.S. best practices, and increased 

its use of precision-guided munitions, which could help to decrease casualties and 

collateral damage. The Coalition is aware of the importance of adhering to the law 

of armed conflict. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. diplomatic efforts in these areas. 

Section 6—Question 2. What specific measures has the Trump Administration undertaken to assist the Saudi military in reducing civilian causalities? 

Answer. The Administration places the highest priority on preventing civilian casualties, and it has conveyed serious concerns on this subject to the Saudi-led Coalition. I understand that U.S. advisors have assisted the Coalition in incorporating 

a No Strike List into its target development procedures. At our urging, the Coalition 

has stopped the use of cluster munitions, changed its rules of engagement to incorporate U.S. best practices, and increased its use of precision-guided munitions, 

which could help to decrease casualties and collateral damage. I understand that 

U.S. advisors have provided training to senior Saudi military personnel, including 

on the importance of adhering to the law of armed conflict. 

Section 6—Question 3. What specific measures has the Trump Administration undertaken to assist the Saudi government in address the humanitarian crisis in 

Yemen? 

Answer. The Administration continues to urge the Saudi-led Coalition to provide 

unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance and commercial goods—including 

food, fuel, and medicine—to reach Yemen. The Administration worked with the Coalition, the World Food Programme (WFP), and others to deliver four U.S.-supported 

WFP cranes to Hudaydah port on January 15. The Administration is working with 

Saudi Arabia on its Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations plan to ensure 

that the plan is responsive to the needs of Yemenis. If confirmed, I will urge Saudi 

Arabia to work closely with the United Nations and humanitarian actors to improve 

humanitarian conditions. 

Section 6—Question 4. Is there a military solution to the conflict in Yemen? If the 

answer is no, what specific policy changes will you recommend to the President to 

move toward a negotiated end to the conflict in Yemen? 

Answer. The Administration has consistently emphasized the importance of a political settlement but the differences between the parties to the conflict in Yemen 

must be resolved directly. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the 

new UN Envoy to advance a political solution in Yemen. The UN Envoy has the 

difficult task of developing a balanced framework to guide future negotiations and 

a political process. If confirmed, I will contribute U.S. expertise, and leadership to 

this effort. If confirmed, I will work closely with regional partners including Saudi 

Arabia, the UAE, and Oman to generate progress. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

161 

Section 6—Question 5. While there are some signs of reform in Saudi Arabia 

under the leadership of Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman, arbitrary arrests, 

trials, and convictions of peaceful dissidents have not stopped or changed. Dozens 

of human rights defenders and activists are serving long prison sentences for criticizing authorities or advocating political and rights reforms, including Raif Badawi, 

a blogger who was sentenced for 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for publishing 

a liberal blog. Authorities also continue to discriminate against women and religious 

minorities and over the last year have initiated a wave of arrests of clerics and others in what appears to have been a coordinated crackdown on dissent. What steps 

would you recommend, of confirmed, to highlight the need for genuine reform to also 

include space for peaceful dissent? 

Answer. I understand that human rights issues are part of the Department’s conversations with the Saudi government, and U.S. officials routinely encourage Saudi 

Arabia to recognize and respect the rights of its citizens to exercise basic freedoms. 

If confirmed, I will encourage Saudi Arabia to ensure fair and transparent judicial 

proceedings, and to afford all necessary legal and juridical guarantees to protect the 

rule of law and fundamental human rights of all citizens and residents. 

Section 6—Question 6. What support will you provide—both technical and diplomatic—if confirmed, to help the Saudis build a viable system based on the rule of 

law? 

Answer. I understand that the Department has raised concerns about treatment 

of detainees and legal procedures that do not meet international due process and 

fair trial standards. If confirmed, I will encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia 

to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings, and to afford all necessary legal 

and juridical guarantees to protect the rule of law and fundamental human rights 

of all citizens and residents. 

Section 6—Question 7. Will you commit to specifically raise the ongoing imprisonment of Raif Badawi? 

Answer. I understand that human rights issues are included in the Department’s 

conversations with the Saudi government. It is my understanding that Mr. Badawi’s 

case is raised frequently. If confirmed, I will continue to raise concerns with the 

Saudi government. 

Section 6—Question 8. It is U.S. policy to maintain and enhance Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME)—effectively, Israel’s ability to defend itself, by itself, 

against any threat or potential combination of threats. Given the growing instability 

among Israel’s neighbors and the region overall, and given how some of Israel’s 

neighbors are looking to improve their defensive capabilities, the U.S. commitment 

to Israel’s QME is of upmost importance. If confirmed, will you make ensuring 

Israel’s QME is maintained a constant priority? 

Answer. Yes. Israel’s security is paramount to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle 

East, and is something I strongly believe in. With the support of sustained U.S. security assistance, Israel has developed one of the most advanced militaries in the 

world. If confirmed, I would ensure the United States remains committed, consistent 

with its statutory requirement and longstanding policy, to ensuring Israel maintains 

its qualitative military edge. 

Section 6—Question 9. Will you ensure our military cooperation and arms sales 

to the region are always weighed against their impact on Israel’s QME? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, in considering our military cooperation and arms sales 

to the region, I will ensure the United States continues to protect Israel’s qualitative 

military edge. 

Section 6—Question 10. Under what conditions should the United States continue 

to support the Lebanese Armed Forces? 

Answer. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are a critical counterterrorism partner that successfully combats ISIS and al-Qa’ida. If confirmed, I will ensure future 

U.S. assistance to the LAF continues to serve our objectives, including enabling the 

LAF to reinforce Lebanon’s sovereignty and secure its borders, counter internal 

threats and further the development of legitimate state institutions. This assistance 

undermines Hizballah’s false narrative as a guarantor of Lebanon’s security as well 

as its attempts to undercut the Lebanese central government. If confirmed, I will 

also ensure that assistance to the LAF remains premised on its compliance with end 

use monitoring requirements for U.S. government-provided equipment. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

162 

Section 6—Question 11. When was the last time the U.S. was unable to provide 

security assistance to a particular unit within the NEA region or Turkey due to 

Leahy vetting? 

Answer. I understand the last time the Department denied security assistance to 

a unit in the NEA region due to Leahy vetting was in February 2018. The Department denied a request for security assistance based on Leahy vetting concerns to 

a Turkish unit in 2015, according to Department records. 

Section 6—Question 12. Please provide details on the unit, why they were denied 

assistance, when assistance was resumed and the reasoning for that resumption. 

Answer. I understand that the Department denied assistance training to a tribal 

militia unit in Iraq due to derogatory information pertaining to the unit’s commander, and that the United States has not extended security assistance to the unit 

since then. I also understand that the Department denied assistance to a Turkish 

police unit in 2015 due to a credible allegation that the Turkish unit’s commander 

was involved in torture and extrajudicial killing. The United States has not resumed 

assistance to the Turkish police unit since that allegation. 

Section 6—Question 13. How has the State Department followed up with the unit 

and country in question to ensure compliance? 

Answer. I understand the Department continues to support the efforts of Iraqi 

and Turkish authorities to enhance their security forces’ respect for human rights 

and accountability for human rights violations. However, the United States has not 

resumed support for the Turkish police unit since the allegation in 2015. 

Section 6—Question 14. How has this Leahy determination influenced subsequent 

offers of assistance? 

Answer. I understand that all units credibly implicated in gross violations of 

human rights are prohibited from receiving U.S. security assistance until they have 

been brought to account for those violations. 

Section 6—Question 15. Egypt has renewed efforts to fight the insurgency with 

the ongoing ‘‘Comprehensive Operation Sinai 2018’’ offensive but human rights 

groups have raised concerns. What access does our Embassy in Cairo have to see 

how U.S. weapons systems are being used in this theater? What actions is the State 

Department taking to maintain access and monitor use of these systems? I welcome 

the Administration’s commitment to pressing the Egyptian government to downgrade its ties with the DPRK regime and halt activities that allow the regime to 

undertake sanctions-evading activities. As part of this effort with Egypt, some of 

Egypt’s FY17 assistance was withheld. However, reports still suggest that despite 

Egyptian officials’ pledges to cut military ties to the DPRK, North Korea maintains 

an Embassy in Cairo which some describe as an ‘‘arms bazaar for covert sales of 

North Korean missiles and cut-price Soviet-era military hardware.’’ Just last month, 

in the FY2018 Omnibus, Congress has called for an assessment of Egypt’s compliance with the UN arms embargo on the DPRK. Does the Administration assess that 

there has been a significant change in the Egypt-North Korea relationship? 

Answer. Egypt launched a counterterrorism operation in February targeting ISISaffiliated militants in Sinai. The United States has urged Egypt to adopt a comprehensive approach and ensure civilian populations are protected. Egypt limits outside access to the area, apart from official travel to Multinational Force and Observers facilities. I will press for greater access, if confirmed. Reducing the threat from 

the DPRK is among the highest priorities for the Administration, and if confirmed, 

I will stress that Egypt must comply with its international obligations. I understand 

that lack of progress in response to U.S. concerns contributed to Secretary 

Tillerson’s decision to withhold $195 million in FY 2016 Foreign Military Funds. If 

confirmed, I would be happy to discuss my assessment of the situation in a classified setting. 

Section 6—Question 16. Can you confirm to this Committee that assertions by the 

26 January 2018 Report to the UN Security Council of the Panel of Experts on 

Yemen are correct? Is CIA aware of any credible information to substantiate these 

allegations? 

Answer. I am aware of the UN Panel of Experts on Yemen report, to include the 

report’s allegations about UAE’s conduct in Yemen. Should CIA, in the course of its 

foreign intelligence collection activity, learn of Emirati involvement in human rights 

violations, CIA would raise the matter with the Emirati services. CIA would also 

continue to monitor intelligence as well as open source reporting on any potential 

human rights abuses. As a standing practice, CIA also takes into consideration the 

Department of State’s Annual Human Rights Report for each country. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

163 

Section 6—Question 17. What action has CIA undertaken to investigate these allegations? What further actions will you undertake if you are confirmed as Secretary 

of State? 

Answer. A country’s assurances are a valuable tool for ensuring any possible violations of human rights are mitigated. The UAE likely treats assurances it provides 

the United States government on any subject as an important matter. 

Section 6—Question 18. If these allegations are confirmed or seen as credible, in 

whole or in part, what actions will you take if you are confirmed as Secretary of 

State to ensure a full accounting by the UAE of these practices; their immediate 

termination; amelioration and redress, including allowing the Red Cross into these 

Centers and accounting for and humane treatment of detainees that have disappeared? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the UAE government to conduct a thorough investigation of these practices, to include allowing the International Committee of the 

Red Cross to have regular access to these centers. I will make clear the importance 

of adherence to the law of armed conflict, including the requirement to treat detainees humanely, and I will request assurances from the UAE government that they 

will do so. 

Section 6—Question 19. The Bahraini government continues to struggle in addressing a restive domestic population and has largely failed to address the legitimate economic and political grievances of its varied citizenry. In the last year alone, 

according to Human Rights Watch as well as the U.S. State Department human 

rights country report, Bahrain’s government continues to target for harassment, arrest and jailing without sufficient due process the political opposition, peaceful dissidents, and other activists who criticize the government’s action. Repressive tactics 

against free speech and assembly continue, as do low-scale protests in mostly Shi’a 

neighborhoods. Political organizations and newspapers have been shut down by the 

government. Meanwhile, the political negotiation process that surrounded the 2011 

uprising is non-existent, and the risk to Bahraini security forces and the threat of 

Iranian support to violent fringe groups inside Bahrain also continues to grow. 

What is the United States’ current policy towards Bahrain domestic political challenges? 

Answer. These are Bahraini challenges that will require Bahraini solutions, but 

Bahrain’s partners can also be supportive of the process. If confirmed, I will encourage reform, reconciliation, and respect for human rights in Bahrain, and these 

issues will be at the center of the Department’s engagement with the government 

and people of Bahrain. 

Section 6—Question 20. Do you personally believe there is value in engaging 

proactively the Bahraini government regarding its commitments since the 2011 uprising to address domestic political and economic grievances? 

Answer. I understand that the Department has regularly engaged the Bahraini 

government on its commitments, including but not limited to those specified in the 

Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. If confirmed, I will review our strategy 

and determine how it should adapt and evolve. 

Section 6—Question 21. If confirmed, how will you direct the Department of State 

to prioritize these issues, while balancing other areas of cooperation with Bahrain? 

Answer. The operational and logistical support that Bahrain provides our military 

is essential to the success of the campaign to defeat ISIS and enables our Navy to 

lead a 31-country international coalition that counters piracy, drug trafficking, and 

terrorism across 2.5 million square miles of ocean and seas. Bahrain faces persistent 

threats from Iran, including Iran’s training and supply of lethal aid to individuals 

and groups targeting the government and security forces. If confirmed, I will work 

with the Department of Defense to support Bahrain’s armed forces to address 

shared threats. I recognize Bahrain’s long-term stability and security depend on it 

achieving political reconciliation and upholding commitments to universal human 

rights. 

Section 6—Question 22. Should the U.S. continue arms sales to Bahrain absent 

any meaningful or credible progress on political and economic reform issues? 

Answer. Bahrain is an important U.S. partner. Our relationship is built on common interests, including joint efforts to counter violent extremism, promote regional 

security, and confront the threat from Iran. This cooperation with Bahrain is paired 

with a clear understanding that Bahrain’s own long-term stability and security depend on it achieving political reconciliation and upholding commitments to universal 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

164 

human rights. If confirmed, I will explore ways to strengthen our security partnership with Bahrain while also urging credible progress on reforms. 

Section 6—Question 23. Saudi Arabia and the UAE lead the blockade against 

Qatar. A fractured GCC exposes the region to further malign Iranian influence, 

which is not in the U.S. or Gulf security interests. Yet, it appears that the Saudi 

and Emirati government not only ignore, but at times undermine, U.S. efforts to 

move forward with a resolution. What steps are you prepared to take, if confirmed, 

in order to end the blockade and rebuild Gulf ties? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support President Trump’s personal engagement to 

resolve the dispute. A resolution is in the interests of the United States, Egypt, and 

the Gulf states. A united Gulf Cooperation Council should focus on degrading Iranian malign influence and terrorism. If confirmed, I will support Kuwait’s efforts 

to mediate the dispute, urge the parties to the negotiating table, and call for an end 

to provocative or escalatory rhetoric. Ceasing public attacks is a crucial first step 

in de-escalating the dispute to create the conditions for productive negotiations. 

Section 6—Question 24. What specific steps should be on the table in order to 

move all parties toward the negotiating table? 

Answer. The United States should continue to support Kuwait’s mediation efforts 

and should support any mechanism the parties agree upon to start dialogue and 

come to a mutual understanding of their concerns and how to resolve them. The 

United States should also continue to urge the parties to cease attacks in the media 

to help create conditions for productive negotiations. 

Section 6—Question 25. Do you believe that the blockade against Qatar should be 

deescalated? 

Answer. Yes, de-escalation is an essential first step to resolving the dispute, which 

is a priority for the President. If confirmed, I will urge the Gulf states and Egypt 

to send a clear message they are ready for dialogue. I will urge them to take other 

steps including restoration of diplomatic relations, re-opening borders and airspace, 

and permitting travel for nationals on both sides of the dispute. 

Section 6—Question 26. Are you concerned by growing Saudi and Emirati cooperation with Russia? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage the leaders of both countries to caution that 

Russia is an unreliable partner. Russia does not live up to its stated international 

agreements related to Syria, and Russia often plays a spoiler role, complicating multilateral diplomatic initiatives aimed at conflict resolution. 

Section 6—Question 27. Would you characterize Gulf engagement with Russia as 

productive or counter-productive with respect to ending conflicts across the region? 

Answer. Russia’s support for Assad, its relationship with Iran, and its false statements about U.S. and Coalition links to ISIS in Syria pose challenges to resolving 

the conflict in Syria. If confirmed, I will encourage the Gulf countries to press Russia to adhere to its international commitments related to Syria, starting with UN 

Security Council resolution 2254 and will work with the Gulf countries to convey 

a firm response to Moscow’s destabilizing activities in the region. 

Section 6—Question 28. Do you believe that the Gulf countries could take steps 

to join efforts with the U.S. and Europe in isolating Russia diplomatically, or punishing Russia economically, or its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East? 

Answer. Our partners in the Gulf can play an important diplomatic and economic 

role in preventing and countering Russian aggressive behavior. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with our allies and partners to push back against the full spectrum 

of threats posed by Russia. 

Section 6—Question 29. If so, what specific steps do you recommend? 

Answer. Russia’s destabilizing role in the Middle East is centered on its support 

for the Assad regime and support for Iran. If confirmed, I will work with Gulf partners to counter Iran’s malign influence, and to find a sustainable political solution 

to Syria. 

Section 6—Question 30. The UN has warned that Libya suffers under ‘‘an economic system of predation’’ by criminal networks, and corrupt officials and recently 

documented and condemned ‘‘appalling abuses and violations’’ of human rights by 

Libyan armed groups, including some armed groups affiliated with the U.S.-backed 

Government of National Accord. What evidence does the Department of State have 

that confirms or refutes these claims and reports? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

165 

Answer. It is my understanding the Department shares its assessment of human 

rights conditions publicly and documents violations in the annual Human Rights 

Reports. I understand Department officials regularly engage Libyan leaders on concerns about human rights abuses, including those committed by various Libyan 

armed groups. If confirmed, I will monitor the human rights situation in Libya. 

Section 6—Question 31. What steps is the Administration taking to identify and 

hold to account prominent individuals involved in criminal activity, the exploitation 

of public funds, public corruption, and human rights violations in Libya? 

Answer. In February, the Administration imposed sanctions on individuals and 

entities in an international criminal network smuggling petroleum products out of 

Libya, using the authorities in Executive Order 13726. I understand the Department monitors human rights conditions and documents violations in the annual 

Human Rights Reports. It is my understanding that Department officials raise 

human rights concerns with Libya’s leaders and urge them to hold perpetrators of 

abuses accountable. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues this practice. 

Section 6—Question 32. What safeguards are in place to ensure that individuals 

and entities involved in human rights violations and economic crimes do not exploit, 

benefit from, or participate in U.S.-funded programs? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the Department carefully vets potential participants in U.S.-funded programs, including security force units, as required by the 

Leahy Law. 

Section 6—Question 33. What specific criteria will you use to evaluate options for 

the return of U.S. diplomats to Libya on a full-time basis? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of State continues to conduct appropriate planning for resuming full-time operations in Libya, when security 

conditions permit. If confirmed, I will seek the input of Diplomatic Security and 

Management professionals to ensure the necessary logistical and security arrangements are in place before making a decision to resume operations for U.S. Embassy 

Tripoli. 

Section 6—Question 34. What specific logistical and security arrangements need 

to be in place to affect such a return? 

Answer. If confirmed, before making a decision to resume operations for U.S. Embassy Tripoli, I would seek the input of Diplomatic Security and Management professionals to ensure that the necessary logistical and security arrangements are in 

place and that security conditions permit. 

Section 6—Question 35. Given those criteria and arrangements, when might such 

a return occur? 

Answer. I understand that the Department would need to carefully evaluate the 

security and political conditions in Libya and put in place the necessary logistical 

and security arrangements to allow for the safe resumption of operations for U.S. 

Embassy Tripoli. 

Section 6—Question 36. Will you, if confirmed, work with other relevant U.S. government agencies to achieve the extradition from Turkey of members of Turkish 

President Erdogan’s security detail who have been charged in the U.S. courts with 

committing felony assaults against peaceful protesters in May 2017 in Washington, 

DC? 

Answer. The conduct of Turkish security personnel last May was deeply disturbing. I understand the Department has raised its concerns about these events 

publicly and directly at the highest levels with the Turkish government, and if confirmed, I would continue to do so. Holding the responsible individuals accountable 

is of the utmost importance. I refer you to the Department of Justice for further 

information on the legal cases. 

Section 6—Question 37. New START Treaty: This past month, the United States 

verified that Russia meet the central limitation on strategic delivery systems and 

nuclear warheads of the New START Treaty. Senior U.S. military officials in Congressional testimony have stated that New START as a bilateral, verifiable arms 

control agreements is essential to the U.S. ability to provide an effective deterrent. 

Do you believe that New START contributes to U.S. national security? 

Answer. Yes. I believe the Treaty contributes to preserving strategic stability between the United States and Russia and is in the national security interest of the 

United States. New START’s verification regime, which includes short-notice, on-site 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

166 

inspections at Treaty-related bases and facilities, permits the United States to verify 

information about Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal. 

Section 6—Question 38. Do you believe New START should be extended for another five years, as allowed by the treaty, if Russia continues to comply with the 

treaty? 

Answer. My understanding is that the Administration will continue to fully implement New START. As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states, the United States 

is willing to engage in a prudent arms control agenda, and will seek arms control 

agreements that enhance security, and are verifiable and enforceable. If confirmed, 

I will consider next steps related to the New START Treaty at the appropriate time, 

taking this into account. 

Section 6—Question 39. Saudi Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: The United States 

is currently pursuing a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia after the 

kingdom announced plans to build two and possible more civilian nuclear reactors. 

During an interview with CBS, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman said 

‘‘Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if 

Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.’’ If actually 

implemented this statement would create a dangerous precedent where countries 

could set aside their NPT obligations if a regional rival developed nuclear weapons 

What is the administration’s overall plan for preventing civilian nuclear programs 

in the Middle East from being used to pursue a nuclear arsenal? 

Answer. As I told the Committee during the hearing, I support the gold standard 

in U.S. 123 agreements. The United States has significant strategic, commercial, 

and nonproliferation incentives to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia. 

Such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities for U.S. firms 

and ensure the Saudi nuclear power program is subject to the highest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards. In the absence of a 123 agreement, U.S. firms 

will lose the opportunity to compete and will likely be replaced by state-owned enterprises from other countries with lower nonproliferation standards. 

Section 6—Question 40. Will the United States sign an agreement with Saudi Arabia if it refuses to implement the IAEA Additional Protocol? 

Answer. As I told the Committee during the hearing, I support the gold standard 

in U.S. 123 agreements. The United States has significant strategic, commercial, 

and nonproliferation incentives to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia. 

Such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities for U.S. firms 

and ensure the Saudi nuclear power program is subject to the highest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards. In the absence of a 123 agreement, U.S. firms 

will lose the opportunity to compete and will likely be replaced by state-owned enterprises from other countries with lower nonproliferation standards. 

Section 6—Question 41. Does Saudi Arabia possess the nuclear material and technology to produce a nuclear bomb? 

Answer. Not to the best of my personal knowledge. 

Section 6—Question 42. If Iran developed a nuclear weapon would Saudi Arabia 

seek to purchase a weapon from another nuclear armed states such as Pakistan? 

Does Saudi Arabia have a formal or informal agreement with Pakistan to provide 

them with a nuclear weapon? 

Answer. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and a security partner of the United States. It has committed to never acquire nuclear weapons, and to apply comprehensive IAEA safeguards to all peaceful nuclear activities. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that Saudi Arabia continues to abide by these important 

nonproliferation obligations. 

Section 6—Question 43. Saudi Arabia Atomic Energy Plans: Saudi Arabia in the 

National Policy for Atomic Energy Program released on March 13, 2018 says it will 

seek the ‘‘exploitation of nuclear materials, especially uranium, which is locally 

available.’’ Saudi Arabia interest in pursuing uranium mining and its industries is 

one of the main reasons they insist any nuclear cooperation agreement allow them 

to pursue enrichment and reprocessing. Does Saudi Arabia possess sufficient uranium deposits for a commercial viable program to fuel its reactors or to competitively enter the international export market? 

Answer. My understanding is that Saudi Arabia possesses some domestic natural 

uranium reserves, the commercial viability of which remains unclear, given that 

natural uranium is readily available on the international market. The Kingdom is 

currently in the process of exploring and documenting its uranium reserves, which 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

167 

will provide greater clarity regarding their commercial potential. The United States 

has a longstanding policy of seeking to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies around the world, including in the Middle East. If confirmed, I 

will strongly support that policy. 

(Section 7—Questions 1–46) 

Section 7—Question 1. North Korea: Since President Trump took office North 

Korea has conducted three ICBM tests (which it had never done before) and their 

largest nuclear test which some experts have stated was a hydrogen bomb. In your 

role as CIA Director you have seen all the intelligence about North Korea nuclear 

and ballistic missile programs, would you say over the last twelve months the threat 

to the United States from North Korea has increased, decreased, or stayed the 

same? 

Answer. As I said in my testimony, North Korea poses a nuclear threat to the 

United States, our citizens, and our allies. I believe this threat has increased over 

the past year—it has also increased over the past number of years—as the North 

conducted a series of long-range missile tests, including ICBM launches. The North 

also continued its underground nuclear testing program. Together, these two efforts 

have advanced Pyongyang’s capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons to the region 

and to the continental United States. They also have increased Kim Jong Un’s confidence that he can put us and our allies at risk. 

Section 7—Question 2. How meaningful is the proposed test moratorium North 

Korea has proposed given their declaration after their last IBCM test that ‘‘we have 

finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force’’? Isn’t 

North Korea beginning these talks from a greatly strengthened position due to the 

technological breakthroughs it has achieved over the last 12 months? 

Answer. The pressure campaign the Administration has led is making North Korea’s current position increasingly untenable and is one of the main reasons the regime is seeking negotiations. While our goal remains denuclearization, a testing 

moratorium could be an important first step on that path. 

Section 7—Question 3. INF Treaty: The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for 

the development of several new nuclear systems including a new nuclear warhead 

for our submarine forces and a sea-launched cruise missile partially as a response 

to Russia’s INF violation. However, NPR did not mention the new ground launched 

cruise missile (GLCM) which was announced in December as part of the United 

States review of its INF policy. Does the Administration still believe a ground 

launch cruise missile, which if deployed would be a violation of the INF treaty, is 

still an appropriate and necessary response to Russia’s INF violation? 

Answer. I understand the Administration’s integrated strategy of diplomatic, economic, and military measures includes pursuing INF Treaty-compliant research and 

development on a conventional, intermediate-range, ground-launched missile to 

change Russia’s calculus and enable the United States to defend ourselves and our 

allies should Russia not return to compliance. The purpose is to make clear to Russia that it will be less secure by persisting in its violation, not more. The Administration remains committed to the INF Treaty and seeks to return Russia to full and 

verifiable compliance. The United States is prepared to cease such research and development activities if Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance with its INF 

Treaty obligations. 

Section 7—Question 4. Which countries in Europe has the United States identified 

as possible location for the new GLCM? 

Answer. I believe it is premature to discuss possible basing locations for a potential new U.S. conventional, intermediate-range, ground-launched missile. Current 

U.S. research and development is compliant with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 

Forces (INF) Treaty. The United States is prepared to cease such research and development activities if Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance with its INF 

Treaty obligations. The Administration is cooperating with and keeping allies apprised of its efforts to seek Russia’s return to full and verifiable compliance. 

Section 7—Question 5. Arms sales are a critical part of U.S. foreign and security 

policy, the oversight of which is solely within the SFRC’s jurisdiction. We have seen 

in the last two years a significantly heightened scrutiny in the Senate of arms sales 

to certain countries in including three votes on resolutions of disapproval of specific 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

168 

sales. Will you work closely and proactively with this Committee on proposed arms 

sales to fully address any concerns we may have? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 7—Question 6. There is a well-established and mutually-beneficial informal consultative process on proposed arms sales between the SFRC and the Department of State. This process has existed for decades, and has enabled both the Committee and State to express concerns, answer questions, and address problems with 

proposed sales, before these problems turn into public disputes and Senate Floor 

votes on resolutions of disapproval. Will you continue this consultative process as 

it now exists? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 7—Question 7. It is crucial for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 

and Labor, or DRL, to be involved in reviewing both proposed arms sales to ensure 

that this crucial form of U.S. Security Assistance is not undermining U.S. policies 

and objectives to promote human rights abroad. Will you commit that DRL will be 

involved in reviewing all arms sales cases in which they have human rights concerns regarding the recipient country? 

Answer. Human rights is a key criterion in considering arms transfers as reflected 

in U.S. law and Presidential Guidance. As such, I believe that DRL should play a 

central role in arms sales reviews, and, if confirmed, will maintain DRL’s role in 

that process. 

Section 7—Question .8 Do you commit to giving DRL equal weight to the recommendations of the regional bureaus and Political-Military Affairs Bureau regarding all such cases? 

Answer. Both U.S. law and Presidential Guidance require that human rights be 

a key criterion when considering any arms transfer. If confirmed, I will ensure that 

DRL maintains a central role in arms sales reviews. 

Section 7—Question 9. If necessary, will you grant DRL direct access to you to 

make a case for denial or modification of a sale for which they have concerns? 

Answer. DRL is an essential part of the arms transfer process, and human rights 

is a key criteria in arms transfer decisions by both U.S. law and Presidential Guidance. If confirmed, I will ensure DRL continues to play its essential role in the review process. 

Section 7—Question 10. I understand that State supports transferring control of 

lethal semiautomatic weapons and sniper rifles to the Commerce department, apparently in the belief that these dangerous weapons have somehow become less 

harmful. This move would not only subject these lethal weapons to less-stringent 

controls, but also conveniently remove them from being subject to Congressional review and disapproval—despite Congress’s action in 2002 to subject them to greater 

oversight than tanks and aircraft. You may argue that State will still be able to intervene in proposed exports; to that I point out that State also proposed the sale 

of 27,000 assault weapons to the Philippine national police—who are conducting 

summary executions in the streets—and semiautomatic pistols to the same Turkish 

thugs who beat peaceful protestors in Washington last year—both of which were 

stopped only by the action of the Ranking Member, so I’m not reassured that State 

will intervene. Why does State believe that these weapons, which are much more 

likely to be misused—including being susceptible for transfer to terrorist and criminal networks—need to be subject to export requirements, in law and in regulation, 

than other lethal arms on the U.S. Munitions List? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to supporting policies and proposals that further 

U.S. national security interests, including human rights. If confirmed, I would closely study the status of this issue and seek the advice of State Department advisors. 

Section 7—Question 11. Since this transfer will remove these items from the 

AECA statutory Congressional review process, including the informal review processes of long-standing, why does State believe that less Congressional oversight over 

the export of these weapons is justified? 

Answer. I understand the rules transferring control of firearms and related munitions from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce, if published, 

would be published first as proposed rules. If confirmed, and upon publication of the 

rules, I will look forward to receiving Congress’s views, and those of the public, on 

this matter. 

Section 7—Question 12. Ambassadorial Knowledge/Veto over Covert/Special Operations: Do you believe that the U.S. Chief of Mission should be informed of all operFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

169 

ations by covert intelligence and Special Operations personnel in their country of 

responsibility, as well as any proposals by the DoD to transfer funds to foreign persons or entities in that country? 

Answer. Yes. Chiefs of Mission have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of U.S. Government employees in their countries of accreditation, except for those employees under the command of a U.S. military area commander and other exceptions as stated in 22 USC 3927. Consistent with the Foreign 

Service Act of 1980 and longstanding executive branch practice, and with limited 

exceptions, Chiefs of Mission are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities undertaken in their countries of accreditation. 

Section 7—Question 13. Do you think they should be able to veto any activity that 

the Chief of Mission believes is inimical to U.S. diplomatic policies and efforts? If 

so, if you are confirmed as Secretary of State, will you instruct all Chiefs of Mission 

to inform you about any such activity about which they have concerns? 

Answer. The applicable statutory authority, 22 U.S.C. 3927, states: ‘‘Under the direction of the President, the chief of mission to a foreign country shall have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government executive branch employees in that country.’’ Pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 

and longstanding executive branch practice, chiefs of mission are fully and currently 

informed of intelligence activities undertaken in their countries of accreditation, 

subject to limited exceptions. Decisions on the scope of intelligence activities in particular countries are informed by the field perspective that chiefs of mission and 

chiefs of station provide, but not all such decisions are made in the field. Were the 

chief of mission and CIA’s chief of station in a particular country unable to resolve 

a disagreement as to whether a particular intelligence activity should proceed, they 

could refer that disagreement to the Secretary of State and the Director of the CIA 

for resolution, subject when necessary, to the President’s guidance. 

Section 7—Question 14. Countering Russian/Global Propaganda: The Department 

of State under Secretary Tillerson was decidedly unenthusiastic about the Congressional statutory requirement for the Global Engagement Center to aggressively 

counter propaganda from other countries directed at the United States, especially 

from Russia. Will you continue this tepid policy, or will you exhibit stronger leadership in this regard? 

Answer. I share your deep concern about the adverse effects of state-sponsored 

propaganda and disinformation on U.S. national security. If confirmed, I will work 

to appropriately resource the GEC so it may carry out its critical mission to counter 

state-sponsored disinformation that undermines U.S. national security interests. 

Section 7—Question 15. What specific measures will you take to fulfill the statutory mandate, especially regarding Russian propaganda efforts? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to utilizing the up to $20 million in additional 

funds to support the GEC’s counter-state mission, including countering state-sponsored disinformation that undermines U.S. national security interests. I also commit 

to fully staffing the GEC to ensure its ability to carry out its mission. 

Section 7—Question 16. Turkey’s Purchase of the S-400. Turkey’s President 

Erdogan has confirmed that Turkey has concluded a deal with Russia to purchase 

the S-400 antimissile system, and that Turkey has paid a deposit for the system. 

This deal is clearly a violation of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through 

Sanctions Act (CAATSA), and as such, should invoke the appropriate sanctions 

within that law on Turkey. Do you agree that Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 would 

be a violation of CAATSA? 

Answer. I share the concerns expressed by many Members of Congress about Turkey’s possible S-400 acquisition. If confirmed, as the Department moves forward on 

implementing CAATSA, I will make these concerns clear to Turkey. I cannot prejudge a sanctions decision, which must be based on all the relevant facts available 

at the time that determination is made. It is my hope that Turkey’s leaders will 

make the wise choice to minimize their country’s exposure to CAATSA sanctions by 

avoiding the S-400 altogether. 

Section 7—Question 17. What is the standard for your assessment that a purchase 

of the S-400 by Turkey has in fact occurred? 

Answer. I share Congress’s strong opposition to the prospect of Turkey procuring 

the Russian S-400 air defense system. I cannot pre-judge a sanctions decision, which 

must be based on all the relevant facts available at the time that determination is 

made. However, I hope Turkey’s leaders will make the wise choice to minimize their 

country’s risk of exposure to CAATSA sanctions by avoiding the S-400 altogether. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

170 

Section 7—Question 18. One of the sanctions for such a violation is the cutoff of 

the transfer of any arms or arms sales; do you think that if Turkey purchases the 

S-400, arms sales to Turkey, including further transfers of the F-35, should be cutoff? 

Answer. I share Congress’s strong opposition to the prospect of Turkey procuring 

the Russian S-400 air defense system. I cannot pre-judge a sanctions decision, which 

must be based on all the relevant facts available at the time that determination is 

made. If confirmed, I will continue to seek to help Turkey find better solutions to 

address its defense needs while also warning of the broader implications of purchasing Russian S-400s, including potential consequences for the F-35 Joint Strike 

Fighter program and sales of U.S. defense articles. 

Section 7—Question 19. If Turkey purchases and operates the S-400, do you believe that would present a technology risk to U.S. advanced arms, such as the F35, in Turkey, through the operation of the system and the presence of Russian personnel? 

Answer. I share Congress’s concern regarding Turkey’s planned acquisition of the 

S-400 system and, if confirmed, would continue to make clear to Turkey that it must 

choose a NATO interoperable system. Acquiring the S-400 would raise serious concerns on the risk to U.S. technology, requiring the United States to review aspects 

of our defense cooperation with Turkey, including in programs such as the F-35. 

Section 7—Question 20. What measures will you take, if confirmed as Secretary 

of State, to persuade Turkey to reject the purchase of the S-400? Should further deliveries of the F-35 be suspended as a means of leverage on Turkey ? 

Answer. I share Congress’s strong opposition to Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 

and, if confirmed, I would continue to make clear to Turkey that it must choose a 

NATO interoperable system. Acquiring the S-400 would raise serious concerns and 

would require us to review certain aspects of our defense cooperation with Turkey. 

If confirmed, I will seek to help Turkey find better solutions to address its defense 

needs while also warning of the broader implications of purchasing Russian S-400s, 

including potential consequences for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and 

sales of U.S. defense articles. 

Section 7—Question 21. Human Rights Report: Recently there were media reports 

that the State Department’s annual human rights report will no longer highlight 

the full range of abuses and human rights violations experienced most especially by 

women, girls, LGBTQI people, and other marginalized peoples around the world. 

Human rights are indivisible and universal. Threats to the human rights of women 

and LGBTQI people cannot be stricken from the report without sending a broader 

message to abusive governments that the United States will not hold them to account for such violations. Scaling back discussion of discrimination and women’s 

health issues, such as access to contraception and abortion, undermines the credibility of the Human Rights Reports as a whole and signals to the rest of the world 

that the United States does not value the human rights of all people. Can you assure us today that if you are confirmed as Secretary of State reproductive rights 

and LGBTQ rights will be included fully, without censorship or undue political influence, in the annual Human Rights Report? 

Answer. My job at the CIA has been to deliver world-class intelligence, data, and 

facts to help inform senior policy makers in America. If confirmed, I will comply 

with statutory reporting requirements, and I intend to deliver world-class human 

rights reports, consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 7—Question 22. LGBTQI/Brownback: During his confirmation hearing to 

become U.S. ambassador at large for international religious freedom, Sam Brownback refused to state that he believes laws that criminalize LGBTQI people are always unjustified and would not say whether religious freedom could be used to justify laws that imprison or execute people just for being LGBTQI. As governor of 

your home state of Kansas, Brownback issued an executive order similar to the bill 

you co-sponsored allowing non-profits to refuse to serve same-sex couples. Do you 

believe criminalizing LGBTQI people for religious reasons would be justified? 

Answer. No. 

Section 7—Question 23. Do you believe that an organization receiving foreign aid 

should be allowed to deny programming or services to someone who is LGBTQI if 

they assert a religious reason for doing so? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I deeply believe that LGBTQI persons 

have every right that every other person in the world has. If confirmed, I would adFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

171 

vocate for the fundamental dignity of every human being around the world without 

regard to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 

Section 7—Question 24. LGBTQI Record: As a Congressman, you repeatedly opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, stating, ‘‘when you’re in the army, you 

give up a few of your rights.’’ You also stated that ‘‘we cannot use military to promote social ideas that do not reflect the values of our nation.’’ Do you believe that 

our LGBTQ service members should be able to serve openly in the military? Do you 

believe that LGBTQ foreign service officers should be able to serve openly? 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I deeply believe that LGBTQ persons have 

every right that every other person in the world would have. Additionally, as the 

CIA Director, I have honored and valued every single CIA officer regardless of race, 

color, gender, age, or sexual orientation, and have treated every one of our officers 

with dignity and respect. If confirmed to be Secretary of State, I intend to lead the 

organization in the same manner. 

Section 7—Question 25. Human Rights and Democracy: Do you believe that advancing women’s rights, gender equality, and human rights is an important part our 

foreign policy agenda? As Secretary, how would you prioritize these issues within 

the Department? 

Answer. Yes. As I stated in my testimony, if we do not lead the calls for democracy, prosperity, and human rights around the world, it is unclear who will. If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights, democracy, and the equal treatment of all 

persons will remain fundamental to U.S. foreign policy. 

Section 7—Question 26. Civil Society space for NGOs is under threat around the 

globe. Governments and regimes are increasingly using restrictive registration requirements, indiscriminately applying existing legal provisions, and actively impeding the ability of groups to operate freely. This growing threat prevents civil society 

from serving as a voice for engaged citizens. If confirmed, what would you do as Secretary to promote American values? 

Answer. I believe civil society plays a critical role in strengthening government 

institutions. Partnering with civil society is critical to advancing freedom and justice, defending national security, fostering economic opportunities for the American 

people, and asserting U.S. leadership and influence. If confirmed, I would continue 

the State Department and USAID’s efforts in this area work to advance a more secure and prosperous world by helping to support more stable and resilient societies 

that will lead to their own development. 

Section 7—Question 27. What would you do as Secretary to ensure that support 

for civil society remains a national goal? As Secretary of State, will you seek to preserve and strengthen civil society and the space in which NGOs can freely operate? 

Answer. I believe civil society and human rights defenders are critical to promoting and protecting democracy and human rights. If confirmed, I commit to creating an enabling environment for civil society and supporting their work to encourage their own governments to be more responsive and accountable. 

Section 7—Question 28. The United States has long promoted global human 

rights, often to help the most marginalized who have relied on the U.S. support, 

while advocating and struggling for their own rights. How do you propose to integrate the promotion of these human rights, including LGBTI people, women and 

girls, Muslims and other marginalized communities into the work of the State Department? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to defending the human rights and dignity 

of all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender 

identity. The most vulnerable communities and persons will be a priority. 

Section 7—Question 29. Please articulate how you see the role of soft power in 

fulfilling American diplomatic and development goals abroad. 

Answer. American values are one of our country’s greatest assets in achieving 

U.S. goals. By promoting our values and our culture through soft power tools such 

as educational exchanges, people-to-people engagement, an active social media presence, and international broadcasting, we improve our standing with the public, enhance our reputation, and bolster our leadership. Public Diplomacy creates the enabling environment that allows foreign leaders to act in American interests. 

Section 7—Question 30. Do you see the Department of State as a co-equal Member 

of the national security, with a distinct role in the promotion of human rights? 

Answer. Yes. The Department of State has a very important role in the promotion 

of human rights, which is in the best interest of the United States. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

172 

Section 7—Question 31. Human Rights Defenders: Human Rights Defenders 

across the world face a growing number of threats to their safety, including harassment, intimidation, smear campaigns, ill-treatment, and unlawful detention or even 

extrajudicial killing. In just 2017 over 312 human rights defenders were killed just 

for doing their critical human rights work. At the same time Prisoners of Conscience, many of whom are also human rights defenders, are found on every continent ranging from environmental activists in Madagascar to bloggers in the UAE. 

As the top diplomat of the Trump Administration to the rest of the global community what will you do to strengthen and advance the respect for and protection of 

human and civil rights around the world and in particular will you commit raising 

the cases of prisoner of conscience and human rights defenders who are at risk 

when you are visiting other countries publicly and privately? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will raise human rights and cases with counterparts, 

including when I travel. I firmly commit to defend the human rights and dignity 

of all people, and I will also work to strengthen democracy where it exists and promote it where it does not. Standing up for human rights is not only a strong personal conviction; it is hardwired into who we are as Americans. Promoting human 

rights is also in the best interests of the United States. 

Section 7—Question 32. Will you implement policies and robustly support programs promoting human rights, and undertake specific actions directed at countries 

that detain prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will support human rights programs and seek the release of political prisoners. Promoting human rights and defending the dignity of all 

persons is in the best interests of the United States. 

Section 7—Question 33. Refugees: The Administration has said that the 45,000 FY 

2018 refugee admissions ceiling ‘‘was consistent with’’ its ‘‘foreign policy goals.’’ 

Please elaborate on how slashing the number of refugee admissions is consistent 

with the State Department’s foreign policy goals. 

Answer. I understand that the United States continues to operate one of the largest refugee resettlement programs in the world, and it is consistent with our foreign 

policy goals of providing resettlement opportunities while focusing on assisting refugees as close to their home countries as possible. 

Section 7—Question 34. Many refugees are hosted in developing countries, who 

have taken on a disproportionate share of the burden in hosting displaced populations while they have continued to have difficulty meeting the needs of their own 

populations. This has resulted in lack of resources to help refugees during their prolonged displacement. For example, many displaced children are unable to attend 

school and are missing out on critical years of their educational development. Further, many of these host countries are allies of the United States. How will you, as 

Secretary of State, answer to our allies who have been shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden, while the U.S. draws back its commitment both in contributions and leadership? 

Answer. I applaud our allies and refugee-hosting nations for their steadfast commitment to assisting those in need. The United States plays an important role in 

providing humanitarian assistance to refugees as close to their home countries as 

possible. U.S. humanitarian assistance provides life-saving support, contributes to 

regional stability, and helps establish the conditions for a more secure and prosperous world. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States continues 

to be a global leader in providing humanitarian assistance to refugees around the 

world, while strongly encouraging other donor countries, regional institutions, development actors, and the private sector to provide critical support to refugee-hosting 

nations. 

Section 7—Question 35. As the Heritage Foundation noted in its recent study on 

refugee resettlement, ‘‘resettling refugees is one way for the U.S. to exercise global 

leadership.’’ Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? 

Answer. I agree that refugee resettlement is one way for the United States to exercise global leadership, and the United States remains one of the largest resettlement countries in the world. 

Section 7—Question 36. Do you believe that it is important for the United States 

to continue to serve as a global resettlement leader and increase the number of refugees we resettle as part of our response to the growing number of humanitarian 

emergencies around the world? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

173 

Answer. Refugee resettlement is one way for the United States to exercise global 

leadership in response to humanitarian emergencies, and the United States remains 

one of the largest resettlement countries in the world. 

Section 7—Question 37. While the vast majority of the over 22 million refugees 

throughout the world will either return voluntarily to their home country or be integrated in their country of first asylum, a small number of refugees need access to 

the third durable solution, resettlement in a third country. The United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that close to 1.2 million refugees need 

the key durable solution of resettlement in 2018. The U.S. has historically been the 

leader in offering resettlement slots to those families, children and individuals who 

urgently need access to resettlement. Last September, President Trump drastically 

reduced the refugee admissions goal for FY 2018 to 45,000, the lowest refugee admissions goal since the start of the modern program. Unfortunately, the pace of refugee arrivals isn’t even on track to meet this severely lowered goal—perhaps not 

even reaching half of this goal by the end of the fiscal year. What would you do 

as Secretary of State to ensure the Department of State meets the refugee admissions goal of 45,000 refugees this fiscal year? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe America has an important role 

to play in providing assistance to refugees. At the current time, it is my understanding that additional vetting procedures are enabling departments and agencies 

to more thoroughly review applicants to identify individuals who might pose a risk 

to public safety or national security. I also understand that processing time may be 

slower as departments and agencies implement additional security vetting procedures. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing both our humanitarian assistance 

and refugee resettlement programs. 

Section 7—Question 38. Now that the Administration has had time to review the 

USRAP and made changes to the multi-step and multi-agency vetting process, will 

you advocate for an increase to the Presidential Determination next fiscal year? 

Answer. My understanding is that additional vetting procedures are enabling departments and agencies to more thoroughly review refugee applicants to identify individuals who might pose a risk to public safety or national security. If confirmed, 

I look forward to participating in the process of determining the size and scope of 

our refugee resettlement program for FY 2019 and beyond. 

Section 7—Question 39. I have refugee constituents in my district who are waiting 

to be reunified with their families through the U.S. refugee admission program, and 

I’m sure when you were in Congress you faced similar situations. What can you tell 

me about the future of this lifesaving program and the prospects that my constituents will be reunified with their family members? 

Answer. I understand that the Priority Three (P-3) family reunion component of 

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is operating normally, and refugees are being 

reunited with their family members in the United States. I am aware that the refugee ‘‘follow-to-join’’ program was paused briefly last October while additional security measures were implemented for all nationalities. I understand that full processing of follow-to-join cases is ongoing pursuant to new operational guidance. 

Section 7—Question 40. For decades, the Lautenberg Program has provided persecuted religious minorities with a path to resettlement in the U.S. This year, an 

unprecedented percentage of Lautenberg asylum-seekers are being rejected. In light 

of the Administration’s public commitment to aiding persecuted religious minorities, 

what is your plan for continuing the Lautenberg Program? 

Answer. I support President Trump’s commitment to helping persecuted religious 

minorities around the world as we are able, and I share his support for the Iranian 

people. If confirmed, I will review the Lautenberg Program and consult with the Department of Homeland Security and others to determine the best plan for continuing 

it. 

Section 7—Question 41. Humanitarian Crisis and Aid: The global refugee crisis— 

a combined population of over 65 million people and growing—is badly straining 

international humanitarian relief. The system largely created over 50 years ago is 

in dire need of reforms such as building the capacity of local responders, prioritizing 

conflict prevention, and utilizing more innovative approaches like the use of cashbased assistance. How would you deploy these tools to increase the impact abroad 

of U.S. humanitarian assistance? 

Answer. The international community has recognized the need for reform of the 

humanitarian response system. It is my understanding that at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, the United States joined other donors, humanitarian agenFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

174 

cies, and organizations in committing to a series of reform measures known as ‘‘the 

Grand Bargain’’ to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian system. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States continues to press 

key partners and other donors to advance broader UN reform objectives and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian response efforts. 

Section 7—Question 42. Venezuela is facing a humanitarian crisis that has led 

over 1.2 million people to flee in the last two years. This mass exodus is being compared to the flow of Syrians into Western Europe and has little precedent in the 

region. The Council on Foreign Relations, Center for Preventative Action, recently 

published a Contingency Planning Memorandum detailing the implications for U.S. 

interests and recommending the U.S help Venezuela’s neighbors mitigate a refugee 

crisis by creating a U.S. interagency refugee plan as the basis for a larger coordination effort. How does the Department of State plan to address the humanitarian situation in Venezuela and what possibility is there for resettlement in the U.S.? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will redouble the Department’s efforts to coordinate a humanitarian assistance response to the Venezuelan crisis, including by working with 

the international community to coordinate assistance efforts. While the U.S. government’s ability to provide direct assistance to the Venezuelan people in their own 

country is limited because of the Maduro regime’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid 

into the country, the U.S. government is offering assistance in the neighboring countries to which Venezuelans are fleeing. The Department has coordinated with 

UNHCR, the International Organization on Migration, and other international organizations to ensure there is a comprehensive international response. 

Section 7—Question 43. Women in Humanitarian Crises: We are facing the largest 

refugee crisis in decades. We know that pregnancy related deaths and instances of 

sexual violence increase significantly during these crises. In 2015, the UN estimated 

that 61 percent of maternal deaths took place in humanitarian crises and fragile 

settings where health services were not available to women. However, the State Department in April made a baseless determination to withhold funding for UNFPA, 

the leading provider of maternal and reproductive health care in humanitarian settings, and the FY19 budget proposal reflects this decision. How is the State Department working to ensure the needs of women in these crises are being met? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s plans to invest in voluntary family-planning programs in developing countries. I understand that with 

the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy in place, the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request includes $302 million in funding for voluntary family 

planning and women’s health programs overseas. It is also my understanding that 

the U.S. Government has either reprogramed funding once intended for the United 

Nations Population Fund, or is in the process of finalizing plans to make such funds 

available for voluntary family planning, maternal health, and other women’s health 

activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 7—Question 44. Do you know if anyone at the State Department visited 

UNFPA’s programs in China before making the determination? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the State Department did not send a delegation to visit UNFPA’s programs in China in connection with the recent determination under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. 

Section 7—Question 45. Will you release information about how the decision was 

made? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the State Department provided information 

on the Administration’s Kemp-Kasten determination to the Congress, including the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in 2017 and 2018. 

Section 7—Question 46. Will you commit to revisiting the determination if you 

find that it was made without a sufficient investigation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing relevant information as required, 

consistent with the Kemp-Kasten Amendment in the annual appropriations act. 

(Section 8—Questions 1–57) 

Section 8—Question 1. CONFLICT PREVENTION: The 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community found that ‘‘poor governance, weak national 

political institutions, economic inequality, and the rise of violent non-state actors all 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

175 

undermine states’ abilities to project authority and elevate the risk of violent—even 

regime-threatening—instability and mass atrocities.’’ What will you do as Secretary 

of State to prioritize efforts to address the root causes of violent conflict like poor 

governance, weak political institutions, and economic inequality? 

Answer. I believe it is in our national interest to work with allies and partners 

to try to prevent conflict by addressing the root causes of violence. Diplomatic efforts 

to prevent conflict are much more effective than engagement after conflict erupts. 

Tailored U.S. foreign assistance can also be an effective means of preventing conflict 

and promoting accountability. 

Section 8—Question 2. Violence is on the rise for the first time since the Cold 

War. In the last 15 years, nearly half of the world’s population (covering 53 countries) has been or are now affected by some sort of political violence. The international community has borne most of the burden of responding to the ramifications 

of this violence to the cost of $13.6 trillion in 2015 alone. Over 80 percent of aid 

is going to meet the needs of people whose lives have been turned upside down by 

conflict. Yet, international assistance only marginally invests in addressing the root 

causes of violence despite reports that every dollar spent in peacebuilding saves sixteen dollars in resulting humanitarian or military aid expense. What efforts will the 

State Department, under your leadership, undertake to develop infrastructure and 

activate initiatives to prevent the outbreak of violence around the world? 

Answer. I believe it is in our national interest to both work to address root causes 

of violence and to provide early warning of conflicts to allow us to mobilize diplomatic interventions along with our allies and partners. If confirmed, I will lead the 

State Department’s efforts to guide and coordinate engagement and assistance by 

U.S. government agencies aimed at preventing conflict. 

Section 8—Question 3. How does the State Department under your leadership intend to use the full scope of diplomatic leverage to promote citizen-centric solutions 

to overseas, recognizing that prevention of violence is in the U.S.’s moral, security, 

and business interests? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department plays the leading 

role in setting political strategies to prevent and mitigate conflict, including through 

engagement and support of citizen-centric approaches. More important than dollars 

spent is having a singular, coordinated political strategy that guides engagement 

and assistance by all U.S. government agencies, in coordination with international 

actors. If confirmed, I will also pursue a more purposeful division of labor with 

international donors that optimizes our respective strengths and comparative advantages. 

Section 8—Question 4. COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM: The National Security 

Strategy notes, ‘‘terrorist organizations present the most dangerous terrorist threat 

to the Nation.’’ As the U.S. seeks to counter violent extremism, it must ensure that 

challenges are addressed in such a way that they do not simply metastasize and 

re-emerge in a new form and that the root drivers of participation are addressed. 

What do you see as the key strengths of the Department of State in advancing the 

Countering Violent Extremism agenda? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to leveraging the State Department’s countering 

violent extremism (CVE) efforts to ensure that terrorist groups like ISIS cannot reemerge, reconstitute, or inspire acts of terrorism, especially once they have been defeated militarily. I believe the State Department’s key strength in CVE is its unique 

ability to support partner governments in their efforts to prevent the rise of terrorism. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing the State Department’s CVE work 

through bilateral and multilateral diplomatic channels as well as by helping local 

actors build resilience to terrorist recruitment. 

Section 8—Question 5. How will you ensure that the Department of State’s CVE 

efforts are highly coordinated and contribute to long-term strategies to address the 

drivers and triggers of participation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to working across the interagency to ensure 

a holistic and sustainable approach to countering violent extremism. The U.S. government’s collective CVE efforts support local partners—including civil society, municipal and community leaders, and government entities—to build resilience against 

terrorist radicalization and recruitment. If confirmed, I intend to learn more about 

the State Department’s CVE efforts, and I will ensure they are coordinated with the 

interagency to advance effectively the U.S. government’s strategies to prevent and 

combat terrorism. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

176 

Section 8—Question 6. ATROCITY PREVENTION: This week marks Days of Remembrance—a time when we as a nation collectively remember the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. The world has committed to never again allow genocide and 

mass atrocities to occur, yet atrocities continue even today. Besides the moral obligation to end such crimes, we’ve seen the devastating impact of violence spreads beyond national borders. Do you believe that preventing mass atrocities is core to U.S. 

national security interests? 

Answer. Addressing the causes and impacts of global instability and violent conflict are at the crux of the State Department’s work. Mass atrocities—large-scale, 

deliberate violence against civilians—have devastating human impacts, and make 

peace and reconciliation more difficult to achieve. 

Section 8—Question 7. If so, how should the U.S. continue to prioritize the prevention and halting of atrocities abroad? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to prevent and respond to mass atrocities 

through a whole-of-government approach achieved through interagency cooperation. 

Preventing atrocities involves watching for early warning signs and assessing the 

drivers of risk. It involves developing a preventive strategy, engaging allies and 

partners to disincentivize potential perpetrators, supporting efforts to protect civilians, ending impunity, and seeking transitional justice. The Department of State’s 

strength in addressing mass atrocities lies in the on-the-ground presence of U.S. embassies, expeditionary diplomacy, relationships with partners, intelligence and analytics capacity, staff expertise, programming, and political and economic leverage. 

Section 8—Question 8. Crises and atrocity crimes do not happen overnight. In 

many cases, the warning signs of violence in Iraq, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere were known well before the situations became large-scale 

crises. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that the State Department has the 

adequate resources and personnel to monitor for early warning signs of mass atrocities and respond to at-risk situations before they devolve into mass killings? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support U.S. government efforts to prevent atrocities and will make the case to defend the personnel and resources the State Department needs. 

Section 8—Question 9. This Congress, the U.S. Administration, and various 

United Nations bodies have spoken out about mass atrocities committed by the Burmese military against Rohingya civilians—an ethnic and religious minority group— 

in Burma. To date, the Burmese military and the country’s civilian-led government 

have not allowed full unimpeded access to areas where the atrocities have occurred, 

hampering the efforts of the UN-mandated Fact-Finding Mission and other independent international investigators. If confirmed, how would you commit to pressing 

for accountability for atrocities against the Rohingya and other minority groups in 

Burma? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review all available foreign policy tools, including the 

Global Magnitsky Act, and work with likeminded countries and international organizations to ensure justice for victims and accountability for members of the Burmese security forces and others responsible for atrocities and other human rights 

violations and abuses. I will also continue to press the Burmese government to allow 

the UN Fact Finding Mission into Rakhine State and other parts of Burma and to 

cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur for the Situation of Human Rights in 

Burma and the UN Special Envoy for Burma to be named by the UN Secretary General. Finally, I will support State Department efforts to investigate and document 

human rights violations and abuses in Burma, which will help to identify perpetrators, uncover patterns of abuses and violations, map incidents, and determine the 

sequence of events. 

Section 8—Question 10. The Syrian conflict just marked its seventh year, during 

which time, we have seen indisputable atrocities committed by the Assad regime, 

it’s Russian and Iranian allies, and ISIS. The conflict is far from over, and Assad 

has faced no consequences for chemical weapons use, bombardment, torture, and 

outright murder of the Syrian people. The President has expressed the need to hold 

Assad and his allies accountable for their crimes. If confirmed, how will you work 

with European partners to press for third party prosecutions and support the Independent Impartial Investigative Mechanism? 

Answer. I am confident that the Administration will continue to hold the Assad 

regime accountable, including through mechanisms like the IIIM. If confirmed, I 

will continue to engage European and other governments to press for accountability 

for the use of chemical weapons, through all appropriate means, including through 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

177 

the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations 

Security Council. 

Section 8—Question 11. Under both the Trump and Obama administrations, the 

State Department determined that the Islamic State perpetrated genocide and other 

crimes against Yezidis, Christians, and other religious minorities in northern Iraq. 

If confirmed, how will you work to ensure these communities receive the assistance 

they need and that they see their perpetrators brought to justice? 

Answer. I am deeply concerned about the plight of vulnerable religious minorities 

in Iraq—particularly those communities who faced genocide at the hands of ISIS. 

I understand that there are U.S. government-led efforts underway to assist them, 

and if confirmed, I will work to see that such efforts are successful and that those 

communities have the security and stability necessary to revitalize. This will complement efforts to promote security, stability, and reconciliation for all Iraqis. I will 

also endeavor to hold those who committed this genocide and their supporters accountable. 

Section 8—Question 12. CIVILIAN PROTECTION: Do you agree that while civilian 

casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force, 

minimizing civilian casualties can help further U.S. national interests, particularly 

in the context of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 13. Do you agree that civilian casualties should be minimized 

even if such deaths might be lawful under the laws of war or other applicable laws? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 14. Do you believe that harming innocent civilians serves as 

a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 15. Did you support the Administration’s decision to loosen 

safeguards that protect civilians in its operations outside active theaters of hostilities? If yes: (1) why; (2) how do you reconcile this with the importance of protecting innocent civilian life; and (3) would you support a further loosening of safeguards? 

Answer. The predicate of the question is false. The U.S. government continues to 

take extraordinary measures to minimize harm to civilians. The U.S. government 

is committed to complying with its obligations under the law of armed conflict, including rules that address the protection of civilians. In addition, U.S. government 

policy is to apply heightened targeting standards that are more protective of civilians than are required under the law of armed conflict. 

Section 8—Question 16. When the State Department receives credible reporting 

about previously undisclosed civilian casualties attributable to U.S. operations, what 

should they do with this information? What should the operating agency do with 

it? 

Answer. My understanding is that the State Department works closely with the 

Department of Defense to assist in its review of allegations of civilian casualties reported by non-governmental organizations. I understand that any information the 

State Department receives about possible civilian casualties would be shared with 

the appropriate agencies for proper investigation. 

Section 8—Question 17. Torture and due process for terrorism suspects: As Secretary of State, you would be heavily involved in negotiating the transfer of anyone 

in U.S. custody to the custody of foreign governments or non-state armed groups. 

The State Department has historically played a central role in determining the legality and appropriateness of such transfers and ensuring certain safeguards are in 

place when they do occur. In this position, do you consider the U.S. to be bound as 

a matter of law by the Convention against Torture’s prohibition against sending 

anyone to a place where they face a risk of torture outside the U.S.? 

Answer. The United States takes very seriously its obligations under the Convention against Torture. It has been the position of the United States that Article 3 

of the Convention Against Torture is not applicable as a legal matter to transfers 

occurring outside of U.S. sovereign territory. However, it is the long-standing policy 

of the United States not to transfer an individual to a country where it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured. This policy applies the Convention 

Against Torture standard to all transfers by the United States. It is reflected in Section 2224(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which provides that ‘‘it shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or othFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

178 

erwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are 

substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected 

to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United 

States.’’ I am committed to following this policy and to ensuring that the United 

States complies with the Convention against Torture in carrying out my duties as 

Secretary of State, if confirmed. 

Section 8—Question 18. If not, will you commit to apply the convention’s standards on transfer as a matter of policy outside the U.S.? If so, how will you ensure 

this policy is enforced? Will you ensure that the U.S. never transfers anyone from 

U.S. custody to a government or non-state armed group when they are likely to face 

torture, regardless of location? 

Answer. It is the long-standing policy of the United States not to transfer an individual to a country where it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured. 

This policy applies the Convention Against Torture standard to all transfers by the 

United States. It is reflected in Section 2224(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998, which provides that ‘‘it shall be the policy of the United 

States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person 

would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person 

is physically present in the United States.’’ I am committed to following this policy 

in carrying out my duties as Secretary of State, if confirmed. 

Section 8—Question 19. ANTI-MUSLIM RHETORIC: Mr. Pompeo, you have a longstanding history of statements and actions that have been seen as prejudicial 

against the Muslim community in the United States. As Secretary of State, you will 

be responsible for carrying out a policy agenda in which religious freedom, tolerance, 

and respect for persons of all faiths is integral to maintaining U.S. national security. 

Given your past statements about the Muslim community within the U.S. and 

abroad, how can you effectively claim you will advocate for the safety, security, and 

interests of Muslim-Americans, and that you will be able to engage in productive 

diplomatic efforts with Muslim-majority governments around the world? 

Answer. The predicate of your question is false. I hope that I spoke clearly and 

directly during my testimony when I promised the Committee that I will treat all 

persons—regardless of religion—with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I 

believe in the freedom of religion, protected by our First Amendment. I have worked 

closely with Muslim leaders and with governments of Muslim countries around the 

world, and I believe that religious leaders, institutions, and communities—including 

Muslim communities—can be critical interlocutors on many issues central to U.S. 

foreign policy. 

Section 8—Question 20. ANTI-SEMITISM: In August, Rex Tillerson wrote Chairman 

Corker with several preliminary decisions related to special envoy positions within 

the State Department. Among those he indicated he was going to keep—wisely, in 

my view—was the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. The Trump 

Administration has placed special emphasis on promoting and defending religious 

freedom, an issue worthy of attention and one that enjoys bipartisan Congressional 

support. Yet in an environment in which anti-Semitism is growing both at home and 

abroad, the Special Envoy position remains vacant. Do you pledge, if confirmed, to 

work with the White House to expeditiously identify and nominate an appropriately 

qualified candidate for Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 21. ROHINGYA CRISIS: Negotiations to end Burma’s low-grade 

civil war appear stalled, and fighting between the Burmese military and several of 

the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) has escalated in recent months, including 

skirmishes with EAOs that have signed a ceasefire agreement. What role, if any, 

can the United States play in facilitating progress in resolving Burma’s decade’s 

long conflict? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would work to continue supporting the national peace and 

reconciliation process and other efforts to end violence, including through assistance 

on cease-fire negotiations and monitoring, political dialogue, addressing intercommunal conflict, promoting respect for the human rights of members of ethnic minority communities, and humanitarian aid. 

Section 8—Question 22. What should be the nature of U.S. interaction with the 

Burmese military, the government headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the EAOs? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support the U.S. policy of extremely limited military-to-military engagements with Burma, which I understand the Administration 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

179 

has further minimized since August 2017, due to ethnic cleansing against the 

Rohingya in northern Rakhine state. The Administration supports the elected civilian government in its efforts to achieve peace, stability, and prosperity for all in 

Burma. U.S. officials regularly engage in diplomatic conversations with ethnic 

armed organizations, and the U.S. government helps prepare representatives of ethnic groups to contribute to the national political dialogue. 

Section 8—Question 23. Many of the Rohingya displaced from their homes to refugee camps in Bangladesh or IDP camps in Rakhine State want some form of accountability and justice for the crimes committed against them allegedly by Burmese security forces. Various international human rights organizations have called 

for an independent international investigation of the alleged human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State, as well as in Kachin, Karen, and Shan 

States. The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) has asked 

for a ruling on whether it has jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation. What 

form of accountability process, if any, would you support to adjudicate the alleged 

human rights violations committed in Burma? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Administration’s efforts to work with our 

allies and partners to help ensure that those responsible for ethnic cleansing and 

other atrocities face appropriate consequences. I believe the Administration should 

continue to use available tools to hold those responsible accountable, such as further 

targeted sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, and support the UN Human 

Rights Commission-mandated Fact Finding Mission. 

Section 8—Question 24. U.S. policy in Burma under the Obama Administration 

was based on the presumption that it was a nation undergoing a political transition 

from an oppressive military junta to some form of democracy. The current governance system consists of a joint civilian/military government under which the military controls three of the key ministries (Defense, Border Affairs, and Home Affairs) 

and can block any significant effort to alter the balance of power between the elected civilian side of the government and the military. As a result, there has been little 

evidence of political transition or reform since 2012. Do you agree with the previous 

Administration’s assessment that Burma is undergoing a political transition towards democracy? 

Answer. Burma’s democratic transition remains a work in progress. This transition has been a departure from decades of repressive authoritarian rule, but it faces 

major challenges, and constitutional reform will be key to progress. The Administration remains focused on helping the democratically-elected civilian government improve its capabilities to deliver good governance and improve human rights practices. 

Section 8—Question 25. Or, do you believe the Burmese military are content with 

the current governance system, and are intentionally blocking and efforts for democratic reform? 

Answer. I understand that the Burmese military did not interfere with the 2015 

elections, and a working relationship has developed between the armed forces and 

the democratically-elected, civilian government. However, with a military-drafted 

constitution in place and only two years of civilian government after decades of authoritarian rule, the relationship between the elected authority and the military remains a work in progress. 

Section 8—Question 26. If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, what will be 

your recommendations for U.S. policy in Burma? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with interagency colleagues and consult with 

Congress to maintain U.S. strategic engagement with Burma and promote U.S. interests and values, including rule of law, accountability, respect for human rights, 

and democratic reforms. I will also seek ways to engage Burma, its neighbors, and 

the international community to improve the humanitarian situation in Rakhine 

State and other areas. 

Section 8—Question 27. Over one million Rohingya refugees are in Bangladesh, 

and are mostly likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. While both the Government of Bangladesh and the Government of Burma have agreed in principle to 

the repatriation of the displaced Rohingya, there are significant differences over the 

conditions under which Rohingya will be permitted to return to Rakhine State, and 

much uncertainty about the situation they will face when they return to Rakhine 

State. What role, if any, should the United States play in facilitating the safe, voluntary and dignified return of displaced Rohingya to Rakhine State? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

180 

Answer. The United States has engaged both governments to emphasize that, consistent with international practice, any returns must be fully voluntary, safe, and 

dignified. The U.S. has also raised concerns about any possibility of premature returns. If confirmed, I will urge Burma to create the conditions needed to ensure the 

voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable return of refugees to their places of origin. I will also advocate for both governments to work with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to ensure international standards are met and maintained. 

Section 8—Question 28. What should the United States offer to those Rohingya 

who choose not to return to Rakhine State? Is resettlement in the United States an 

option? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the international community to support humanitarian efforts for those in need and to explore all possible durable solutions for 

those Rohingya who are unable to voluntarily return to their places of origin in safety and dignity. 

Section 8—Question 29. LGBTQI RIGHTS: Your record on the rights of lesbian, 

gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans is a significant concern. Can you describe 

your personal views of the rights that our LGBTQ citizens should have, and how 

you would integrate issues related to the human rights of LGBTQ people into our 

global human rights policies? 

Answer. As CIA Director, I have honored and valued every single CIA officer and 

treated them with dignity and respect. If confirmed, I firmly commit to defend the 

human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 

Section 8—Question 30. Should religious-affiliated organizations be allowed to 

refuse developmental assistance or health services to an LGBTQ individual or community on grounds of their religious beliefs, even though the programs they are implementing, and the funds they are using, are provided by the federal government? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I deeply believe that LGBTQ persons 

have every right that every other person in the world has. If confirmed, I would advocate for the fundamental dignity of every human being around the world without 

regard to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 

Section 8—Question 31. Will you commit to treating all State Department employees with dignity, continuing non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ employees in 

the Department, and ensuring the families of LGBTQ employees are treated equally 

with respect to the rights, benefits, and privileges accorded to other employees’ families? 

Answer. I believe that all employees and their families, including LGBTI employees and their families, should be treated equally with respect to the rights, benefits, 

and privileges accorded to other employees’ families. It is my understanding that the 

Department has a strong record of supporting its LGBTI employees and their families. If confirmed, I intend to honor and value every single State Department employee regardless of race, color, gender, or sexual orientation—the same way I treated every CIA employee. 

Section 8—Question 32. Over the last year, we have seen a number of horrific 

atrocities around the globe targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer 

(LGBTQ) people, who have been rounded up, tortured and even killed, just for being 

who they are. We’ve seen it in the Russian republic of Chechnya, in Egypt, in Indonesia, and in other places as well. Your predecessor failed to address these atrocities 

and never once raised his voice to condemn the violence or supporting LGBTQ 

human rights. The world looks to the U.S. for leadership, and seeing none, bad actors may take it as an signal that they have a free hand to attack their most vulnerable citizens. Will you commit to using your position to defend the human rights 

and dignity of all people, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? 

Answer. The horrible treatment of LGBTQ persons in places like Chechnya is 

truly despicable. If confirmed, I will stand with all persecuted people, including 

LGBTQ persons. 

Section 8—Question 33. If so, what specifically will you commit to do to help 

LGBTQ people in Chechnya, Egypt, Indonesia and other places to ensure they are 

not targeted for abuse? 

Answer. Under my leadership, the State Department will continue to use a range 

of public and private actions to counter violence and severe discrimination against 

LGBTQ persons around the world, including through bilateral and multilateral 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

181 

channels, by offering emergency assistance to LGBTQ persons at risk, and imposing 

visa restrictions and economic sanctions, as appropriate, on those who persecute 

them. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s prior commitment, I intend 

to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. 

Section 8—Question 34. Your predecessor failed to appoint a Special Envoy for the 

Human Rights of LGBTI Persons, despite having made a commitment to appoint 

one. Will you commit to working expeditiously to appoint a Special Envoy for the 

Human Rights of LGBTI Persons? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 35. WOMEN’S HEALTH: You’ve previously said that you’re 

against abortion, no exceptions. Global estimates indicate that about 1 in 3 (35 percent) of women worldwide have experienced sexual or gender based violence in their 

lifetime. Do you believe that a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape should 

have the right to obtain a safe abortion? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to combat genderbased violence and support the maternal health and family planning needs of 

women around the world. 

Section 8—Question 36. Every day, approximately 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth and 99 percent of them are in developing countries. Do you believe that a woman who is experiencing a life endangering 

pregnancy has the right to an abortion? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. 

Section 8—Question 37. In countries around the world, LGBTQ people are 

criminalized for who they love. There are also women who are in jail in places like 

El Salvador and Senegal for having miscarriages or abortions. These are gross 

human rights violations. As Sec. of State would you raise concerns about laws that 

criminalize same-sex relationships and women’s personal health decisions in public 

and private settings? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate that governments have an obligation to protect, respect, and uphold the dignity and fundamental freedoms of all people—including women and LGBTQ persons. 

Section 8—Question 38. As a Congressman, you voted to continue and codify the 

Mexico City Policy, which predicates U.S. global health assistance to foreign NGOs 

on those organizations refusing to provide, counsel or advocate on safe abortion access. This denies women, girls and their communities to full access to information 

and services about their bodies and health. Its expansion has had a chilling effect 

of shutting down some of the best providers of sexual health services, including on 

comprehensive sexuality education, maternal and child health, and HIV prevention 

programs. Please explain your support for a policy that is anticipated to lead to 1.6 

million additional unintended pregnancies, 500,000 unsafe abortion, and nearly 

20,000 maternal deaths. 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. Through 

the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, the Administration 

is ensuring that no U.S. government global health assistance funds support foreign 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or actively promote abortion 

as a method of family planning in other countries. 

I understand that the policy will not impact the total amount of U.S. government 

funding for maternal health and family planning programs. I also understand that 

the vast majority of foreign NGOs subject to the PLGHA policy are accepting the 

conditions and continue to participate in U.S. government-funded global health assistance programs. When an NGO has declined to agree to the policy, I understand 

that affected departments and agencies are working to transition the activities that 

would have been undertaken by the organization with our funding to other partners 

while minimizing disruption of services. 

Section 8—Question 39. Will you conduct an annual review of the policy to document its impact on peoples’ ability to access evidence-based health care services that 

affirm their human rights? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the State Department conducted a six-month 

review of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy and will 

lead another interagency review of the policy in late 2018. If confirmed, I will support this review process. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

182 

Section 8—Question 40. Do you think that access to voluntary contraception is important to women’s health and U.S. development goals of preventing maternal and 

child deaths, controlling the AIDS epidemic, achieving gender equality, and empowering women and adolescent girls? 

Answer. I understand that the United States is a leader in the provision of maternal and newborn health care, including voluntary family planning. If confirmed, I 

will support the Administration’s policies and programs to reduce maternal and 

newborn deaths, combat the AIDS epidemic, promote gender equality, and empower 

women and girls. 

Section 8—Question 41. Recently the State Department released its review of the 

expanded Mexico City Policy. The State Department claimed that there have been 

no service disruptions due to the policy, yet that isn’t consistent with what we’ve 

heard from the field and seen in the media. For example, we know in Mozambique 

a provider closed 18 youth-friendly clinics and 72 mobile clinics, in Swaziland a provider has reduced geographic coverage from 14 towns to 4, and in Botswana a provider has closed one clinic and scaled back services at 7 others as a result of this 

policy. As Secretary of State, how will you examine gaps in services and work to 

ensure needs being filled? 

Answer. I understand that the vast majority of foreign NGOs subject to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy are accepting the conditions and continue to participate in U.S. government-funded global health assistance 

programs. When an NGO has declined to agree to the policy, I understand that affected departments and agencies are working to transition the activities that would 

have been undertaken by the organization with our funding to other partners while 

minimizing disruption of services. 

Section 8—Question 42. Will you offer exemptions to the policy if there are instances where there isn’t a suitable partner who can meet the community needs? 

Answer. I understand that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may authorize case-by-case exemptions to the 

Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy. If confirmed, I will ensure a process is in place to review any requests for exceptions received. 

Section 8—Question 43. Will you commission an external review of the policy and 

its impact by a non-partisan, research institution? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this question and welcome further discussion. 

Section 8—Question 44. Globally LGBTQ people, young people, and unmarried 

women face discrimination and barriers to accessing health care services and as a 

result experience disproportionate poor health outcomes. Do think that health care 

providers should be able to refuse to provide health care information and services 

to patients based their sexual orientation, age, or marital status? 

Answer. Access to health care is important for everyone, regardless of their sexual 

orientation, age, or marital status. I understand that PEPFAR, for example, works 

hard to advance that principle by addressing the underlying social issues, especially 

unequal human rights, stigma, and discrimination, that prevent people from accessing HIV prevention and treatment services. PEPFAR supports specific initiatives to 

expand key populations’ (including LGBTI people, adolescent girls and young 

women, and others) access to and retention in quality HIV/AIDS prevention and 

treatment services. If confirmed, I will ensure that PEPFAR continues to use the 

latest science and the best available data to deliver the greatest possible impact to 

ensure epidemic control of the HIV pandemic. 

Section 8—Question 45. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY (NED): In his 

State of the union address, President Trump called out the heroic work of Ji-Seong 

Ho, who fled North Korean on crutches, in support of North Korean defectors and 

for his work to get information into North Korea. Ji-Seong Ho’s work is supported 

by NED, which has a robust North Korean program focused on supporting defectors, 

documenting war crimes and getting information into North Korea. Just days later, 

the President’s FY19 budget request recommend a 60% cut to the Endowment’s 

budget from $170 million to just $67.275 million. The budget request also proposes 

that NED cease funding its four core institutes—the National Democratic and International Republican Institutes which support democratic political party development 

overseas and the Center for International Private Enterprise and Solidarity Center 

which work with the other pillars of strong democratic societies—business and 

workers. Congress views the NED as a critical and streamlined resource and vital 

instrument in the global competition for democratic ideas and values—investing in 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

183 

democratic actors who share our values. This investment is critical at a time when 

China and Russia are seeking to redefine the global order in their image and using 

an arsenal of tools—new and old to fill power vacuums in weak and failed states. 

NED has made successful and coordinated long-term investments in relationships 

with like-minded civil society, political parties, workers and business entrepreneurs 

in almost every country in the world, including in authoritarian states like Cuba, 

North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran where the U.S. and other actors are unable to work. Do you support continued funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and core institutes as a critical tool in the U.S. arsenal to defend American 

values and interests? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to discussions with Congress on funding for 

our diplomacy and foreign assistance programs, including for FY 2019. I will make 

the case to defend the resources the Department needs within the Administration’s 

fiscal framework. Congress has provided additional funding for NED above the FY 

2018 request. NED will implement this additional funding to advance Administration priorities, in line with the congressional directives outlined in the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations act and consistent with applicable law. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the Administration’s plan to encourage organizations such as NED 

to make better use of grants from both non-governmental and governmental sources. 

Section 8—Question 46. Will the State Department defend the Endowment’s budget, in addition to its budget for democracy, rights and governance, in its budget requests? 

Answer. I support the important role that Congress plays in providing funds to 

support U.S. government operations and programs, including for the State Department and USAID. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing discussions with Congress on funding for our diplomacy and foreign assistance programs, including for 

FY 2019. I will make the case to defend the resources that the State Department 

needs. I understand that Congress provided additional funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as substantial foreign assistance resources for global democracy, human rights, and governance programs, above the FY 2018 request. 

The Department will implement this additional funding in line with Administration 

priorities and the congressional directives outlined in the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations act and consistent with applicable law. 

Section 8—Question 47. GLOBAL MAGNITSKY ACT: I applaud the Trump Administration’s decision in late December to impose sanctions against 15 foreign individuals and 37 entities for human rights violations and acts of corruption under the 

Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. The quality of designations implemented by the administration—ranging from a military commander responsible 

for atrocities against the Rohingya people in Burma, to a Putin crony involved in 

grand corruption, to a Chinese security official responsible for the torture and death 

of a human rights defender—demonstrated the seriousness with which the administration approached use of this tool. Yet I was disappointed that sanctions under the 

Global Magnitsky Act were not applied more broadly. Sanctions weren’t applied 

against human rights violators or corrupt actors in wide swaths of the world, including, most notably, the Middle East. Given the systemic nature of abuses in countries 

in this region, among others, the idea that the U.S. could not find a single instance 

of a crime worth penalizing is troubling, and sends an equally troubling signal to 

actors around the world about impunity. As Secretary of State, will you commit to 

supporting implementation of the Global Magnitsky Act? 

Answer. Global Magnitsky is a powerful sanctions program, and you have my 

commitment, if confirmed, to use it. No region is immune from human rights abuse 

or corruption, and the Administration appreciates Congressional support for this 

versatile tool. I look forward to working with the Department’s experts and the 

interagency to advance implementation of this program. 

Section 8—Question 48. Will you further commit to implementing the law wherever it will have positive impact, irrespective of geographical boundaries? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 8—Question 49. During the U.S.-China Summit held last April in Florida 

and in last November in Beijing, President Trump did not raise the question of respect for human rights and the rule of law in China and in Tibet. Since 1997, all 

U.S. Presidents have publicly challenged the sitting Chinese President to negotiate 

with the Dalai Lama or his representative to find a lasting solution to the Tibetan 

issue. If appointed, would you recommend that President Trump calls publicly on 

the Chinese President to address the grievances of the Tibetan people through dialogue with the Dalai Lama? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

184 

Answer. I share your concerns about the Chinese government’s repressive policies 

and lack of respect for human rights in Tibet. If confirmed, I will recommend that 

the United States express publicly, and at the highest levels of government, that 

Chinese authorities need to engage in meaningful and direct dialogue with the Dalai 

Lama or his representatives, without preconditions, to lower tensions and resolve 

differences. 

Section 8—Question 50. It has long been the policy of the U.S. government, provided by the Tibetan Policy Act, to promote dialogue between the envoys of the 

Dalai Lama and the Chinese government toward a solution on the Tibet issue that 

guarantees the respect of the ‘‘distinct identity’’ of the Tibetan people, who continue 

to suffer under China’s oppressive rule. The dialogue is now at a standstill and, as 

we have seen, the lack of substantive progress toward a genuine resolution continues to be a thorny issue in U.S.-China relations. The United States has played 

a key role in encouraging past dialogues. Would you personally commit to pressing 

the Chinese leadership for a resolution of the Tibetan issue through a speedy resumption of dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives, without preconditions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge Chinese authorities to engage in meaningful and 

direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives, without preconditions, 

to lower tensions and resolve differences. 

Section 8—Question 51. Will you commit to explaining to Chinese authorities that 

the U.S., in compliance with the principle of religious freedom, will recognize and 

freely interact with the person chosen independently, and through Tibetan Buddhism’s spiritual tradition, through the processes described by the current Dalai 

Lama, to succeed the current Dalai Lama? Would you also make it categorically 

clear that the U.S. will not accept a Chinese government controlled selection process? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will press the Chinese government to respect the legitimacy of Tibetan Buddhists’ religious practices. This includes the decisions of Tibetan Buddhists in selecting, educating, and venerating the lamas who lead the 

faith, such as the Dalai Lama. 

Section 8—Question 52. The Tibetan people continue to resist injustice without resorting to violence. Since the mass demonstrations of 2008—where around 200 Tibetans were killed and thousands were imprisoned—more than 150 Tibetans have 

self-immolated to protest against Chinese rule and for the return of the Dalai Lama 

in Tibet. Over 600 Tibetans continue to be prisoners of conscience according to the 

Congressional Executive Commission on China and many more are unreported. 

Would you ask the Chinese authorities to allow independent humanitarian organization to visit Tibetan political prisoners and the families of Tibetan self-immolators 

to ascertain their welfare? 

Answer. Yes. Consistent with the Tibetan Policy Act, if confirmed, I will encourage the release of all those held prisoner for expressing their political or religious 

views, and will support access to prisoners by international humanitarian organizations to ensure prisoners are not mistreated and are receiving necessary medical 

care. If confirmed, I will push Chinese authorities to lift restrictions on visits by diplomats, journalists, and NGOs to the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas. 

Section 8—Question 53. Hundreds of Tibetan political prisoners, according to the 

Congressional Executive Commission on China, are in prison as we speak and any 

form of expression of Tibetan identity, be it religious, linguistic or cultural, can be 

easily criminalized by the Chinese authorities due to the adoption of a patchwork 

of regulations that deny fundamental and basic human rights. What will your Administration do for the release of the Tibetan political prisoners? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge China to cease restrictions on the human rights 

of Tibetans as well as their religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions and practices. I will be committed to pressing for respect for human rights, including freedom of religion and belief, in my conversations with Chinese officials, and advocating for the release of Tibetan political prisoners. 

Section 8—Question 54. China’s censorship and information and communication 

blockade, specifically in Tibet, prevents reporters from investigating the reality of 

the situation in Tibet. What steps will you take with the Chinese authorities to ensure that American journalists will be able to freely access Tibet just as Chinese 

journalists are able to do so in the United States? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to pushing for reciprocity regarding the 

open access China and many other countries enjoy in the United States, and will 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

185 

raise concerns about the lack of regular access to the Tibetan Autonomous Region 

(TAR) for U.S. journalists, diplomats, academics, and others. I will work to ensure 

that U.S. journalists, civil society, legislators, and scholars have full access to China, 

including the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas. 

Section 8—Question 55. The major rivers of Asia that flow from the Tibetan Plateau and are subject to current and potential dam and diversion projects by China. 

These projects are planned and implemented without the proper involvement of the 

Tibetan people, who are the best stewards for the preservation of the delicate environment of the Tibetan Plateau. India and other governments in Asia are increasingly worried about China’s plans to dam rivers originating in Tibet which serve 

over a billion people downstream. Would you raise the need to fully involve Tibetans 

in the preservation of Tibet’s fragile environment with the Chinese authorities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage all countries to manage their water resources soundly and to cooperate on the management of shared waters. I will specifically urge China to make decisions on major water-related infrastructure projects 

based on the best science available and in transparent consultation with all affected 

stakeholders, including Tibetans and the governments of neighboring countries. 

Section 8—Question 56. Would you call on the Chinese authorities to engage China’s neighbors for the development of a regional framework on water security? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage all countries, including China, to manage 

their water resources soundly and to cooperate on the management of shared 

waters. I will urge China to make decisions on dams and other major water-related 

infrastructure needs based on the best available science, and in transparent consultation with all affected stakeholders, including neighboring countries. I will also 

sustain our own cooperation with neighboring countries through the Lower Mekong 

Initiative and other U.S.-led mechanisms. 

Section 8—Question 57. Will you commit to meeting the Dalai Lama, whether in 

the United States or during your travel, and to express to him the United States’ 

support to his peaceful struggle for Tibetan rights? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will fully implement the Tibetan Policy Act. State Department officials should meet with Tibetan leaders whenever appropriate, including the 

Dalai Lama in his capacity as an important spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. 

(Section 9—Questions 1–43) 

Section 9—Question 1. The Administration has suggested that it may use a country’s voting record on UN General Assembly resolutions (specifically, the extent to 

which it coincides with the United States) to determine how much bilateral aid that 

country receives. This proposal is wrong-headed. Firstly, General Assembly resolutions are legally non-binding, so cutting aid to countries with whom we have important security or business ties—take Egypt, Jordan, or India, for example—because 

of such votes seems petty, disproportionate, and counterproductive. Moreover, the 

vast majority of General Assembly resolutions are approved by consensus, meaning 

no vote is actually taken. According to the most recent State Department report on 

voting practices in the UN, when consensus measures are factored in, the average 

concurrence of other countries with the U.S. position was 84.1% in 2016 (versus an 

average concurrence rate of 54.8% for the minority of resolutions where a vote was 

taken). As a result, while individual General Assembly members do oppose the U.S. 

position in some cases, they are in agreement the vast majority of the time. Can 

you assure us that the Administration is taking these factors into account as it is 

considering whether to move forward with such a proposal? 

Answer. The Administration believes that foreign assistance should serve American interests. Support for U.S. priorities in international venues is one factor 

among many in making foreign assistance decisions. The United States is by far the 

largest financial contributor to the UN and gives generously to many UN member 

states. If confirmed, I will work to expand support for U.S. policies at the UN and 

in other international venues. 

Section 9—Question 2. Officials in the Trump Administration have, on several occasions over the last year, argued that the President’s ‘‘America First’’ agenda does 

not mean that America will go it alone. In addition, the Administration has repeatedly appealed for greater international burden-sharing. UN peacekeeping is a prime 

example of this type of burden-sharing in action. The U.S. is the largest financial 

contributor to UN peacekeeping operations, currently assessed 28% of the UN’s anFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

186 

nual peacekeeping budget. At the same time, as a permanent member of the UN 

Security Council, the U.S. has final say over the decision to deploy peacekeeping 

missions in the first place. In addition, we provide very few uniformed personnel 

to these endeavors (currently just 55 troops, military advisors, and police out of a 

total force of more than 91,000). This gap is filled by a range of other countries, 

including U.S. allies and partners like Bangladesh, Italy, Morocco, Ethiopia, Ghana, 

and Jordan, who collectively provide tens of thousands of troops and police to UN 

peacekeeping missions, and do not possess a veto over Security Council decisions. 

Do you agree that it is important for the U.S. to share the responsibility for protecting international peace and security with other countries? 

Answer. Yes. UN peacekeeping is an important tool for leveraging international 

support to address such challenges. The Administration believes, however, that the 

shared responsibility of peacekeeping also means shared burdens and shared costs. 

One country should not shoulder more than one quarter of the UN peacekeeping 

budget, and I am committed to pressing for a more equitable distribution of the 

budget among member states. If confirmed, I will work closely with Ambassador 

Haley and UN member states to ensure we make this adjustment in a fair and sensible manner that protects U.S. interests as well as UN peacekeeping. 

Section 9—Question 3. In light of the fact that the President is so keen to ensure 

that the U.S. is not unduly burdened with such responsibilities, do you think it is 

in our national interest to continue to support UN peacekeeping missions? 

Answer. Yes. For peacekeeping operations to be successful, it is important that 

UN peacekeeping missions have an appropriate mandate, support political solutions, 

and are properly managed and equipped. If confirmed, I will work to advance the 

U.S. reform agenda in order to make UN peacekeeping more effective. 

Section 9—Question 4. On that issue of burden-sharing, in a recent op-ed, Lt. Gen. 

John Castellaw (Ret.), a former U.S. Marine officer who served as Chief of Staff for 

U.S. Central Command, argued: ‘‘Having spent about a third of my career deployed 

outside the United States, I know that Americans aren’t afraid to go in harm’s way 

to do the hard work at the risk of our lives. But we can’t be, and we shouldn’t have 

to be, everywhere all the time. UN peacekeeping helps ensure every country does 

its fair share to protect vulnerable populations and promote peace. It saves us 

money, but more importantly, it saves the lives of those who serve.’’ Will you commit to taking the views of our military into consideration with regards to future decisions you make regarding UN peacekeeping operations? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 9—Question 5. Mr. Pompeo, in 2015 when the Congress was debating 

Trade Promotion Authority it passed my amendment that barred ‘‘fast track’’ procedures for any trade agreement with a country on Tier 3 of the State Department’s 

Trafficking in Persons Report—a group of countries that fail to combat human trafficking. Following that amendment, we saw an unprecedented political assault on 

the TIP Report where countries were upgraded based on unrelated factors, one of 

those being trade in my opinion. Will you commit to us that, if confirmed, any decision you make regarding the TIP Report will be based solely on a country’s efforts 

to combat trafficking, and not trade or other unrelated factors? 

Answer. Combating human trafficking is a priority for this Administration and 

will be a priority of mine at the Department of State, if confirmed. I will strive to 

ensure the Trafficking in Persons Report is as objective and accurate as possible, 

based solely on a country’s efforts to combat trafficking, as required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

Section 9—Question 6. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act requires that the 

Secretary of State rank any country with a very significant number of trafficking 

victims as Tier 2 Watch List. Last year, Secretary Tillerson upgraded Malaysia to 

Tier 2 despite this statutory requirement and the Department’s own assessment 

that Malaysia met this criterion. Changing the Tier 2 Watch List definition arbitrarily is inconsistent with the law, harms the credibility of the TIP Report, and ultimately undermines U.S. efforts to end human trafficking. If confirmed, will you 

commit to rigidly applying the Tier 2 Watch List definition of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act? 

Answer. Combating human trafficking is a priority for this Administration. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department applies the statutory criteria and standards 

laid out by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

Section 9—Question 7. In last year’s TIP Report, the President waived an otherwise required automatic downgrade to Tier 3 because the Cuban government subFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

187 

mitted a written plan to begin making significant efforts to combat trafficking. To 

my knowledge, in that plan the Cuban government did not commit to take any action against labor trafficking in the country, much less address its program of statesponsored forced labor. As is documented in the 2017 Report, the Cuban government 

has demonstrated a consistent unwillingness to criminalize or combat forced labor. 

If confirmed, will you commit to recommend that Cuba not receive such a waiver 

until it takes action to address labor trafficking, especially its policies of state-sponsored forced labor? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department holds the Cuban government accountable to the minimum standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act and that its tier ranking in the TIP Report and any related waiver are in compliance with the law. 

Section 9—Question 8. The Committee has prioritized legislation, hearings and 

the U.S. Government’s policy on trafficking in persons. Among the many positions 

that remain vacant at the Department of State is the Ambassador-at-Large leading 

the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. As the top diplomat leading U.S policy on trafficking in persons, this position is critical to ensure that the 

United States maintains its leadership on the promotion of human rights around 

the world. Will you assure the Committee that, if confirmed, you will quickly and 

judiciously nominate someone to lead the Trafficking in Persons Office? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the White House to fill this and other critical positions as quickly and judiciously as possible. 

Section 9—Question 9. In March 2018, President Trump asserted that he had 

made up facts about the U.S. trade balance with Canada during a conversation with 

Prime Minister Trudeau. Specifically, he claimed, falsely, that the United States has 

a trade deficit with Canada. Later on, the President moved on to tweet, ‘‘we do have 

a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive).’’ Yet, the Department of Commerce says that in fact, the U.S. had a $2.77 billion and a $12.5 billion surplus in 2017 and 2016 respectively. In his book, The Art 

of the Deal, the President stated that he is a big proponent of ‘‘truthful hyperbole’’— 

which seems to be in line with the President’s comments to Prime Minister 

Trudeau. What is the balance of trade between the U.S. and Canada? 

Answer. The United States and Canada shared bilateral trade in goods and services of approximately $680.6 billion in 2017, with the United States having an overall trade surplus with Canada of $2.7 billion. The United States recorded a $25.9 

billion surplus with Canada in services, while running a goods deficit with Canada 

of $23.1 billion. 

Section 9—Question 10. Do you think the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada? 

Answer. In 2017, my understanding is that the United States had a trade in 

goods deficit and a trade in services surplus with Canada. 

Section 9—Question 11. As Secretary of State, you will be the face of U.S. diplomacy and your words and credibility matter. Do you believe that tactics of ‘‘truthful 

hyperbole’’ are an effective way to engage with our neighbors and closest partners? 

Answer. The United States should continue to engage effectively with our neighbors and closest allies in ways that enable us to achieve our objectives. 

Section 9—Question 12. Despite the Administration’s statements to the contrary, 

US-Mexico relations are at their worst since the 1980s, when DEA agent Kiki 

Camarena was murdered on Mexican soil. This time however, the problem is entirely of President Trump’s own making. In addition to using language and tactics 

reserved for our most ardent adversaries, the President has repeatedly insulted the 

Mexican people, calling them rapists and murderers. Nevertheless, reality dictates 

that we need a strong relationship with Mexico to address a broad range of national 

security issues, from the opioid crisis to migration. Do you think Mexicans are rapists and murderers? 

Answer. Close cooperation with Mexico is critical to U.S. security and economic 

interests, and the close ties between our peoples are an integral element of our bilateral relations. If confirmed, I will continue to work with Mexico to build a strong 

bilateral relationship to address a broad range of bilateral and national security 

issues. 

Section 9—Question 13. Do you think President Trump’s antagonistic rhetoric and 

bellicose policies have made it easier to advance U.S. national interests—including 

the bilateral cooperation we need for securing our border, combatting transnational 

organized crime, or renegotiating NAFTA? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

188 

Answer. The conclusions contained in the predicate of your question are not correct. The President has acknowledged his deep concern about these issues. The 

President has also instructed his team to coordinate closely with Mexican counterparts to strengthen this important relationship by bolstering border security, combating transnational organized crime, and renegotiating NAFTA in order to create 

more balanced, reciprocal trade that supports high-paying U.S. jobs and grows the 

U.S. economy. 

Section 9—Question 14. Do you think the U.S. can address heroin and fentanyl 

trafficking without Mexico’s cooperation? 

Answer. Mexico is an important partner on counternarcotics. If confirmed, I will 

ensure the Department of State continues to work closely with Mexico in its efforts 

to more effectively reduce the production and availability of heroin, fentanyl, and 

other illicit drugs; secure borders against the movement of drugs and other illicit 

goods; investigate and prosecute drug trafficking and other criminal revenue 

streams; sanction offenders; and dismantle the transnational criminal organizations 

responsible for trafficking these dangerous drugs to the United States. 

Section 9—Question 15. In light of President Pen ̃ a Nieto’s recent comments, what, 

in your view, would be the impact on our national security should Mexico choose 

to withdraw from cooperating with the United States? 

Answer. Mexican cooperation is vital to U.S. national security and, if confirmed, 

I will ensure the Department of State continues to work with Mexico on issues of 

security, counternarcotics, and prosperity. The Administration works with Mexico to 

disrupt transnational criminal organizations, combat the heroin-fentanyl epidemic, 

enhance border security to address irregular migration and trafficking in illicit 

goods, and build Mexico’s capacity to investigate and prosecute crime. Our cooperation strengthens Mexican institutions and the rule of law, and promotes strong communities to deter recruitment by transnational criminal organizations. 

Section 9—Question 16. In your new role, how can you possibly try to recover so 

much lost ground with such an important partner? 

Answer. The United States and Mexico have a close and constructive relationship 

that is vital to the interests of both our countries. If confirmed, I would continue 

the Department’s excellent cooperation with Mexico on a broad range of foreign policy, security, migration, border, and economic issues. 

Section 9—Question 17. The United States is suffering an opioid epidemic that 

has taken the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and is increasingly 

fueled heroin and fentanyl that is trafficked into our country. The State Department, through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

(INL), plays a central role in coordinating U.S. international narcotics policy and cooperation. If confirmed, how will you prioritize the United States international efforts to combat illicit heroin and fentanyl trafficking? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize Department of State efforts to employ a coordinated approach to disrupt the sources and trafficking of heroin and illicit 

fentanyl coming to the United States from a variety of sources. With Mexico, I will 

seek to improve its capacity to counter transnational criminal organizations. With 

China, I will support its efforts to prevent the illicit production and shipments of 

synthetic drugs like fentanyl. I would also deepen cooperation with key multilateral 

organizations to control the production and sale of deadly synthetic opioids, expand 

efforts to interdict these drugs in the international mail and express consignment 

courier systems, and help expose illicit drug sales sites on the internet and dark 

web. 

Section 9—Question 18. What is your assessment of the importance of U.S.-Mexico 

cooperation to address illicit heroin and fentanyl trafficking and transnational organized crime? 

Answer. Mexico is a critically important partner on counternarcotics and disrupting transnational organized crime. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department 

of State continues to work closely with Mexico to reduce the availability and trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, and other illicit drugs to the United States. 

Section 9—Question 19. At a time when the political relationship between the U.S. 

and Mexico is under increasing duress due to the President’s antagonistic statements, how will you work to sustain and build the cooperation necessary to combat 

illicit trafficking and transnational organized crime? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of State continues to work 

with Mexico to sustain and advance our security cooperation. We will work to disFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

189 

rupt networks that smuggle drugs, cash, and weapons across our shared border; 

partner with Mexico to achieve meaningful criminal justice outcomes that deny traffickers the ability to act with impunity and profit from their crimes; and fight the 

corruption that undermines our efforts. 

Section 9—Question 20. How will your efforts to combat international heroin and 

fentanyl trafficking be affected by the President’s proposed 30 percent cut to the 

INL budget, including a 38 percent cut to INL funding for Mexico? 

Answer. I understand the Department’s fiscal year 2019 budget request focuses 

resources for INL on U.S. national security priorities, including efforts to combat the 

opioid epidemic. The request includes funding for programs to combat the flow of 

heroin and fentanyl to the United States. If confirmed, I will make the case to defend the resources that the State Department needs to carry out U.S. diplomacy, 

including efforts to reduce the production and availability of heroin, fentanyl, and 

other illicit drugs and to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. 

Section 9—Question 21. The White House is pushing to expand dramatically the 

length and the height of the fence between the United States and Mexico, calling 

it a ‘‘wall’’ and persisting in a demand that Mexico fund its construction. Is the 

‘‘wall’’ and accompanying rhetoric encouraging the Mexican people to vote for candidates in July 2018 elections who are less interested in a strong bilateral relationship? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek robust engagement with Mexico’s new leadership 

to advance our shared goal of security for our citizens. I am prepared to work with 

whoever wins the Mexican election in July to advance our common interests. 

Section 9—Question 22. How is the ‘‘wall’’ and accompanying rhetoric being 

viewed throughout Latin America? 

Answer. Countries in the Western Hemisphere share our concern about protecting 

their citizens against crime and exploitation and ensuring their welfare and prosperity. Deterring illegal migration and improving border security help countries to 

shield their citizens from these risks. The United States is an enduring partner for 

the countries of the Western Hemisphere in these areas. If confirmed, I will continue to work diligently to stem illicit activity and illegal immigration to the United 

States, and to promote security along our borders, dismantle transnational criminal 

networks and drug trafficking organizations, and disrupt illicit trade. 

Section 9—Question 23. How does that view impact U.S. interests and influence 

in the hemisphere? 

Answer. The Administration has shown its commitment to the Western Hemisphere through regular bilateral meetings with regional leaders. The Vice President 

travelled to the region in 2017 and co-hosted the Conference on Security and Prosperity in Central America in Miami last June. His attendance at the Summit of the 

Americas on April 13 is another demonstration of the United States’ commitment 

to the region. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I would work with all partners in 

the region to advance security, economic and energy prosperity, and democratic governance. 

Section 9—Question 24. Since 2014, the U.S. Government has sought to cooperate 

with the governments of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala—the Northern Triangle of Central America—in order to address the underlying factors driving irregular migration in the region. Through foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement, the U.S. has made significant investments to support security and stability 

there. While some progress has been made, the reality remains that there is much 

more to do. Honduras and El Salvador continue to be among the most violent countries in the world, the rule of law remains weak and levels of impunity remain extremely high. If confirmed, do you commit to supporting U.S. efforts to address the 

security, stability, and prosperity of the Northern Triangle in Central America? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will support diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance programs as a part of the U.S. Strategy for Central America to address the 

high levels of violence, lack of economic opportunity, weak institutions, and pervasive corruption that allow transnational criminal organizations to operate and drive 

illegal immigration to the United States. 

Section 9—Question 25. How do you plan to work with the countries of the Northern Triangle to address the problems of violence, poverty and weak security and justice institutions driving children and families from their countries? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will direct diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance 

programs as a part of the U.S. Strategy for Central America to address the high 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

190 

levels of violence, lack of economic opportunities, weak institutions, and pervasive 

corruption that allow transnational criminal organizations to operate and drive illegal immigration to the United States. I will also ensure the Department of State 

and our embassies in the Northern Triangle coordinate with host governments, 

donor countries, the private sector, international organizations, and civil society to 

maximize the impact of U.S. foreign assistance. I understand U.S. programs complement the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity, the reform initiative of the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. 

Section 9—Question 26. Will you engage with the governments of Guatemala, 

Honduras and El Salvador to support fair and impartial attorney general selection 

processes to emphasize the need to select of honest and qualified candidates with 

a clear commitment to the rule of law? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with the governments of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to emphasize the importance of supporting fair, transparent, 

and impartial attorney general selection processes and the importance of selecting 

honest and highly qualified candidates with a clear commitment to the rule of law 

and the fight against corruption and impunity. 

Section 9—Question 27. Will you commit to maintaining continued U.S. political 

and financial support for United Nations International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization of American States Support Mission against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH)? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to maintaining continued U.S. support for the 

International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization of American States (OAS) Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH). 

Section 9—Question 28. How would you support and strengthen the efforts of 

CICIG and MACCIH, and how would you help ensure the full cooperation of the 

Guatemalan and Honduran governments? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to maintaining continued U.S. support for the 

International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization of American States (OAS) Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH). I will engage the governments of Guatemala and Honduras to underscore the importance of achieving results on Congressionally-mandated criteria 

regarding combatting corruption and cooperation with commissions against impunity and regional human rights entities. If confirmed, I will also encourage the Guatemalan and Honduran governments to select highly-qualified attorneys general, 

with reputations for integrity, judicial independence, and clear commitment to 

transparency and the rule of law, who are willing to support and collaborate with 

CICIG and MACCIH to fight corruption and impunity. 

Section 9—Question 29. Despite having a strong partnership with the Colombian 

government in combatting drug trafficking, we have seen a worrisome growth of 

coca cultivation in Colombia since 2013. It is clear that developing a permanent 

counternarcotic strategy is complicated and requires a comprehensive approach that 

equally prioritizes eradication, destruction of cocaine laboratories, interdiction of 

drug trafficking shipments, the arrest of traffickers, efforts to combat financial 

crimes and money laundering, and robust programs to consolidate the rule of law 

and democratic governance, as well a sustained strategy to advance economic development and provide licit economic opportunities. Do you commit to working with our 

Colombian partners to advance a comprehensive strategy that combats all elements 

of the illicit narcotics trade? 

Answer. The Administration remains deeply concerned about the alarming growth 

in Colombian coca cultivation and cocaine production. I understand that at the U.S.- 

Colombia High-Level Dialogue (HLD) on March 1, the United States and Colombia 

agreed to expand counternarcotics cooperation over the next five years, with the 

shared goal of reducing Colombia’s estimated cocaine production and coca cultivation to 50 percent of current levels by 2023. If confirmed, I will prioritize work with 

Colombia to ensure continued progress in reducing coca cultivation and the production of cocaine as agreed to at the HLD, including through enhanced eradication, 

interdiction, alternative development, and operations to dismantle narcotrafficking 

organizations. 

Section 9—Question 30. What do you plan to do to address some of the broader 

problems that are complicating our counternarcotic efforts in Colombia like a lack 

of state presence in vulnerable regions of Colombia and a dearth of viable economic 

opportunities? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

191 

Answer. As President Trump has made clear, Colombia needs to do more to reverse the alarming growth in coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia, 

including by making more progress to expand the presence of security and civilian 

agencies to vulnerable regions. U.S. assistance plays a key role in supporting this 

effort. The Administration works in Colombia with all levels of government, the 

armed forces, and the private sector to extend government presence, confront illegality, and encourage licit, sustainable development. If confirmed, I will continue to 

work with the Colombian government to support the expansion of capable government services, security, and economic opportunities throughout the country. 

Section 9—Question 31. Do you commit to working in partnership with USAID to 

expanding and strengthening alternative development programs in Colombia? 

Answer. As the President and Vice President have made clear in their meetings 

with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, the United States strongly supports 

Colombia’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. I understand the Department 

of State and USAID work together to support Colombia’s transition out of conflict 

towards durable peace through efforts to reestablish state control in vulnerable regions in a phased approach that combines security, counternarcotics, and economic 

and social development. If confirmed, I will commit to working with USAID to support government and citizen efforts in Colombia to expand government presence, 

confront illegality, and encourage licit, sustainable development. 

Section 9—Question 32. Do you commit to work with the U.S. Department of 

Treasury and Justice to prioritize combatting financial crimes as part of our engagement with Colombia, including increasing money laundering prosecutions and asset 

forfeiture cases? 

Answer. Despite the Government of Colombia’s anti-money laundering regime, my 

understanding is that the laundering of money continues to penetrate its economy 

and affect its financial institutions. I understand Colombia is taking appropriate 

steps by addressing some of the inefficiencies in its asset forfeiture regime. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Justice to prioritize efforts to combat financial crimes. 

Section 9—Question 33. How do you plan to work with our partners in Colombia 

to more aggressively target financial crimes? 

Answer. Colombia is a critically important partner in the fight against financial 

crimes, which fuel narcotrafficking and other forms of illicit activity. If confirmed, 

I will continue the Department’s efforts to build Colombia’s capacity to combat 

money laundering and other financial crimes, pursue forfeiture, and effectively manage seized assets in order to target criminal networks and crucial business 

facilitators, with the goal of disrupting and dismantling their organizations. I will 

also encourage continued collaboration between the Department of the Treasury, the 

Department of Justice, and the U.S. interagency to target the financial crimes of 

Colombia-based criminal organizations. 

Section 9—Question 34. While pursuing bilateral counternarcotics cooperation, 

how can we work with Colombia to arrest its alarming increase in killings of social 

leaders and human rights defenders? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Colombia to reduce drug flows, dismantle 

illegal armed groups, hold accountable those responsible for attacks on social leaders, and support government and civilian efforts to provide effective security guarantees for civil society. 

Section 9—Question 35. What steps would you take to guarantee the political and 

human rights of Afro-Colombian and indigenous persons? 

Answer. The United States employs a holistic approach to promote peace, human 

rights, and social inclusion of indigenous and Afro-Colombians, including through 

engagement and programs with civil society, the U.S.-Colombia Action Plan on Racial and Ethnic Equality, and ongoing dialogue with the Colombian government. If 

confirmed, I will continue to support Colombia’s efforts to secure an inclusive peace, 

including implementation of the peace accord’s Ethnic Chapter, and to hold accountable perpetrators of attacks on ethnic leaders and communities as a way to deter 

future violence. 

Section 9—Question 36. Additionally, as we work to advance counternarcotics cooperation, what do you see as the role of the United States in helping Colombia in 

its implementation of the peace accord? 

Answer. As the President and Vice President have made clear in their meetings 

with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, the United States strongly supports 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

192 

Colombia’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. Colombia remains one of the 

United States’ strongest partners in the region, and successful implementation of 

the peace accord is in the national interest of both nations. Protecting civil society, 

including human rights defenders and community leaders, from violence is essential 

to ensuring that the promise of the accord is fulfilled. U.S. assistance plays a key 

role in supporting implementation. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the 

Colombian government to support the implementation of the peace accord. 

Section 9—Question 37. While the Trump Administration has correctly expanded 

the use of targeted sanctions, the United States does not have a comprehensive policy in place to address the country’s growing economic, humanitarian and refugee 

crisis. Additionally, your predecessor was repeatedly absent from key meetings of 

foreign ministers in the hemisphere. Moreover, as the crisis that Venezuela faces 

has reached unprecedented levels where children are malnourished, hospital services have collapsed, and hundreds of thousands are fleeing the country, the U.S. 

only made its first announcement of minimal humanitarian assistance last month. 

If confirmed, do you commit to working with Congress on a comprehensive U.S. 

strategy to address the humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in Venezuela? 

Answer. The crisis in Venezuela threatens regional stability and U.S. interests. 

It will take a whole of government approach to appropriately respond to the multifaceted political, economic, social, and humanitarian challenges and help Venezuela 

return to a prosperous, functioning democracy. President Trump launched a comprehensive strategy that seeks to engage our diplomatic partners, support democratic actors in Venezuela, hold regime officials accountable for their actions, and 

respond to the worsening humanitarian situation. If confirmed, I will work closely 

with the interagency, Congress, and our international partners to support a speedy 

resolution to these crises. 

Section 9—Question 38. Will you prioritize humanitarian and refugee issues 

alongside sanctions and the tools needed to address growing criminality in Venezuela? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to use the many policy tools at the disposal of 

the U.S. government to address the worsening humanitarian and social crises in 

Venezuela and in the region. For example, the United States has made significant 

financial commitments to respond to the outflow of Venezuelans. This crisis has led 

to more than 1.7 million Venezuelans deciding to flee their country in search of better conditions, and it will be important to respond aggressively and quickly to prevent further regional instability. 

Section 9—Question 39. What should the United States do to ensure an adequate 

humanitarian response to the flow of Venezuelan migrants and refugees fleeing 

from the crisis in Venezuela? 

Answer. I understand the Department of State has provided more than $3.3 million to UNHCR to provide immediate assistance to Venezuelans in Colombia, Brazil, 

Costa Rica, and the Caribbean and is providing another $12 million to UNHCR for 

programs to assist Venezuelans throughout the region. In addition, USAID has also 

provided $5.6 million for assistance to Venezuelans in Colombia and an additional 

$500,000 to assist Venezuelans in Brazil. If confirmed, I will continue the Department’s work with U.S. partners in the region to determine how best to assist the 

Venezuelan people. 

Section 9—Question 40. What do you believe is the most effective way to facilitate 

about the restoration of democracy in Venezuela? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the United States continues to coordinate with 

the international community to hold regime officials accountable for their actions. 

I will also seek to redouble our efforts at the Organization of American States, 

through the United Nations, and in support of the efforts of the Lima Group of nations. International pressure, alongside support to democratic actors in Venezuela, 

is paramount in facilitating a restoration of democracy in Venezuela. 

Section 9—Question 41. Will you personally engage in diplomatic efforts and ensure that senior State Department officials have the tools they need to pursue a coordinated international response to the situation in Venezuela? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 9—Question 42. In August 2017, President Trump stated that the U.S. 

has a ‘‘military option’’ for Venezuela; do you support the use of the U.S. military 

to address Venezuela’s political, economic and humanitarian crisis? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

193 

Answer. I believe that Venezuela’s political, economic, and humanitarian crisis 

can be most effectively addressed through robust diplomatic engagement. If confirmed, I will seek to leverage peaceful, diplomatic avenues to restore democracy 

and support the Venezuelan people. U.S. policy should place pressure on the regime 

to consider a new path, and it must support democratic actors in Venezuela who 

are working tirelessly to create a better future for their country. 

Section 9—Question 43. Numerous press articles have cited that the Administration is considering sanctions on the Venezuelan oil sector; how would oil sanctions 

affect Venezuela’s economic and humanitarian crisis, and how might it facilitate a 

diplomatic solution the country’s political crisis? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will consider additional diplomatic and economic measures 

to support the restoration of democracy and stability in Venezuela, including energy 

sector sanctions. As with any sanctions measures, the United States would need to 

carefully weigh the collateral effects of further sanctions measures, including the 

impact on the humanitarian and broader economic situation in Venezuela. 

(Section 10—Questions 1–50) 

Section 10—Question 1. As Secretary State, you would be required to provide your 

recommendation on whether to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to individuals who are unable to return to the dire conditions in their homeland. This recommendation is generally based on the assessment of foreign policy professionals on 

the ground. More than 200,000 Salvadoran nationals, more than 60,000 Honduran 

nationals, and more than 50,000 Haitian nationals are TPS beneficiaries. In February, the Department of Homeland Security working with the State Department 

terminated this status for Salvadorans and Haitians. In July, both Departments 

would have to make a decision for Honduras. Do you commit to making decision 

based on the input of career foreign service professions when it comes to Temporary 

Protected Status? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department will continue to draw upon its 

unique country, regional, and humanitarian expertise to evaluate country conditions 

against the criteria set out in the TPS statute and provide its collective input to 

DHS for use by Secretary Nielsen as she makes her determinations. I understand 

that the Department’s regional bureaus consider input from embassies in assessing 

country conditions and providing their recommendations. 

Section 10—Question 2. Given the severe challenges that Honduras, El Salvador 

and Haiti face, do you believe that individuals whose statuses were terminated, 

would be able to return to safe conditions? 

Answer. If I understand the Department of Homeland Security consulted with the 

Department of State as a part of its interagency review process to evaluate country 

conditions against the criteria set out in the TPS statute. To allow for an orderly 

transition, my understanding is that the effective termination date for Haiti will be 

July 22, 2019, and for El Salvador it will be September 9, 2019. These delays will 

also provide time for each country to prepare for the return and reintegration of its 

citizens. I understand that the Department of Homeland Security decision for Honduras is expected in May. 

Section 10—Question 3. Do you believe that the more than 215,000 U.S. born children, who would be forced to accompany their TPS beneficiary parents, would be 

able to return to safe conditions? 

Answer. If I understand the Department of Homeland Security consulted with the 

Department of State as a part of its interagency review process to evaluate country 

conditions against the criteria set out in the TPS statute. In the cases of Haiti and 

El Salvador, the Department of Homeland Security set effective TPS termination 

dates of July 22, 2019, and September 9, 2019, respectively, to allow for an orderly 

transition. Regarding U.S. citizens, I understand that the Department of State encourages parents to document their U.S. citizen children as soon as possible, and 

also stands ready to provide services to U.S. citizens through its embassies and consulates. 

Section 10—Question 4. Given the U.S. investments in the Northern Triangle of 

Central America, do you believe that the return of more than 260,000 individuals 

would have a positive impact on the strategic objectives in the region? 

Answer. If I understand the Department of Homeland Security consulted with the 

Department of State as a part of its interagency review process to evaluate country 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

194 

conditions against the criteria set out in the TPS statute. My understanding is that 

with respect to El Salvador, the effective termination date was delayed for 18 

months to allow for an orderly transition. If confirmed, I will work with the Government of El Salvador to ensure the loss of Temporary Protected Status in the United 

States does not negatively impact security, governance, and prosperity objectives in 

the region as part of the U.S. Strategy for Central America. 

Section 10—Question 5. In an event at the American Enterprise Institute in January 2018, when asked about national security threats that we are not paying enough 

attention to you cited political risks in Latin America first. In FY2018 and FY2019, 

the President proposed foreign assistance budget cuts to Latin America and the Caribbean of 36% from FY2017. As Secretary of State, do you commit to pressing the 

President for sufficient resources to address the challenges in the region that directly affect U.S. national security? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will make the case to defend the resources that the 

State Department needs to carry out its diplomatic missions, including in Latin 

America. 

Section 10—Question 6. How are you going to address the challenges in Latin 

America and the Caribbean with a significantly reduced budget? 

Answer. If I understand that the Department of State and USAID are using available foreign assistance resources in the Western Hemisphere to advance U.S. security and prosperity in a variety of ways. If confirmed, I will make the case to defend 

the resources that the State Department needs to carry out its diplomatic missions, 

including in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Section 10—Question 7. In a bipartisan manner, Congress rejected the President’s 

proposed cuts to the region, including mostly restoring funding to Mexico and Colombia. Do you commit to spending congressionally appropriated funding for the region? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I commit to expending all congressionally appropriated 

funds, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. 

Section 10—Question 8. Several Latin American countries have been rocked by 

large-scale corruption scandals in the past year. Some involve massive graft, and 

some involve government officials’ collusion with organized crime. Additionally, challenges facing human rights, political, democracy and environmental activists endure 

in countries including Cuba, Venezuela, and Honduras, among others. Is there a 

link between this corruption and the violence and poverty that drive so many of 

these countries’ citizens to migrate? 

Answer. If Corruption inflicts substantial costs upon the economy and society of 

a country and undermines public confidence in the rule of law. The resulting insecurity and lack of economic opportunity help drive irregular migration in the Western 

Hemisphere. Fighting corruption is a national security priority, and the United 

States works across the globe to prevent graft, promote accountability, and empower 

reformers. The 2017 National Security Strategy underscores corruption’s corrosive 

effects on U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to stand by countries committed to tackling corruption by 

strengthening democratic institutions, supporting international efforts combatting 

corruption and impunity, and building support for reform by empowering citizens 

to hold their governments accountable to global standards. 

Section 10—Question 9. What more can the U.S. government do to support, train, 

and protect people in these countries who are revealing, investigating, and prosecuting corruption? 

Answer. If Strengthening rule of law and judicial systems, as well as supporting 

a robust civil society, are central elements to tackling corruption in the Western 

Hemisphere. The United States has, with its regional partners, prioritized anti-corruption as the theme for the Summit of the Americas and focused on supporting 

anti-corruption champions throughout this hemisphere, to include civil society, journalists, and whistleblowers. If confirmed, I would continue to make confronting corruption in the Hemisphere a priority. 

Section 10—Question 10. What steps would you take to decrease violence and 

murders of social activists, human rights defenders, ethnic minorities and journalists in the region? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I would continue to advance the U.S. commitment to the 

protection of human rights and human rights defenders, including journalists, 

around the world. Within the Hemisphere, if confirmed, I would continue our bilatFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

195 

eral collaborations in an effort to strengthen protection mechanisms for activists and 

to reduce impunity for these crimes by holding their perpetrators accountable. I 

would also support efforts to address the disproportionate impact of violence on vulnerable groups, including ethnic minorities. 

Section 10—Question 11. According to recent Gallup polls, in 2017, U.S. approval 

ratings plummeted in every country in the region, placing us behind China. Alarmingly, our approval fell most among our two closest neighbors—Mexico and Canada. 

In Mexico, our approval fell to 16%—the lowest in over a quarter century. Are you 

concerned by the dismal approval ratings of U.S. leadership in the region? 

Answer. If U.S. engagement with partners across the Western Hemisphere is 

based on longstanding cooperation around shared values and objectives. If confirmed, I will continue our focus on expanding the security and economic prosperity 

of the Hemisphere and strengthening relationships with our partners based on our 

common interests, goals, and values. 

Section 10—Question 12. How do you plan to rebuild our critical relationships in 

the region? 

Answer. If The United States and key partner governments in the region have 

enduring relationships based on common interests, goals, and values. If confirmed, 

I will continue the Administration’s engagement with partners across the Americas 

and the Caribbean as we work together to promote prosperity, strengthen democracy, and improve the security of our citizens. If confirmed, I will take advantage 

of the momentum created by the Summit of the Americas and our longer-term regional initiatives, such as the Strategy for Central America, the Merida Initiative, 

our engagement in Colombia, Caribbean 2020, and the Caribbean Basin Security 

Initiative. 

Section 10—Question 13. What public diplomacy efforts will you pursue to recover 

U.S. standing in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will advance the Department’s public diplomacy efforts 

throughout the region to promote people-to-people connections and build on the 

strong historical and cultural ties between the United States and the Hemisphere. 

U.S. embassies will continue initiatives and exchange programs that support entrepreneurship, innovation, and education in order to promote private and public sector 

priorities across the Hemisphere. The Department of State will support the growing 

reach and effectiveness of English language and education programs to expand academic exchange and joint workforce development efforts across the Americas. 

Section 10—Question 14. Do you see China’s increased commercial ties and investments in Latin America as a U.S. security threat? 

Answer. If While the United States remains the preferred trade and investment 

partner in the region, the sharp increase in China’s engagement over the past decade presents challenges to U.S. national security and economic interests. China’s efforts to shape standards and trade rules to benefit Chinese companies are, in some 

cases, counter to U.S. interests in maintaining a rules-based international order. 

Furthermore, China’s lack of transparency in its investment practices and poor adherence to free market principles can undermine the region’s efforts to combat corruption. However, trade and investment are not a zero-sum game. There is a place 

for multiple players that are interested in promoting sustainable economic development, political stability, and respect for democratic and social norms in the hemisphere. 

Section 10—Question 15. How do you propose the U.S. reinvigorate its commercial 

diplomacy in order to maintain its competitiveness in the region? 

Answer. If The United States is the top trading partner for more than half the 

countries in the region and sells more goods in the Western Hemisphere than to all 

Asian countries combined. If confirmed, I will seek ways to build upon our commercial diplomacy efforts in order to ensure the United States remains the region’s 

partner of choice. I would start by fostering U.S. economic growth through fair and 

reciprocal trade and investment. I would also seek to improve the trade and investment climate for U.S. businesses in the region. This work would involve improving 

the transparency and accountability of procurement practices for investment, boosting protection of intellectual property rights, streamlining border clearance procedures, and modernizing free trade agreements. Finally, I would encourage a whole 

of U.S. government approach to provide U.S. businesses and Latin American partners financing and project feasibility opportunities through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, USAID’s Development Credit Authority, and the U.S. Trade 

and Development Agency. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

196 

Section 10—Question 16. From financing repressive regimes in Venezuela and 

Cuba to meddling in elections throughout the region, there is growing evidence that 

Russia is increasing its influence in Latin America. Do you believe Russia is meddling in presidential elections throughout the region, as former National Secretary 

Advisor H.R. McMaster indicated? 

Answer. If Russia is using subversive measures to weaken democratic norms 

throughout the world. If confirmed, I will continue to support efforts to strengthen 

civil society, combat corruption, and promote independent journalism throughout 

Latin America and the Caribbean as a means to counter and expose misinformation 

efforts by Russia and other state actors. 

Section 10—Question 17. If so, how do you plan to counter Russia’s activities to 

undermine the integrity of elections throughout the region? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will continue to support efforts to strengthen civil society, combat corruption, and promote independent journalism throughout Latin 

America and the Caribbean as a means to counter and expose misinformation efforts by Russia and other state actors. 

Section 10—Question 18. During your testimony you mentioned the threat of Russia’s ‘‘adventuresome in Latin America.’’ Can you expound this? Do you view Russia’s presence in the Latin America as a threat to U.S. interests? 

Answer. If Russia has expanded its influence activities throughout the world in 

recent years. If confirmed, I would remain especially vigilant to increased Russian 

engagement in Latin America, particularly in the security and military sectors. 

Section 10—Question 19. How do you plan to counter Russia’s growing influence 

throughout the region? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will continue to support efforts to strengthen civil society, combat corruption, and promote independent journalism throughout Latin 

America and the Caribbean as a means to counter and expose misinformation and 

influence efforts by Russia. 

Section 10—Question 20. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that authoritarian governments have interests that run counter to U.S. national interests. 

Do you consider the Cuban government to be an authoritarian government? 

Answer. If Yes. 

Section 10—Question 21. Do you believe that Cuba’s one-party ‘‘election’’ on April 

19 will be meet the minimal international standards for democratic elections? 

Answer. If I agree with the assessment that Cuban citizens have had no real or 

meaningful choice during this tightly-controlled electoral process, which does not 

meet the most basic definition of democracy. 

Section 10—Question 22. How do you plan to approach the United States’ relationship with Cuba? 

Answer. If On June 16, 2017, the President signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward 

Cuba,’’ which advances the interests of the United States and the Cuban people. If 

confirmed, I will continue to implement the President’s policy and focus U.S. engagement with Cuba on U.S. national interests, including in areas related to human 

rights, law enforcement, migration, maritime safety, environment, and enforcing 

final orders of removal against Cuban nationals in the United States. 

Section 10—Question 23. The State Department’s 2016 Human Rights Report on 

Cuba stated that Cuban citizens routinely face the absence of fair trials, the monitoring and censoring of their private communications, and a lack of freedoms of 

speech, assembly and press, as well as the use of government-sponsored threats, 

physical assault, intimidation tactics and arbitrary arrests. What is your assessment 

of human rights conditions in Cuba? 

Answer. If I agree with the Department of State’s annual Human Rights Report, 

which condemns the Cuban regime’s systematic abuses of freedom of association and 

freedom of expression, along with the harassment, restrictions on travel, and arbitrary detention of human rights activists, as well as its upcoming nondemocratic 

leadership transition. 

Section 10—Question 24. How will you work to support democratic activists and 

human rights defenders in Cuba? 

Answer. If As directed by the June 16 National Security Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba,’’ the Department has focused its efforts on promoting improved respect for human rights in 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

197 

Cuba. As I understand, the Department monitors human rights developments in 

Cuba and calls out violations by the Cuban government. It also actively engages 

with members of Cuban civil society. The Department also continues to administer 

U.S. government-funded programs to promote democracy and the exercise of fundamental freedoms and to support the critical work of human rights defenders on the 

island. If confirmed, I will continue these lines of diplomatic effort. 

Section 10—Question 25. Will you maintain U.S. funding for democracy and 

human rights programs in Cuba? 

Answer. If Yes. 

Section 10—Question 26. Will you utilize all U.S. foreign policy tools—including 

Global Magnitsky sanctions—in order to address human rights abuses in Cuba? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will consider all options, including use of Global 

Magnitsky, to address human rights abuses in Cuba. 

Section 10—Question 27. Will you support programs at the Broadcasting Board 

of Governors (BBG) Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB)? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will support the Office of Cuba Broadcasting’s mission 

to promote freedom and democracy by providing the people of Cuba with objective 

news and information programming. 

Section 10—Question 28. Given that the Cuban government continues to provide 

safe haven for numerous fugitives from the U.S. justice system—including Joanne 

Chesimard, who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for killing a New Jersey State 

Trooper—will you ensure that U.S. diplomats prioritize the extradition of these individual to the U.S.? 

Answer. If The Administration continues to seek the return of U.S. fugitives in 

Cuba, including Joanne Chesimard. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to 

make the fugitive issue a priority in bilateral discussions. 

Section 10—Question 29. Will you work with the Treasury Department to ensure 

that no revenue from American businesses goes directly toward supporting the 

Cuban military and intelligence services? 

Answer. If On June 16, 2017, the President signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward 

Cuba,’’ that outlines how the United States will address our policy toward Cuba consistent with U.S. interests. The policy seeks to ensure U.S. public and private engagement in Cuba does not disproportionately benefit the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people. If confirmed, I would continue to implement this policy. 

Section 10—Question 30. Given that the Secretary General of the Organization of 

American States has said that Cuba maintains presence of an ‘‘occupation army’’ in 

Venezuela—a country that is suffering a tragic political, economic and humanitarian 

crisis—what is your assessment of the Cuban government’s engagement with the 

Venezuelan government? 

Answer. If In my view, the active presence of Cuban military, intelligence, and 

security personnel in Venezuela infringes upon the sovereignty of the Venezuelan 

people. Their interference exacerbates the country’s overlapping economic, political, 

and humanitarian crises. Both the Cuban government and the Maduro regime are 

outliers in the Hemisphere when it comes to democracy, the rule of law, and respect 

for human rights. 

Section 10—Question 31. Maintaining the functional separation of U.S. development missions from U.S. diplomatic missions is critically important, and is exemplified by maintaining USAID’s independence. Do you agree that USAID is an independent agency—and its independence must be respected and preserved? 

Answer. If Yes. As the lead U.S. government agency for international development 

and disaster assistance, USAID plays a fundamental role in supporting American 

foreign policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Green and 

USAID’s exceptional staff. 

Section 10—Question 32. Will you allow USAID to determine its own priorities 

and develop its own strategic approaches to achieving its missions? 

Answer. If I recognize that USAID plays a critical role in advancing our national 

security and brings valuable perspective and depth to interagency discussions on 

our global priorities and strategic approaches. The USAID Administrator operates 

under the foreign-policy guidance of the Secretary of State, which is essential, but 

the Agency is an independent establishment of the Executive Branch. If confirmed, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

198 

I will expect the two organizations to be able to work closely together to accomplish 

the vision of the President, and I look forward to working with USAID Administrator Mark Green and my other interagency colleagues to project American values 

abroad and advance our national interests. 

Section 10—Question 33. Will you support and work alongside the USAID Administrator on a regular basis, and commit to keeping him informed of State Dept. policies and missions that affect USAID’s missions? 

Answer. If Yes. 

Section 10—Question 34. Do you agree the USAID Administrator should be dualhatted as the head of USAID and a Deputy Secretary within the State Dept.? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I intend to manage the Department of State in a way 

that leverages and enhances the unique, complementary capabilities of the Department and USAID. 

Section 10—Question 35. Do you agree that USAID should have autonomy over 

its budget, and therefore a key responsibility of the USAID Administrator—as a 

Deputy Secretary of State is to oversee the Foreign Assistance Resource (F) Bureau? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I intend to manage the Department of State in a way 

that leverages and enhances the unique, complementary capabilities of the Department and USAID, including on budgetary matters. 

Section 10—Question 36. The State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance Resources, (F Bureau), is withholding the approval of FY 17 Operations Plans and 

Spend Plans for several USAID programs and has not obligated funds that Congress 

has appropriated funds for FY 17. Prior to your confirmation: Will you ensure that 

the Committee receives an explanation of the extent of USAID’s Operations Plans 

and Spend Plans that are still awaiting approval from F Bureau? 

Answer. If I share your concern in ensuring the Department of State and USAID 

have timely access to the resources they need to carry out their critical missions. 

I understand these funds are vital to helping meet the United States’ overall foreign 

policy objectives. I am deeply committed to ensuring the Department of State and 

USAID can execute funding in a timely manner, and if confirmed, I will look for 

opportunities to improve the timeliness of this process while assuring compliance 

with applicable legal and other requirements. 

Section 10—Question 37. Will you ensure that the State Department communicates the total amount of FY 17 appropriated funds for USAID programs that are 

still awaiting approval from F Bureau? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will make it a priority to ensure the Department continues to communicate with Congress on issues of concern in a timely manner. 

Section 10—Question 38. Are the delays in the approval of these USAID Operations Plans and Spend Plans related to policy or political disagreements the Department, or the Administration, has with these congressionally mandated programs? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will look into any delays in approval of funding. I am 

deeply committed to ensuring the Department of State and USAID can execute 

funding in a timely manner in line with the congressional directives and consistent 

with applicable law. 

Section 10—Question 39. Will you work to have the State Department provide a 

timeline outlining the F Bureau’s work to apportion, approve outstanding USAID 

Operations Plans and Spend Plans, and obligate FY 16 and FY 17 appropriations? 

Answer. If If confirmed, the Department of State will continue to keep Congress 

updated on the processes of implementing funding. I am deeply committed to ensuring the Department of State and USAID can execute funding in a timely manner 

and will look for opportunities to improve the timeliness of this process while assuring compliance with applicable legal and other requirements. 

Section 10—Question 40. Will you work to provide the committee details on all 

apportionments made by the Office of Management and Budget for FY 16 and FY 17 

and FY 18, including OMB’s footnotes? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I plan to work with the Office of Management and Budget 

to ensure the Department of State and USAID continue to have timely access to the 

resources needed to carry out their critical mission. Executive branch agencies and 

Congress have a shared responsibility for the effective oversight of the American 

taxpayer’s money. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

199 

Section 10—Question 41. Do you believe, based on the various delays in obligating 

outstanding FY 17 funding appropriated for USAID, that the Administration has 

violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Title X of the Congressional Budget 

and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended through P.L. 113–67; 2.USC 681 

et SEQ? If not, why? If confirmed, will you commit that the State Department will 

never violate the Impoundments Act of 1974 by swiftly approving Operations Plans 

within 45 days of the 653(a) process being approved by Congress? 

Answer. If I am committed to ensuring the effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer dollars, 

driving efficiencies, and working on behalf of the American people to advance national security objectives and foreign policy goals. As I mentioned in my testimony, 

I will work to ensure that funding appropriated by Congress is obligated consistent 

with applicable law, including the Impoundment Control Act. 

Section 10—Question 42. Secretary Tillerson’s insistence to prolong the hiring 

freeze at State Department and USAID created an unnecessary burden on the Department and USAID and the damage of the hiring freeze on the State Department 

and USAID’s functions persist today. Do you believe the extended time the hiring 

freeze was kept in place was a good idea and serve a beneficial purpose in advancing U.S. foreign policy? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will assess the personnel decisions made by Secretary 

Tillerson, which I understand have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress. I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign 

and civil service is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy and that the Department is 

a place where people want to work and grow in their careers. Funding provided 

under the Appropriations Act of 2018 supports staffing levels at or above 2017 endof-year levels, and if confirmed, I will set the Department’s goal on that basis. 

Section 10—Question 43. What is your understanding for why the hiring Freeze 

was kept in place for almost a year, and well after the hiring freeze was lifted for 

the rest of the federal government? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will assess the personnel decisions made by Secretary 

Tillerson, which I understand have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress. I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign 

and civil service is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy and that the Department is 

a place where people want to work and grow in their careers. 

Section 10—Question 44. What do you understand were the goals of the hiring 

freeze as it relates to the overall workforce size and attrition and buy-out goals? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will assess the personnel decisions made by Secretary 

Tillerson, which I understand have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress. I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign 

and civil service is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy and that the Department is 

a place where people want to work and grow in their careers. 

Section 10—Question 45. What is the status of meeting the hiring freeze targets 

set-out by Secretary Tillerson? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will assess prior personnel decisions, which I understand have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress. 

I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign and civil service is at the 

forefront of U.S. diplomacy and that the Department is a place where people want 

to work and grow in their careers. Funding provided under the Appropriations Act 

of 2018 supports staffing levels at or above 2017 end-of-year levels, and if confirmed, 

I will set the Department’s goal on that basis. 

Section 10—Question 46. Will you commit that you will not reinstate the hiring 

freeze? 

Answer. If My intention, if confirmed, is to return the staff levels of the Department’s Foreign and Civil Service to those at or above December 31, 2017, consistent 

with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. It is my understanding that this 

will result in hiring at or above attrition levels for the remainder of FY 2018. 

Section 10—Question 47. What is the purpose for maintaining the hiring freeze 

on the Eligible Family Members (EFM) program pertaining to the hiring of qualified 

family members of U.S. Foreign Service Officers and U.S. nationals, working abroad 

at post, to work as U.S. embassy or USAID employees? Why do the rules governing 

the continued hiring freeze applied to the EFM program call for any open position 

advertised at post be frozen when, or if, and EFM applies for the job? If confirmed, 

will you commit to immediately ending the hiring freeze that is applied to the EFM 

program? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

200 

Answer. If It is my understanding that limitations on family member hiring have 

been eased. If confirmed, I will review current hiring policies for Eligible Family 

Members (EFMs). I recognize the value and contributions made by EFMs in support 

of our national security interests. 

Section 10—Question 48. The State Dept.’s March 12th announcement to lift the 

hiring freeze makes the point of stating that the ‘‘new Strategic Hiring Initiative 

that further aligns our talent and human capital needs with foreign policy and 

budget priorities’’. Does ‘‘aligns talent and human capital to foreign policy priorities’’ 

mean that State and USAID resources will be allocated based on the political priorities of this Administration as outlined in the Congressional Budget Justifications 

for FY 18 and FY 19? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will aim to ensure that proposed growth and changes 

in the workforce align with the Department’s policy and management priorities, especially on national security, public health, and safety. I will review the alignment 

of resources within the Department and fulfill all related reporting requirements by 

Congress in the FY 2018 Omnibus. 

Section 10—Question 49. If the ‘‘foreign policy and budget priorities’’ mentioned 

in the announcement of the Strategic Hiring Initiative do not match, or run counter 

to, programs funded by Congressional appropriations, will the Strategic Hiring Initiative be used to allocate resources despite congressional funding mandates? 

Answer. If If confirmed, my intention is to ensure that the Department’s hiring 

strategies take Congressionally funded/mandated program needs into account so 

that the resulting allocation of resources are made in concert with Congressional 

funding mandates. 

Section 10—Question 50. For example, the FY 19 budget proposes cutting Democracy, Human Right and Governance programs by 40%, Educational and Cultural 

Exchange Programs by 75%. Global health programs by 28% and so on, so even if 

Congress provides you the funds, does ‘‘align[ing] our talent and human capital 

needs with foreign policy and budget priorities.’’ Understanding that you were not 

involved in the creation of the FY 19 State Department budget, but that you would 

be responsible for executing the budget as well as executing the Strategic Hiring 

Initiative, does the phrase ‘‘further aligns our talent and human capital needs with 

foreign policy and budget priorities’’ in the Strategic Hiring Initiative mean that you 

would eliminate staffing these programs in accordance with the President’s FY 19 

budget proposal? 

Answer. If If confirmed, I will review the Department’s FY 19 budget submission 

and initiate a thorough assessment of strategic hiring priorities in compliance with 

the appropriated funding levels to determine how the Department’s human capital 

best aligns with foreign policy objectives of the United States and all legal requirements. 

(Section 11—Questions 1–52) 

Section 11—Question 1. The ‘‘Three Ds—Defense, Diplomacy, and Development,’’ 

is a longstanding approach the U.S. has taken to executing U.S. foreign policy. What 

is your opinion of the Three Ds—Defense, Diplomacy and Development and what 

is vision to elevate both diplomacy and development in an Administration where 

generals have driven national security and foreign policy thus far? 

Answer. agree that diplomacy and development are critical aspects of American 

national security, along with our military capabilities, particularly given the challenges we face today. As I said in my written testimony, one of the many values 

of robust diplomacy is that it increases our chances of solving problems peacefully. 

The same can be said for working with other countries to address their development 

challenges along their journeys to self-reliance. If confirmed, I will do my part to 

ensure the Department of State is working with our interagency partners to leverage each other’s core competencies, so that we can effectively and efficiently advance 

our collective national security objectives. 

Section 11—Question 2. Do you agree that each of the Three Ds—Defense, Diplomacy and Development are separate and equal tools in the President’s foreign policy 

toolkit? 

Answer. I believe that advancing our national interests requires recognizing the 

unique capabilities that defense, diplomacy, and development bring to global challenges, and ensuring we deploy them in concert as a part of our foreign policy. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

201 

Section 11—Question 3. Effective international development fosters stability, generates goodwill, and creates opportunities in developing countries. The (December) 

2017 National Security Strategy acknowledges this fact by stating: ‘‘Some of the 

greatest triumphs of American statecraft resulted from helping fragile and developing countries become successful societies. These successes, in turn, created profitable markets for American businesses, allies to help achieve favorable regional balances of power, and coalition partners to share burdens and helped create a network 

of states that advance our common interests and values.’’ If confirmed, how will you 

support the elevation of development as an equal and relevant tool to diplomacy 

within the State Department, at the National Security Council and in discussions 

across the White House? 

Answer. I agree that development is a critical aspect of American national security, along with our military capabilities and diplomatic strength, particularly given 

the challenges we face today. As I said in my written testimony, one of the many 

values of robust diplomacy is that it increases our chances of solving problems 

peacefully. The same can be said for working with other countries to address their 

development challenges along their journeys to self-reliance. As the lead U.S. government agency on international development and disaster assistance, USAID plays 

a fundamental role in supporting American foreign policy, and in our efforts to ensure stability, detect and respond to possible pandemics, prevent conflict, and build 

citizen-responsive local governance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Green, the USAID staff around the world, and the other U.S. government departments and agencies that focus on development, to pursue these goals 

most effectively. 

Section 11—Question 4. With the elimination of the ‘Development’ Directorate 

within the National Security Council, many congressionally endorsed Presidential 

Initiatives (like Power Africa and Feed the Future) that have significant development outcomes have been neglected. If confirmed, will you support these important 

initiatives and elevate their use as a tool for both national security and American 

prosperity? 

Answer. I agree that well-designed and accountable development initiatives are 

an important tool to elevate national security and American prosperity. If confirmed, I look forward to working with USAID Administrator Mark Green and reviewing specific development initiatives, including Power Africa, Feed the Future, 

and other efforts, and to consult with you as we seek the most-effective ways to advance our national interest and engage with partner nations to advance their selfreliance and promote global stability. 

Section 11—Question 5. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act includes 

several provisions (Sections 335, 583, and 1075), which illustrate a link between defense, diplomacy and development in preserving human rights, mitigating conflict 

and natural disasters, and protecting national security interests. If confirmed as 

Secretary of State, how will you work across the Three Ds to recalibrate the National Security Strategy, and embrace a strategic approach to democracy, human 

rights and conflict being a strategic and national security interest of America? 

Answer. I agree that these aspects of American foreign policy are intrinsically 

linked and, if confirmed, I will work to advance a strategic approach that deploys 

the ‘‘three Ds’’ to advance our national interests. I look forward to working with 

USAID, the Department of Defense, and other U.S. departments and agencies to advance the tenets of the National Security Strategy, including by increasing American influence abroad, promoting American prosperity, and addressing threats to 

global instability and American security. 

Section 11—Question 6. Do you agree that improving economic opportunity, health 

outcomes, food security, and addressing natural resource scarcity in developing and 

fragile countries reduces insecurity and instability risks? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 7. Development plays a critical role in America’s smart 

power approach to combating the drivers that result in poverty and lack of economic 

opportunity, poor health and education outcomes, food insecurity, failing democracies and the absence of human rights for all in a society. In the 2018 U.S. National Security Strategy, the Administration states, ‘‘We will partner with our allies 

to alleviate the worst poverty and suffering, which fuels instability.’’ What is your 

position on dual-hatting the USAID Administrator as a Deputy Secretary of State? 

Answer. I agree that development plays a critical role in combating the drivers 

of global instability. If confirmed, I look forward to working with USAID Administrator Mark Green to ensure we are working together closely to leverage and enFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

202 

hance the unique, complementary capabilities of the Department of State and 

USAID, and that our funding needs are met and supported. 

Section 11—Question 8. Will you support and work alongside the USAID Administrator on a regular basis, and commit to keeping him informed of State Dept. policies and missions that affect USAID’s missions? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 9. Do you believe USAID should have autonomy over its 

budget? 

Answer. The Administrator of USAID operates under the foreign policy guidance 

of the Secretary of State, which is essential, but USAID is an independent establishment of the executive branch. If confirmed, I will expect the two organizations to 

be able to work closely together to accomplish the vision of the President. I look forward to working closely with Administrator Green to support his priorities and the 

work of USAID. 

Section 11—Question 10. U.S. foreign policy has prioritized diplomacy and development activities that engage public and private sector partners in eradicating global health pandemics, feed the world through agriculture and invest in small farmers, heighten trade and economic development, elevate the full rights of women and 

marginalized people and expand access to electricity to reduce poverty and power 

market growth. What priorities will you advance? 

Answer. I agree that well-designed and accountable development initiatives are 

an important tool to elevate national security and American prosperity. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Green in implementing the 

full range of USAID development initiatives that expand economic opportunity, address global health issues, build strong democratic societies, and help create and 

strengthen our global partnerships. 

Section 11—Question 11. Do you support the extension of the following Presidential Initiatives: Power Africa, Feed the Future, the Young African Leaders Initiative, Let Girls Learn, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to closely reviewing all U.S. global assistance 

programs, including the ones you referenced in your question, and working with Administrator Green, you, and other Members of Congress on developing and executing U.S. development programs. 

Section 11—Question 12. As CIA Director, you observed and stated ‘‘It’s often the 

case that in a dangerous world, America is the only country that can present the 

leadership that can solve many, many problems.’’ As a member of the Tom Lantos 

Human Rights Commission during his time in Congress, you said, ‘‘I will continue 

to advocate for a foreign policy focused on our long-held principles of advancing freedom and justice that also upholds the national interests of the United States. America must lead to keep Americans safe, and keeping Americans safe is my constitutional responsibility.’’ Do you stand by these statements and if so how do you these 

principles apply to your philosophy on the value and delivery of U.S. development 

assistance? 

Answer. Yes, I stand by these statements. I believe democracy programs that help 

to advance freedom and justice are critical for defending national security, fostering 

economic opportunities for the American people, and asserting U.S. leadership and 

influence. The State Department and USAID’s efforts in this area work to advance 

a more secure and prosperous world by helping to support more stable and resilient 

societies that will lead to their own development. 

Section 11—Question 13. Does the type of leadership you describe in this statement also apply to continue U.S. engagement and leadership in multilateral forums 

focused on working cooperatively towards solving global challenges? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support U.S. engagement and leadership in multilateral forums that advance U.S. interests and develop solutions for global challenges. 

Section 11—Question 14. The Obama Administration maintained a host of Special 

Envoy and Representative Offices at the State Department, including 17 Special Envoys and 16 Special Representatives. What is your position on maintaining these offices? 

Answer. I understand that Secretary Tillerson presented a proposal to Congress 

on Special Envoys. I look forward to reviewing it thoroughly and discussing it with 

the Committee, if confirmed. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

203 

Section 11—Question 15. In the event you decide to eliminate or consolidate these 

select offices, will you commit to work with the State Dept. staff and relevant interagency partners that engage with these offices (ex. USAID leads the U.S. government’s Global Food Security Initiative and should be consulted if the State Department’s Global Food Security office is consolidated into the Economic Growth, Energy 

and Environment Bureau)? 

Answer. Yes, I am committed to regular discussion and dialogue with State Department and interagency colleagues. 

Section 11—Question 16. As of December 2016, the State had 75,420 total employees, which includes full-time permanent direct hire Foreign Service, civil service 

personnel and all locally employed staff; with about 71 percent of State employees 

were white, compared to 15 percent African American, 6 percent Asian and 4.5 percent multi-race. If confirmed, what will you do to elevate and embrace the diversity 

of people, voices and backgrounds within the State Department’s workforce? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I am committed to achieving a diverse 

workforce and ensuring that every team member is treated equally, with respect 

and dignity. 

I understand that the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of Civil Rights 

continuously assess and evaluate the Department’s effectiveness in advancing diversity. If confirmed, I will work towards creating a more diverse State Department 

work force in every sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. As I 

have done at the CIA, I will achieve this by focusing on the mission and treating 

every team member with dignity and respect. 

Section 11—Question 17. Will you commit to fully support the full funding and 

maintenance of the Rangel Fellows program, and diversity initiatives at large within the State Department? 

Answer. I am committed to ensuring we recruit, train and develop a diverse workforce capable of executing the State Department’s mission. I have been briefed on 

the Rangel Fellowship program and understand it is an important part of achieving 

these important goals. 

Section 11—Question 18. Today at the State Department, there has been an 18 

percent drop in the Senior Foreign Service; and in 2017, of 143 Career Foreign Service officers that competed for promotion; 20 were minorities (African American, 

Latino, Asian, American Indian, and Mixed Race), 4 promotions were issued—of 

which 3 were White and 1 Asian. What are your reactions to these promotions? 

Answer. I agree that a steady flow of diverse foreign service (and civil service) 

officers at all ranks is important to creating a dynamic and effective workforce. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed in detail in the Department’s efforts to 

ensure the promotion process is fair and transparent. 

Section 11—Question 19. If confirmed, what will you do to support more minority 

candidates applying and successfully receiving promotions within the Senior Foreign 

Service? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work towards creating a more diverse State Department work force in every sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. 

I understand the Department made some initial steps in this regard and I look forward to being briefed on the status of this initiative and other ideas for making the 

senior level selection process fair to all, regardless of race and religious background. 

Section 11—Question 20. We have seen in regions like the horn of Africa skirmishes over grazing lands erupt, and food insecurity and extreme drought in places 

like Syria have been pointed to as contributing factors to the violence that we see 

today. This violence in turn is ramping up food insecurity. There are currently four 

countries facing man-made famine or near famine conditions, stemming from prolonged instability, war, and conflict. You are a leading voice on the importance of 

responding to food insecurity and its impact on America’s national security. At a 

2016 USGLC event in South Carolina, you praised America’s leadership on global 

food security in the battle against terrorism, calling it ‘‘another important issue to 

keep America safe, which we don’t have famine and starvation causing folks who 

want to put on bomb vests instead of engage in commerce.’’ Do you still stand by 

these comments? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 21. If confirmed, what will you do to elevate the food continuum of food assistance (humanitarian assistance), resilience (both humanitarian 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

204 

assistance and development), food security (development assistance), and agricultural trade and investment (development assistance and development finance)? 

Answer. Alleviating global hunger and malnutrition requires short-term investments to address immediate needs, and long-term investments to improve resilience 

to natural and man-made shocks as well as to create strong markets and food systems. If confirmed, I will work to improve coordination between humanitarian and 

development assistance in order to reduce the burden to U.S. taxpayers and to 

maximize the impact of U.S. foreign aid. The U.S. Global Food Security Strategy, 

implemented by Feed the Future (FTF), calls for greater coordination between these 

types of investments. The Administration is coordinating investments in humanitarian assistance, agricultural development, and trade in FTF target countries, such 

as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Nigeria. 

Section 11—Question 22. Is it in the U.S. interest to help lead and initiate programs designed to improve food security? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 23. Is it in the U.S. interest to work towards addressing the 

causes of food insecurity, including growing scarcity of natural resources? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 24. The slogan ‘‘America First’’ advances a political message 

that emphasizes the advancement of singular U.S. interests in our foreign policy 

that runs the risk of complicating U.S. development initiatives. Successful international development programs depends upon the ability of our private sector and 

NGO implementing partners and the credibility they have abroad. ‘‘America First’’ 

risks putting forward the appearance that U.S .companies and NGOs are political 

operatives of the U.S. Government, and puts them at greater risk of being targeted 

by the extremist influences their work is counteracting. Should the delivery of U.S. 

development assistance be a shared endeavor with NGO and private sector partners? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 25. How do you think foreign leaders, including U.S. adversaries who are competing with us for influence in vulnerable and strategic countries, 

interpret and process the ‘‘America First’’ doctrine? 

Answer. The President’s ‘‘America First’’ agenda prioritizes the well-being of 

Americans, bolsters U.S. national security, secures our borders, and advances U.S. 

economic interests. Within this broad vision, key U.S. allies share many of the same 

objectives and are eager to work together to create a safer, more secure and prosperous world. If confirmed, I will continue to work with our allies to advance these 

shared objectives. 

Section 11—Question 26. Do you believe the U.S. private sector should be political 

agents of the Trump administration? 

Answer. The U.S. private sector is an important partner, particularly as the State 

Department and USAID work together on critical public and private partnerships 

to advance key development objectives around the world. By continuing to leverage 

the expertise and resources of these critical partners, I believe both the State Department and USAID will be better placed to advance our U.S. foreign policy objectives. 

Section 11—Question 27. Do you understand why our U.S. development partners 

are anxious about how ‘‘America First’’ complicates their work and risks giving the 

appearance that they are political agents at the service of the United States Government when they help administer development assistance on-the-ground? 

Answer. The President’s ‘‘America First’’ agenda prioritizes the well-being of 

Americans, bolsters U.S. national security, secures our borders, and advances U.S. 

economic interests. Within this broad vision, key U.S. allies share many of the same 

objectives and are eager to work together to create a safer, more secure and prosperous world. If confirmed, I will continue to work with our allies to advance these 

shared objectives. 

Section 11—Question 28. If confirmed, Will you commit to working with development stakeholders to understand better the value of development assistance and the 

consequences of overexposure of the ‘‘America First’’ doctrine? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with development stakeholders 

to inform U.S. development assistance policy. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

205 

Section 11—Question 29. There are numerous international conventions and forums that the U.S. is party to and has traditionally played critical leadership roles 

within. Do you believe U.S. interests are best served when the U.S. plays a leadership role, and engages to the fullest, in international forums where major policies 

and decisions are made that will effect U.S. national security and economic interests?’’ 

Answer. Yes, in those cases where it best serves America’s interests. 

Section 11—Question 30. Historically, the State Department plays the role of 

being the principle department responsible for diplomatic engagement and representing the U.S. to international conventions that the U.S. is party to. Do you believe that the State Department must retain its authority, and defend its traditional 

role, in being the principal representative of the U.S. overseas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 31. In 2017, this administration’s 13 scientific agencies affirmed that humans ‘‘are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the 

mid-20th century.’’ Do you accept that conclusion? 

Answer. As I stated my testimony, I agree that there is likely a human component 

to climate change. 

Section 11—Question 32. What do you see as the State Department’s role in incorporating that scientific finding into policy-making? 

Answer. If confirmed, the Department of State will make decisions that are informed by the best scientific and intelligence assessments. 

Section 11—Question 33. If confirmed, will you commit to upholding the Department of State’s scientific integrity policy, which recognizes that ‘‘Science plays a key 

role in informing policy, including foreign policy, and is a key aspect of sound, factbased decision making. The Department of State is committed to science-based policy making, and to increasing international collaboration to advance global scientific 

knowledge’’? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 34. Recent gas finds in the eastern Mediterranean have the 

potential to make Israel a net energy exporter for the first time in its history and 

have created opportunities for energy cooperation as well as potential conflict between Israel and its neighbors. What do you believe is the United States role in 

Middle East energy diplomacy? 

Answer. I believe the United States can play a major role in Middle East energy 

diplomacy. If confirmed, I would use energy diplomacy to help diversify energy sectors in the region, reduce vulnerabilities, promote mutual energy security interests, 

and ensure the region’s resources are used for development and prosperity, not conflict. I also would support increasing U.S. energy resource and technology exports 

to the region and building open, transparent energy markets in which U.S. businesses can compete fairly for new opportunities. 

Section 11—Question 35. If confirmed, what will your priorities be with respect 

to your Bureau’s engagement in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, my priority for energy engagement in the Middle East 

would be ensuring the region contributes to global security by supporting stable and 

efficient global energy markets. I would work with our partners in the Middle East 

to diversify their energy sectors and encourage greater energy integration as a foundation for peace and shared economic prosperity. I also would promote new opportunities for U.S. businesses and new export markets for U.S. energy resources, technologies, and services. 

Section 11—Question 36. Lebanon’s recent offshore gas tender includes part of 

Israel and Lebanon’s disputed maritime border. Israeli Energy Minister Yuval 

Steinitz has said that a diplomatic resolution to the dispute ‘‘is preferable to 

threats’’ but has also warned Lebanon not to explore in the disputed line of contact. 

If confirmed, how will you engage with both sides to resolve this issue? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to help the parties proceed in reaching a resolution quickly and in a manner acceptable to both Lebanon and Israel. 

Section 11—Question 37. Do you see any potential for cooperation between the two 

countries? 

Answer. Yes. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

206 

Section 11—Question 38. Iraq, despite its hydrocarbon resources, is Iran’s second 

largest export market for natural gas. How can improvements to Iraq’s energy infrastructure improve its domestic gas production capacity? 

Answer. Iraq could reduce its gas imports, improve electricity reliability, and become a major gas exporter if it develops its natural gas resources and addresses significant natural gas flaring. U.S. companies are participating successfully in Iraq’s 

gas industry. If confirmed, I would ensure the State Department continues to seek 

opportunities for U.S. companies to help reduce flaring and develop these resources. 

Section 11—Question 39. If confirmed, how would you work with Iraq to lessen 

its dependence on Iranian gas? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would continue State Department efforts to assist Iraq in 

expanding its natural gas infrastructure. The State Department would also continue 

urging the Iraqi government to change how it contracts with international oil companies for oil field management to add incentives to capture, rather than flare, natural gas. 

Section 11—Question 40. The previous administration’s effort on clean energy cooperation with China proved to be a bright spot in the U.S.-China relationship. Do 

you believe clean energy cooperation with China and India is in the U.S. interest? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will promote secure, stable, diversified, and modern global 

energy systems that use a broad range of market-based energy solutions with 

China, India, and other countries around the world. 

Section 11—Question 41. Will you commit to continuing the separate bilateral efforts on clean energy development with China and India? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with China and India through separate bilateral 

efforts and in multilateral fora on all energy issues, including cleaner energy development. These efforts will align with U.S. energy security goals of promoting secure, 

stable, diversified, and modern global energy systems that use a broad range of 

market-based energy solutions. 

Section 11—Question 42. Helping improve developing countries’ responsibly improve their energy security is critical to advancing U.S. national security interests 

around the world. If confirmed, how would you approach advising foreign governments, including developing countries and countries with concentrations of vulnerable populations living near energy resources or industrial areas, about public 

health, safety and liability regulation of energy developers? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would work to help developing countries responsibly improve their energy security, and to share U.S. best practices regarding health, safety, and legal issues that arise in developing all forms of energy. I would continue 

State Department efforts to strengthen energy sector governance, access, and reliability and build the capacity of governments to balance their energy security, economic development, and environmental protection for long-term national benefit. 

Section 11—Question 43. Will you commit to engaging with civil society and local 

community representatives, including marginalized populations and women leaders, 

in your diplomatic engagements on energy development abroad? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 11—Question 44. The State Department and USAID’s Joint Strategic 

Plan’s Objective Goal 2.3.1 states: ‘‘By 2022, promote an increase in U.S. energy exports and achieve for the United States, its allies, and partners increased energy 

security and access to diversified, affordable, and reliable energy sources.’’ How do 

you define or interpret ‘‘U.S. energy exports’’, as described in Objective Goal 2.3.1 

of the State Dept., and USAID’s Joint Strategic Plan? Do you support including the 

facilitation of U.S. energy developers, not just fuels, to gain access to foreign markets? 

Answer. My understanding is that ‘‘U.S. energy exports’’ include exports of our 

energy resources, technologies, equipment, and services. U.S. energy companies (including energy developers) are part of that strategic and economic value chain. 

Section 11—Question 45. What are the ‘‘energy exports’’ referred to in Objective 

Goal 2.3.1? 

Answer. My understanding is that U.S. ‘‘energy exports’’ include exports of our 

energy resources, technologies, equipment, and services. 

Section 11—Question 46. If confirmed, how would you ‘‘promote’’ U.S. oil or coal 

exports in foreign policy when these commodities are traded globally based on global 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

207 

market prices per unit, and that the basic economic principles of supply and demand 

determine production and sales? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would promote U.S. oil and coal exports by promoting 

open, transparent, and market-based energy sectors and removing barriers to trade, 

which increases opportunities for U.S. energy exporters regardless of fluctuations in 

commodity prices. I would also promote these exports by underscoring that U.S. 

companies are the most reliable and technically advanced suppliers of oil, coal, and 

other energy resources. 

Section 11—Question 47. Do you believe it is appropriate for the State Department to endorse or promote specific energy technologies, products, or companies? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will promote exports of U.S. energy resources, technologies, and services in line with the ‘‘all-of-the-above approach’’ and will coordinate with colleagues across the interagency, particularly at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, to determine when business advocacy for a specific U.S. company is appropriate. 

Section 11—Question 48. If confirmed, will State Department engage with countries that have asked for U.S. support and advice in pursuit of energy development 

according to their self-determined interests? 

Answer. I support the Trump Administration’s ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach to energy policy. If confirmed, I would support promoting energy security for our partners 

and allies by promoting diverse global energy supplies from all energy sources. 

Section 11—Question 49. Will you commit to upholding the principles of self-determination within the Power Africa program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to seek the support and buy-in of African 

countries in the Power Africa program. 

Section 11—Question 50. What host-country factors, beyond State Department’s 

own resource and capacity constraints, would result in the U.S. limiting or restraining engagement on energy diplomacy? 

Answer. Host-country factors that would result in the United States limiting or 

restraining energy diplomacy engagement include a host-country’s policy priorities 

and political will, technical and human resource capacity, and other domestic factors. Additionally, U.S. sanctions can also limit or restrain U.S. engagement in targeted countries. 

Section 11—Question 51. Would you oppose State Department engagement in facilitating of energy resource development in countries that want U.S. technical expertise but may not want to import ‘‘U.S. energy export’’? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would strongly support the promotion of U.S. energy exports, as well as State Department efforts to advance energy resource development, 

along with good governance and open markets for all energy sources globally. Open, 

rules-based global energy markets enhance the energy security of the United States 

and our partners and create opportunities for U.S. businesses to compete successfully. 

Section 11—Question 52. Do you believe that U.S. foreign energy policy and diplomacy encouraging foreign countries, particularly developing countries, to pursue the 

development of energy generation from imported fuels, comports with the broader 

U.S. foreign policy objective of ensuring that developing countries achieve self-reliance? 

Answer. I believe that U.S. foreign energy policy that promotes diversification of 

energy sources, supplies, and routes comports with the broader U.S. foreign policy 

objective of encouraging foreign countries to pursue market-driven development of 

all energy sources, including their own domestic production. 

(Section 12—Questions 1–51) 

Section 12—Question 1. In the 2018 State of the Union, the President said: ‘‘I am 

asking the Congress to pass legislation to help ensure American foreign assistance 

dollars always serve American interests, and only go to our friends.’’ What do you 

believe the President meant when he said this? 

Answer. As the President said, American foreign assistance should serve American interests. State Department and USAID foreign assistance programs should alFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

208 

ways protect the American people, promote U.S. prosperity, and advance American 

interests and values. 

Section 12—Question 2. Is the State Department, USAID or CIA following any orders that reflect the President’s wishes with respect to this statement? 

Answer. The State Department and USAID foreign assistance programs work to 

protect the American people, promote U.S. prosperity, and advance American interests and values. If confirmed, I will ensure that foreign assistance programs continue to meet these aims. 

Section 12—Question 3. How do you believe a policy that ‘‘ensure[s] American foreign assistance dollars always serve American interests, and only go to our friends’’ 

would, or should, be carried by the State Department? 

Answer. It is important to assess our foreign assistance based on a number of factors, with the top priority being that it should serve American interests. Countries’ 

support for U.S. priorities is one indicator to consider, but there are other important 

factors to consider as well. 

Section 12—Question 4. Do you believe the U.S. should limit diplomatic and development engagements to our ‘‘friends’’? 

Answer. It is important to assess our foreign assistance as well as diplomatic engagement based on a number of factors, with the top priority being that it should 

serve American interests. Countries’ support for U.S. priorities is one indicator to 

consider, but there are other important factors to consider as well. 

Section 12—Question 5. Who are our ‘‘friends’’? 

Answer. The United States has a long history of working together with countries 

around the world to advance our shared objectives. If confirmed, I look forward to 

continuing to work with our allies and partners to create a safer, more secure and 

prosperous world. 

Section 12—Question 6. Would you agree that disengaging with nations who may 

not necessarily be our ‘‘friends’’ could create opportunities for our global competitors 

like Russia and China, or extremist elements like Boko Haram and ISIS, to fill the 

void we create? 

Answer. I believe it is important to assess our relationships with other countries 

based on a number of factors, with the top one being that our engagement should 

serve American interests. 

Section 12—Question 7. If a country determines its best interests are to mobilize 

its own domestic resources, i.e. potential to discontinue the importation of U.S. 

goods like energy resources, would that count against considering them ‘‘an economic partner of the U.S.’’ or not a ‘‘friend’’? 

Answer. It is in the U.S. interest to foster partners around that world that maintain open markets with fair access to American companies and have strong legal 

and commercial systems that U.S. companies would be able to operate under productively. When other countries mobilize domestic resources, this can catalyze commerce and trade, which also creates markets for U.S. exports and opportunities for 

U.S. investors. 

Section 12—Question 8. You have called Wikileaks a ‘‘non-state hostile intelligence service’’ that ‘‘will take down America any way they can and find any willing 

partner to achieve that end.’’ Do you think it is appropriate for State Department 

officials, or those nominated to State Department positions, to promote WikiLeaks 

material, especially material that the intelligence professionals you currently oversee have concluded was stolen from American citizens by hackers associated with 

the Russian military? 

Answer. I do not support promoting WikiLeaks material. I never have supported 

WikiLeaks, its members, or its activities. 

Section 12—Question 9. A Bloomberg report from March 2018 stated that Bijan 

Kian helped prepare you for your CIA confirmation hearing as part of his role on 

the transition team (Kina’s LinkedIn profile listed his position as ‘‘Presidential 

Transition Team’s Intelligence Community Deputy Lead- ODNI Landing Team’’). 

The same report also stated that Bijan Kian and Michael Flynn promoted a proposal 

‘‘to hire private security contractors to collect information around the globe.’’ Please 

describe your relationship with Bijan Kian, including when you first met him any 

role he played in your confirmation process for CIA director, and any other interactions you had with him. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

209 

Answer. I do not recall meeting Bijan Kian or his role in my confirmation process 

for CIA Director. I spoke with many people during the transition process, and as 

Director of the CIA, and cannot rule out the possibility of having met Mr. Kian at 

some point. 

Section 12—Question 10. Were you aware of the reported Flynn-Kian proposal to 

hire private security contractors to collect intelligence? If so, please describe your 

knowledge of the proposal and your assessment of it. 

Answer. During the transition period, and as DCIA, I have heard of a variety of 

proposals to have private contractors collect intelligence. I do not recall a ‘‘FlynnKian’’ proposal. 

Section 12—Question 11. A December 2017 report from the Intercept stated that 

the Trump Administration considered ‘‘a set of proposals developed by Blackwater 

founder Erik Prince to provide CIA director Mike Pompeo and the White House with 

a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies.’’ The report also stated that ‘‘according to two former senior intelligence officials, Pompeo has embraced the plan and lobbied the White House to approve the 

contract’’ and that ‘‘[employees] at Amyntor have boasted that they have already 

sent intelligence reports to Pompeo.’’ Were you aware of the reported Prince proposal? If so, please describe your knowledge of the proposal and your assessment 

of it. 

Answer. I was generally aware of the proposal, but did not have specific details. 

Ultimately, multiple stakeholders decided not to further pursue the proposal; therefore it was not necessary to provide me with additional details. 

Section 12—Question 12. As Director of the CIA, did you ever receive intelligence 

reports from Amyntor? 

Answer. To the best of my recollection, I did not receive any intelligence reports 

from Amyntor. 

Section 12—Question 13. Erik Prince has also proposed using military contractors 

to replace U.S. troops in Afghanistan. What is your assessment of Erik Prince’s proposal for Afghanistan? If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support his proposal? 

Answer. I did not, as Director of the CIA, make a formal assessment of Erik 

Prince’s proposal for Afghanistan. 

If confirmed, I will consult with the President’s national security team, to include 

Secretary of Defense Mattis, to evaluate all options to ensure success in Afghanistan. Our objective in Afghanistan is a sustainable political outcome that prevents 

militant groups from exploiting Afghan territory to execute attacks on the U.S. 

homeland. The President’s South Asia strategy seeks to fulfill this objective by setting the conditions necessary to drive the Taliban into peace negotiations with the 

Afghan government. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State continues to complement U.S. military efforts, and I will utilize all diplomatic resources 

to launch a peace process that ends the war in Afghanistan. 

Section 12—Question 14. A November 2017 report from the Washington Post stated that ‘‘the week after President Trump’s inauguration, national security adviser 

Michael Flynn forwarded a memo written by a former business associate and told 

his staff to fashion it into a policy for President Trump’s approval.’’ The proposal 

reportedly was from IP3, a company that Flynn served as an advisor for from August to December 2016, and involved building nuclear power plants in the Middle 

East. Were you ever made aware of this proposal before it was reported in the press, 

and were you aware of Michael Flynn’s previous role as an advisor to IP3 before 

it was reported in the press? 

Answer. I do not recall being aware of this information. 

Section 12—Question 15. As Director of the CIA, have you or your staff ever met 

or communicated with IP3 or other outside groups advocating for the export of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia? 

Answer. I do not discuss who I met with. 

Section 12—Question 16. Did you and your staff ever direct CIA personnel to meet 

with IP3? If so: Was this at the request of the White House? Why did you believe 

this to be an appropriate use of Agency resources? 

Answer. I do not recall directing any such personnel to meet with IP3. 

Section 12—Question 17. You have stated that, as CIA director, you personally delivered the PDB to President Trump. At the beginning of 2017, the White House 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

210 

learned that Michael Flynn was potentially vulnerable to blackmail because he lied 

about contacts with the Russian government. A June 2017 report by the New York 

Times stated that ‘‘career officials [at the CIA] agreed that Mr. Flynn represented 

an urgent problem. Yet nearly every day for three weeks, the new C.I.A. director, 

Mike Pompeo, sat in the Oval Office and briefed President Trump on the nation’s 

most sensitive intelligence—with Mr. Flynn listening.’’ Were you aware of the concerns of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and your own CIA officers regarding 

Flynn? If so: Did you voice these concerns to President Trump or any other White 

House official? Did you consider it in the best interest of U.S. national security to 

continue to present the PDB in Flynn’s presence? 

Answer. I cannot speak to the allegations against Mr. Flynn. I defer to the Department of Justice and FBI, who are in the best position to evaluate any security 

concerns regarding Mr. Flynn. 

Section 12—Question 18. A February 2018 report by the Washington Post reported that, apart from National Security Council staff, Jared Kushner, who at the 

time had held an interim TS/SCI clearance for more than a year, ‘‘issue[d] more requests for information to the intelligence community than any White House employee.’’ Kushner subsequently had his security clearance downgraded to an interim 

Secret clearance, reportedly because of concerns that foreign governments might try 

to use his business interests and financial situation to influence him with business 

deals. There are also recent reports that Kushner may have provided classified information from the PDB to government officials from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

As Director of the CIA, were you aware of the concerns that kept Kushner on an 

interim clearance for over a year and eventually resulted in his security clearance 

downgrade? If so: Did you voice these concerns to President Trump or any other 

White House official? Did you consider it in the best interest of U.S. national security to continue to present the PDB in Kushner’s presence and respond to his information requests? 

Answer. I was not aware of any specific concerns regarding Mr. Kushner’s security clearance. As I said during my hearing, I am not going to discuss conversations 

that the President and I may have had over the course of my tenure as Director 

of the CIA. 

Section 12—Question 19. Before it was reported in the press, were you aware that 

Kushner may have provided classified information to Saudi officials? 

Answer. I was not aware of any such allegations prior to the press having reported the allegations. 

Section 12—Question 20. The Koch foundation has a foreign policy arm that has 

donated many millions of dollars in research grants to U.S. universities, according 

to the Washington Post, as ‘‘part of a larger effort to broaden the debate about an 

American foreign policy Koch and others at his foundation argue has become too 

militaristic, interventionist and expensive’’. According to the report, ‘‘the foundation’s grants are designed to encourage research that advances the realist school of 

foreign policy, a view that is skeptical of American-led humanitarian interventions, 

abhors nation-building in places like Iraq or Afghanistan and preaches the importance of restraint on the world stage.’’ You have said in the past that ‘‘as I read 

the things Mr. Koch has written, those philosophies are pretty consistent with what 

I believe.’’ Are Mr. Koch’s philosophies on foreign policy also consistent with what 

you believe? 

Answer. I expect that I would agree with some of the views and disagree with 

others, as would be expected regarding a subject like foreign policy, which involves 

a broad range of many different issues. 

Section 12—Question 21. Your nomination questionnaire for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) asked whether ‘‘During the past 10 years, 

have you or your spouse received any compensation from, or been involved in any 

financial or business transactions with, a foreign government or any entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please provide details.’’ You replied ‘‘No.’’ An 

April 2018 report from McClatchy stated you were listed as an owner of SJ Petro 

in its 2007 annual report, and were a signing member in 2008. The report also 

states that SJ Petro is a subsidiary of Sinopec, which is majority-owned by China 

Petrochemical Corporation, a Chinese government state-owned enterprise. Do you 

stand by the statement you made in your SSCI questionnaire that for the previous 

ten years you had not been involved in any financial or business transactions with 

any entity controlled by a foreign government? 

Answer. Yes. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

211 

Section 12—Question 22. During remarks you gave in July 2017, you said that 

‘‘one of the very first things I did when I became the CIA director was to put the 

person in charge of counterintelligence reporting directly to me.’’ According to a report by the Washington Post from August 2017, after you made that change, the 

counterintelligence center was the only one in the CIA organizational chart that did 

not report to your deputy, and you would have been able to receive full briefings 

from the center without making it report directly to you. According to the report, 

the center ‘‘helped trigger the investigation into possible collusion between the 

Trump campaign and Russia by serving as a conduit to the FBI last year for information the CIA developed on contacts between Russian individuals and Trump campaign associates’’ and it ‘‘continues to pursue leads on Moscow’s election interference 

operation that could factor in the probe led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.’’ 

Did anyone in the White House, or anyone outside the CIA for that matter, suggest 

to you, or instruct you, to make the change that resulted in the counterintelligence 

center reporting directly to you? 

Answer. No. 

Section 12—Question 23. In your remarks from July 2017, you stated the reason 

for the change as ‘‘to send a signal to the workforce that this was important and 

we weren’t going to tolerate misbehavior.’’ Were there any indications that made 

you believe that the workforce did not already believe that the work of the counterintelligence center was important? 

Answer. It is the case that I have made every effort to raise the awareness of the 

critical importance of counterintelligence to American national security. 

Section 12—Question 24. Were you aware of any previous misbehavior when you 

made the change? 

Answer. It is the case that I have made every effort to raise the awareness of the 

critical importance of counterintelligence to American national security. 

Section 12—Question 25. According to an Axios report from February 2017, then 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer called you and asked you to speak to reporters to refute a New York Times article from February 15th, headlined ‘‘′′Trump 

Aides Had Contact With Russian Intelligence: U.S. Officials Tell of a Flurry of 

Phone Calls Intercepted Before the Election.′′ According to the report, you ‘‘told journalists that the Times story wasn’t true but provided no details.’’ Did you speak to 

reporters about the New York Times story from February 15th? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 12—Question 26. If so, what did you tell the reporters? 

Answer. I informed reporters that the 15 February 2017 New York Times story 

contained inaccuracies. 

Section 12—Question 27. At any other time have you responded to requests from 

the White House to comment on or take any other action regarding the investigation 

into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government? 

Answer. I have never been asked by the White House to do anything inappropriate regarding the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. 

With respect to the ongoing Special Counsel, Senate and House investigations into 

this matter, I have ensured that CIA has provided, to those authorized to receive 

it, the information they need to conduct their investigations. 

This is the Agency’s duty and I have made it clear that CIA must execute it relentlessly. CIA has done so. 

Section 12—Question 28. Congressman Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House 

Intelligence Committee who reportedly recommended you for the job of Director of 

the CIA, has said on repeated occasions that he is investigating the State Department to, in his words, ‘‘get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was 

up to in terms of this Russia investigation.’’ Based on available evidence, do you 

think that the Nunes investigation of the State Department is warranted? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I am not in a position to talk about 

subject matter that is being investigated by the House and Senate Intelligence committees or the Office of the Special Counsel. 

Section 12—Question 29. If confirmed, will you defend State Department personnel against politically motivated investigations? 

Answer. If confirmed, you have my full commitment to protect all Department employees from politically motivated investigations while still honoring my commitFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

212 

ments to oversight committees, including to minority members as I have done consistently for Senator Warner and Representative Schiff. 

Section 12—Question 30. If confirmed, will you defend the State Department from 

politically motivated attacks, whether from the White House, Capitol Hill, the 

media, or outside groups? 

Answer. If confirmed, you have my full commitment to protect all Department employees from politically motivated attacks. 

Section 12—Question 31. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson assigned hundreds of State Department employees to the office that handles Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. According to reports, some of those assigned to the clerical 

tasking were senior career diplomats whose skills and experience could be put to 

far better use in the Department. If confirmed, do you commit to reviewing the current plan for the FOIA office, and pledge that senior career employees will not be 

assigned to the office involuntarily? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate all resources required to ensure the Department responds to FOIA requests in a timely manner, as required by law, while continuing to highly value the Department’s career employees. 

Section 12—Question 32. Will you pledge that career employees will not be assigned to the office involuntarily because of their work on behalf of past Administrations’ priorities that are deemed not in line with the current Administration’s? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate all resources required to ensure the Department responds to FOIA requests in a timely manner, as required by law, while continuing to highly value the Department’s career employees. 

Section 12—Question 33. You have said that ‘‘the ARB from Tanzania made very 

clear that the Secretary of State was supposed to personally review security at highthreat areas. That is, not hand it down to a deputy, or an undersecretary, or anyone 

else. That ARB in the late 1990s said that the Secretary of State, himself or herself, 

was supposed to take responsibility and personally review those security plans.’’ If 

confirmed, do you pledge to personal review security plans for all high-threat areas, 

and inform the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of your findings? 

Answer. Yes. The safety and security of our men and women serving abroad is 

of utmost importance. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the Department 

on our risk management practices, including the processes for reviewing security 

plans for high-threat posts. 

Section 12—Question 34. According to multiple reports, in October 2017 you met 

with William Binney, who has repeatedly pushed his theory that the hacking of the 

Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the election was an ‘‘inside job’’ and 

not done by Russian intelligence agencies. As CIA Director, did you meet with William Binney? 

Answer. CIA, at its very core, is responsible for collection of facts, perspectives, 

and data. I have and continue to lead an organization that does that with excellence. 

Section 12—Question 35. If so, what did you discuss with Mr. Binney? 

Answer. As has been practice for many years at the CIA, the Director does not 

disclose the content or topics of discussion with those persons he meets. 

Section 12—Question 36. Did you recommend or help arrange any meetings between Mr. Binney and any other individuals, either inside or outside the U.S. government? 

Answer. As has been practice for many years at the CIA, the Director does not 

disclose the content or topics of discussion with those persons he meets. 

Section 12—Question 37. Please review the following past statements by John 

Bolton, the President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, 

please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘If you look at [Trump-Kim talks] 

as a way to foreshorten the amount of time that we’re going to waste in negotiations, that will never produce the result we want—which is Kim giving up his nuclear program—I think that’s a good thing.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 38. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each stateFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

213 

ment, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘[Chances are] pretty remote 

of a diplomatic solution with North Korea. The two choices, both bad, are you accept 

North Korea with nuclear weapons or use military force.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 39. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘It is perfectly legitimate for 

the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 40. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘My proposal would be: eliminate the regime by reunifying the peninsula under South Korea Control. Yes. Regime elimination with the Chinese. This is something we need to do with them.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 41. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘The only diplomatic option 

left is to end the North Korean regime by effectively having the South take it over.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 42. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘We have fooled around with 

North Korea for 25 years, and fooling around some more is just going to make matters worse.’’ 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve 

denuclearization of North Korea, which include exploring an opportunity for dialogue with North Korea with eyes wide open. 

Section 12—Question 43. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘[North Korea] could sell these 

weapons, ballistic missiles and the nuclear devices themselves to Iran in a heartbeat. North Korea can sell these devices to terrorist groups around the world.’’ 

Answer. I believe that North Korea poses a proliferation challenge to the United 

States and our allies. 

Section 12—Question 44. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘We should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, 

and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.’’ 

Answer. I believe that North Korea poses a proliferation challenge to the United 

States and our allies. 

Section 12—Question 45. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘America’s declared policy 

should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its 40th anniversary.’’ 

Answer. The Iranian regime has taken advantage of regional conflicts and instability to aggressively expand its regional influence and threaten its neighbors with 

little domestic or international cost for its actions. I believe the previous Administration’s focus on Iran’s nuclear program to the exclusion of the regime’s many other 

malign activities allowed Iran’s influence in the region to reach a high-water mark. 

This Administration’s Iran policy addresses the Iranian regime’s malign activities 

and seeks to bring about a change in the Iranian regime’s behavior. It will do so 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

214 

through a strategy to neutralize and counter Iranian threats, particularly those 

posed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

Section 12—Question 46. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. 

national-security interests.’’ 

Answer. The President has been clear about his concerns regarding the JCPOA. 

I believe fixing the deal is in the best interest of the United States. The Administration is seeking a new supplemental agreement to address the deficiencies the President identified in January. If there is no chance the deal can be fixed, I will recommend we work with our allies to achieve a better deal. 

Section 12—Question 47. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘The Administration should 

announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations.’’ 

Answer. The President has been clear about his concerns regarding the JCPOA. 

I believe fixing the deal is in the best interest of the United States. The Administration is seeking a new supplemental agreement to address the deficiencies the President identified in January. If there is no chance the deal can be fixed, I will recommend we work with our allies to achieve a better deal. 

Section 12—Question 48. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘The inconvenient truth is that 

only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor 

in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North 

Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still 

succeed.’’ 

Answer. I believe fixing the JCPOA is the best course to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. 

Section 12—Question 49. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘[An Israeli] strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population 

against an oppressive regime.’’ 

Answer. I believe fixing the JCPOA is the best course to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. 

Section 12—Question 50. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘The fall of Saddam, no it did 

not make Iran stronger.’’ 

Answer. The liberation of Iraq was a decision made before my time in public service. It is clear that Iran exploited turmoil in the region following the downfall of 

Saddam Hussein. Iran continues to exploit areas of conflict for its own gain. 

Section 12—Question 51. JOHN BOLTON: Please review the following past statements by John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor. For each statement, please respond whether you agree or disagree. ‘‘I still think the decision to 

overthrow Saddam was correct.’’ 

Answer. The decision to liberate Iraq was made before my time in public service. 

As I stated in my testimony, the intelligence underlying the decision has proven to 

be inaccurate. 

(Section 13—Questions 1–40) 

Section 13—Question 1. In October 2017 you stated in remarks at the Foundation 

for Defense of Democracies that ‘‘The intelligence community’s assessment is that 

the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election.’’ But 

the assessment published in January 2017 says that ‘‘We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.’’ 

Do you stand by your statement from October 2017 that the Russian government’s 

interference did not affect the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

215 

Answer. I stand by the 6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment regarding Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections and I have stated 

so publicly on many occasions. 

In speaking at a forum at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies on 19 

October 2017, I was asked many questions. To clarify my response to one question 

from a reporter at the forum, I later directed that CIA release a statement making 

clear that the intelligence assessment on Russian election meddling had not 

changed and that I did not intend to suggest that it had. 

Section 13—Question 2. Did the President or anyone else ask you to make that 

assertion? 

Answer. No. 

Section 13—Question 3. When asked at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2017 

whether Russia intervened in the U.S. 2016 election, you responded that ‘‘I have 

been asked it a million times, it is true, yeah of course. And the one before that, 

and the one before that, they have been at this a hell of a long time.’’ Do you believe 

that the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election 

was different in scope and scale than its previous attempts to interfere in U.S. elections? If so, please describe how. 

Answer. I stand by the 6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment regarding Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections and I have stated 

so publicly on many occasions. 

The 6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment states that, ‘‘Russia, like 

its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on U.S. presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents 

and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.’’ 

The 6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment also states that, ‘‘Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represented a significant 

escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous 

operations aimed at U.S. elections.’’ 

Section 13—Question 4. As you know, should you be confirmed as Secretary of 

State, President Trump has announced that he will nominate the current Deputy 

Director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, to fill the vacancy created by your departure. Ms. 

Haspel has spent her entire career in the CIA, and as a result, there is essentially 

no publicly available information regarding her past experiences and actions that 

may have a bearing on her ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the 

CIA Director. The CIA has provided some details about her past jobs and activities 

at the CIA. Did you approve the release of that information? 

Answer. CIA is actively working towards sharing additional information with the 

public to the greatest extent possible consistent with our responsibility to protect 

intelligence sources and methods. 

Section 13—Question 5. As you know, Sen. Feinstein has sent you a letter requesting that the CIA declassify and release more information regarding Ms. 

Haspel’s role in past CIA activities. Specifically, Sen. Feinstein asked you to release 

‘‘pertinent agency documents related to Ms. Haspel’s role in the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Program.’’ Will you release that information? 

Answer. CIA is actively working towards sharing additional information with the 

public to the greatest extent possible consistent with our responsibility to protect 

intelligence sources and methods. 

Section 13—Question 6. Under what circumstances would the President be required to obtain Congressional authorization prior to initiating military action? 

Answer. I respect Congress’s role in authorizing the use of military force and in 

providing oversight on these issues. While there is a longstanding practice of Presidents of both parties exercising the President’s constitutional authorities to use 

force in certain circumstances without prior Congressional authorization, a determination whether any specific use of military force would fall within the President’s 

authority would require a fact-specific assessment, in consultation with legal experts, at the time the use of military force is contemplated. I believe it is very important to engage actively with Congress on these issues. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue discussing with you and other members issues relating to the use of force. 

Section 13—Question 7. New National Security Adviser John Bolton believes that 

the current state of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs already 

meet the threshold of an imminent threat to the United States that would allow 

President Trump to use his Article II authority to initiate a first strike. That is not 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

216 

a hypothetical scenario, rather it is his view of the current situation. Do you agree 

with Mr. Bolton that the threat from North Korea right now is at a level that would 

allow the President to initiate military action without prior Congressional approval? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Administration is not seeking an authorization to use military force 

against North Korea from Congress, and any decision to use military force is a most 

serious decision that requires a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time 

the use of military force is contemplated. 

Section 13—Question 8. As a Member of the House, you demanded that Secretary 

Clinton and her former aides be barred from reviewing classified information as a 

presidential candidate because you felt her mishandling of classified information 

was, ‘‘a national security issue that puts American interests, and American lives, 

in danger.’’ As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, when did you learn that 

numerous members of the White House staff had access to the Presidential Daily 

Brief with only interim security clearances, including Jared Kushner, and what action did you take to address that risk to our most sensitive intelligence? 

Answer. It is appropriate to provide classified information to those holding current, interim security clearances. At no time have I knowingly provided information 

to White House staff or others that exceeded the individual’s clearance level. 

Section 13—Question 9. Why did so many White House staff have access to some 

of our most sensitive information for so long with only interim clearances? 

Answer. The use of interim clearances is a longstanding practice. CIA provides 

input to part of that process. It does not make the determination of the initial clearance status or make the assignment of the interim clearance for White House personnel. 

Section 13—Question 10. Did you ever call for anyone with an interim security 

clearance in this Administration to be barred from handling classified information? 

Answer. No. 

Section 13—Question 11. During your confirmation hearing, you acknowledged 

that a global warming was underway and that there was likely a human element 

to climate change. In written testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis asserted that ‘‘climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.’’ Would you 

agree that the United States should work to resolve the challenge of climate 

change? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will make sure that the United States demonstrates 

leadership on climate issues internationally to protect and advance the interests of 

the United States. 

Section 13—Question 12. As Secretary of State, how would you do so? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the United States remains engaged on 

the issue of climate change to advance and protect U.S. interests, including by working with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance resilience 

in ways that drive innovation, energy security, and market-friendly solutions. I will 

ensure that U.S. multilateral and bilateral diplomatic engagement and development 

assistance support this approach. 

Section 13—Question 13. What do you think our policy should be on climate 

change? 

Answer. The Administration supports a balanced approach to energy security, economic development, and environmental protection and will promote clean and safe 

energy from all sources. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President 

and with foreign counterparts on issues relating to the climate consistent with this 

approach. 

Section 13—Question 14. Did you support the President’s decision to withdraw 

from the Paris Agreement, and if so why? 

Answer. I was not centrally involved in the policy discussion leading up to the 

decision. The President has made clear that he does not want to commit the United 

States to a set of actions, policies, and measures that produce burdens specific to 

the United States that other countries do not face. If confirmed, I look forward to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

217 

working with the President and with foreign counterparts on a way forward on this 

issue that is consistent with U.S. interests. 

Section 13—Question 15. On April 9, McClatchy reported that you failed to disclose last year during your confirmation process to be CIA Director that you owned 

a Kansas business that imported oilfield equipment from a company owned by the 

Chinese government. Please explain why you failed to disclose this information to 

the Senate as part of your confirmation process to be CIA Director. 

Answer. The information I provided was accurate. 

Section 13—Question 16. Please describe the nature of your previous business relationships with any companies associated with the Chinese government or any 

other foreign governments. 

Answer. I am not aware of a business relationship with the Chinese government. 

I was in the private, commercial sector. 

Section 13—Question 17. Do you support sending more people to Guantanamo? 

Answer. Military detention is a longstanding tool that keeps captured terrorists 

from returning to the battlefield. That is why the President issued Executive Order 

13823 last January reversing the Obama Administration’s decision to close the 

Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Guantanamo is one of several tools the U.S. 

government uses to prevent captured terrorists from returning to the fight, including repatriation to countries of origin and prosecution in U.S. courts. If confirmed, 

I will work with counterparts throughout the Administration to determine how best 

to keep captured terrorists from returning to the battlefield, protecting U.S. security 

and interests. 

Section 13—Question 18. If there is a decision to transfer detainees there, would 

you oppose it? 

Answer. At present, the Trump Administration has not made any decisions to 

send new detainees to Guantanamo, but it reserves the right to do so in appropriate 

circumstances. 

Section 13—Question 19. Do you believe keeping it open makes us safer? 

Answer. Military detention is a longstanding tool that makes us safer by preventing captured enemies from returning to the fight. For example, it is indisputable that the American people are at greater risk with Abu Du’a on the battlefield leading ISIS than when he was detained by America. 

Section 13—Question 20. Do you believe keeping Guantanamo open potentially increases risks to our troops serving overseas? 

Answer. The safety of our homeland and our troops is the top priority for the 

Trump Administration. Our troops overseas and the Administration’s detention policies serve the same purpose: to protect and advance U.S. national security. I believe 

that we must retain all options that are consistent with our laws and international 

obligations in order to keep America safe. 

Section 13—Question 21. Do you support the military commissions? 

Answer. Military commissions are a longstanding, lawful and appropriate forum 

for trying violations of the law of war and certain other offenses. They have played 

an important part in imposing justice for such acts after the 9/11, USS Cole, and 

other attacks. 

Section 13—Question 22. Defense Secretary Mattis told President Trump that he 

has ‘‘never found [torture] to be useful’’ as an interrogation technique. Do you agree? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 13—Question 23. What is your position on negotiations with North Korea? 

Answer. I support the President’s ongoing efforts to bring North Korea to the negotiating table to achieve the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization 

of the Korean Peninsula. 

Section 13—Question 24. If negotiations do not result in North Korea verifiably 

agreeing to destroy its nuclear weapons, what should our policy be? 

Answer. If confirmed, my focus will be to continue the pressure campaign, support 

negotiations, and achieve the U.S. goal of the complete, verifiable, and irreversible 

denuclearization of North Korea. 

Section 13—Question 25. Do you believe Russia interfered in the November 2016 

presidential election? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

218 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 13—Question 26. Do you believe that interference could have—not did, but 

could have—made a difference in the outcome of the election? 

Answer. I have not reviewed that question as DCIA. As you know, the Intelligence 

Community made no assessment supporting the electoral impact of Russia’s efforts. 

Section 13—Question 27. What is this Administration doing to prevent future interference by Russia, and what would you do as Secretary of State? 

Answer. The United States works to combat Russian threats through a whole-ofgovernment approach that leverages the full range of U.S. government capabilities. 

Among other lines of effort, domestically, the U.S. government works with the private sector to strengthen network defense. The Administration is placing a particular focus on hardening federal and critical infrastructure networks. Internationally, I understand the State Department continues to work with allies and partners 

to address Russian efforts to undermine democratic processes and institutions. If 

confirmed, I will continue to advocate policies that impose costs on Russia for its 

malign activities and dissuade Moscow from further intrusions into the democratic 

processes of the United States. 

Section 13—Question 28. I assume you support the increase in funding for the 

Pentagon. Do you support the White House proposal to cut the budget and personnel of the State Department? Somewhat, or not at all? 

Answer. I support the President’s priorities to defend national security, assert 

U.S. leadership, foster opportunities for U.S. economic interests, and ensure accountability to the U.S. taxpayer. If confirmed, I plan to utilize funding provided 

under the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act for both programs and staffing. 

I look forward to continuing discussions with Congress on funding for our diplomacy 

and foreign assistance programs for both FY 2018 and FY 2019. 

Section 13—Question 29. Do you support increased funding for diplomacy and development? 

Answer. I believe that Americans benefit from sustained engagement with the 

rest of the world and that it serves both our interests and those of our allies. As 

I noted in my testimony, I cannot see anything in the 6, 12, or 24-month time horizon that would permit us to have any less demand for diplomatic resources. If confirmed, I will need to review requests for resources, but I will make the case to defend the resources that the State Department needs. 

Section 13—Question 30. Can you give me any examples of policies of this White 

House that you disagree with? 

Answer. Discussions with the President among Cabinet-level officials should be 

kept in private to maintain confidence. If confirmed, I will continue to offer the 

President candid advice in private. 

Section 13—Question 31. Do you support the decision to move the U.S. Embassy 

to Jerusalem this year? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 13—Question 32. Do you support the construction of Israeli settlements 

in the West Bank? 

Answer. I understand the Administration has stated that while settlements are 

not in themselves an impediment to peace, further unrestrained settlement activity 

does not help advance peace. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and comprehensive peace. 

Section 13—Question 33. Do you support a two state solution to the Middle East 

conflict? 

Answer. Yes. On December 6, the President noted that he would support a twostate solution if the parties agree. 

Section 13—Question 34. Do you think the Israeli Government does? 

Answer. I understand that the Administration has been in close and sustained 

contact with the Government of Israel, as well as with other parties on the subject 

of how, working together, we can achieve a deal that promises a brighter future for 

Israel, the Palestinians, and their neighbors in the region. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and comprehensive peace. 

Section 13—Question 35. What do you think such a solution would look like? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

219 

Answer. The Administration has made it clear that it does not intend to impose 

a solution upon the parties. I understand it is the Administration’s view that while 

a fair deal that offers a brighter future to all involved is possible, that deal will have 

to be forged by agreement among the parties. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and comprehensive peace. 

Section 13—Question 36. Do you support the President’s plan to build a wall— 

possibly as high as 30 feet—along the Mexican border? 

Answer. Like the President, I am committed to securing our borders and protecting the homeland. Tens of thousands of foreign nationals cross the U.S.-Mexico 

border each year. Border infrastructure, to include walls, is a critical piece of 

strengthening control of the border. Securing our borders allows the United States 

to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, while preventing the movement of illicit 

goods and travelers. 

Section 13—Question 37. How do you think the U.S. can best support those who 

advocate for human rights and democracy in countries where those rights are repressed by the government, including by some governments that are allies of the 

U.S. like Turkey and Egypt? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will meet with human rights activists and their families, 

and direct my senior staff to do so as well. I will hold accountable those who carry 

out repression and work with international partners to support civil society. I have 

great respect for the courageous work of human rights activists around the world, 

and I am deeply concerned by the efforts of some governments to target activists 

and restrict civic space. It is important that the United States stand with those who, 

sometimes at great risk to themselves, press their governments to protect human 

rights. 

Section 13—Question 38. If President Trump asks you to implement a policy that 

you believe would be harmful to the interests of the United States, are you willing 

to say no? 

Answer. As I have done in my capacity as Director of the CIA, I will offer the 

President candid advice and judgments in private, if confirmed as Secretary of 

State. 

Section 13—Question 39. Are you willing to tell the President he is wrong? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 13—Question 40. Have you ever done that? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to offer the President candid advice and 

judgments in private, as I have done in my capacity as Director of the CIA. 

(Section 14—Questions 1–54) 

Section 14—Question 1. BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND RFA: With so 

much at stake on the Korean peninsula, it’s more important than ever that we make 

sure the people of North Korea—who are starved of objective information from the 

outside world, let alone knowledge of their own country and its conduct on the global stage—receive truthful, independent, accurate news and information. Radio Free 

Asia and Voice of America—networks supported by the United States—are critical 

sources to the North Korean public of this news. They both have been shown to be 

effective means of providing impactful journalism and programming—exposing the 

regime’s funding of its military at the cost of feeding its own people, the re-opening 

of political prison camps, and the regime’s cynical use of forced overseas labor to 

acquire foreign currency to skirt sanctions for its nuclear arms testing, among other 

issues that would otherwise be blotted out by a government bent on controlling just 

about every aspect of the lives of the people under its rule. How committed are you 

to working with the President, the NSC, and others in the Administration to ensure 

that the people of North Korea continue to get access to critical information avenues 

and independent news and information? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the President, the NSC, and others 

in the Administration to support greater access to independent information for the 

North Korean people. The availability of accurate information about world events 

challenges the government’s monopoly on information and builds curiosity among 

North Koreans for facts independent of state propaganda. I will continue efforts to 

search for new methods to increase the flow of information to, from, and among 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

220 

North Korean citizens, and to ensure that the North Korean people continue to have 

access to critical avenues of information, including radio. 

Section 14—Question 2. Do you believe that current RFA programming could be 

expanded to help provide greater exposure and reach a wider audience? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue efforts to expand our information programs, 

including support to radio broadcasters, to reach a wider audience and increase exposure to accurate and independent information inside the closed country. 

Section 14—Question 3. Do you believe that we can work collaboratively with 

partners and allies in the region to enhance efforts to bring more open and transparent journalism to the people of North Korea? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will support collaborative relationships with allies 

and partners in the region to support organizations to promote access to information 

in North Korea. 

Section 14—Question 4. UYGHUR ISSUE: It’s recently come to light that members 

of Radio Free Asia’s Uyghur Service—which is the world’s only independent and reliable Uyghur language news source—have family members in China who are jailed, 

missing or detained. Some are being held in notorious re-education camps, which 

function like open-air prisons with poor conditions, holding thousands of Uyghur 

people at a time. Others’ whereabouts are unknown. Some have been told their detentions are due to the fact they have a relative working for Radio Free Asia. The 

State Department can help: it can raise this issue by using the sum-total of its diplomatic communications with its Chinese counterparts, particularly through the 

U.S. embassy in Beijing and at the highest level (yourself, if you are confirmed by 

this Senate). These detained or missing family members are those of U.S.-based 

journalists—all either U.S. citizens or permanent residents—who daily expose the 

abuses happening in their former homeland at the hands of Chinese authorities. 

The Department at the very least can help to find out the whereabouts of these individuals. The Department can also ask their China counterparts if these relatives are 

receiving the proper medical care and treatment they need. Would you see that this 

is done—at all levels—within the agency? 

Answer. I am deeply troubled by the increasing number of such reports. If confirmed, I will raise my concerns about the Radio Free Asia cases and the deteriorating situation in Xinjiang directly with the Chinese government. I will also push 

for the Chinese government to free those arbitrarily detained, including the families 

of RFA journalists, and end the counter-productive, repressive measures that Chinese authorities are carrying out in Xinjiang. 

Section 14—Question 5. Although the Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent agency, the State Department has significant equities in its operation. In 

March of this year, I heard alarming reports about efforts at the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors to oust current CEO John Lansing and install an interim CEO 

who would push a partisan agenda and break through the legally mandated ‘‘firewall’’ between BBG’s management and its independent journalists. Reports also indicated that the Administration planned to dissolve the existing Board of Governors 

outside of the scope of recently enacted reforms. Not only would these efforts undermine the very essence of the BBG, they would violate current laws outlining governance and reform of the BBG, and turn the BG into a propaganda operation; antithetical to the mission to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in 

support of freedom and democracy. Current law states that the current CEO will 

stay in place until a Senate-confirmed successor takes his place. If confirmed, will 

you commit to uphold the reforms detailed recent legislation? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to uphold the BBG reforms outlined in the 

2016 NDAA and to support an orderly transition to the new BBG structure through 

the Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of a new BBG CEO. 

Section 14—Question 6. Will you commit to protecting the integrity of American 

international broadcasting, maintain the critical firewall between BBG management 

and its independent journalists? 

Answer. Ensuring journalistic credibility is vital to the success of the BBG’s mission. If confirmed, I will comply with existing statutes related to BBG management 

and seek to ensure congressionally mandated reforms are carried out effectively and 

transparently. I will also protect the integrity of American international broadcasting by maintaining the legislatively mandated firewall between BBG’s management and its independent journalists. 

Section 14—Question 7. Will you commit to preventing efforts that attempt to politicize American international media? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

221 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 14—Questions 8–18 . The Washington Post reported last year that on 

March 22 of 2017, you and Director of National Intelligence Coats attended a briefing at the White House with officials from several government agencies. The article 

says: ‘‘As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room 

except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo [t]he president then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey’s handling of it, said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates. Two days earlier, Comey had confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau was probing whether Trump’s 

campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 race. After the encounter, Coats 

discussed the conversation with other officials and decided that intervening with 

Comey as Trump had suggested would be inappropriate, according to officials who 

spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.’’ This account 

strongly suggests that the President asked you and Director Coats to interfere with 

then FBI Director Comey’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with 

Russia. What did President Trump say to you and Director Coats in that meeting? 

• Did the President ask you or Director Coats to speak to Comey about the Russia investigation? 

• What did you say in response to what President Trump said to you and Director 

Coats on March 22? 

• What did you do in response to what President Trump said to you and Director 

Coats on March 22? 

• Did President Trump ever discuss Michael Flynn, or the investigation into Michael Flynn, with you? 

• To your knowledge, did President Trump ever talk with Director Rogers, James 

Comey, Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Deputy Director McCabe, or any other senior U.S. official about the Flynn investigation? 

• Did President Trump ever discuss the FBI or Special Counsel’s Russia investigation with you? 

• Were you at any other meetings, with the President alone or with others in the 

room, where he discussed the FBI or Special Counsel’s Russia investigation? 

• Did you have any phone calls where he discussed the FBI or Special Counsel’s 

Russia investigation? 

• Were you ever asked, by anyone, to put out a public statement casting doubt 

on the existence of evidence of interaction between the Trump campaign and 

the Russian government? 

• Has Special Counsel Mueller asked you not to answer questions from Congress? 

Answer. As I said during my hearing, I am not going to discuss conversations that 

the President and I may have had over the course of the last fifteen months, even 

if I were able to recall those conversations today. I can say, without reservation, 

that I would remember if he had asked me to do anything that I viewed as improper 

or inappropriate, and he has not. 

In addition, Questions 9-18 below relate to the ongoing investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Special Counsel Mueller. As I explained during my recent hearing, 

I respectfully decline to answer such questions out of respect for those ongoing investigations and because I do not want to discuss anything that may relate to those 

investigations. I can, nevertheless, assure you that everything I was asked to do as 

CIA Director in support of any of those investigations was done with as much thoroughness, depth, and alacrity as CIA could achieve. 

Section 14—Question 19. Does the Administration have a specific and clear strategy to counter the Russian government’s aggression against the U.S. and our allies, 

beyond friendly overtures from the President? 

Answer. The U.S government is clear-eyed about Russia’s transgressions, frank in 

our dialogue with Russia, and resolute in raising the costs of their behavior. We 

must also actively expose to the foreign public Russia’s destabilizing activities and 

continue to build the resilience of U.S. allies and partners. If confirmed, I will reassure our allies and partners and work to strengthen their resilience against Russian 

malign influence, and ensure there are significant costs for Russia’s aggressive actions. I will also continue to press Russian officials against further intrusions in the 

democratic processes of the United States. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

222 

Section 14—Question 20. President Trump’s newly appointed National Security 

Advisor John Bolton has written that ‘‘[i]t is perfectly legitimate for the United 

States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons 

by striking first.’’ Do you agree with National Security Advisor Bolton that it is 

‘‘perfectly legitimate’’ for the United States to strike North Korea first? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Any decision to use military force is a most serious decision that requires 

a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time the use of military force is 

contemplated. 

Section 14—Question 21. A nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research 

Service last November indicated conflict on the peninsula could impact as many as 

25 million people on either side of the border, including more than 100,000 U.S. citizens, and result in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Do you believe that the U.S. 

has a viable military option to attack North Korea that will not involve hundreds 

of thousands of Korean, Japanese and U.S. casualties? 

Answer. If confirmed, I see my role and focus as Secretary of State as leading efforts solve the DPRK issue through diplomacy and negotiations. The State Department and U.S. government are preparing for the expected United States-DPRK 

summit to ensure we can achieve the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, even as all options remain on the table. 

Section 14—Question 22. Would you be willing to stand up to the President and 

the national security adviser if they sought to undertake a first strike without congressional authorization? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would provide my best advice and judgment to the President and the National Security Advisor. The Administration’s goal is not war with 

North Korea, but rather the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization 

of the Korean Peninsula. The Administration continues to pursue its maximum 

pressure campaign to persuade North Korea to change course and end its unlawful 

nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Administration is not seeking an authorization to use military force against North Korea from Congress, and any decision 

to use military force is a most serious decision that requires a careful fact-specific 

and legal assessment at the time the use of military force is contemplated. 

Section 14—Question 23. Now that President Trump has already given North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un the prize of a meeting with the U.S. President at the start 

of the negotiations, without exacting any concessions from North Korea, what is the 

Administration’s plan for the North Korean negotiations? 

Answer. The United States and North Korea have been holding direct talks in 

preparation for a summit, and North Korea has confirmed its willingness to talk 

about denuclearization. Now is the time for bold action and concrete steps toward 

denuclearization. The Trump Administration has been working to create the conditions so that the President and Kim Jong Un can sit together to begin to resolve 

this incredibly vexing, difficult challenge. This will set the course for achieving a 

diplomatic outcome that America and the world are seeking. 

Section 14—Question 24. What is your plan if the talks fail? 

Answer. As I said during my testimony, there is more diplomatic work to do, and 

if I am confirmed, my focus when it comes to North Korea will be to continue the 

pressure campaign and achieve our goal of the complete, verifiable, and irreversible 

denuclearization of North Korea. Maintaining the pressure campaign throughout negotiations and increasing pressure should talks fail must be a key part of our strategy. 

Section 14—Question 25. Mr. Pompeo, worldwide, war, famine, and natural disasters have displaced a record 65 million people, forcing them into poverty, refugee 

camps, and dire situations. In times of crisis, the United States must assert leadership on the global stage through the values that have made this country so successful. Our leadership sends an important signal to other countries around the world. 

Instead of assertive moral and strategic leadership, I am concerned that this Administration’s hostile and misguided understanding of humanitarian crises and refugees 

weakens our global standing, the ability to rally our allies, and the ability to promote international stability. In fact, Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote: 

‘‘Our values and our national security interests argue for raising our refugee ceiling, 

not lowering it.’’ Do you agree or disagree with that statement? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

223 

Answer. The President’s FY 2018 refugee ceiling is a reflection of our values and 

national security interests. The United States remains one of the largest resettlement countries in the world and the single largest donor of international humanitarian assistance. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing both our humanitarian 

assistance and refugee resettlement programs. 

Section 14—Question 26. This President seems to have a different view. At a campaign event in Salem, New Hampshire, in February of 2016, then-candidate Donald 

Trump was asked about the education of Syrian refugee children in the United 

States. He was asked whether he could ‘‘look children aged five, eight, ten, in the 

face and tell them they can’t go to school here’’. President Trump responded, ‘‘I can 

look in their faces and say ‘You can’t come’. I’ll look them in the face.’’ Just a few 

days ago, the world again confronted horrific images Syrian children suffering from 

gruesome chemical weapons attacks. Meanwhile, New Jerseyans and Americans all 

over this country have opened their hearts and their homes to the most vulnerable 

people fleeing terrible situations. What do you think of Mr. Trump’s statements 

about refugee children? 

Answer. Under the leadership of President Trump, the United States remains the 

world’s leader in humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced persons, providing more than $8 billion in FY 2017. This support includes life-saving assistance 

to children, such as food, shelter, healthcare services, access to clean water, and 

child protection programs. 

Section 14—Question 27. Do you support telling Syrian refugee children that they 

‘‘can’t come’’? 

Answer. Under the Trump Administration, Syrian refugee children are eligible to 

be considered for resettlement in the United States. 

Section 14—Question 28. Do you believe the U.S. should deny certain refugees admission to the U.S. based on their religion or nationality? If not, how will you protect against it? 

Answer. The United States does not deny refugees admission based solely on their 

religion or nationality. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the refugee resettlement program. 

Section 14—Question 29. The U.S. resettlement program focuses on resettling refugees who need this solution the most such as those with urgent medical needs, victims of torture, female-headed households, and families with very specific circumstances whose protection or assistance needs cannot be met through existing humanitarian assistance programs in their host country. Do you support this approach? 

Answer. The United States remains committed to helping the most vulnerable refugees. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program seeks to achieve early employment 

and self-sufficiency for refugees admitted to the United States, and the United 

States carries out various programs both overseas and domestically towards that 

goal. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s goals of protecting vulnerable 

refugees and helping them become productive members of U.S. society as quickly 

as possible. 

Section 14—Question 30. REFUGEES FROM IRAQ WHO HELPED THE UNITED STATES

DURING THE IRAQ WAR: Mr. Pompeo, more than 50,000 Iraqis who helped our troops 

and the U.S. government during and after the US’s invasion of Iraq have faced risks 

while waiting in Iraq for interviews in the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program. As a 

veteran yourself, you undoubtedly saw how critical the service of nationals were in 

countries where the U.S. has military missions. And yet on 36 Iraqis in the Priority 

Iraqi Refugee Assistance program have arrived this Fiscal Year. Do you support getting these Iraqi allies to safety in the United States? 

Answer. I have the highest respect for the men and women who take enormous 

risks to support our military and civilian personnel. If confirmed, I commit to help 

those who have helped us. I am aware that individuals who supported U.S. efforts 

in Iraq and Afghanistan are eligible for admission to the United States as refugees 

or Special Immigrant Visa holders if they meet certain criteria, and that tens of 

thousands have resettled here as a result. 

Section 14—Question 31. How will you speed up this priority program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the programs for those who assisted U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to determine whether these programs 

can be improved. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

224 

Section 14—Question 32. POMPEO’S DISCRIMINATORY STATEMENTS AND RECORD: 

One of the functions of the State Department, at least historically, has been to promote and advance democracy and human rights overseas. We accomplish this 

through direct support of people and programs on the ground, but high-level engagement from the Department itself is an essential part of this undertaking as well. 

These values have helped drive the United States to a position of global leadership. 

Given the importance of upholding and promoting human rights, I am troubled by 

some discriminatory comments you have made and policies you have embraced 

against Muslims, women, and the LGBTQI community, and how this record would 

affect your ability to be an effective voice for American values. Your predecessor in 

this position did not embrace human rights as a central principle of U.S. foreign 

policy and, in fact, took a number of steps that undermined U.S. commitments in 

this area. Given your record I am, quite frankly, concerned you may do the same. 

When the United States fails to live up to those ideals, we see our adversaries take 

advantage of our silence as permission to pursue discriminatory, violent, or repressive actions. How will you defend your past comments and record when you engage 

with international leaders? Do you believe this kind of rhetoric will hamper your 

ability to effectively promote American values and priorities? 

Answer. As I stated during my 12 April 2018 confirmation hearing, I am committed to the advancement of democracy and human rights around the globe. By 

necessity, this means the United States must serve as an example for the world in 

demonstrating these values. Representing America requires promoting America’s 

ideals, values, and priorities to voters and citizens of the world. 

My views on diversity are quite clear. Throughout my career and in each position 

I have held, I have made clear that there is zero room for discrimination of any kind 

and I will not tolerate it myself or in anyone working for me. I have consistently 

and unrelentingly expressed my commitment to hiring the best person to achieve 

the mission at hand, wherever we can find them. 

The State Department’s workforce, must by necessity, be diverse in every sense 

of the word—in terms of race, religion, background and more. I’ll work to achieve 

that diversity, just as I have successfully done at CIA, by focusing on mission and 

demanding that every team member be treated equally and with dignity and respect. 

At CIA, I have leveraged these values to build stronger relationships with partners abroad. For example, I have worked extensively, and successfully, to strengthen and expand CIA’s partnerships with countries throughout the Muslim world. 

These relationships are critical to keeping America safe. Under my leadership, CIA’s 

work on countering terrorism has been in concert with many Islamic countries and 

has enhanced security for the Muslim peoples of those nations. 

I have led the CIA to forge stronger relationships with our allies in the Middle 

East, Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. I’ve travelled to these regions to demonstrate our commitment to working alongside them. If confirmed as Secretary of 

State, I am committed to doing the same. 

To answer your second, question directly: no, your assertion is, frankly and respectfully, absurd. 

Section 14—Question 33. Do you agree that, as reflected in U.S. law and budgetary support, the United States should continue to promote international human 

rights, including the rights of women, LGBTQ people and other marginalized people? If not, why not? And, if you do agree, how will you run the State Department 

in a way that best promotes human rights? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I deeply believe that LGBTQ persons 

have every right that every other person in the world would have. There are many 

countries or regions in the world that do not honor that principle and undertake 

heinous activity against those persons. If confirmed, I would advocate for the fundamental dignity of every human being around the world in the same way that we 

do here in the United States. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s 

prior commitment, I intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human 

Rights of LGBTI Persons. 

Section 14—Question 34. SAUDI 123 AGREEMENT: The United States is currently 

pursuing a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia after the kingdom announced plans to build two and possible more civilian nuclear reactors. During an 

interview with CBS, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman said that QUOTE 

‘‘Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if 

Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible’’. UNQUOTE. 

If actually implemented this statement would create a dangerous precedent where 

countries could set aside their NPT obligations if a regional rival developed nuclear 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

225 

weapons. What is the administration’s overall plan for preventing civilian nuclear 

programs in the Middle East from being used to pursue a nuclear arsenal? 

Answer. As I told the Committee during the hearing, I support the gold standard 

for such 123 agreements. The United States has significant strategic, commercial, 

and nonproliferation incentives to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia. 

Such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities for U.S. firms 

and ensure the Saudi nuclear power program is subject to the highest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards. In the absence of a 123 agreement, U.S. firms 

will lose the opportunity to compete and will likely be replaced by state-owned enterprises from other countries with lower nonproliferation standards. 

Section 14—Question 35. In light of the Crown Prince’s statement, will the United 

States sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that lacks the legal 

binding no enrichment and reprocessing standard (the gold standard) achieve with 

the UAE? 

Answer. As I told the Committee during the hearing, I support the gold standard. 

The United States has significant strategic, commercial, and nonproliferation incentives to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia. Such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities for U.S. firms and ensure the Saudi nuclear 

power program is subject to the highest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards. In the absence of a 123 agreement, U.S. firms will lose the opportunity to compete and will likely be replaced by state-owned enterprises from other countries 

with lower nonproliferation standards. 

Section 14—Question 36. TORTURE: You have expressed support for the CIA interrogation methods used in the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) 

program, by suggesting they operated ‘‘within the law.’’ You also criticized President 

Obama for ending the CIA program. In a January 2018 speech on interrogation 

methods at the American Enterprise Institute, you suggested coercive methods were 

acceptable. I am concerned that if you are confirmed to be the top U.S. diplomat 

and the global face of the U.S. government, we run the risk of further harming U.S. 

credibility overseas. Do you think that core international prohibitions on torture and 

war crimes—to which the U.S. adheres—can be changed? 

Answer. No. 

Section 14—Question 37. Do you acknowledge on the record that the U.S. government cannot unilaterally change what is prohibited under international law? 

Answer. Yes. 

Section 14—Question 38. Do you believe that there are any circumstances in 

which the U.S. can lawfully transfer individuals to third countries when there are 

substantial grounds to believe that authorities in those countries will subject those 

individuals to torture? 

Answer. The United States Government works closely with our foreign partners 

to obtain assurances that those country will not subject individuals to torture or inhumane treatment. If confirmed, I am committed to following the law. 

Section 14—Question 39. If confirmed to be Secretary of State, would you advise 

the president against transferring individuals to such third countries, and use your 

office to prevent the U.S. government from doing so? 

Answer. It is the long-standing policy of the United States not to transfer an individual to a country where it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured. 

It is reflected in Section 2224(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 

Act of 1998, which provides that ‘‘it shall be the policy of the United States not to 

expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically 

present in the United States.’’ If confirmed, I am committed to following the law. 

Section 14—Question 40. Do you believe that so-called ‘‘assurances’’ from third 

countries known to torture that they will not do so are credible or can be relied on? 

If so, why? 

Answer. The United States Government works closely with our foreign partners 

to obtain assurances that those countries will not subject individuals to torture. 

Those assurances must be credible and reliable. Working with allies to ensure respect for international law, including human rights, is an important part of the role 

of the Secretary of State. The United States has a wide range of tools available to 

address such allegations, including bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, 

foreign assistance, reporting and public outreach, and economic sanctions. If conFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

226 

firmed, I will deploy these tools, as necessary, to promote respect for human rights 

obligations and commitments by allies. 

Section 14—Question 41. What do you believe to be the impact overseas of the 

U.S. Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program? What do you believe 

would be the impact on America’s credibility abroad of resuming renditions or the 

use of interrogation tactics like those previously used by the CIA? 

Answer. To the extent that Congress or the President has acted to proscribe any 

particular activity or interrogation technique, resuming its use would be presumptively illegal under U.S. law. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 

and Executive Order 13491, as well as various other statutory and policy standards, 

circumscribe CIA’s use of interrogation techniques. 

Section 14—Question 42. CHIEF OF MISSION AUTHORITY/CIA: Do you believe in 

chief of mission authority, which requires the U.S. Ambassador in country to sign 

off on all CIA activities and initiatives? If confirmed as Secretary of State will you 

work with other cabinet officials and senior U.S. government officials to ensure 

there is support for that authority and empower your ambassadors to require it? 

Answer. Yes. I believe that Chief of Mission (COM) authority is a critical tool for 

effectively implementing the President’s foreign policy and national security priorities. If confirmed, I will ensure that COMs fully understand their authority and responsibilities. 

Section 14—Question 43. Do you believe that the U.S. Chief of Mission should be 

informed of all operations by covert intelligence and Special Operations personnel 

in their country of responsibility, as well as any proposals by the DoD to transfer 

funds to foreign persons or entities in that country? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that Chiefs of Mission (COMs), the Department of State, and all other agencies engaged in overseas activities fully understand 

the authority and responsibilities of Chiefs of Mission, including COMs’ statutory 

responsibilities to direct, supervise and coordinate U.S. executive branch employees 

(other than those under the command of a U.S. area military commander and Voice 

of America correspondents on official assignment), and the statutory responsibilities 

of executive branch agencies to comply with COM directives and to keep the COM 

fully informed of all current and planned activities. 

Section 14—Question 44. Do you think they should be able to veto any activity 

that the Chief of Mission believes is inimical to U.S. diplomatic policies and efforts? 

If so, if you are confirmed as Secretary of State, will you instruct all Chiefs of Mission to inform you about any such activity about which they have concerns? 

Answer. I believe that Chief of Mission (COM) authority is a critical tool for effectively implementing the President’s foreign policy and national security priorities. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that COMs fully understand their authority and responsibilities. I will also ensure that the Department of State and all agencies, and their 

personnel, engaged in overseas activities understand the COM’s statutory responsibilities to direct, supervise and coordinate U.S executive branch employees (other 

than employees under the command of a U.S. area military commander and Voice 

of America correspondents on official assignment), and the responsibilities of executive branch agencies to comply with COM directives and to keep the COM fully informed of all current and planned activities. I understand that standard procedure 

for the resolution of interagency disputes which cannot be resolved at post is to refer 

issues to Washington, D.C., for assistance, and I am committed to protecting the 

role of the COM in such instances. 

Section 14—Question 45. WOMEN’S ISSUES: Do you believe that advancing women’s 

rights, gender equality, and human rights is an important part our foreign policy 

agenda? As Secretary, how would you prioritize these issues within the Department? Will you empower the office of Global Women’s Issues? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would affirm the Department of State’s commitment to 

improving the situation for women and girls around the world, recognizing the direct impact these efforts have on our national security and foreign policy objectives 

of stability, prosperity, and security. The Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s issues 

leads the Department’s work to empower women and girls socially, politically, and 

economically in the communities and societies in which they live. As I stated in my 

confirmation hearing, I am committed to find a qualified person to serve as the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues and seek confirmation as quickly as 

possible. 

Section 14—Question 46. FUNDING FOR INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING: In 

President Trump’s first two budgets, he has proposal devastating and disproporFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

227 

tionate cuts international family planning programs. This year, in the FY19 budget, 

the 50% funding reduction is expected to result in the following: 12.65 million fewer 

women and couples would receive contraceptive services and supplies; 3.76 million 

more unintended pregnancies, including 1.68 million more unplanned births, would 

occur; 1.59 million more abortions would take place (the majority of which are provided in unsafe conditions); and 7,637 more maternal deaths would occur. We know 

ensuring that if women could utilize the modern contraception that they want, it 

would dramatically reduce maternal and newborn deaths—when women are able to 

space their pregnancies at least three years apart, they are more likely to survive 

pregnancy and childbirth and their children are more than twice as likely to survive 

infancy. Do you think that access to voluntary contraception is important to women’s health and U.S. development goals of preventing maternal and child deaths, 

controlling the AIDS epidemic, achieving gender equality, and empowering women 

and adolescent girls? 

Answer. I understand the United States is a leader in the provision of maternal 

and newborn health care, including voluntary family planning. If confirmed, I will 

support the Administration’s policies and programs to reduce maternal and newborn 

deaths, combat the AIDS epidemic, promote gender equality, and empower women 

and girls. 

Section 14—Question 47. Do you believe that the U.S. should work to ensure that 

women and young people receive accurate information about and access to a full 

range of contraceptive methods? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support voluntary family planning programs around the world. 

Section 14—Question 48. As Sec. of State, will you advocate for a more robust 

budget for family planning programs? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. 

Section 14—Question 49. LGBTQ, WOMEN’S HEALTH: Globally, an estimated 214 

million women want to delay or avoid pregnancy, but face significant barriers to 

using modern methods of contraception. Do you think that health care providers in 

developing countries should be able to refuse to provide contraception? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s plans to invest in voluntary family planning programs in developing countries. 

Section 14—Question 50. Globally LGBTQ people, young people, and unmarried 

women face discrimination and barriers to accessing health care services and as a 

result experience disproportionate poor health outcomes. Do think that health care 

providers should be able to refuse to provide health care information and services 

to patients based their sexual orientation, age, or marital status? 

Answer. Access to health care is important for everyone, regardless of their sexual 

orientation, age, or marital status. I understand that PEPFAR, for example, works 

hard to advance that principle by addressing the underlying social issues, especially 

unequal human rights, stigma, and discrimination that prevent people from accessing HIV prevention and treatment services. PEPFAR supports specific initiatives to 

expand key populations’ (including LGBTI people, adolescent girls and young 

women, and others) access to and retention in quality HIV/AIDS prevention and 

treatment services. If confirmed, I will ensure that PEPFAR continues to use the 

latest science and the best available data to deliver the greatest possible impact to 

ensure epidemic control of the HIV pandemic. 

Section 14—Question 51. ABORTION ACCESS IN CASES OR RAPE, INCEST AND LIFE

ENDANGERMENT: You’ve previously said that you’re against abortion, no exceptions. 

Global estimates indicate that about 1 in 3 (35%) of women worldwide have experienced sexual or gender based violence in their lifetime. Do you believe that a woman 

who is pregnant as the result of rape should have the right to obtain a safe abortion? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to combat genderbased violence and support the maternal health and family planning needs of 

women around the world. 

Section 14—Question 52. Every day, approximately 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth and 99% of them are in developing 

countries. Do you believe that a woman who is experiencing a life endangering pregnancy has the right to an abortion? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

228 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. 

Section 14—Question 53. CRIMINALIZING LGBTQ PEOPLE AND WOMEN: In countries 

around the world, LGBTQ people are criminalized for who they love. There are also 

women who are in jail in places like El Salvador and Senegal for having miscarriages or abortions. These are gross human rights violations. As Sec. of State 

would you raise concerns about laws that criminalize same-sex relationships and 

women’s personal health decisions in public and private settings? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate that governments have an obligation to protect, respect, and uphold the dignity and fundamental freedoms of all people—including women and LGBTI persons. 

Section 14—Question 54. As you may know, Jakiw Palij, a Nazi-era guard who 

was stripped of U.S citizenship is still residing in Queens, New York. In 2004 after 

finding that Mr. Palij was allowed to enter the United States by concealing his prior 

service to the Nzai regime he was stripped of his citizenship and was ordered to 

be deported. However, because no country has agreed to accept him, Mr. Palij has 

not yet left the country. Will you commit to personally taking steps to settle this 

long standing injustice and ensure that Mr. Palij is removed from the United 

States? 

Answer. I am committed to continuing the Department’s engagement with the 

German government to remove Jakiw Palij from the United States. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

(Questions 1–17) 

Question 1 RELATIONS WITH THE MUSLIM WORLD: On June 11, 2013, you made 

a speech in which you said, ‘‘When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are 

performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on that faith’s leaders 

to respond. Instead, their silence has made most Islamic leaders across America 

complicit in these acts. [ . . . ] The silence in the face extremism coming from the 

best-funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is 

absolutely deafening. It cast doubt upon the commitment to peace by adherence by 

the Muslim faith. This is unacceptable it is dangerous, it must end.’’ In November 

2016, you stated that ‘‘Silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts.’’ 

After the 9/11 attacks on our country, in Maryland I have had the privilege to 

work with Muslim faith leaders who unequivocally condemned the attack. Over the 

years I have worked with numerous faith leaders from the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and other religious communities to both combat hate crimes and counter violent extremism. I have found that forming inter-faith working groups have allowed 

us to share best practices and success stories so that we can better protect all communities, regardless of their religious beliefs. Do you stand by your comments? As 

the nation’s chief diplomat, how will you build relationships of trust with the representatives of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, particularly given the past statements you have made about Muslims that have been interpreted as anti-Muslim by 

many faith leaders? 

Answer. I will treat persons of each faith or no faith with the dignity and respect 

that each human being deserves, as I have done during my tenure at the CIA. In 

this capacity, I have worked closely with Muslim leaders and with governments of 

Muslim countries. Working with leaders of all faiths is at the core of who I am. If 

confirmed, I will work towards creating a more diverse State Department workforce 

in every sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. As I have done at 

the CIA, I will achieve this by focusing on the mission and treating every team 

member with dignity and respect. With respect to the comments you referenced, I 

was attempting to convey that we all have a duty to speak out against violent extremism and that some leaders in the United States may be more credible and more 

trustworthy when they speak out, since they can speak to other Muslims based on 

shared background and experience. 

Question 2. During the hearing, I asked if you favor regime change in North 

Korea and you said you do not. Yet, at a talk at the Aspen Institute in July 2017, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

229 

you said, ‘‘As for the [North Korean] regime, I am hopeful we will find a way to 

separate that regime from this system. The North Korean people I’m sure are lovely 

people and would love to see him go.’’ How do you reconcile your answer during the 

hearing with your statement from last July? 

Answer. I reaffirm my statement during the hearing that I have never advocated 

for regime change. In the speech you referenced, I was referring to the North Korean people who deserve to live under a government that fully respects their basic 

human rights. We have a responsibility to achieve a condition where Kim Jong-un 

is unable to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon. 

Question 3. REFUGEES: Over the course of the last few years, there has been increased public concern, as well as significant misinformation, surrounding the U.S. 

Refugee Admissions Program. Refugees are subject to the most rigorous and detailed security screenings of any category of persons—immigrant or visitor—to enter 

the U.S., in a process that on average takes 18-24 months and involves over a dozen 

national security, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. It is a security process 

that has been reviewed, continuously improved (including as new technological advances are introduced), and reaffirmed under both the Obama and Bush administration. Please explain what specifically you would do to improve the existing program, 

without decreasing the number of refugees who are resettled, especially in light of 

the urgent humanitarian need. 

Answer. I believe America has an important role to play in providing assistance 

to refugees. At the current time, it is my understanding that additional vetting procedures introduced as a result of President Trump’s executive orders are enabling 

departments and agencies to more thoroughly review applicants to identify individuals who might pose a risk to public safety or national security. I also understand 

that processing time may be slower as departments and agencies implement these 

additional security-vetting procedures. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing both 

our humanitarian assistance and refugee resettlement programs, to determine potential areas for improvement. 

Question 4. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND TPS: I have sent a number of letters to the 

Departments of State and Homeland Security regarding the Temporary Protected 

Status (TPS) designation impacting hundreds of thousands of people who have migrated to the United States from Sudan, South Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. Ending the TPS designations 

for these countries will put hundreds of thousands of people and their families at 

risk. Would ending TPS further destabilize conditions in Sudan, South Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, respectively? Please explain whether and how each of these foreign governments can ensure the safe return of TPS holders. DHS makes TPS determinations in consultation 

with the State Department. If confirmed, would you support extending the designations for the TPS countries listed above? If not, please explain in specific terms how 

you would determine the extension or termination of one designation over the others? 

Answer. TPS provides the U.S. government with the ability to provide temporary 

protection to those present in the United States who cannot return home in safety. 

Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with sole authority to designate a foreign state for TPS, or to extend 

or terminate its designation, after consultation with appropriate government agencies, including the Department of State, which has an advisory role only. If I am 

confirmed, the Department will continue to provide input to DHS for use by Secretary Nielsen as she makes her determinations. Our input will continue to draw 

upon the State Department’s unique country, regional, and humanitarian expertise 

to evaluate country conditions against the criteria set out in the TPS statute. 

Question 5. Press reports have indicated that certain TPS decisions and recommendations from State to DHS have ignored the recommendations made by the 

U.S. embassies in country to the Secretary of State to renew TPS. What weight 

would you give the recommendations made by your embassies on the ground in deciding whether to recommend renewal of TPS? In what types of cases would you 

overrule the embassies’ recommendations to extend TPS? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department will continue to draw upon its 

unique country, regional, and humanitarian expertise to evaluate country conditions 

in conjunction with the criteria set out in the TPS statute and provide its collective 

input to DHS for use by Secretary Nielsen as she makes her determinations. I understand that the Department’s regional bureaus extensively consider input from 

embassies in assessing country conditions and providing their recommendations. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

230 

Generally, I would only overrule recommendations after full consideration of relevant input and considering what best serves America’s interests. 

Question 6. ANTISEMITISM SPECIAL ENVOY: In August, Rex Tillerson wrote Chairman Corker with several preliminary decisions related to special envoy positions 

within the State Department. Among those, he indicated he was going to keep the 

Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. The Trump Administration 

has placed special emphasis on promoting and defending religious freedom, an issue 

worthy of attention and one that enjoys bipartisan Congressional support. Yet in an 

environment in which anti-Semitism is growing both at home and abroad, the Special Envoy position remains vacant. Past Special Envoys have made significant process promoting interfaith solidarity, engaging with youth, establishing trainings 

within the State Department on antisemitism, making issues of tolerance part of the 

core practice of foreign policy, and championing these issues in bilateral and multilateral settings. Do you pledge, if confirmed, to work with the White House to expeditiously identify and nominate an appropriately qualified candidate for Special 

Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 7. GLOBAL MAGNITSKY IMPLEMENTATION: I appreciate your support for 

Global Magnitsky. If confirmed, will you ensure that every regional bureau participates meaningfully in the designations process? 

Answer. Yes. Global Magnitsky is a powerful sanctions program to advance 

human rights and address corruption around the world, and, if confirmed, I intend 

to implement this program robustly, and consider the input of appropriate bureaus. 

Question 8. ISRAEL AND BOYCOTT, DIVEST, AND SANCTIONS (BDS) ISSUES: As you 

know, there is a growing international campaign to coerce and delegitimize Israel 

by imposing boycotts, divestment, and sanction actions. I am cosponsoring legislation with my colleague, Rob Portman of Ohio, that would prohibit U.S. entities from 

responding to requests from the UN Human Rights Council or other international 

governmental organizations designed to blacklist and boycott companies engaged in 

legal commerce with Israel. The legislation is based on the 40-year old Export Administration Act (EAA) which has been repeatedly upheld by federal courts and protects the rights of individual Americans who want to criticize Israeli or American 

policies. The administration has been vocal in its opposition to BDS and anti-Israel 

bias at the UN and other agencies. As Secretary of State, will you support this legislation, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720)? 

Answer. The United States government strongly opposes boycotts, divestment 

campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel. Boycotts of Israel are 

unhelpful and do not contribute to an environment conducive to peace. 

It is my understanding that the Department of State and its embassies overseas 

regularly engage with governments, international organizations, and other entities 

to oppose such activities. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with Congress on 

any legislation that seeks to counter efforts to isolate or delegitimize the State of 

Israel. 

Question 9. EXTRACTIVES INDUSTRY TRANSPARENCY: Transparency and accountability are critical to good governance, the fight against corruption, and rule of law. 

I have worked to enhance transparency in the extractive industries through Section 

1504 of Dodd-Frank—which requires extractive industry companies to disclose their 

payments to foreign governments at the project level. This Rule, often referred to 

as the Cardin-Lugar Rule, has been endorsed by Shell, BP, Total, the world’s largest 

mining company- BHP Billiton, and U.S. companies Kosmos Energy and Newmont, 

among others. What impact, if any, do you think resource payment transparency 

should have on U.S. foreign assistance efforts? 

Answer. USAID dedicates significant resources to this effort in support of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) implementation around the world. 

As you know, the Department of State serves on EITI’s board, representing the 

United States as a supporting country and providing American leadership. If confirmed, I will continue promoting resource payment transparency to expose and 

counter corruption and mismanagement of natural resources. 

Question 10. HUMAN RIGHTS: What are the most important actions you have 

taken in your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has 

been the impact of your actions? Will you commit to using your position to defend 

the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, 

sexual orientation or gender identity? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

231 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to defending and advancing the human rights and 

dignity of all people, no matter race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender 

identity. I will also work to strengthen democracy where it exists and promote it 

where it does not. As I noted at the hearing, ‘‘We should defend American values 

every place we go’’, even if it leads to hard conversations with certain partners. 

These values are fundamental to who we are as Americans, and nations that respect 

human rights and the rule of law are more stable and make better allies. 

In Congress, I supported laws like P.L. 114-281, the Frank R. Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act, which advances religious freedom globally through enhanced 

diplomacy, training, foreign assistance, and stronger responses to religious freedom 

violations and violent extremism. 

Question 11. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your staff who 

come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in the department? 

What steps will you take to ensure supervisors in the department are fostering an 

environment that is diverse and inclusive? 

Answer. As I said in my hearing, I believe deeply that the Department of State’s 

workforce must be diverse in every sense of the word—in terms of race, religion, 

background, and more. If confirmed, I will seek ways to enhance the Department’s 

mentoring, fellowship, and career development programs, such as the Rangel and 

Pickering Fellowships, to ensure all employees, including those from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups, have the skills necessary for current and future work assignments. If confirmed, I will also ensure that supervisors continue to 

have the resources they need to foster an inclusive work environment. 

Question 12. CUBA: You are on record criticizing President Obama for traveling 

to Cuba, accusing him of making ‘‘unilateral concessions.’’ Do you think that should 

be a precondition for President Trump traveling to a foreign country, or for us maintaining an embassy in a foreign country? If so, what should we demand of China, 

or Egypt, or Turkey, or Vietnam, or other countries with authoritarian governments 

whose policies we disagree with in return for such a presidential visit or maintaining an embassy there? Do you support the embargo against Cuba, or the restrictions 

on travel by private American citizens to Cuba? Do you think either the embargo 

or the restrictions on travel have advanced our national interests, and if so how? 

Answer. I do not generally believe that there should be preconditions for the 

President to travel to a foreign country or to maintain an embassy in another country. 

The June 16, 2017 National Security Presidential Memorandum on Cuba reiterates the Administration’s commitment to support the economic embargo of Cuba 

and ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba. It also ensures U.S. 

public and private engagement with Cuba does not disproportionately benefit the 

Cuban military, intelligence, or security services, or personnel, at the expense of the 

Cuban people. 

If confirmed, I will make sure the State Department continues to advance U.S. 

policy towards Cuba that improves human rights, encourages the rule of law, fosters 

free markets and free enterprise, and promotes democracy in Cuba. 

Question 13. INDEPENDENCE OF USAID: Bipartisan Members of Congress have 

spoken out on the importance of maintaining USAID’s independence as a key part 

of our national security and foreign policy strategy. Do you believe in maintaining 

a strong and independent USAID? 

Answer. USAID plays a fundamental role in supporting American foreign policy 

as the lead U.S. government agency for international development and disaster assistance. USAID plays a critical role in American efforts to underpin global stability 

by countering the drivers of violence and instability; preventing and containing 

pandemics; responding to the challenges caused by displacement and mass migration; and strengthening citizen-responsive governance, democracy, and human 

rights. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Green and the 

exceptional staff at USAID to pursue these goals most effectively. 

Question 14. USAID AND GLOBAL HEALTH: U.S. government global health initiatives spearheaded by the State Department and USAID have been instrumental in 

great advances such as fighting major infectious diseases like HIV, TB, and malaria, 

countering threats from biological and chemical weapons, and driving down maternal and child deaths around the world. However, key barriers such as a severe 

shortage of frontline health workers threatens further progress on these initiatives, 

as well as to efforts to ensure global health security. How will you build on the State 

Department and USAID’s success in exercising soft power such as global health development programs and work with partners to address persistent systems barriers 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

232 

that are critical to transitioning countries off assistance and fostering more stable 

and prosperous partners? 

Answer. Programs such as the President’s Malaria Initiative, the President’s 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), investments under the Global Health 

Security Agenda, and efforts to eliminate tuberculosis have had success, in part, because of a focus on developing host-country commitment, strengthening local 

workforces, implementing evidence-based interventions, involving civil society and 

the private sector, and rigorously using data to monitor performance and make adjustments. These efforts to promote health and fight diseases are critical not only 

to promoting economic prosperity and self-reliance in our partners, but also to protect Americans from infectious-disease threats that cross borders. As President 

Trump’s National Security Strategy clearly states, biological threats—including 

those that are accidental, the result of a deliberate attack, or stem from a natural 

outbreak—are growing, and require actions to address them at their source. I recognize that we can do more with our partners. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

with you on how to strengthen this critical work. 

Question 15. How will you ensure that agencies will have stronger coordination 

on cross-cutting issues, and will State/USAID missions and ambassadors have the 

flexibility to address the most acute health workforce and health systems gaps in 

their own countries, such as those that led to the Ebola epidemic, to best prevent, 

detect, and respond to global health threats from negatively impacting American 

lives at home? 

Answer. I agree that effective coordination across the U.S. government is important, not only when the world faces a crisis such as the Ebola epidemic, but also 

in addressing the factors that can lead to such crises. If confirmed, I will work to 

ensure the U.S. government further improves its coordination of international programs in health security and health systems around the world through high-impact 

partnerships, such as the Global Health Security Agenda. I also agree that investments in global health and global health security are vital, and, if confirmed, I will 

support our ambassadors and USAID mission directors to engage at the country 

level to respond to future potential public health emergencies of international concern in a coordinated and effective fashion. 

Question 16. GENOCIDE/ATROCITY PREVENTION: Most of the approximately 1 million people who were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide died in the first few 

weeks. In countries such as Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, and Myanmar, 

mass atrocities are occurring and could worsen. When crises reach such levels, options are limited, risky, expensive, and may not be sufficiently timely. Investing in 

early prevention of mass atrocities saves both lives and valuable resources. What 

will you do to strengthen existing atrocity prevention initiatives, to ensure that 

atrocity prevention is institutionalized in the national security structure, and to promote international cooperation on atrocity prevention? Do you agree with the 2011 

Presidential Study Directive—10 which states that, ‘‘Preventing mass atrocities and 

genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the 

United States’’? If so, how will you seek to pursue that interest and responsibility? 

What efforts would you support to prevent and to punish genocide? Do you think 

prosecution of suspected perpetrators of mass atrocities can help prevent future 

atrocities? Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and prevent mass atrocities, or should 

the U.S. refrain from getting involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or 

property are directly threatened? 

Answer. As the National Security Strategy states, it is a U.S. government priority 

to hold perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities accountable, and to support 

with both words and actions those who live under oppressive regimes and seek freedom, individual dignity, and the rule of law. If confirmed, I will support U.S. government efforts to prevent atrocities. I will support criminal accountability and 

other transitional justice mechanisms to help end impunity, which furthers reconciliation and prevents the recurrence of violence and atrocities. The Department 

of State’s embassies and consulates, intelligence and analytic capacity, and foreign 

assistance programming, along with our relationships with bilateral, multilateral, 

and local partners, are key components of the whole-of-government approach the 

Administration has taken to implement these priorities. 

Question 17. DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT: General Jim Mattis had one of the 

most enduring quotes about the importance of development and diplomacy as to our 

national security. At a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee 

in 2013, he said, ‘‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy 

more ammunition.’’ Starting in 2002 and every year since, U.S. National Security 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

233 

Strategies have elevated diplomacy and development alongside defense as the three 

instruments of national security power, and with the number of complex challenges 

we face, coordination between the State Department, our military, and our development agencies has never been more important. Development must stand alongside 

diplomatic and defense activities, and cannot be subsumed by either. If confirmed, 

how will you elevate diplomacy and development to ensure they’re on equal footing 

as key components of our national security strategy? Will you support a fully empowered USAID Administrator? 

Answer. I agree that diplomacy and development are critical aspects of American 

national security, along with our military capabilities. One of the many values of 

robust diplomacy is that it increases our chances of solving problems peacefully, 

without ever firing a shot. The same can be said for working with other countries 

to address their development challenges alongside their journeys to self-reliance. If 

confirmed, I will do my part to ensure the State Department is working with our 

interagency partners to leverage each other’s core competencies, so that we can effectively and efficiently advance our collective national-security objectives. As the 

lead U.S. government agency on international development and disaster assistance, 

USAID plays a fundamental role in supporting American foreign policy and in our 

efforts to ensure stability, detect and respond to possible pandemics, prevent conflict, and build citizen-responsive local governance. I look forward to working with 

Administrator Green and the exceptional staff of USAID to pursue these goals most 

effectively. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

(Questions 1–29) 

Question . The personnel cuts at the State Department carried out before your 

nomination have proceeded without any plan being disclosed for how those cuts are 

to be distributed or how the long-term workforce plan relates to America’s overall 

diplomatic mission. I am concerned that the loss of senior experienced career personnel, in particular, will weaken American diplomacy for years to come. The Congress has made its views clear with appropriations that are much larger than the 

Administration’s request. Now that this funding has been made available, will you 

rebuild the depleted ranks of the Senior Foreign Service through increased Foreign 

Service officer promotion rates and restoring entry-level intake to historical levels? 

In those areas where you plan to reduce staff, please explain in detail how the reductions will improve effectiveness and what major uses of staff until now will no 

longer be necessary? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the prior personnel decisions, which I understand have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress, 

and will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign and civil service is at 

the forefront of U.S. diplomacy at all levels. 

Question 2. If confirmed, you will face the challenge of rebuilding a hollowed-out 

State Department that has lost half of its most senior career leadership, is still subject to a hiring freeze, and lacks nominees to critical posts at regional bureaus and 

embassies worldwide. If confirmed, what specific steps will you take to address this 

diplomatic readiness crisis and boost morale at the State Department? Will you 

commit to immediately and fully rescinding the hiring freeze and working to expeditiously fill vacant Senate-confirmed positions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that vacancies in the senior ranks of 

the Department are filled as soon as practicable with talented and capable people. 

I will also work to ensure that key State Department priorities are properly 

resourced. As discussed at my hearing, my goal is to ensure that the State Department is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy. 

Question 3. Would you support undertaking a comprehensive review to evaluate 

current training for Foreign Service officers working in core diplomatic career fields 

(political affairs, economic affairs, and public diplomacy) in order to identify requirements for expanded training opportunities to enhance diplomatic capabilities in 

these areas? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support undertaking a comprehensive review to 

evaluate current training and requirements for Foreign Service Officers working in 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

234 

all core diplomatic career fields. Training and professional development opportunities are critical to ensuring the Department is a place where people want to work 

and grow in their careers, and it is critical that diplomats continue to develop the 

skills to advance U.S. interests now and into the future. 

Question 4. Members of Congress have spoken out on a bipartisan basis on the 

importance of maintaining USAID’s independence as a key part of our national security and foreign policy strategy. Do you believe in maintaining a strong and independent USAID? 

Answer. As the lead U.S. government agency for international development and 

disaster assistance, USAID plays a fundamental role in supporting American foreign policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Green and 

USAID’s exceptional staff. 

Question 5. As Congress and the Administration stake out divergent priorities on 

funding levels for the International Affairs Budget, Members of Congress have 

raised concerns about the State Department withholding appropriated funds from 

obligation. The State Department’s failure to spend $120 million that Congress appropriated for the Global Engagement Center (GEC) has further fueled these concerns. I appreciated our conversation and your commitment to utilize the Global Engagement Center more appropriately. If confirmed, what concrete steps will you 

take to prevent similar delays in the future? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to secure an appropriate transfer of funds from 

the Department of Defense as expeditiously as possible and to utilize funds from the 

Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act to the GEC to support its mission 

to counter state-sponsored disinformation. Further, I commit to staffing the GEC in 

a way to ensure its ability to carry out its mission. 

Question 6. The Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus spending bill included language requiring the Administration to report to Congress on any actions taken related to reform, 

reorganization, or redesign of the State Department and USAID. Members of Congress have previously expressed concern about transparency throughout this process. If confirmed, will you commit to regular consultations with this Committee and 

with Congress concerning any reforms or modernization efforts? Will you also commit to engaging with outside stakeholder organizations in the foreign policy and 

international development communities as well? 

Answer. Yes. As I discussed at my hearing, consultations with you, the Committee 

and the Congress are a critical part of ensuring the success of the State Department. 

Question 7. Studies have shown that diverse workplaces are more productive. A 

recent McKinsey study found that companies in the top-quartile for gender diversity 

on executive teams were 21% more likely to outperform on profitability and 27% 

more likely to have superior value creation. The State Department must know this, 

because one of its 6 core values is a ‘‘Commitment to having a workforce that represents the diversity of America.’’ According to State Department Employment data, 

women comprise the majority of civil servants at lower and middle grades (Grades 

GS-13 and below). However, at the upper levels—civil servants at the GS-14 level 

and above are 60% male. The Foreign Service shows a similar trend: men and 

women enter the Foreign Service at roughly equal numbers, yet 70% of the Senior 

Foreign Service is male. To make matters worse, the State Department remains the 

only agency to continue a hiring freeze, effectively maintaining this structure of men 

at the top and women at the bottom. I appreciated your commitment to lift the hiring freeze during the hearing. What will you do to correct these gender inequities 

in the State Department to ensure a high quality institution that represents the diversity of the United States? How will you ensure that women at the State Department will not be confined to the lower ranks and will have more chances to reach 

the top? 

Answer. As I said in my hearing, I believe deeply that the Department of State’s 

workforce must be diverse in every sense of the word. If confirmed, I will seek ways 

to enhance the Department’s mentoring, fellowship, and career development programs to ensure all employees, including those from diverse backgrounds and 

underrepresented groups, have the skills necessary for current and future work assignments. If confirmed, I will also work to increase gender diversity at the senior 

levels by better identifying the obstacles to the career progression of women in the 

Department. 

Question 8. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is one of 

the most effective initiatives of its kind. What are your priorities for this program? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

235 

What would you do as Secretary of State to help developing countries in their continuing fight against this disease? 

Answer. With a strong commitment to advancing HIV/AIDS efforts in more than 

50 countries, PEPFAR is working to achieve epidemic control in up to 13 high-HIVburden countries by 2020, creating the road map to reach epidemic control in all 

PEPFAR-supported countries. I understand that current priorities include: acceleration of optimized HIV testing and treatment strategies, particularly to reach men 

under age 35; expansion of HIV prevention for adolescent girls and young women 

through DREAMS efforts so they grow to be ‘‘Determined, Resilient, Empowered, 

AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe’’ and the expansion of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) for boys and young men in targeted age bands to decrease their 

risk of HIV infection; continuous use of granular epidemiologic and cost data to improve partner performance and increase program impact and effectiveness; a renewed engagement with faith-based organizations and the private sector to accelerate and improve efforts toward epidemic control and ensuring access to lifesaving 

services for children; and, finally, a strengthened policy and financial contributions 

by partner governments in the HIV/AIDS response. If confirmed, I look forward to 

supporting developing countries through PEPFAR to accelerate their progress toward controlling and ultimately ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

Question 9. Recently the State Department released its review of the expanded 

Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy. The State Department 

claimed that there have been no service disruptions due to the policy, yet I have 

received information that in Mozambique the provider AMODEFA has closed 18 

youth-friendly clinics and 72 mobile clinics, in Swaziland the provider FLAS has reduced geographic coverage from 14 towns to 4, and in Botswana BOFWA has closed 

one clinic and scaled back services at 7 others as a result of this policy. If confirmed, 

how would you examine gaps in services and work to ensure needs being filled? 

When you were in the House of Representatives, you voted in favor of legislation 

that would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy. Do you stand be your vote? Do 

you support the Mexico City Policy? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. Through 

the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, which I support, 

the Administration is ensuring that no U.S. government global health assistance 

funds support foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. 

I understand that the policy will not impact the total amount of U.S. government 

funding for maternal health and family planning programs. I also understand that 

the vast majority of foreign NGOs to which the U.S. government has provided global 

health assistance funding subject to the PLGHA policy are accepting the conditions 

on awards required under the policy, and continue to participate in U.S. government-funded global health assistance programs. When a foreign NGO declines to 

agree to the policy, I understand that departments and agencies work to identify 

other partners while minimizing the disruption of services. 

Question 10. In President Trump’s first two budget requests, he proposed devastating and disproportionate cuts to international family planning programs. Do 

you believe the United States should work to ensure that women and young people 

receive comprehensive and accurate information about and access to a full range of 

contraceptive methods? If confirmed, would you support maintaining funding for 

family planning programs current Fiscal Year 2018 appropriated levels? 

Answer. I understand the United States is a leader in the provision of maternal 

and newborn health care, including voluntary family planning. If confirmed, I will 

support the Administration’s efforts to support the maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. 

Question 11. Over 300,000 women die every year in pregnancy or childbirth. The 

vast majority of these deaths are preventable. We know ensuring women can utilize 

the modern contraception they want would dramatically reduce maternal and newborn deaths—when women are able to space their pregnancies at least three years 

apart, they are more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and their children 

are more than twice as likely to survive infancy. Providing family planning services 

is one of the most effective and cost-effective tools we have to save mothers’ and 

newborns’ lives. Yet, the Administration has proposed dramatic and disproportionate cuts for this life saving and effective program. Do you think that access to 

voluntary contraception and accurate and comprehensive information is important 

to women’s health and U.S. development goals of preventing maternal and child 

deaths, controlling the AIDS epidemic, achieving gender equality, and empowering 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

236 

women and adolescent girls? If confirmed, will you support maintaining funding and 

policies that prioritize expanding access to modern contraception as an efficient and 

effective way to reduce maternal and newborn deaths? 

Answer. I understand that the United States is a leader in the provision of maternal and newborn health care, including voluntary family planning. If confirmed, I 

will support the Administration’s policies and programs to reduce maternal and 

newborn deaths, combat the AIDS epidemic, promote gender equality, and empower 

women and girls. 

Question 12. We are facing the largest refugee crisis in decades. We know that 

pregnancy-related deaths and instances of sexual violence increase significantly during these crises. In 2015, the UN estimated that 61% of maternal deaths took place 

in humanitarian crises and fragile settings where health services were not available 

to women. UNFPA is the leading provider of maternal and reproductive these 

health services and supplies in humanitarian emergencies, often operating in areas 

where no one else is able to, as well as leading global coordination around GBV prevention and response. However, the State Department in March made a baseless 

determination to withhold funding for UNFPA and the FY19 budget proposal reflects this decision. You cosponsored legislation in 2011 to ban all U.S. funds from 

UNFPA. How would the State Department, under your direction, should you be confirmed, ensure the health and protection needs of women in these crises are being 

met? When you were in the House of Representatives you cosponsored legislation 

that would have defunded UNFPA. Do you stand by that bill? Do you oppose U.S. 

funding for UNFPA? If confirmed, would you commit to setting aside your own politics and reversing the determination if you find that it was made without any evidence of wrongdoing, as has been well documented by previous examinations of 

UNFPA’s work in China? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s plans to invest in voluntary family planning programs in developing countries. I understand that with 

the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy in place, the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request includes $302 million in funding for voluntary family 

planning and women’s health programs overseas. It is also my understanding that 

the U.S. Government has either reprogramed funding once intended for the United 

Nations Population Fund, or is in the process of finalizing plans to make such funds 

available for voluntary family planning, maternal health, and other women’s health 

activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. 

If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing relevant information as required and enforcing legislation passed by Congress with regard to women’s health, including 

family planning. 

Question 13. I have asked the State Department repeatedly for concrete evidence 

that UNFPA violated the Kemp-Kasten amendment. To date, no such evidence has 

been provided to me or to my office. In fact, in the Memorandum of Justification 

for the Determination Regarding the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that the State Department sent the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department concluded on page 2 that so such evidence exists. I am attaching a letter I sent to Secretary Tillerson to this effect, and would like the Department to send me firm evidence, actual instances/examples, to support the Department’s determination that 

UNFPA favors or directly supports coercive abortions or involuntary sterilization. 

Please send the evidence along with the answers to my additional questions on 

UNFPA. 

Answer. It is my understanding that the State Department provided information 

on the Administration’s Kemp-Kasten determination to the Congress, including the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in 2017 and 2018. If confirmed, I will look into 

the specific questions you posed and welcome further discussion. 

Question 14. Do you believe nuclear arms control is an important tool for protecting this country? Do you think arms control treaties have value even when they 

are under duress? Do you agree that arms control treaties need mechanisms for resolving disputes and misunderstandings and that those mechanisms should be exhausted before there is any consideration of withdrawal? 

Answer. Yes, I believe arms control can be an important tool for protecting this 

country if the measures advance U.S., allied, and partner security, are verifiable 

and enforceable, and include partners that comply responsibly with their obligations. The value of any arms control treaty depends on all parties remaining in compliance. My understanding is that the United States exerts considerable efforts to 

resolve disputes involving implementation and compliance. At the same time, the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

237 

United States cannot endure forever another treaty party’s noncompliance, especially when the violations are significant enough to affect the purpose of the treaty. 

Question 15. Last year General Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said he 

supports the strategic nuclear weapons limits put in place by the New START Treaty. On February 5, the United States and Russia each announced that they had met 

their treaty obligations to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear forces by the 

agreement’s implementation deadline. The treaty, which expires in February 2021, 

can be extended by up to five years but the Administration has yet to take a position on an extension. What would be the consequences if there are no data exchanges, reciprocal inspections, or verifiable limits on U.S. and Russian strategic 

nuclear forces, which would be the case if New START is allowed to expire with 

nothing to replace it? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will consider next steps related to the New START Treaty 

at the appropriate time. I believe data exchanges, reciprocal inspections, and 

verifiable limits can foster transparency, understanding, and predictability in adversary relations, and contribute to managing the strategic competition between the 

United States and Russia at this time. 

Question 16. Over the last year, we have seen a number of horrific atrocities 

around the globe targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) 

people, who have been rounded up, tortured, and even killed in the Russian republic 

of Chechnya and elsewhere. Your predecessor failed to adequately address these 

types of atrocities. Without U.S. leadership on this issue, bad actors may take it as 

a signal that they have a free hand to attack their most vulnerable citizens. Will 

you commit to using your position to defend the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? If so, what specifically 

will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people around the world ensure they are not 

targeted for abuse? 

Answer. The horrible treatment of LGBTI persons by Chechen authorities is truly 

despicable, and, if confirmed, I will stand with the persecuted people of Chechnya, 

including LGBTI persons. If confirmed, I commit to defend the human rights and 

dignity of all people, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or 

gender identity. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s prior commitment, I intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of 

LGBTI Persons. 

Question 17. Your predecessor failed to appoint a Special Envoy for the Human 

Rights of LGBTI Persons. Will you commit to working expeditiously to appoint a 

Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 18. I have commended the Administration’s response to the Salisbury 

nerve agent attack and the recent CAATSA designations of Russian oligarchs and 

officials. However, in the last two weeks, both current and former officials, including 

H.R. McMaster, have asserted that this Administration has not done enough to 

counter Russia’s malign efforts. I would agree that the United States has not yet 

gone from responding to Russia’s individual transgressions to leading a global response to counter Russian malign influence. Do you think it is time for a comprehensive strategy toward Russia? Could you describe what a comprehensive strategy to address Russian malign influence would look like? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will advance the Administration’s strategy of increasing 

pressure on the Russian government until it stops its malign behavior, including 

election meddling, while also keeping opportunities for engagement open. I would 

like to move beyond the current low level of trust, stabilize our relationship, and 

cooperate where possible. But where we do not see eye-to-eye, I will uphold our interests, and those of our allies and partners. 

Question 19. In the Balkans, the competition with Russia has the potential to sow 

fresh instability in a region where Russia is increasingly active. Wary of Russian 

meddling, the European Union is holding out a renewed prospect of membership to 

Bosnia and to the other five nations of the Western Balkans—Serbia, Montenegro, 

Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo—in return for fundamental structural reform. Will 

you support the EU’s efforts in this areas? What efforts can the U.S. lead in the 

Balkans to help ensure that this region does not fall into chaos or into Russia’s 

hands? What role can NATO play, and how will the U.S. support NATO efforts in 

the region? Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular, remains a fragile construct, riven 

by corruption, weak leadership, and ethnic and nationalist strains among communities. Will you prioritize resolving Bosnia’s electoral reform challenges and help 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

238 

move the country beyond its constant political sclerosis? What is the best solution 

to this current crisis? What more can be done? Do you think it would be important 

to provide younger Bosnian with more travel and business opportunities, perhaps 

through an enterprise fund or by other means? 

Answer. Russia’s efforts to sow instability in the Western Balkans are significant, 

but the United States is pushing back. The Administration works closely with the 

European Union on reform efforts in these countries. If confirmed, I will continue 

to support NATO’s presence in the region in conjunction with DoD, which plays an 

important role in assisting with defense reform. Electoral reform is necessary to improve the functionality and stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any solution must 

come from the Bosnians themselves, but the Department of State, in concert with 

the European Union, is working hard to engage party leaders and find compromise. 

I understand that the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo supports programming that promotes economic and academic opportunities for the citizens of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina. 

Question 20. Are you concerned about the rise of militia-like structures tied to 

Russian entities across Europe and in other parts of the globe? We are hearing increased reports of Russian extremists training Western civilians and providing 

courses on paramilitary actions. Some of the groups include the Russian Imperial 

Movement (RIM) and others that are directly linked to the Kremlin. How can the 

U.S. work to monitor and stem the influence of these groups? Where are these 

groups the most prevalent? Do they pose a threat to Americans’ safety and security? 

Answer. The Administration is aware of the existence and potential threat that 

these groups present. Russia’s active development and deployment of a large range 

of hybrid threats and activities is a matter of serious concern to the United States 

and all NATO allies and partners. Russia uses a constellation of approaches, overt 

and covert, to influence the policies of other governments and undermine domestic 

stability in Europe. Our approach to combatting Russian aggression must be comprehensive and whole-of-government. I understand the Department of State is committed to utilizing all available tools to counter Russian efforts to undermine democratic institutions and stability. If confirmed, I will work closely with allies and 

partners, as well as law enforcement, to preserve the safety and security of the 

American people. 

Question 21. Your first trip upon your confirmation to the CIA was to Turkey. 

What has your experience been like with the Turks? Are they good/reliable intelligence partners? Are they good/reliable NATO partners? If you are confirmed, will 

you raise the case of Americans jailed in Turkey as well as our long-term concerns 

over Turkey’s democratic backsliding? How best can you address Turkey’s harmful 

behavior toward the U.S. and other NATO partners? Are you willing to use U.S. leverage against Turkey when it threatens the country threatens the safety of Americans, our military and our locally employed staff? What leverage does the U.S. have? 

Please provide an unclassified list. If you are unable to, will you commit to a classified briefing to list the options? 

Answer. It is in the U.S. national interest for Turkey to be a stable, democratic, 

prosperous, and reliable Ally. The Turks have been a constant and reliable intelligence partner and this was apparent during the trip in early 2017 to Ankara. 

There are times when there are differences between the United States and Turkey 

regarding our respective interests and specific policies. In the intelligence realm, we 

do have a useful exchange of information. The intelligence relationship may reflect 

those differences at times, but overall, the intelligence relationship is robust and 

useful to the United States. 

Turkey is a key member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, hosts U.S. forces 

at Incirlik Airbase in Adana, and contributes forces and support to NATO missions, 

including in Afghanistan and Kosovo. If confirmed, I will support Turkey’s democratic development in the belief that respect for the rule of law, judicial independence, and freedom of the press can again be sources of Turkey’s strength and expand our potential for partnership. I will have no higher priority than the welfare 

and safety of U.S. citizens. I am deeply concerned about the continued detention of 

U.S. citizens and Mission Turkey local staff on scant evidence under the state of 

emergency in Turkey. 

I believe it is very important to engage actively with Congress on these issues. 

If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue discussing with you and 

other members issues relating to Turkey. 

Question 22. As you know, Turkish officials arresting and interrogating locally 

employed U.S. staff in Ankara. Does this means that Turkey has reneged on its 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

239 

agreement with the U.S. to stop harassing our employees in exchange for the resumption of U.S. visa processing. How are you planning on addressing this issue? 

Answer. I understand the Department of State suspended certain Embassy operations, including non-immigrant visa services, on October 8, 2017, due to security 

concerns relating to the Government of Turkey’s commitment to the safety and security of our diplomatic and consular personnel and facilities. Visa services resumed 

December 28, 2017, when the security situation improved following Turkish government assurances about the security of U.S. Mission operations and staff. If confirmed, I will hold the Government of Turkey to these assurances. I will also press 

the Turkish government to resolve the cases of our detained local staff and U.S. citizens in a timely and fair manner, respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, including all the protections and fair trial guarantees necessary for their defense. 

Question 23. In January Turkish banker Mehmet Hakan Atilla was found guilty 

in a federal court room for his involvement in perhaps the largest ever sanctions 

evasion scheme which resulted in tens of billions in dollars and gold being moved 

from Turkey to Iran. Given the high-level corruption exposed during the Zarrab case 

as well as countless examples of Turkish officials, like the Justice Minister, being 

involved in arresting innocent Turkish, as well as American individuals, and violating these individuals’ basic human rights, will the Administration include Turkish targets on the next Global Magnitsky list? Do you think Global Magnitsky can 

be used in the context of Turkey’s manipulation of its own media and the assistance 

media mogul give to the government in vilifying innocent Americans, like Pastor 

Brunson? 

Answer. Global Magnitsky is a powerful sanctions program, and you have my 

commitment, if confirmed, to use it when appropriate. The Administration is concerned about Turkey’s recent actions. No region is immune from human rights 

abuse or corruption, and the Administration appreciates Congressional support for 

this versatile tool. I look forward to working with the Department’s experts and the 

interagency to advance implementation of this program. 

Question 24. Should Turkey be sanctioned under CAATSA for its purchase of the 

S-400 missile defense system? If yes, is it better to sanction upon purchase or delivery? 

Answer. The Administration shares Congress’ strong opposition to the prospect of 

Turkey procuring the Russian S-400 air defense system. I understand that the Administration is using a variety of tools, including the possibility of sanctions under 

CAATSA, to dissuade Turkey from purchasing the S-400, and at the same time offer 

a viable NATO-interoperable solution. The Administration has made very clear to 

Turkey the potential for sanctions under CAATSA 231. 

Question 25. How familiar are you with the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program? Do you commit to help those members of the Afghan population and their 

families that helped our military and State Department personnel expeditiously receive these visas and come to the United States to live their lives in safety? 

Answer. I am familiar with the program and as a former Army officer, have the 

highest respect for the men and women who take enormous risks to support our 

military and civilian personnel. If confirmed, I would support the Administration’s 

efforts to help those who have helped us by ensuring visas are issued without undue 

delay to all qualified applicants approved for issuance following completion of required vetting. 

Question 26. While dual citizens are recognized as American citizens under our 

laws, the State Department’s consular section concedes that they cannot easily gain 

access to dual citizens arrested overseas, even if they are unlawfully arrested. Could 

you explain why this is the case? How can we mitigate this problem? 

Answer. I understand that when a detained U.S. citizen is also a citizen of the 

detaining country, the United States has no legal right to notification and access, 

and the country may decline access. Nonetheless, I am committed to continuing the 

Department’s practice of seeking access to dual-national U.S. citizens to protect 

their welfare. I am also aware that the Department consistently encourages U.S. 

law enforcement and prisons to provide notification and access to all U.S.-detained 

foreign nationals to ensure reciprocal notification and access to dual national U.S. 

citizens by other nations. 

Question 27. Earlier this year two ISIS fighters (‘‘the Beatles’’) were caught in 

Syria. As you know, these individuals are no longer British citizens, but are responsible for the deaths of several individuals, including Americans, and my constituent 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

240 

James Foley. What are the options to bring these individuals to justice? Are you 

willing to pursue the International Criminal Court as an option or other international justice mechanisms? Please provide all options that are being considered. 

Answer. The Administration is committed to bringing these terrorists to justice, 

and is exploring various options to do so. My understanding is that these fighters 

were British citizens at the time of their alleged crimes. I further understand that 

the State Department is encouraging countries to repatriate and prosecute their citizens who fought for ISIS in Syria. All governments should take responsibility for 

bringing their own citizens to justice. 

Question 28. The most recent omnibus spending bill provides $250 million for the State Department’s Countering Russian Influence Fund as well as $40 million for 

the Global Engagement Fund. Do you have any plans for this funding? What priority areas would you like to fund through these programs? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the Administration intends to focus these 

funds on those countries facing the greatest Russian pressure. I anticipate the Administration’s efforts will continue to focus on countering disinformation, boosting 

countries’ energy security and economic resilience, fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, protecting our partners and allies against cyberattacks, and 

bolstering the capabilities of our allies and partners to defend themselves against 

Russian aggression. 

Question 29. As the co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, I am very concerned by the authoritarian turn of several NATO Allies, including Poland, Hungary 

and Turkey. In fact, just last week, President Putin visited Turkey on his first foreign visit following his election. How will you work to make sure that NATO continues to be an alliance of values as well as an alliance of shared security? 

Answer. The United States expects our allies to be strong partners. This strength 

entails meeting their commitments to uphold the values of democracy, individual 

liberty, and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Washington Treaty, as well as demonstrating a shared commitment to our common defense. If confirmed, I will continue to work with our allies to promote our shared transatlantic principles, as well 

as to foster bilateral cooperation that advances U.S. interests. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER A. COONS

(Questions 1–18) 

Question 1. In cases where the United States or its partners remove territory from 

jihadist militant control in the Sahel and the Lake Chad basin, how should the U.S. 

government help return security and effective governance to these territories? 

Answer. The nature of the security threat in the region has demanded a comprehensive and immediate response, and the United States continues to support efforts to build capacity in other areas through development programming, humanitarian aid, and bilateral assistance. If confirmed, I will stress the importance for the 

countries engaged in these conflicts to develop the policies and programs necessary 

to respond to the economic, humanitarian, and governance challenges that sustain 

conflict and drive radicalization. With the support of the United States, African 

partners must develop the capacity to hold territory, restore civilian security, ensure 

accountability for atrocities, establish effective governance to deliver essential services, revive local economies, and instill respect for citizens’ rights to prevent the 

spread of radical elements. 

Question 2. One of the best ways to support women is through family planning. 

Would you advise President Trump to overturn his executive order on the Mexico 

City Policy or Global Gag Rule, which cuts off health care options for women in Africa? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. Through 

the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, the Administration 

is ensuring that no U.S. government global health assistance funds support foreign 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or actively promote abortion 

as a method of family planning globally, including Africa. 

I understand that the policy will not impact the total amount of U.S. government 

funding for maternal health and family planning programs. I also understand that 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

241 

the vast majority of foreign NGOs to which the U.S. government has provided global 

health assistance funding subject to the PLGHA policy are accepting the conditions 

required under the policy, and continue to participate in U.S. government-funded 

global health assistance programs. 

Question 3. What should be the U.S. strategy in South Sudan if the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) High Level Revitalization Forum fails? 

Answer. The United States is working with its Troika partners (Norway and the 

United Kingdom), IGAD, the African Union, the European Union, and the United 

Nations to press the Government of South Sudan and other parties to the conflict 

to reach a negotiated political settlement through the IGAD-led High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF). In particular, the United States is encouraging the Government of South Sudan and the opposition to update governance and security arrangements at the next meeting of the Forum (currently scheduled for April 26–30), in 

order to remedy the failures of the 2015 peace agreement. If confirmed, I will continue to assess its prospects for success and reevaluate our strategy accordingly. 

Question 4. Are you committed to addressing the ongoing violence and human 

rights abuses in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions and in the far north of the country? 

Answer. Yes. I am deeply concerned about the escalation of violence in the 

Anglophone regions, both by extremist secessionists and by government security 

forces. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department continues to address 

this issue. 

Question 5. What steps will you take to address the root causes of violent extremism in Cameroon and ensure a greater focus on democracy and good governance? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would urge the Government of Cameroon to address the 

root causes of violent extremism by expanding economic opportunities, providing 

needed infrastructure, and furnishing public services in the least developed and 

most marginalized communities. These steps would help address concerns of 

marginalization by communities in these areas and at-risk populations. I would also 

stress the importance of good governance and democracy in Cameroon, which is 

scheduled to hold presidential elections this year. 

Question 6. Will you oppose cuts to State Department and USAID funding in the 

rescission package reportedly being negotiated by the White House and GOP leaders? 

Answer. I have not seen the rescission package that has been discussed. If I am 

confirmed in advance of the proposal’s submission to Congress, and as I discussed 

at my confirmation hearing, I will examine each proposed rescission closely to ensure that the State Department and USAID are not negatively impacted and that 

they retain the resources they need to effectively carry out their missions. 

Question 7. Secretary Tillerson set a goal of eliminating 2,000 State Department 

positions. Do you plan to adopt that goal and if so, what is your rationale? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assess prior personnel decisions, which I understand 

have raised a number of concerns within the Department and with Congress, and 

will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced foreign and civil service is at the 

forefront of U.S. diplomacy. As part of that review, I would consult with you and 

the other members of the SFRC. 

Question 8. How do U.S. Government international development programs advance U.S. foreign policy interests and American values? Which U.S. development 

programs do you think have been most effective? 

Answer. International development programs play a critical role in promoting 

U.S. national interests as articulated in President Trump’s National Security Strategy, including advancing American influence, protecting the homeland from threats 

and extending American values. In particular, programs such as those managed by 

USAID help address the drivers of violence and instability, work to prevent and contain pandemics, provide relief from crisis, and build resilience to future challenges. 

Development programs are most effective when they constitute true partnerships 

with public and private organizations in countries that are willing to assume responsibility for their own development with the goal of self-reliance. 

Question 9. Do you believe in maintaining a strong and independent USAID? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 10. In 2016, Congress passed into law the Department of State Authorities Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114–323) which establishes that the Department 

should make it a priority to focus on the employment, retention, and promotion of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

242 

traditionally underrepresented minority groups. Are you committed to advancing 

workforce diversity in the Foreign and Civil Service at the State Department? 

Answer. As I said in my hearing, I believe that the Department of State’s workforce must be diverse in every sense of the word—in terms of race, religion, background, and more. If confirmed, I will seek ways to enhance the Department’s mentoring, fellowship, and career development programs to ensure all employees, including those from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups, have the skills 

necessary for current and future work assignments. If confirmed, I will also ensure 

that supervisors continue to have the resources they need to foster an inclusive 

work environment. 

Question 11. Will you commit to continuing the Rangel, Pickering, and Payne Fellowship programs? 

Answer. I am committed to ensuring we recruit, train and develop a diverse workforce capable of executing the State Department’s mission. I have been briefed on 

the Rangel and Pickering Fellowship programs and understand they are an important part of achieving these important goals. The Payne Fellowship is administered 

by USAID, and I would work with Administrator Green to ensure that USAID has 

every resource it needs to achieve the diverse professional officers it needs to execute its mission. 

Question 12. If we withdraw from the JCPOA unilaterally, how will we sustain 

the current level of visibility we have into Iran’s nuclear program? 

Answer. The United States will continue to assess Iran’s nuclear program through 

national technical means and coordinate closely with international allies and partners to ensure a full understanding of Iran’s nuclear activities. Regardless of the 

future of the JCPOA, Iran must cooperate fully with its continuing Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) and related IAEA safeguards obligations, and the United 

States will continue to strongly support the IAEA’s important work in Iran. 

Question 13. Would you encourage the President to seek UN and congressional 

backing before using military force against Iran? 

Answer. The Administration’s preferred course for dealing with the range of Iran’s 

malign activities, including preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, is 

through diplomacy. Although I do not want to address hypothetical situations that 

might arise if diplomatic tools and other foreign policy tools are unsuccessful, I respect Congress’s role assigned by the Constitution and, in providing oversight on use 

of force these issues, I believe it is important to engage actively with Congress on 

these matters. 

Question 14. Human Rights: If you are confirmed, when you travel overseas do 

you commit to meeting not only with current sitting government leaders, but also 

with a broad cross-section of civil society and opposition leaders? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will meet where appropriate with a broad cross-section of 

civil society and opposition leaders during my overseas trips. The United States values the voice and opinions of civil society and has a long history of engaging leaders 

both inside and outside the government, a tradition I would continue. 

Question 15. President Trump capped refugee admissions at 45,000 people this 

year—the lowest number set by any White House since the practice began in 1980. 

According to State Department data, the United States is on track to admit less 

than half that number. What is your view of the current pace of refugee admissions? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe America has an important role 

to play in providing assistance to refugees. At the current time, additional vetting 

procedures are enabling departments and agencies to more thoroughly review applicants to identify individuals who might pose a risk to public safety or national security. I understand that processing time may be slower as departments and agencies 

implement additional security vetting procedures. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing both our humanitarian assistance and refugee resettlement programs. 

Question 16. Environmental challenges affect global security, especially with regards to issues like wildlife trafficking, illegal fishing, and climate change. How 

would you, if confirmed as Secretary of State, develop policies and work with the 

international community to address the impacts of wildlife trafficking, illegal fishing, and climate change? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will guide the State Department’s efforts to work through 

multilateral organizations such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to conserve natural resources and combat wildlife trafficking. I will 

also work with countries to enhance resilience and reduce emissions through innoFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

243 

vation and private sector engagement. Finally, I will support international cooperation to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing that creates an 

unfair advantage in the marketplace over legitimate fishing operations. 

Question 17. As Secretary of State, how will you engage South Korea, Japan, 

China, and Russia before and during talks with Kim Jong Un? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that before, during, and after any 

talks with North Korea, the United States is in close and regular communication 

and coordination with our allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan. Given Russia 

and China’s unique perspectives and influence on this issue, I would, if confirmed, 

engage with these countries where helpful as we work towards the goal of 

denuclearizing the DPRK. 

Question 18. Would you encourage the President to seek UN and congressional 

backing before launching a preventive military strike on North Korea? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. As a last resort, any decision to use military force is a serious decision that 

requires a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time the use of military 

force may be contemplated. As I said at my hearing, working with the Committee 

and Congress can strengthen Administration actions. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

(Questions 1–78) 

Question 1. This week President Trump tweeted out a threat to both Russia and 

Syria. While we all strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, the escalatory 

rhetoric between two great powers is something we need to step back from before 

we spiral into a situation that could lead to a global conflict we have not seen in 

generations. Director Pompeo, in your opinion, does the President have the authority to launch a unilateral strike in Syria without the approval of Congress? 

Answer. I respect Congress’s role in authorizing the use of military force and in 

providing oversight on these issues. While there is a longstanding practice of Presidents of both parties exercising the President’s constitutional authorities to use 

force in certain circumstances without prior Congressional authorization, a determination whether any specific use of military force would fall within the President’s 

authority would require a fact-specific assessment, in consultation with legal experts, at the time the use of military force is contemplated. I believe it is very important to engage actively with Congress on these issues. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue discussing with you and other members issues relating to the use of force and issues relating to the Syrian regime’s unacceptable 

use of chemical weapons. 

Question 2. The President has made clear he intends to withdraw U.S. troops 

from Syria, which is actually a position I support. I believe they lack legal authority 

to be there and risk yet another quagmire with no clear achievable goal. Have you 

supported the President on this issue, or have you argued that U.S. troops should 

stay in Syria? What advice will you give as Secretary of State? 

Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, the President said he wants 

to get out of Syria militarily once ISIS is defeated. This mission is not over, and 

the United States remains committed to eliminating the small area of territory ISIS 

still holds in Syria. If confirmed, it will be my job to guide the diplomacy necessary 

to achieving the President’s objective. As the U.S.-led Coalition continues to make 

gains against ISIS in Syria, it is reasonable to review the overall military and civilian footprint and make adjustments as conditions warrant, while maintaining pressure on ISIS remnants and clandestine networks. 

Question 3. The President’s namesake company—in which he is still invested and 

is managed by his children—is actively engaging in business development in multiple foreign nations. Real estate development, by its nature, depends on government permits and authorization. This poses a huge problem for you—and the American people’s trust in their government. Do you believe that foreign favors or investFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

244 

ments in the Trump Organization raise valid issues under the foreign emoluments 

clause of the U.S. Constitution—a document you are sworn to uphold and protect? 

Answer. If I am confirmed as Secretary of State, I will take an oath to uphold 

and protect the U.S. Constitution for the seventh time in my life. I am fully dedicated to this obligation. Under my leadership, the State Department will follow the 

law, including ethical and constitutional obligations. Issues related to the interpretation and application of the Emoluments clause are presently the subject of ongoing 

litigation, handled by the Department of Justice, and I am not in a position to comment. 

Question 4. How will you ensure the American people’s trust that U.S. foreign policy is not being influenced by the President’s family’s business interests? Can you 

assure us that U.S. foreign policy towards Panama will not be affected by the letter 

that the Trump Organization sent to that country’s President asking for assistance 

with a business dispute, a request the Panamanian government apparently did not 

grant? 

Answer. I have not seen the alleged letter nor can I confirm its contents. If confirmed, I will always act in the best interests of the U.S. government and American 

people. I will never place the interests of any individual or company ahead of those 

of the American people. If confirmed, I will continue to build upon the strong partnership between the United States and Panama. 

Question 5. Can you explain why the President’s foreign policy towards Qatar has 

changed so much recently? This nation went from being an ally of the U.S., to being 

criticized by the President for supporting terrorism as other Arab nations blockaded 

it, to hosting the Emir of Qatar at the White House for a friendly meeting? 

Answer. President Trump believes an immediate resolution to the Gulf dispute is 

not only in the best interest of our Gulf allies, but of the United States, as well. 

President Trump has assessed that a united Gulf Cooperation Council is essential 

to counter Iranian malign influence and defeat terrorists and violent extremists, and 

has personally engaged leaders across the region to emphasize the importance of resolving the Gulf dispute to create a united front against Iran. The President also 

has made clear that all countries, including Qatar and our other partners in the region, must to do more in order to fulfill his call to eradicate terrorism. As he said 

during the visit of His Highness Sheikh Tamim of Qatar, the President deeply appreciates Qatar’s work to stop the funding of terrorism, which includes implementing a memorandum of understanding on counterterrorism cooperation our 

countries signed in 2017. 

Question 6. Are you aware of reports that the Qataris were considering providing 

information to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, but then decided not to? 

Answer. As I stated during my testimony, I am not in a position to talk about 

investigations by the House and Senate Intelligence committees or the Office of the 

Special Counsel. 

Question 7. Do you support continuing the Merida initiative, an initiative meant 

to help the Mexican government and people address the drug problem and revitalize 

their legal system—a major change that is transforming the Mexican legal system 

into an adversarial system similar to our own. Or do you agree with President 

Trump’s previous statements that: The U.S. should stop sending money to our enemies—‘‘That is Mexico and others’’ AND that we should, ‘‘Build a massive wall and 

deduct the costs from Mexican foreign aid! 

Answer. Mexico is a steadfast partner and I understand that the Merida Initiative 

has strengthened our security cooperation. If confirmed, I will ensure Merida remains agile and programs continue to provide measurable progress toward meeting 

our national security priorities to protect the United States from drugs, human 

smuggling, and other transnational crime. 

Question 8. With U.S. farm income down nearly 50% over the past four years, export growth has become a survival imperative for many farm sectors. Cuba is a potentially important market for American corn, wheat and other crops, which have 

quality and transport advantages in Cuba over other competitors. Although farm exports to Cuba are allowed under U.S. law and are consistent with the Administration’s Cuba policy, U.S. agriculture has less than a 15% share of Cuba’s $2 billion 

agribusiness market, primarily because public and private financing for these sales 

remains disallowed under U.S. restrictions imposed decades ago. If confirmed, will 

you support legislation which would promote US-Cuba policies that maximize trade 

gains in the farm and agribusiness sector? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

245 

Answer. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum 

‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ ensures engagement 

between the United States and Cuba advances the interests of the United States, 

such as supporting United States agriculture. Should Congress pass legislation that 

alters the relationship between the United States and Cuba then I would, if confirmed, ensure the Department of State implements it effectively. 

Question 9. Will you support legislation which would expand opportunities for 

U.S. telecom and technology companies to trade with and gain a bigger market 

share in Cuba, with the goal of increasing access to the internet on the island nation? 

Answer. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 

‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ emphasizes efforts to 

support the Cuban people’s access to information through the expansion of internet 

services. The NSPM also directed the Department of State to convene a Cuba Internet Task Force composed of U.S. government and appropriate non-governmental 

representatives to examine the technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba. If confirmed, I would continue to support internet 

access for the Cuban people and will carefully consider any recommendations that 

the Cuba Internet Task Force makes in that regard. 

Question 10. New Mexico’s national labs have played a key role in nonproliferation and weapons monitoring since the dawn of the atomic age. And they played a 

key role in the Iran agreementwhich is why I have strong confidence in the agreement. Do you trust the science behind the Iran agreement and that each pathway 

to create a nuclear weapon has been effectively stopped by the JCPOA? Will you 

be open to briefings from Department of Energy and NNSA officials while you review the JCPOA? 

Answer. The main flaws in the JCPOA’s restrictions are not centered in the 

science of their technical measures, but that in key areas these measures progressively sunset over time. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with DOE 

and NNSA as we work to fix the deal and achieve a better outcome for the United 

States. 

Question 11. Will you engage with the national labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration to address key issues regarding nonproliferation and take a 

science-based approach to countering would be proliferators in the future? 

Answer. I value the expertise of the national labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration. If confirmed, I will welcome opportunities to engage with them 

to develop science-based approaches to counter proliferators. 

Question 12. What is your stance on key multilateral treaties that the United 

States is signatory to but has not ratified.For example: Would you support the ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and do you agree that ratifying 

it would give the United States a stronger hand to address Chinese violations and 

illegal annexations of islands in the South China Sea? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review such multilateral treaties with a view to determining if it is in the continued national interest of the United States to pursue becoming a Party. 

Question 13. Would you support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities in order to ensure that U.S. standards for access by disabled individuals are adopted throughout the world? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will, as part of the Executive Branch’s established process, 

review proposals concerning possible ratification of treaties to which we are not yet 

party and will consult with Congress in that process. Meanwhile, if confirmed, I 

would continue our efforts to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities globally. This includes encouraging and 

assisting interested governments to learn about the development and effective implementation of laws to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. 

Question 14. How will you work to ensure future 123 agreements do not inadvertently empower proliferators, while also supporting U.S. businesses in the nuclear 

industry? 

Answer. All 123 agreements include, at a minimum, the legal requirements listed 

in Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. On their own, these requirements represent the strongest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards required by any nuclear supplier in the world. Beyond these legal requirements, the 

United States has a longstanding policy of seeking to limit the spread of enrichment 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

246 

and reprocessing technologies around the world. A 123 agreement establishes a 

framework of conditions and controls that facilitates commercial transactions by 

U.S. nuclear businesses while supporting strong nonproliferation norms. If confirmed, I will pursue the strongest nonproliferation standards that are achievable 

in all 123 agreement negotiations, while also prioritizing support for the U.S. civil 

nuclear sector, working to create a level playing field for U.S. companies, and advocating for their efforts to build reactors abroad. 

Question 15. Every single administration since Kennedy has worked to negotiate 

reductions to our nuclear arsenal with the Soviet Union and now Russia. What do 

you believe should be the next step in nuclear negotiations after the New START 

treaty concludes? Do you support extending the New START treaty and will you recommend to the President that he work to extend this important treaty? Yes or No. 

Answer. As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states, the United States is willing 

to engage in a prudent arms control agenda, and will seek arms control agreements 

that enhance security, and are verifiable and enforceable. If confirmed, I will consider next steps related to the New START Treaty at the appropriate time, taking 

this into account. 

Question 16. It is very clear that Russia attempted to influence our election. Will 

you stand up strongly to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s hacking of our election system? What will be your message to allies who have also been impacted by Russian 

influence of their election systems? 

Answer. The January 2017 U.S. intelligence community assessment found that 

Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and undermine faith in our democratic 

process. Russia’s objective was to erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow 

doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the 

institutions of the U.S. government. Confidence in the integrity of our election process is the bedrock of our democracy. If confirmed, I will continue to press Russian 

officials against further intrusion in the democratic processes of the United States 

and those of our Allies. 

Question 17. What will your message to the Russian foreign minister be with regards to their attempts to influence the U.S. elections if you are confirmed to serve 

as Secretary of State? 

Answer. The U.S. government has been clear with the Russian government at the 

highest levels that as long as Russia continues its destabilizing activities, including 

interference in U.S. elections, our bilateral relationship will not improve. If confirmed, I will continue to press Russian officials against further intrusion in the 

democratic processes of the United States and those of our Allies. 

Question 18. Do you agree that it is in our national interest to strengthen our security cooperation with Vietnam and that one important way to do that is to work 

with the Vietnamese Ministry of Defense to address the dioxin contamination at the 

Bien Hoa Airbase, as we did at the Danang Airport? 

Answer. Yes. The United States’ comprehensive partnership with Vietnam is a 

key element of the President’s free and open Indo-Pacific strategy to promote peace, 

security, and prosperity in the region. During President Trump’s November 2017 

visit to Vietnam, he and Vietnamese leaders celebrated the conclusion of a joint effort to clean up dioxin at Danang Airport, and affirmed a U.S. commitment to contribute to remediation at Bien Hoa Air Base. 

Question 19. Colombia is one of our strongest allies in the western hemisphere. 

How will you work to support the peace agreement and will you continue the bipartisan efforts to support the rule of law and counternarcotics work in Colombia? 

Answer. As the President and Vice President have made clear in their meetings 

with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, the United States strongly supports 

Colombia’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. The Administration believes 

the success of the peace accord is inextricably linked to our shared efforts against 

drug trafficking and other illicit activities. If confirmed, I will continue to work with 

the Colombian government to support the implementation of the peace accord, 

strengthen rule of law, and reverse the alarming growth in coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia. 

Question 20. Former Vice President Biden helped lead the initiative known as the 

Alliance for Prosperity in the northern triangle of Central America. In essence we 

are trying to address multiple issues in these countries which led to a spike in narcotics related violence and a surge of migrants from that region to the U.S. and 

Mexico. President Trump has recently threatened to cut funding to the northern triFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

247 

angle countries. Will you continue to support these initiatives and will you make 

it a priority if you are confirmed? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance 

programs as a part of the U.S. Strategy for Central America to address the high 

levels of violence, lack of economic opportunity, weak institutions, and pervasive corruption that allow transnational criminal organizations to operate and drive illegal 

immigration from Central America to the United States. 

Question 21. What would you recommend the United States do to address the serious problem of ocean pollution, particularly from plastic waste? 

Answer. I support efforts to address this serious problem. I understand that the 

Department of State is working with a wide range of partners—in government, industry, academia, and elsewhere—to help countries craft locally appropriate solutions to these problems. 

Question 22. Do you believe that USAID Administrator Green should be empowered to make his own decisions, without obtaining approval from the State Department, regarding the use of USAID resources for USAID personnel? 

Answer. USAID plays a fundamental role in supporting American foreign policy 

as the lead U.S. government agency on international development and disaster assistance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with USAID Administrator Mark 

Green to ensure that this relationship remains strong and that State Department 

and USAID funding needs are met and supported. 

Question 23. UN humanitarian agencies are often the first on the ground following natural disasters to stave off humanitarian crises by providing medical assistance, clean water, and sanitation programs. Do you feel this is an important element of the UN’s work and worthy of support? What are your views on this type 

of global burden-sharing? 

Answer. The United States has been and remains the largest donor to UN humanitarian agencies. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure that the Department is 

taking appropriate actions to improve the capability of UN agencies by expanding 

the number and type of donors, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian funding and programs, and promoting greater coherence among humanitarian and development programs. 

Question 24. On November 30th, 2016 the Colombian parliament ratified a final 

peace agreement between the government and FARC rebels, ending the longest-running conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Currently, a UN political mission is on 

the ground in Colombia with a mandate to monitor and verify the cessation of hostilities and ensure that the FARC gives up its weapons. Can you talk about the 

UN’s role here and what the U.S. is doing to support it? 

Answer. The United States supports the UN Mission in Colombia through the UN 

Security Council, which is unified in its support of Colombia’s efforts to secure a 

lasting peace. The UN Special Political Mission is tasked with monitoring and 

verifying the bilateral ceasefire, the cessation of hostilities, and the FARC’s disarmament. 

Question 25. As you know, the State Department has previously placed a high priority on global women’s empowerment, gender equity and combating violence 

against women. If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you ensure that 

empowering women is a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the Department continues to empower 

women and girls as leaders, peace-builders, and formal wage-earners in the communities and societies in which they live. 

Question 26. One of the greatest obstacles to advancing women’s empowerment 

and gender equity is a lack of access to quality healthcare. The U.S. government 

has led global efforts to combat preventable maternal deaths through investments 

in maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning, and other critical health 

interventions. Can you commit to our Committee that the State Department and 

USAID will continue to prioritize these lifesaving programs if you are confirmed as 

Secretary of State? 

Answer. I am committed to advancing the health and well-being of women and 

girls globally. These efforts are critical, as the good health of women and girls positively impacts the health, stability and development of their families and communities. 

Question 27. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect Trump made several very troubling statements and comments indicating that in the context of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

248 

counterterrorism he would support waterboarding and other types of torture. If you 

are confirmed, you will be the president’s chief foreign affairs adviser, and the legal 

Bureau of the State Department will have an important role advising the White 

House on international law. Do you agree that waterboarding is torture? 

Answer. The legal issues relating to whether it would be permissible for U.S. personnel to use the interrogation technique commonly referred to as ‘‘waterboarding’’ 

are now settled. Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016 

provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be subjected to any interrogation 

technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual, a limitation echoed in Executive Order 13491. The Army Field Manual does not 

include ‘‘waterboarding’’ among permissible interrogation techniques. Various other 

provisions of U.S. law also govern the treatment and interrogation of detainees in 

U.S. custody. 

Question 28. As Director of the CIA have you ever approved the use of 

waterboarding? 

Answer. No. 

Question 29. Do you agree that other techniques previously utilized by CIA personnel in the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program—including 

painful ‘‘stress positions,’’ subjecting detainees to extreme cold, throwing them into 

walls or hitting them—constitute torture, or are otherwise illegal under U.S. law? 

Answer. Following enactment of Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, U.S. interrogators may not employ any interrogation technique 

that is not listed as permissible in the Army Field Manual to an individual detained 

in any armed conflict. Executive Order 13491 also includes this limit and proscribes 

‘‘outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment).’’ 

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, moreover, provides that no individual in U.S. 

custody shall be subject to ‘‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.’’ 

I continue to believe that all U.S. Government activities relating to detention and 

interrogation should comply with these and all applicable provisions of law in every 

respect. 

Question 30. Given that Congress has now made it clear in U.S. law that U.S. 

interrogators may only use those techniques that are in the U.S. Army Field Manual, and that manual clearly prohibits waterboarding, do you agree that 

waterboarding cannot and should not be used by any U.S. personnel on detainees 

under any circumstances? 

Answer. In light of Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 

2016, when U.S. personnel interrogate a detainee, it would not be lawful to use any 

interrogation technique, including waterboarding, that is not among those that the 

Army Field Manual lists as permissible. 

Question 31. Do you think that core international prohibitions on torture and war 

crimes should be changed? 

Answer. No. 

Question 32. What do you believe would be the impact on America’s credibility 

abroad of resuming renditions or the use of interrogation tactics like those previously used by CIA? 

Answer. To the extent that Congress or the President has acted to proscribe any 

particular activity or interrogation technique, resuming its use would be presumptively illegal under U.S. law. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016 

and Executive Order 13491, as well as various other statutory and policy standards, 

circumscribe CIA’s use of interrogation techniques. I am not aware of any plans to 

resume such activities and cannot speculate on activities that would be unlawful. 

Question 33. If confirmed, how will you work with the Government of Mexico to 

diminish the threat posed to American families by heroin? Will you continue the 

Merida Initiative and support the Mexican government’s efforts to reform its justice 

sector, expand training for civilian police, combat corruption, and protect human 

rights? 

Answer. It is critical that we dismantle transnational criminal organizations that 

profit from the drug trade. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Government of Mexico to support bilateral efforts under the Merida Initiative to protect 

American lives by disrupting the networks that smuggle drugs, cash, and weapons 

across our shared border and fighting the corruption that undermines our joint efforts. I will also support Mexico’s own significant investments to transition to a 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

249 

more transparent, fair, and effective criminal justice system and improve trust in 

law enforcement and justice institutions to strengthen respect for human rights. 

Question 34. Do you support a ban on Muslim immigrationand do you agree that 

it is an unconstitutional religious test? 

Answer. There is no ban on Muslim immigration. On September 24, 2017, the 

President issued a Presidential Proclamation titled ‘‘Enhancing Vetting Capabilities 

and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists 

or other Public-Safety Threats’’ to suspend entry into the United States of certain 

nationals from the following eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, 

Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Administration’s top priority is ensuring the 

safety and security of the American people. If confirmed, I will remain focused on 

raising the baseline for national security standards for admission into the United 

States and work closely with our allies, partners, and willing governments to improve information sharing standards for adjudication of foreign nationals seeking 

entry into the United States. 

Question 35. A bipartisan group of Senators, including Republicans and Democrats on this Committee, have cosponsored legislation to remove restrictions on U.S. 

citizens’ ability to travel to Cuba and to authorize U.S. companies to facilitate greater internet access inside Cuba. Do you believe that current restrictions on the rights 

of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba enhances the cause of freedom for the Cuban people? 

Answer. I understand that as part of the statutory ban on tourism, Congress has 

limited travel to Cuba to fall solely within the 12 authorized travel categories codified in legislation. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum 

(NSPM) ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ reinforces the 

embargo and promotes a policy of adherence to the statutory ban on tourism by directing the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to implement 

regulations that prohibit financial transactions that disproportionately benefit the 

Cuban military, intelligence, and security services at the expense of the Cuban people. I also understand the NSPM sets up an Internet Task force that seeks to expand internet access and freedom in Cuba. These policies seek to enhance the freedoms of the Cuban people, including by improving human rights and by promoting 

democracy and the rule of law. 

Question 36. What is your plan to increase minority recruitment into the Foreign 

Service, and how will you personally address this issue? 

Answer. As I said in my hearing, I believe deeply that the Department of State’s 

workforce must be diverse in every sense of the word. If confirmed, I will seek ways 

to enhance the Department’s mentoring, fellowship, and career development programs to ensure all employees, including those from diverse backgrounds and 

underrepresented groups, have the skills necessary for current and future work assignments. 

Question 37. The NNSA has made tremendous progress with the stockpile stewardship program. In short, our science based efforts to confirm that our stockpile 

is safe, secure, and reliable have workedand have negated the need for testing of 

nuclear weapons. During the debates to consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, this was a significant barrier because the science had not yet matured. Now that 

the science has matured, will you consider support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and will you visit with our experts at NNSA to learn 

more about the stockpile stewardship program? 

Answer. The United States intends to abide by its nuclear explosive testing moratorium and calls on all states possessing nuclear weapons to declare or maintain a 

moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. The United States will also continue to 

support the Comprehensive-Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory 

Commission and its development and operation of the International Monitoring System and its supporting systems, which serve to monitor for nuclear tests and also 

provide collateral benefits. 

Question 38. For the past 20 years, U.S. law has prohibited training and equipment for any unit of a foreign security force that the Secretary of State has credible 

information has committed a gross violation of human rights, such as torture, rape, 

or summary execution of prisoners or civilians. If the Secretary has such information, U.S. aid to that unit is cut off unless the foreign government takes effective 

steps to bring the responsible members of the unit to justice. This law, known as 

the Leahy Law, has helped to prevent U.S. aid from going to perpetrators of the 

worst crimes, and it encourages governments to hold perpetrators accountable and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

250 

enforce the rule of law. Over the years, the law has been praised by top officials 

at the Department of State and the Department of Defense under both Republican 

and Democratic administrations. Do you agree with the intent of the law? Will you 

rigorously enforce the Leahy Law and ensure that the necessary funds are provided 

to support the State Department personnel who implement it? 

Answer. Yes. I support the Leahy law, which prohibits U.S. assistance for a unit 

of foreign security forces where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. If confirmed I will enforce it, and will pursue the necessary resources for that purpose. 

Question 39. Do you support funding for programs to mitigate and respond to the 

impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations where flooding, droughts, loss 

of arable land, and other consequences threaten to displace tens of millions of people? 

Answer. Foreign assistance designed to address these issues is an important component of U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I will promote programs that are effective and consistent with U.S. interests. 

Question 40. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and prevent mass atrocities, or 

should the U.S. refrain from getting involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or property are directly threatened? 

Answer. I believe it is in our national interest to work with partners to mitigate 

conflict and prevent mass atrocities around the world. These conflicts not only have 

dire consequences for the people living in the affected regions, but also impose a significant security and financial burden on Americans and the international community. U.S. foreign assistance programs, particularly when combined with diplomatic 

efforts, can effectively help to mitigate and respond to these threats. These efforts 

need to be tailored in a way that promotes accountability, emphasizes partnership, 

and achieves tangible results. 

Question 41. For many years, U.S. law has conditioned a portion of aid to foreign 

security forces in certain countries with a history of corruption and abuses by such 

forces on progress by their governments in protecting human rights and combatting 

corruption. Do you agree with this approach, or do you think we should provide such 

aid without such conditions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will enforce the Leahy law, which prohibits assistance to 

security forces that engage in gross violations of human rights, and will ensure that 

U.S. taxpayer dollars intended to aid security forces are used for that purpose, including by pressing foreign security partners to increase transparency and eliminate 

corruption. 

Question 42. Do you agree that after more than half a century the U.S. embargo 

against Cuba has failed to achieve any of its principal objectives? 

Answer. No. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum 

‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ reiterates support for 

the embargo and advances a U.S. policy towards Cuba that improves human rights, 

encourages the rule of law, fosters free markets and free enterprise, and promotes 

democracy in Cuba. 

Question 43. Do you support diplomatic relations with Cuba and will you send a 

nominee to serve as Ambassador to the Senate for confirmation? 

Answer. I understand that the June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential 

Memorandum (NSPM) ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ 

maintains our Embassy in Havana and directs that engagement between the United 

States and Cuba that advances U.S. interests continue. If confirmed as Secretary 

of State, I would support diplomatic relations with Cuba, including engagements 

consistent with the NSPM. I also understand the interim Charge ́ d’Affaires in Havana is an experienced Senior Foreign Service Officer who has previously served as 

an ambassador at multiple posts abroad. 

Question 44. As Secretary of State would you travel to Cuba? Would you try to 

prevent others from traveling there? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will not rule out travel to any country to advance U.S. 

interests, however I understand the Department has issued a travel advisory urging 

U.S. citizens to reconsider travel to Cuba. The decision to travel remains at the discretion of the individual in accordance with U.S. law. If confirmed, I will ensure the 

Department continues to provide U.S. citizens with the best possible safety and seFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

251 

curity information so they can make informed decisions before traveling to Cuba or 

any other country. 

Question 45. Do you agree that American citizens and legal residents, whether 

Cuban-Americans or others, should be able to travel freely to Cuba as they can to 

every other country in the world that grants them a visa? 

Answer. I understand that there is a statutory prohibition on travel-related transactions with Cuba unless the travel falls within one of 12 specified categories. The 

June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum on Cuba seeks to ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba and supports the economic 

embargo of Cuba. However, should Congress choose to amend the embargo to allow 

travel to Cuba, and should the President sign such an amendment, I would direct 

the Department of State to implement the law. 

Question 46. Do you agree that the U.S. should help support private entrepreneurs in Cuba with training or other assistance, so they can build businesses, 

market their products and services, and compete with state-owned enterprises? 

Answer. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum 

‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba’’ supports engagement 

between the United States and Cuba that promotes the growth of a Cuban private 

sector independent of government control. If confirmed, I will make sure the Department of State continues to advance U.S. policy towards Cuba that supports the nascent private sector. 

Question 47. Do you support polices that enable U.S. companies to market their 

goods and services in Cuba, and by doing so compete with companies in other countries that do business in Cuba? 

Answer. The June 16, 2017, National Security Presidential Memorandum on Cuba 

reiterates support for the economic embargo of Cuba and seeks to end private economic transactions that disproportionately benefit the Cuban military, intelligence, 

or security services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people. I understand 

that the Department of State works closely with the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS), which administer the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These sanctions regulations authorize 

certain transactions with Cuba. If confirmed, I would ensure the Department continues to work closely with OFAC and BIS on licensing cases in which there is a 

U.S. foreign policy interest, including applications that would enable U.S. companies 

to market their goods and services in Cuba, where consistent with the Administration’s Cuba policy and applicable laws and statutes. 

Question 48. Do you support cooperation between the U.S. military, Coast Guard, 

and other law enforcement agencies and the Cuban military and security services 

on such issues as narcotics and human trafficking, maritime security, counter-terrorism, and search and rescue? 

Answer. On June 16, 2017, the President signed a National Security Presidential 

Memorandum (NSPM), ‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward 

Cuba,’’ that described how the United States would address our policy toward Cuba 

consistent with U.S. interests. As directed by the NSPM, I understand that the Administration has continued to engage with the Cubans on matters that advance U.S. 

interests, including engagements that protect national security, address law enforcement issues and migration, promote maritime safety, search and rescue, and enforce 

final orders of removal against Cuban nationals in the United States. If confirmed, 

I commit to maintaining bilateral engagement with the Cuban government that is 

in the U.S. national interest consistent with the NSPM and applicable statutory requirements. 

Question 49. The United States has been a global conservation leader in combating transnational wildlife crime and saving imperiled species. Wildlife trafficking 

is a lucrative enterprise worth tens of billions of dollars and has undermined the 

rule of law of our allies and trading partners at the range, transit and source countries. The involvement of criminal syndicates, African armed militias, and terrorist 

organizations is particularly alarming. The enactment of Eliminate, Neutralize, and 

Disrupt (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act last October illustrates the high-profile attention and broad bipartisan support the United States Congress has given to this 

issue. Mr. Tillerson, will you continue the State Department’s work with this Congress and concerned countries across the globe to further the international community’s effort to tackle the pernicious poaching and trafficking crisis? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I, Mike Pompeo, will work with Congress, other federal 

agencies, and the international community to combat wildlife trafficking. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

252 

Question 50. Your predecessor failed to appoint a Special Envoy for the Human 

Rights of LGBTI Persons, despite having made a commitment to appoint one. Will 

you commit to working expeditiously to appoint a Special Envoy for the Human 

Rights of LGBTI Persons? 

Answer. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s prior commitment, I 

intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. 

Question 51. In response to signals that the Trump Administration may act less 

aggressively on climate change, leading Chinese officials have stated that they will 

continue to act aggressively to reduce their emissions and that they will take on 

more international leadership around climate change—including establishing a national carbon market and investing hundreds of billions in clean energy at home and 

abroad. Are we putting the nation at a disadvantage internationally by ceding U.S. 

leadership on climate change to China? 

Answer. The United States remains a leader in innovation and technology to combat climate change. If confirmed, I will make sure the United States demonstrates 

leadership on this issue and protects the interests of the American people, including 

by ensuring the Department continues its focus on innovation, next-generation energy technology, and on achieving a dominant role in international energy. 

Question 52. Do you agree that U.S. withdrawal from international agreements, 

including the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, which all countries support and 

which are top priorities for our most important allies are a destabilizing action and 

weaken not only our diplomatic relations with our allies but also compromise our 

national security? 

Answer. I share the President’s position that the Paris Agreement places an 

undue burden on the United States and we should work to find terms of participation that are fairer. The United States remains a Party to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and with foreign counterparts on a way forward on this issue that is consistent 

with U.S. interests. 

Question 53. PEPFAR has provided access to life-saving medicines, prophylactics, 

and services to over 12 million needy people around the world. Some health care 

providers and even some governmental partners that receive U.S. funding have refused to provide HIV/AIDS services to LGBTI populations—thereby reducing the effectiveness of taxpayer-supported programs aimed at HIV/AIDS prevention and 

care. Would you commit to ensuring that health services such as these are not denied to populations in need and how would you do so? 

Answer. PEPFAR provides life-saving HIV treatment to over 13 million people 

around the world and supports specific initiatives to expand key populations’ (including LGBTI) access to and retention in quality HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment services. If confirmed, I will ensure that PEPFAR continues to use the latest 

science and the best available data to deliver the greatest possible impact to ensure 

epidemic control of the HIV pandemic. 

Question 54. Are you aware of whether anyone on the Presidential team, or connected with the Trump campaign, discussed your possible nomination with any representatives of a foreign government or foreign national before the President announced his intention to nominate you for this position? 

Answer. No. 

Question 55. As the nation’s top diplomat, how will you build relationships of trust 

with the representatives of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, particularly given these 

past statements you have made about Muslims that have been interpreted as antiMuslim by many faith leaders? 

Answer. I will treat persons of each faith or no faith with the dignity and respect 

that they deserve, as I have done during my tenure at the CIA. In this capacity, 

I have worked closely with Muslim leaders and with governments of Muslim countries. Working with leaders of all faiths is at the core of who I am. If confirmed, 

I will work toward creating a more diverse State Department work force in every 

sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. As I have done at the CIA, 

I will achieve this by focusing on the mission and treating every team member with 

dignity and respect. 

Question 56. In your estimation, is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 

important to U.S. national security? Why or why not? 

Answer. Yes. It is in the U.S. interest to prevent the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons, and the NPT is an essential tool in that effort. The NPT is the foundation 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

253 

of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime that successive Administrations 

have built and strengthened over the last fifty years. If confirmed, I intend to continue to support those efforts. 

Question 57. Article VI of the NPT obligates parties to pursue disarmament measures in good faith. How will you work to uphold this obligation as Secretary of 

State? 

Answer. The Administration has reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, including 

Article VI. The Nuclear Posture Review notes that the United States remains committed to its efforts in support of the ultimate global elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile by 

88 percent since its Cold War high, and has met the New START Treaty’s central 

limits. However, the NPR also acknowledges reduced prospects for arms control 

until Russia returns to compliance with existing treaty commitments. The Administration is focused on an approach to disarmament based on creating conditions for 

nuclear disarmament, including by pressing for compliance with existing nonproliferation and arms control agreements. 

Question 58. In 2002 President Bush sought Congress’ explicit authorization prior 

to using military force against Iraq. The Trump administration has said it believes 

it has the authority to move forward with a preventive strike on North Korea under 

Article II powers. If confirmed would you recommend to President Trump that he 

similarly secure Congress’ explicit authorization before launching a preventive attack on North Korea? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Administration is not seeking an authorization to use military force 

against North Korea from Congress, and any decision to use military force is a most 

serious decision that requires a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time 

the use of military force is contemplated. 

Question 59. Would you continue to serve as secretary of state if the president 

rejected your recommendation that he seek Congress’ explicit authorization prior to 

launching a preventive attack on North Korea? 

Answer. Decisions to use military force are among the most consequential decisions a President can make. If confirmed, I will always give the President my best 

advice on all issues of foreign policy, including those involving the use of force. 

Question 60. Does the Department of State have the adequate staff and experts 

available to coordinate and manage a summit between President Trump and Kim 

Jong Un? Why is there no U.S. Ambassador in Seoul? When will someone be nominated for that position? 

Answer. Yes, the State Department has a roster of capable and experienced diplomats, from both the Foreign and Civil Service, working on Korea policy in domestic assignments and overseas and in collaboration with other relevant U.S. government agencies. Our Charge d’Affaires in Seoul is a very experienced diplomat and 

Korea expert. One of my priorities, if confirmed, will be to fill vacancies in important ambassadorships and other senior positions. 

Question 61. During your confirmation hearing, you would not rule out a first 

strike on North Korea. Do you agree with National Security Advisor John Bolton 

that we should carry out a so-called, ‘‘preventive’’ first strike on North Korea to 

strengthen our hand at the negotiating table? 

Answer. If confirmed, my role and focus as Secretary of State will be to solve the 

DPRK issue through diplomacy and negotiations. The President has made it clear 

that all options are on the table. 

Question 62. Do you agree with NSA John Bolton that negotiations with North 

Korea are ‘‘a waste of time,’’ mean ‘‘nothing,’’ and they should only be used to make 

an (unrealistic) ultimatum for instant denuclearization to justify subsequent military action? 

Answer. North Korea has confirmed its willingness to talk about denuclearization. 

I support the President’s decision to create conditions so that the President and Kim 

Jong Un can sit together to begin to resolve this incredibly difficult challenge. This 

will set the course for achieving a diplomatic outcome that America and the world 

are seeking. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

254 

Question 63. If the president withdraws from the JCPOA deal, but the rest of the 

P5+1 and Iran continue to implement the agreement, do you believe the U.S. would 

have legal justification to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities? 

Answer. The Administration’s objective is to fix the deficiencies in the JCPOA, 

and there is an active policy discussion around this issue that is continuing. If the 

President decides to withdraw the United States from the JCPOA, I will continue 

to focus on the ultimate goal we share with Europe and other partners to prevent 

Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon and I will find ways we can work together. 

Question 64. Please articulate what you believe the U.S. diplomatic strategy to resolving the civil war in Yemen should be. 

Answer. The Administration has consistently emphasized the importance of a political settlement, but the differences between the parties to the conflict must be resolved directly. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the new UN 

Envoy to advance a political solution in Yemen. The UN Envoy has the difficult task 

of developing a balanced framework to guide future negotiations and a political 

process. If confirmed, I will contribute U.S. expertise and leadership to this effort 

and work closely with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and 

Oman, to generate progress. 

Question 65. Please define what you believe are the U.S. national interests in 

Yemen. 

Answer. Preventing terrorist attacks against the homeland and ending the conflict 

in Yemen are key components of our national security interests with respect to 

Yemen. Defeating ISIS-Yemen and AQAP, countering Iran’s nefarious activities in 

the region, and reducing the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people, all hinge 

on the resolution of this conflict. AQAP, ISIS-Yemen, and Iran are manipulating the 

security vacuum created by the conflict to expand their influence in Yemen and 

threaten both the United States homeland and U.S. interests. 

Question 66. In recent years many stolen Native American sacred objects have 

turned up in auction houses, primarily in Europe in attempt to circumvent U.S. 

laws designed to prevent the trafficking of sacred, and culturally sensitive items domestically. Most notably in 2015, a sacred shield stolen from the Pueblo of Acoma 

in the 1970s was put up for sale at the EVE Auction House in Paris. Following 

widespread protests of the sale from myself, my congressional colleagues, the Acoma 

Pueblo and with help from the State Department and the Department of the Interior, the sale was cancelled. In 2016, a U.S. District Judge approved a warrant requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Mexico to recover the shield. Unfortunately the shield has not made its way back to the Pueblo of Acoma. If confirmed, 

do I have your commitment to work with your French counterparts to return the 

shield to the Pueblo of Acoma? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with you to address this 

issue. 

Question 67. If confirmed, do I have your commitment to work with me and my 

staff to ensure that the repatriation of these sacred Native American and culturally 

sensitive items remains a priority for the State Department? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department works with you and your 

staff on this important issue. 

Question 68. There are serious concerns about Qatar and the United Arab Emirates providing subsidies and unfair benefits to their state-owned airlines and, in so 

doing, flouting Open Skies agreement and putting U.S. jobs and U.S. domestic air 

carriers at risk. The Administration took a meaningful step forward earlier this year 

when it reached an agreement with Qatar, which demonstrates seriousness about 

ending illegal subsidies and enforcing our trade agreements. There is still important 

work left to do, however. Namely (1) monitoring the agreement with Qatar to ensure 

that all sides abide by the terms of the agreement; and (2) pursuing a similar agreement with the UAE. Will you commit to pursuing these two objectives? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support enforcing our Open Skies agreements and 

would commit to leveling the playing field to ensure U.S. companies have an opportunity to succeed globally. This means fighting practices that adversely affect fair 

and equal competition. 

Question 69. Will you commit to meeting the Dalai Lama, whether in the United 

States or during your travel, and to express to him the United States’ support for 

his peaceful struggle for Tibetan rights? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

255 

Answer. If confirmed, I will fully implement the Tibetan Policy Act. State Department officials, should meet with Tibetan representatives whenever appropriate, including the Dalai Lama in his capacity as an important spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. If confirmed, I will call on China to provide meaningful autonomy for 

Tibetans and express U.S. concerns about restrictions on the rights of Tibetans and 

other ethnic and religious minorities in China. 

Question 70. The major rivers of Asia that flow from the Tibetan Plateau and are 

subject to current and potential dam and diversion projects by China. These projects 

are planned and implemented without the proper involvement of all stakeholders, 

including the Tibetan people. India and other governments in Asia are increasingly 

worried about China’s plans to dam rivers originating in Tibet which serve over a 

billion people downstream. Would you raise the need to fully involve all stakeholders in the preservation of Tibet’s fragile watershed with the Chinese authorities? Would you call on the Chinese authorities to engage China’s neighbors for the 

development of a regional framework on water security? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage all countries to manage their water resources soundly and to cooperate on the management of shared waters. I will urge 

China to make decisions on dams and other major water-related infrastructure 

needs deliberatively, based on the best science available, and in transparent consultation with all affected stakeholders. I will also sustain our own cooperation with 

neighboring countries through the Lower Mekong Initiative and other U.S.-led 

mechanisms. 

Question 71. Do you support the provision of security assistance to Israel in accordance with the 2016 U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding? 

Answer. Yes. The United States has a deep and abiding commitment to Israel’s 

security. With the support of sustained U.S. security assistance, Israel has developed one of the most advanced, formidable militaries in the world. If confirmed, I 

will continue close consultation with Congress in support of our unwavering security 

commitment towards Israel. 

Question 72. Will you support the policy of President Reagan and his successors 

that the United States will not support any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period? And will you call, as President Reagan and 

his successors did, for settlement freeze by Israel? Yes or no? 

Answer. The Administration has said that while settlements are not in themselves an impediment to peace, further unrestrained settlement activity does not 

help advance peace. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s 

efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and 

comprehensive peace. 

Question 73. Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that he wants a ‘‘Palestinian mini 

state.’’ A ‘‘mini-state’’ would be distinct from a ‘‘two-state’’ solution. It would be a 

‘‘state’’ in name only and would be perpetually dependent on Israel. Some would say 

that, given the separation of West Bank communities—which increasingly are no 

longer contiguous due to Israeli settlements, checkpoints, and road systems—this 

would be akin to a Bantustan. Do you support Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal 

for a mini-state or will you send a strong message that a two-state solution should 

be supported? 

Answer. On December 6, 2017, the President recognized Jerusalem as the capital 

of Israel and announced we would move our Embassy to Jerusalem. He also said 

that he would support a two-state solution if the parties agree. If confirmed, I look 

forward to supporting the Administration’s efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and comprehensive peace. 

Question 74. In your opinion, are settlements that break up the possibility of a 

future contiguous Palestinian state harmful to achieving a two state solution? 

Answer. The Administration has said that while settlements are not in themselves an impediment to peace, further unrestrained settlement activity does not 

help advance peace. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Administration’s 

efforts to create the conditions for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and 

comprehensive peace. 

Question 75. How will you work to urge other countries to press the Palestinians 

to put an end to incitement and violence against Israelis? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure all such instances of incitement to violence are thoroughly addressed, including by engaging our partners in the region 

and around the world to press the Palestinian leadership to address our concerns. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

256 

Question 76. What is your plan to address and oppose the boycott, divestment, 

and Sanctions movement and will you make it a priority to urge other countries and 

organizations not to join this movement? 

Answer. The United States government strongly opposes boycotts, divestment 

campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel. Boycotts of Israel are 

unhelpful and do not contribute to an environment conducive to peace. It is my understanding that the Department of State and its embassies overseas regularly engage with governments, international organizations, and other entities to oppose 

such activities. If confirmed, I will continue the fight against all efforts to isolate 

or delegitimize the State of Israel. 

Question 77. In order for the United States to honor its commitment under Articles 23 and 24 of the Declaration of Human Rights, will you work with unions and 

other organizations to protect the right to free choice of employment; the right to 

just and favorable conditions of work; the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours; and the right to worker safety and to equal pay 

for equal work? 

Answer. I support a fair global playing field for workers in the United States and 

around the world. If confirmed, I will enforce trade commitments, strengthen labor 

standards, and combat child labor and forced labor. 

Question 78. Are you the beneficiary or trustee of any discretionary trust that has 

not been fully disclosed to the Committee of the Office of Government Ethics? If so, 

please provide detailed information about the trust(s). 

Answer. No. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY

(Questions 1–11) 

Question 1. SYRIA/LEGAL AUTHORIZATION: Do you agree there is a legitimate public interest in disclosing the legal rationale for the use of military force? Will you 

commit to providing this committee with a detailed and timely explanation of the 

legal rationale for any use of force in Syria against the Assad government? Will you 

also commit to providing this committee with the memo prepared by the Office of 

Legal Counsel for the purpose of advising the Attorney General regarding the legal 

bases for the April 6 strike against the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria? 

Answer. As I indicated in my hearing, I commit to work alongside members of 

the Committee to provide as much information as possible on this topic. The Department of Justice is outside of my purview as Secretary of State. 

Question 2. Does the Administration currently have the legal authority to maintain ground forces in Syria for the purposes of countering Iranian influence and activities? 

Answer. The United States has legal authority to prosecute the campaign against 

al-Qa’ida and associated forces in Syria, including against the Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria (ISIS). This legal authority includes the 2001 Authorization for the Use 

of Military Force (AUMF), which authorizes the use of military force against these 

groups. 

Question 3. YEMEN: The United States is providing military support to the Saudiled coalition for its military intervention into Yemen’s civil war with the goal of reasserting the authority of President Hadi’s government throughout Yemen. Please 

articulate what you believe the U.S. diplomatic strategy to resolving the civil war 

in Yemen should be. Do you agree that the humanitarian crisis and resulting food 

insecurity has a significant impact on security interests in Yemen, including the 

ability of radical groups to recruit from an increasingly desperate population? Saudi 

officials have privately stated their intent to continue the military strategy and are 

not currently contemplating serious negotiations; do you believe the U.S. should 

apply any additional pressure to the Saudi-led coalition to negotiate towards a political solution to this war? 

Answer. Yes, I agree that the humanitarian crisis is not only horrific in its own 

right but detrimental to U.S. interests. ISIS-Yemen and AQAP will attempt to take 

advantage of the instability to expand their influence. I fully agree that the conflict 

has gone on too long. The differences between the parties to the conflict must be 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

257 

resolved directly. If confirmed, I will work closely with the UN envoy to advance 

a political solution. I understand new UN Special Envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths 

is developing a framework for building confidence before entering into comprehensive negotiations between the parties. If confirmed, I will contribute U.S. expertise 

and leadership to this effort. I will work with regional partners including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman to generate progress. At the same time, the Administration 

will continue to urge all sides, including the Saudi-led Coalition, to ensure 

unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance and commercial goods—including 

food, fuel, and medicine—to reach Yemen. 

Question 4. YEMEN/UAE: In June 2017, the Associated Press documented at least 

18 clandestine lockups across southern Yemen that are run by the United Arab 

Emirates (UAE) or by Yemeni forces trained by the UAE. Dozens of people have reportedly been forcibly disappeared or arbitrarily detained in these secret prisons 

where torture is common practice. Rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, 

have independently documented these abuses. The United States is a party to the 

conflict in Yemen as we provide aerial refueling to coalition aircraft on bombing missions and intelligence to the coalition. If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, 

would you commit to conduct a thorough, transparent investigation into the reported torture in secret detention sites by the United Arab Emirates and Yemeni 

forces trained by the United Arab Emirates, as well as any US government participation and/or knowledge? 

Answer. I understand U.S. officials have raised concerns about these allegations 

with UAE government counterparts and have urged the UAE to conduct a thorough 

investigation of the allegations. If confirmed, I will press the UAE government to 

conduct a thorough investigation of these practices, and to allow the International 

Committee of the Red Cross to have regular access to these centers. I will make 

clear the importance of adherence to international law, including the law of armed 

conflict and the requirement to treat detainees humanely. 

Question 5. Do you believe that the United States is bound by the Convention 

against Torture’s transfer provisions outside of the US? If not, will you commit to 

apply to the convention’s standards on transfer as a matter of policy as the prior 

administration did? If so, will you ensure that this policy is enforced? Will you commit to ensuring that the US never transfers anyone from US custody to a government or non-state armed group when they are likely to face torture? 

Answer. It has been the position of the United States that Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture is not applicable as a legal matter to transfers occurring outside of U.S. sovereign territory. However, it is the long-standing policy of the United 

States not to transfer an individual to a country where it is more likely than not 

that he or she will be tortured. This policy applies the Convention Against Torture 

standard to all transfers by the United States. It is reflected in Section 2224(a) of 

the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which provides that ‘‘it 

shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect 

the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial 

grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, 

regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.’’ I am 

committed to following this policy in carrying out my duties as Secretary of State, 

if confirmed. 

Question 6. What do you believe is the role of the Secretary of State of the United 

States with respect to allegations of torture and other forms of abuse by allies? 

Answer. Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are 

prohibited in all places and at all times. Working with allies to ensure respect for 

international law, including human rights, is an important part of the role of the 

Secretary of State. The United States has a wide range of tools available to address 

such allegations, including bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, foreign assistance, reporting and public outreach, and economic sanctions. If confirmed, I will 

deploy these tools, as necessary, to promote respect for human rights obligations 

and commitments by allies. If confirmed I will also continue to enforce U.S. laws, 

such as the Leahy law, which prohibits the provision of U.S. assistance to a unit 

of foreign security forces where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, including torture. 

Question 7. EGYPT: Secretary Tillerson withheld $195 million in assistance to 

Egypt, pending resolution of the trial against international NGOs. An April 5 ruling 

will result in a retrial in the case. Will you commit to maintaining the hold on $195 

million in assistance to Egypt until all 43 defendants are exonerated or, short of 

that, pardoned? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

258 

Answer. The Administration is working with Egypt at the highest levels to resolve 

this issue. If confirmed, I would be happy to discuss my assessment of the situation 

in a classified setting. It is my understanding that the State Department is still assessing the implications of the April 5 decision of the Egyptian Court of Cassation, 

which has not yet been published in full, but it is encouraged by the apparent referral to a retrial of all of the defendants who filed the appeal. If confirmed, I will ensure that we stay in regular contact with the affected NGOs on this matter, and 

I will insist on an outcome that is acceptable to the United States, the affected 

NGOs, and the individual defendants. 

Question 8. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 9645: Constituents in my home state 

have reached out to my office with issues related to the implementation of President 

Proclamation 9645 (PP 9645). If confirmed, would you be willing to share with Congress documents associated with the implementation of PP 9645 such as guidance 

documents provided to consular offices on the implementation of the proclamation 

and the process for granting waivers for visa applicants? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would be pleased to continue consultations with Congress 

on the Proclamation and its implementation. On September 24, 2017, the President 

issued a Presidential Proclamation titled ‘‘Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other 

Public-Safety Threats’’ to suspend entry into the United States of certain nationals 

from the following eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Every year, the United States grants lawful permanent resident status or nonimmigrant visas to individuals from all across the world, 

including from Muslim-majority countries. The Administration’s top priority is ensuring the safety and security of the American people. If confirmed, I will remain 

focused on raising the baseline for national security standards for admission into 

the United States and work closely with our allies, partners, and willing governments to improve information sharing standards for adjudication of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. For example, on April 10, the President 

lifted the suspension on entry into the U.S. for Chadian nationals following ongoing 

dialogue between the United States and the Government of Chad, and the Government of Chad’s improving its passport security and information sharing with the 

United States. 

Question 9. Furthermore, can you provide the following data? The total number 

of applications for nonimmigrant and immigrant visas from the countries effected 

by President Proclamation 9645. The number of applicants refused for reasons unrelated to the proclamation. The number of applicants qualifying for an exception. The 

number of applicants who failed to meet the criteria for a waiver. The number of 

applicants refused under the proclamation with waiver consideration. The number 

of waivers approved. 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department briefs Congress on implementation of the Proclamation, taking the sensitivity of the information into account. 

Question 10. DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING IN NATO ALLIES: The 2017 National Security Strategy said that ‘‘Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners. Russia views the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU) as threats.’’ Yet today, it seems that divisions largely resultant from democratic backsliding among certain NATO allies 

are doing much of Russia’s work for it, in terms of weakening an alliance founded 

explicitly on ‘‘the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.’’ 

Do you believe that democratic backsliding in certain NATO member states like 

Hungary, Turkey and Poland inhibits these states’ ability to contribute to our 

shared security, or to be strong allies of the United States? If so, what more should 

the United States be saying and doing to ensure that our allies maintain strong institutions, independent media, and free and fair elections? 

Answer. The United States expects our NATO allies to be strong partners. This 

strength entails meeting their commitments to uphold the values of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Washington Treaty, as well 

as demonstrating a shared commitment to our common defense. If confirmed, I will 

continue to work with our allies to promote our shared transatlantic principles, as 

well as to foster bilateral cooperation that advances U.S. interests. 

Question 11. FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS: The 

United States has been a global leader in advancing family planning worldwide for 

five decades. According to the UN, some 214 million women in developing regions 

who want to avoid pregnancy are not using safe and effective family planning methods, for reasons ranging from lack of access to information or services to lack of supFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

259 

port from their partners or communities. In Africa, as many as one in five women 

have an unmet need for family planning. Family planning funding is cost effective. 

Spending one dollar for contraceptive services reduces the cost of pregnancy-related 

care, including care for women living with HIV, by $1.47. Will you pledge to continue, and build on, the bipartisan legacy of U.S. support for international family 

planning programs? Will you continue to support our critical contributions to 

UNFPA, which is currently raising awareness about child marriage and providing 

maternal care to thousands of Syrian refugees? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support longstanding international family planning programs in developing countries. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR TIM KAINE

(Questions 1–29) 

Question 1. Over approximately the past 20 years, U.S. personnel working in diplomatic missions overseas have faced increasing threats to their safety and security, 

including numerous attacks in high-risk locations-perhaps most notably, the 2012 

attack on our facilities in Benghazi. These threats have been heightened in part due 

to policy decisions to keep staff in locations that previously would have been deemed 

too dangerous for U.S. personnel. In your opinion, what is the right balance between 

the security of our diplomats and effective engagement overseas? 

Answer. Security conditions faced by our foreign affairs community overseas are 

constantly evolving, but the need to operate globally and carry out our diplomatic 

mission remains. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department constantly assesses the 

threat environment in which our people live and work, mitigating risk with all the 

tools at our disposal, and making informed risk management decisions. My objective 

will always be to ensure U.S. personnel working in our diplomatic missions overseas 

are able to carry out their duties in as safe and secure an environment as possible 

while continuing to conduct the forward-leaning expeditionary diplomacy America 

must have. 

Question 2. In recent years, the State Department has been the victim of several 

cyberattacks. Ineffective protection of cyber assets can lead to disclosure of sensitive 

information and threaten national security. What steps would you take to prevent 

future cyberattacks against the State Department? Do you share former Secretary 

Tillerson’s goals of modernizing the Department’s IT infrastructure? 

Answer. I agree that the State Department faces increasingly capable cyber 

attackers. If confirmed, I will review all options to protect the Department against 

cyber-attacks and will look to experts, both internally and across the government 

and industry, to strengthen the Department’s resilience to cyber-attacks. I believe 

that IT modernization is a step that all organizations must undertake in the face 

of increasingly diverse cyber threats. 

Question 3. For several years, major U.S. air carriers have contended that national carriers Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways are being subsidized by their 

governments in violation of the letter and spirit of the U.S.-UAE and U.S.-Qatar 

Open Skies Agreements. The U.S. Departments of State and Transportation have 

been looking into these allegations since the previous Administration. I appreciate 

that the UAE and Qatar are allies in a volatile region and that this matter has a 

national security dimension that similar Open Skies disputes elsewhere lack. However, if financial and legal experts can clearly establish that illegal subsidies are 

being made, the United States government should act to defend U.S. companies and 

jobs. To what extent do you see these concerns as well-founded? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support enforcing Open Skies agreements and leveling the playing field to ensure U.S. companies have an opportunity to succeed 

globally. This means fighting practices that adversely affect fair and equal competition. I would also support the Department’s leadership on efforts to implement understandings reached in January 2018 with Qatar that address U.S. industry concerns regarding subsidized competition, while maintaining the Open Skies Framework of U.S. international aviation policy. I understand that stakeholders have responded favorably to those understandings with Qatar, and I would work to reach 

a similar outcome with the United Arab Emirates. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

260 

Question 4. Members of Radio Free Asia’s Uyghur Service have family members 

in China who are jailed, missing, or detained. Some are held in notorious re-education camps, which function like open-air prisons with poor conditions, holding 

thousands of Uyghur people at a time. These detained or missing family members 

are those of U.S.-based journalists who daily expose the abuses happening in their 

former homeland at the hands of Chinese authorities. What can the State Department do to advocate for their release? If confirmed, will you commit to raising this 

issue with the Chinese government? 

Answer. I am deeply troubled by the increasing number of these reports. If confirmed, I will raise my concerns about the Radio Free Asia cases and the deteriorating situation in Xinjiang directly with the Chinese government. I will also push 

for the Chinese government to free those arbitrarily detained, including the families 

of RFA journalists, and end the counter-productive, repressive measures that Chinese authorities are carrying out in Xinjiang. 

Question 5. In 2002 President Bush sought Congress’ explicit authorization prior 

to using military force against Iraq. If confirmed would you recommend to President 

Trump that he similarly secure Congress’ explicit authorization before launching a 

preventive attack on North Korea? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. 

The Administration is not seeking an authorization to use military force against 

North Korea from Congress, and any decision to use military force is a most serious 

decision that requires a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time the 

use of military force is contemplated. As I said in my hearing, working with the 

Committee and Congress can strengthen Administration actions. 

Question 6. What is your diplomatic strategy for engaging our South Korean and 

Japanese allies before the upcoming summit with Kim Jong-Un and President 

Trump? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that before, during, and after talks 

the United States is in close communication and coordination with our allies, the 

Republic of Korea and Japan. As you know, diplomatic consultations with these allies, and others, related to North Korea have been underway for many months and 

have intensified in recent weeks. 

Question 7. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you commit to sharing publicly 

and with my office and Congress any results of completed, ongoing, or future atrocities investigations or documenting efforts covering events in Rakhine State that are 

either sponsored by, ordered by or worked in coordination with the Department of 

State? 

Answer. If confirmed, in order to promote accountability in Burma, I would support State Department efforts to investigate and document human rights abuses 

that occurred in Rakhine State, Burma. The information collected through such efforts will help to identify perpetrators, uncover patterns of abuses and violations, 

map incidents, and determine the sequence of events. It is my understanding that 

the State Department plans to make the conclusions available to Congress. 

Question 8. With Russian support, extreme right-wing parties are gaining prominence and democratic norms, such as transparency and tolerance, are increasingly 

under attack across Europe, in countries like Hungary and Austria. How will you 

defend western democracies from increasing Russian influence? 

Answer. I share concern about Russia’s increasing aggressive actions against our 

close allies in Europe and elsewhere. The United States’ strong transatlantic alliance is built on a foundation of shared democratic norms and values. If confirmed, 

I will engage our allies and partners to reinforce and advance our shared democratic 

norms and values. I will also work to build on efforts already undertaken by the 

State Department and others to counter Russian disinformation and malign influence and to counter vulnerabilities, particularly among the countries of Central and 

Eastern Europe. 

Question 9. Are you concerned about the shrinking of democratic space in Eastern 

Europe and the increasing pressure on independent media and civil society? 

Answer. The United States works closely with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and relies on these countries, especially its NATO Allies, to be strong 

partners that preserve media freedom and robust civil society. My understanding is 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

261 

that the State Department routinely expresses concerns regarding pressure against 

independent media and civil society. Such pressure can not only undermine democracy but also feed Russian propaganda narratives. If confirmed, I will continue to 

work with our Allies and partners to promote our shared transatlantic principles, 

including media freedom, the separation of powers, and a market economy, as well 

as to foster bilateral cooperation that advances U.S. interests. 

Question 10. Do you believe it is in our national security interest to have a strong 

and united European Union? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 11. After a contested electoral process in Honduras, at least 37 people 

have been killed in post-electoral violence, the majority of them protesters killed by 

official security forces, largely the Military Police, as security forces shot live ammunition into crowds of people protesting alleged electoral fraud. Former and current 

members of the Honduran government also face allegations of large-scale corruption 

and links of police officials to drug trafficking. 

The Honduran executive branch and legislature have recently taken steps to block 

anti-corruption investigations and to limit the rights of journalists and human 

rights defenders. How can the United States use bilateral diplomacy to press the 

Honduran government to investigate corruption, resolve the discrepancies in its last 

presidential election, and ensure that all Honduran citizens, are free to exercise 

their rights to freedom of expression? 

Answer. I am concerned about the deaths of individuals and security forces following the November 2017 presidential election in Honduras. If confirmed, I will 

urge the Honduran government to investigate these allegations in a timely and 

transparent manner. I will also continue to support and monitor the ongoing process 

to establish a national dialogue in Honduras and the enactment of electoral reforms 

to strengthen confidence in Honduras’ democratic institutions. Finally, the Administration, through the U.S. Strategy for Central America, supports Honduran efforts— 

complemented by international institutions—to curb corruption, and I intend to continue this support. 

Question 12. Colombia is experiencing the lowest level of violence in forty years. 

Yet this all could unravel—organized crime and paramilitary successor groups are 

moving into areas vacated by the FARC; assassinations of local human rights defenders and community leaders have escalated; demobilized guerrillas could rearm 

if reintegration programs are inadequate. How will the United States help to ensure 

the promise of the Colombian peace accords are fulfilled? If confirmed, would you 

play a role in leading that diplomatic effort? 

Answer. As the President and Vice President have made clear in their meetings 

with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, the United States strongly supports 

Colombia’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. Colombia remains one of the 

United States’ strongest partners in the region, and successful implementation of 

the peace accord is in the national interest of both nations. Protecting civil society, 

including human rights defenders and community leaders, from violence is essential 

to ensuring that the promise of the accord is fulfilled. U.S. assistance plays a key 

role in supporting implementation. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the 

Colombian government to support the implementation of the peace accord. 

Question 13. Yemen: The war in Yemen began more than three years ago. Since 

that time, more than 10,000 people have been killed, 2.2 million children suffer from 

malnutrition, and at least 1,000 Yemeni children die every week from preventable 

diseases. As the Saudi-led coalition continues to bomb the country, including civilian 

targets such as schools, hospitals, and funerals, the stalemate has allowed extremist 

groups like al Qaeda and ISIS to take over large swaths of territory. Should the 

U.S. continue to provide aerial refueling to Saudi jets to continue bombing, or pause 

that kind of military cooperation until a peace deal? 

Answer. The situation in Yemen is a tragedy. The Administration recognizes that 

long-term stability in Yemen depends on a political settlement, and we are supporting the efforts of the new UN Envoy to restart negotiations. The Administration 

has communicated serious concerns about civilian casualties resulting from the 

Saudi-led Coalition’s air campaign and continues to consult with the Saudis on ways 

to reduce harm to civilians from their air campaign. If confirmed, I pledge to bolster 

these efforts. At the same time, pressing Saudi Arabia to implement a unilateral 

ceasefire would give the advantage to the Houthis and Iran in the conflict. The limited U.S. support for the Saudi-led Coalition serves a clear purpose: to reinforce 

Saudi and Emirati sovereignty in the face of intensifying Houthi threats, and to exFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

262 

pand the capability of our Gulf partners to push back against Iran’s regionally destabilizing actions, including transfers of sophisticated weaponry to the Houthis. 

Question 14. How would you work to bring about an end to this conflict? Please 

articulate what you believe the U.S. diplomatic strategy to resolving the civil war 

in Yemen should be. 

Answer. The Administration has consistently emphasized the importance of a political settlement, but the differences between the parties to the conflict must be resolved directly. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the new UN 

Envoy to advance a political solution in Yemen. The UN Envoy has the difficult task 

of developing a balanced framework to guide future negotiations and a political 

process. If confirmed, I will contribute U.S. expertise and leadership to this effort 

and work closely with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and 

Oman, to generate progress. 

Question 15. Please define what you believe are the U.S. national interests in 

Yemen. 

Answer. Preventing terrorist attacks against the homeland and ending the conflict 

in Yemen are key components of our national security interests with respect to 

Yemen. Defeating ISIS-Yemen and AQAP, countering Iran’s nefarious activities in 

the region, and reducing the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people, all hinge 

on the resolution of this conflict. AQAP, ISIS-Yemen, and Iran are manipulating the 

security vacuum created by the conflict to expand their influence in Yemen and 

threaten both the United States homeland and U.S. interests. 

Question 16. Has three years of participating in the war in Yemen contributed to 

U.S. national security in the Persian Gulf? Has it diminished Iranian influence in 

Yemen or reduced the missile threat to Saudi Arabia? 

Answer. U.S. military support to the Saudi-led Coalition advances important U.S. 

national security and diplomatic objectives, including defeating ISIS-Yemen and 

AQAP and countering Iran’s nefarious activities in the region. The United States’ 

support to the Saudi-led Coalition serves two central goals: (1) to expand the capability of our Gulf partners to defend their countries against Iran’s regionally destabilizing actions and (2) to reinforce Saudi and Emirati sovereignty in the face of intensifying Houthi missile attacks, territorial incursions, and maritime threats. 

Iran’s provision of sophisticated weaponry to the Houthis exacerbates the conflict 

and advances Iran’s regional ambitions. If confirmed, one of my priorities would be 

to address the humanitarian situation. The Administration has already devoted significant attention and resources to this cause, and if confirmed, I intend to continue 

to emphasize the U.S. role in leading the response to the humanitarian crisis. 

Question 17. EGYPT: Egypt’s recent elections, in which President Sisi intimidated 

his competitors and won with a reported 97 percent of the vote, is an insult to the 

Arab Spring protests and democracy in Egypt. Given the repressive measures President al-Sisi has championed over the last three years—from attacks against civil society to the arbitrary detention of tens of thousands of people and abuse while in 

prison—the absence of any mention of Egypt’s substantial human rights abuses and 

lack of democratic rule is deeply troubling. Would you support continuing to place 

holds on assistance to Egypt annually to send a message about their human rights 

record? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review U.S. assistance programs to Egypt to ensure 

that they are consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives, including the promotion 

of core U.S. values. We must continue to work with President Abdelfattah al-Sisi 

to advance our strategic partnership and address our common challenges, while emphasizing respect for, and protection of, basic rights and freedoms. As I stated at 

the hearing, we should defend American values every place we go, even if it requires 

hard conversations. 

Question 18. As Secretary of State, how would you work with Egypt’s leaders to 

refocus its energies on countering its real security threats and reforming its economy, while respecting freedom of the press, due process, civil society, and other fundamental freedoms? 

Answer. The United States remains deeply committed to helping Egypt defeat terrorist threats that it continues to face and, if confirmed, I would urge Cairo to pursue a comprehensive approach to its terrorism challenges. The Administration also 

remains concerned with Egypt’s repression of non-violent opposition, the limited 

space for civil society, and restrictions on the peaceful expression of dissent, all of 

which are critical to political stability. If confirmed, I will continue to raise concerns 

about these issues with senior Egyptian government officials. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

263 

Question 19. What are the risks to Egypt’s stability if its leaders continue down 

the same path of repression and economic stagnation? 

Answer. The economy, terrorist threats, and the limited space for civil society are 

all potential threats to Egypt’s stability. President Sisi has taken several economically and politically difficult steps to stabilize the economy and attract foreign investment, but the Egyptian government still needs to implement further reforms to 

create jobs for Egypt’s rapidly growing population. Egypt’s continued repression of 

non-violent opposition and closing space for civil society, non-violent opposition, and 

the expression of peaceful dissent, pose a risk to political stability. 

Question 20. For both FY 2018 and 2019, President Trump only requested approximately $80 million in total assistance to Tunisia, which would represent a 50 

percent decrease from congressionally authorized levels. What message does it send 

to reduce assistance to the Arab country that has made the most progress toward 

democracy? As secretary of state, would you support reductions in aid for Tunisia? 

Answer. Tunisia is a vital U.S. partner. The Administration is committed to supporting Tunisia’s democratic path, partnering with Tunisia to prevail in our shared 

fight against terrorism, and promoting economic reforms to advance prosperity for 

both our peoples. If confirmed, I will continue to advance these priorities and would 

review the appropriate level of aid. 

Question 21. Syria: We have received conflicting views from the Administration 

on Syria. The President has repeatedly stated his insistence on departing following 

the defeat of ISIS, potentially in the next six months. Secretary Mattis and former 

Secretary Tillerson indicated that U.S. forces may remain in order to confront Iran 

or pressure Asad into negotiations. Do you agree with the President that the U.S. 

military must immediately leave Syria? 

Answer. U.S. military forces are in Syria for the sole mission of defeating ISIS. 

This mission is not over. As I stated during my hearing, the President has said he 

wants to reduce our military footprint in Syria once ISIS is defeated. If confirmed, 

it will be my job to lead the diplomatic efforts necessary to achieve the President’s 

intent. Any such process will seek to ensure that broader U.S. interests are protected in the wake of ISIS’s defeat. The United States will continue to coordinate 

with its D-ISIS Coalition partners and call on these partners to share an increasing 

burden on the ground militarily and for stabilization initiatives to ensure ISIS’s 

lasting defeat in Syria. 

Question 22. For how much longer do you believe U.S. forces should remain in 

Iraq and Syria fighting ISIS? 

Answer. The President has been clear that he will not signal publicly any specific 

timelines and that U.S. forces will remain engaged in achieving our objectives in 

Iraq and Syria until the mission is complete. 

Question 23. Does the President’s withdrawal plan factor in stabilization planning 

for which the military has advocated? Can gains against ISIS be sustained without 

stabilization support? Can diplomats support stabilization efforts on the ground 

without the presence of the military for security? 

Answer. The President has stated that he plans to review our military presence 

in Syria once ISIS is defeated. If confirmed, it would be my job to lead diplomatic 

efforts necessary to achieving the President’s intent to ensure that broader U.S. interests are protected in Syria once ISIS’s ‘‘caliphate’’ has been defeated. The President has asked that we review all international assistance, determine appropriate 

assistance needs, and then encourage our partners in the Global Coalition to Defeat 

ISIS to share the burden of consolidating the Coalition’s military gains and prevent 

the resurgence of ISIS. 

Question 24. How can we transition our relationship with the Syrian Kurds in a 

way that does not destabilize gains against ISIS but takes into consideration Turkey’s concerns? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will lead a robust diplomatic effort to address the issue 

of how the Syrian Kurds, who have fought and died to rid Syria and the world of 

ISIS, fit into a future Syria. We will need to work with Turkey—as a NATO ally 

and a regional power—to ensure that its national security interests are addressed, 

including in Syria. It is my understanding that U.S.-Turkey bilateral engagements 

on these issues are underway. Concurrently, we will continue to engage local actors 

on the ground in Syria to advance diplomatic efforts aimed at ensuring areas liberated from ISIS regain stability and prosperity. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

264 

Question 25. In countries around the world, LGBTQ people are criminalized for 

who they love. There are also women who are in jail in places like El Salvador and 

Senegal for having miscarriages or abortions. These are gross human rights violations. As Secretary of State would you raise concerns about laws that criminalize 

same-sex relationships and women’s personal health decisions in public and private 

settings? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate that governments have an obligation to protect, respect, and uphold the fundamental dignity of all people—including women 

and LGBTI persons. 

Question 26. During his confirmation hearing to become U.S. ambassador at large 

for international religious freedom, Sam Brownback refused to state that he believes 

laws that criminalize LGBTQ people are always unjustified and would not say 

whether religious freedom could be used to justify laws that imprison or execute 

people just for being LGBTQ. As governor, Brownback issued an executive order 

that is similar to the bill you co-sponsored allowing non-profits to refuse to serve 

same-sex couples. Do you believe criminalizing LGBTQ people for religious reasons 

would be justified? Do you believe that an organization receiving foreign aid should 

be allowed to deny programming or services to someone who is LGBTQ if they assert a religious reason for doing so? 

Answer. I do not believe that criminalizing LGBTQ persons for religious reasons 

would ever be justified. I respect every individual equally, regardless of their sexual 

orientation or gender identity. If confirmed, I will work closely with my colleagues 

across the State Department and USAID to promote respect for fundamental freedoms, human rights, religious freedom, and democratic governance, for all people, 

including LGBTI persons. 

Question 27. You received an award in 2016 from Act for America, a hate group 

that espouses false, anti-Muslim narratives. What is your position on the resettlement of the most vulnerable refugees, regardless of their faith—and in particular 

Muslim refugees? 

Answer. I believe that the United States has an important role to play in providing various types of support for vulnerable refugees, including through resettlement and humanitarian assistance. 

Question 28. Will you help reverse the troubling trend that refugee groups are reporting regarding a dramatic decline in Muslim arrivals? 

Answer. If confirmed, you have my full commitment that I will support the resettlement of the world’s most vulnerable refugees, regardless of faith. 

Question 29. What role did you play as CIA Director in imposing the original Muslim ban and supporting intelligence for which countries to include? Do you support 

blanket bans on travelers from certain countries? As Secretary of State, how do you 

think that would impact your relationship with those countries? 

Answer. As CIA Director, I was not directly involved in the policymaking processes that led to the travel restrictions referenced in your question. In my current 

capacity at the CIA, I have worked closely with our intelligence partners throughout 

a broad range of Muslim-majority countries over the past 15 months. If confirmed, 

I assure you that I will continue to build strong partnerships globally with Muslimmajority countries, who are crucial partners. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR EDWARD MARKEY

(Questions 1–22) 

Question 1. This administration has frequently taken a ‘‘burn down the house to 

remodel the kitchen’’ approach to foreign policy. From the Paris Climate Agreement 

to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and now potentially to the Joint Comprehensive 

Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Trump administration has complained that the United 

States is being treated unfairly and must instead secure a better deal. To address 

this, the Trump administration has frequently withdrawn or threatened to withdraw the United States from these multilateral arrangements, asserting that in 

doing so America will be able to ‘‘negotiate a better deal.’’ Please explain this diplomatic strategy. How does the United States increase its negotiating leverage by unilaterally withdrawing or threatening to withdraw from multilateral agreements? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

265 

Answer. This Administration has increased scrutiny of multilateral agreements to 

ensure that they serve America’s interests. At the same time, President Trump has 

emphasized that America First does not mean America alone. As stated in the Administration’s National Security Strategy, the United States must lead and engage 

in the multinational arrangements that shape many of the rules that affect U.S. interests and values. As we participate in them, we must protect American sovereignty and advance American interests and values. 

Question 2. President Juan Orlando Herna ́ndez of Honduras has a long history 

of subverting democracy and the rule of law. I recently sent a letter to the State 

Department expressing my concerns about reports of alleged human rights abuses 

by security forces in Honduras following November’s disputed presidential election. 

Are you concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in Honduras and 

the erosion of democracy and rule-of-law in the country? 

Answer. I share your concerns with the human rights situation in Honduras, particularly the reports of deaths of individuals and security forces following the November 2017 presidential election in Honduras. The Administration’s Strategy for 

Central America makes clear U.S. support for Honduran efforts to strengthen the 

rule of law and promote democracy and strong institutions. 

Question 3. You falsely alleged that the silence of Muslim leaders in response to 

the Boston Marathon attacks made these Islamic leaders across America potentially 

complicit in these terrorist acts. Will you commit to promoting U.S. values, including religious tolerance and respect for diversity? 

Answer. I will treat persons of each faith or no faith with the dignity and respect 

that they deserve, as I have done during my tenure at the CIA. In this capacity, 

I have worked closely with Muslim leaders and with governments of Muslim countries. Working with leaders of all faiths is at the core of who I am. If confirmed, 

I will work toward creating a more diverse State Department work force in every 

sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. As I have done at the CIA, 

I will achieve this by focusing on the mission and treating every team member with 

dignity and respect. 

I note I do not agree with the characterization of my statement after the deaths 

of Americans in the Boston Marathon attacks. I pointed out the importance of people speaking out against terrorist attacks killing innocent Americans. 

Question 4. The President has refused to criticize Philippine President Duterte’s 

brutal campaign of extra-judicial murders that has resulted in the deaths of at least 

8,000 Filipino drug users and low-level drug dealers, and instead has said that he 

has a ‘‘great relationship’’ with President Duterte and said he ‘‘has always been a 

friend of the Duterte administration.’’ How will you advise the President if he indicates he would like to invite Duterte to the White House? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Philippine government to ensure its law enforcement efforts are conducted in accordance with its human rights obligations and 

with full respect for the rule of law. Frank discussions about areas of cooperation, 

as well as our differences, are important as we engage with treaty allies such as 

the Philippines. 

Question 5. Mr. Pompeo, during your time in the House, you co-sponsored the 

State Marriage Defense Act of 2014 and the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act 

of 2013, both of which would have given a license to discriminate against vulnerable 

LGBT populations. Mr. Pompeo, what kind of message does your record send to the 

Russian authorities who seek to use sexual orientation and gender identity as an 

excuse for repression? Can you describe your personal views of the rights that our 

LGBT citizens should have, and how you would integrate issues related to the 

human rights of LGBT people into our global human rights policies? Will you commit to standing united with Chechnya’s LGBTQ community, who are the victims of 

cruel and murderous treatment at the hands of Chechen officials who govern under 

the authority of Russia? Will you commit to appointing a qualified Special Envoy 

for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons? 

Answer. The horrible treatment of LGBTI persons by Chechen authorities is truly 

despicable, and, if confirmed, I will stand with the persecuted people of Chechnya, 

including LGBTI persons. I respect every person equally, and, if confirmed, I commit 

to defend the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their race, ethnicity, 

religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s prior commitment, I intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for 

the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

266 

Question 6. Data from the Department of Commerce shows that in 2016 foreign 

students attending U.S. institutions of higher education spent $39.4 billion in foreign funds on U.S. services. In other words, a $39.4 billion export that reduces the 

trade deficit. A recent estimate by the University of California at Santa Barbara 

puts that number as high as $50 billion, on par with U.S. exports of semi-conductors, passenger cars, and civilian aircraft. As we look at ways of securing our nation 

and resolving trade imbalances in the U.S.’s favor, how can we protect and grow 

the considerable value of higher education as a premier U.S. export, and maintain 

the significant benefit it has for communities across the country? 

Answer. The American system of higher education is the most open, diverse, and 

high-quality in the world. Our higher education institutions attract students, professors, and researchers from all around the world. The contributions of U.S. colleges 

and universities go well beyond our campuses to help America lead the world in innovation, research, and next-generation science and technology. While we must always be vigilant against potential counterintelligence or intellectual property protection risks, international students are a critical part of U.S. leadership in higher education. If confirmed, I will seek to responsibly foster this important component of 

our economy and international leadership. 

Question 7. The Indo-Pacific is arguably the most important region for U.S. security and economic growth. It represents nearly half of the global population and is 

home to some of the most dynamic economies in the world, but is also home to security challenges that threaten to undermine U.S. national security interests, regional 

peace, and global stability. Although the administration has articulated support for 

a ‘‘free and open Indo-Pacific,’’ it has not clearly expounded upon that vision or offered concrete interests, objectives, and ways in which the United States are going 

to achieve them. Please describe your vision for the ‘‘free and open Indo-Pacific.’’ 

What should the State Department’s role be in this strategy? What should be our 

objectives and how will we achieve them? What specific policy and funding priorities 

for the State Department would it require? 

Answer. The Department of State plays a vital role in implementing the strategy 

to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific and contributes to three main lines of effort: 

security, economics, and governance. If confirmed, I will seek briefings on the full 

range of current efforts, to include diplomatic engagement and assistance programs, 

and assess how I can best lead this effort. Currently, I understand the Department 

is building a resilient network of security partners with greater capacity to advance 

maritime security, fight terrorism, and ensure stability. A core element of the Department’s role is strengthening U.S. alliances and encouraging partners such as 

India, Vietnam, and Indonesia to play a greater role in the region. 

Question 8. There have been widespread concerns over China building military 

bases on artificially constructed islands in the South China Sea. In the coming 

months or years, China could build a similar military base on Scarborough Reef, 

which unlike the features it occupies in the Spratlys and Paracels, is an unoccupied 

feature. If confirmed, you could face a renewed crisis with a strategic competitor in 

the South China Sea, one of the most important waterways in the world. To what 

degree do you view the Chinese construction of a military base on Scarborough Reef 

as a national security challenge for the United States? How would you attempt to 

deter such an action and what would be your approach to addressing a Chinese fait 

accompli? What would be your broader strategy? 

Answer. Land reclamation, construction, and militarization on Scarborough Reef 

would be of grave concern to the United States. If confirmed, I will press China and 

other South China Sea claimants to refrain from new construction on, and militarization of, disputed features, and to manage and resolve disputes peacefully. We 

should work with allies and partners to uphold freedom of navigation and overflight 

and other lawful uses of the sea in the South China Sea. We should also urge China 

and ASEAN to conclude a meaningful Code of Conduct for the South China Sea in 

accordance with international law. Additionally, we should partner with ASEAN 

member states to build capacity on maritime domain awareness. 

Question 9. I’d like to raise with you the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza 

Strip. As Israeli defense officials warned Israeli politicians earlier this year, U.S. 

withholding of UNRWA funding could worsen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and 

even spark an uprising in the territory. Do you agree with Israeli security experts 

that the president should restore frozen U.S. funding to UNRWA? As Secretary of 

State, will you encourage Israeli security officials to respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest and pursue a two-state solution? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

267 

Answer. I understand that the United States has been UNRWA’s largest single 

donor for decades, and that last year, we provided 34 percent of UNRWA’s funding—more than the next four largest donors combined. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with other international partners to restructure how UNRWA is funded 

and to create a fairer, more equitable, and more predictable funding mechanism for 

UNRWA. 

I share your concern about humanitarian and economic conditions in the Gaza 

Strip, which the Administration has identified as a priority. The primary responsibility for this situation belongs to Hamas, which has refused to return control of the 

Gaza Strip to legitimate authorities, endangering the welfare and well-being of the 

people of the Gaza Strip. If confirmed, I will continue the Administration’s efforts 

both to improve the lives of the people of the Gaza Strip and to create the conditions 

for successful negotiations leading to a lasting and comprehensive peace. 

Question 10. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has assessed the cost to sustain and rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal at $1.2 trillion over 30 years. 

The additional capabilities proposed by the NPR will further increase this cost. Why 

do you believe tax dollars are better spent investing in new nuclear capabilities 

rather than investing more heavily in diplomacy or even conventional systems? 

Won’t they just provide the justification countries like Russia are looking for not to 

comply with their commitments? Do you believe we need the ‘‘supplements the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review calls for? If so, why? Please explain for both 

the low-yield SLBM and then the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile. 

Answer. I believe the Administration’s nuclear modernization program remains 

the most cost-effective approach to sustaining an effective nuclear deterrent, which 

is essential to preventing a nuclear attack—the only existential threat to the United 

States and its allies and partners. We have spent years attempting to address Russia’s continuing arms control violations, yet Russia has refused to engage in any 

meaningful way. As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states, these two military 

supplements will ‘‘provide a more diverse set of characteristics greatly enhancing 

our ability to tailor deterrence and assurance; expand the range of credible U.S. options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack; and, enhance deterrence by signaling to potential adversaries that their concepts of coercive, limited 

nuclear escalation offer no exploitable advantage.’’ 

Question 11. Every other country in the world is part of the Paris Agreement, 

even our economic competitors. In every international engagement I have, I hear 

concern about our wavering commitment on climate change. How will you address 

the concerns of our allies that we are ceding leadership on climate? 

Answer. I fully support the President’s decision on the Paris Agreement. If confirmed, I will ensure that the United States remains engaged on the issue of climate 

change to advance and protect U.S. interests, including by working with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance resilience in ways that drive 

innovation and market-friendly solutions. I will ensure that the United States engages multilaterally and bilaterally on these issues. 

Question 12. The New START Treaty’s central limits cap U.S. and Russian deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 and deployed strategic launchers at 700. These 

limits also reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by 74 percent 

from the 6,000 deployed warheads limit in the original Strategic Arms Reduction 

Treaty. New START expires in 2021, but may be extended for 5 years by mutual 

agreement. Do you believe this treaty and its limits on Russia’s deployed weapons 

is in the national security interest of the United States? Do you believe New 

START’s verification and inspection mechanisms enhance or degrade our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons program? Why hasn’t the Trump administration announced its intent to pursue this five year extension of these limits? Do you 

support extending these limits? 

Answer. I believe that the New START Treaty currently contributes to preserving 

strategic stability between the United States and Russia and is in the national security interest of the United States. New START’s verification regime, which includes 

short-notice, on-site inspections at Treaty-related bases and facilities, assists in our 

ability to verify information about the strategic nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation. The Administration has made clear it will continue to fully implement New 

START and will consider next steps related to the New START Treaty at the appropriate time. 

Question 13. As a result of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran 

was made to reduce its uranium stockpile by approximately 97%, decrease its operating centrifuges from 19,000 to 5060 of its oldest, least advanced centrifuges, acFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

268 

cept a breakout time of at least one year to acquire enough material for a nuclear 

weapon, and acquiesce to a comprehensive monitoring and verification regime over 

its program. You are privy to the country’s most sensitive secrets and intelligence. 

As CIA director, have you seen any information indicating Iran is not complying 

with the technical limits of the JCPOA? 

Answer. During my time as CIA Director, intelligence reporting and analysis indicated, based on all available reporting, Iran was in compliance with the technical 

limits of the JCPOA. This includes adhering to the restrictions you mention on 

Iran’s uranium stockpile and the numbers and types of centrifuges as well as meeting the requirement to submit to a monitoring and verification regime as executed 

by the IAEA. 

Question 14. Do you agree with Defense Secretary Mattis, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs Joe Dunford, and CENTCOM head General Votel that the Iran nuclear deal 

is in the U.S. national security interest? If so, will you give this advice to the President as the May 12 deadline to renew sanctions waivers and continue meeting U.S. 

commitments under the JCPOA approaches? The President will do what he wants, 

but will he hear from you that his immediate actions are contrary to the U.S. national security interest? If not, why are these individuals wrong? If the United 

States withdraws from the JCPOA, do you believe the U.S. understanding of Iran’s 

nuclear program and capabilities will be enhanced or degraded? 

Answer. The President has been clear about his concerns regarding the JCPOA. 

I believe fixing the deal is in the best interest of the United States. The Administration is seeking a new supplemental agreement to address the deficiencies the President identified in January. As these negotiations continue, I will not hesitate to 

share my views with the President. If there is no chance the deal can be fixed, I 

will recommend we work with our allies to achieve a better deal. Should the United 

States withdraw, IAEA safeguards provide a basis for maintaining visibility into 

Iran’s nuclear program. The United States will also continue to utilize national technical means and coordinate closely with international allies and partners to ensure 

a full understanding of Iran’s nuclear activities. 

Question 15. Does the JCPOA in any way limit our ability to counter Iran’s nefarious, non-nuclear activities? If so, please explain how and whether you assess the 

Trump administration has decreased or enhanced efforts to counter Iran’s non-nuclear activities. Does the JCPOA in any way place limitations or restrictions on 

America’s use of military force? 

Answer. The JCPOA, by its terms, does not limit our ability to address Iran’s nonnuclear activities, and since taking office, the Administration has moved forward 

with several rounds of sanctions designations targeting Iran’s support for terrorism, 

ballistic missile activity, and human rights abuses. The Administration has demonstrated it will hold the Iranian government fully accountable for its actions. The 

JCPOA does not, by its terms, address use of force. 

Question 16. If you don’t favor remaining in the JCPOA or diplomatically engaging with Iran, then what is the policy goal of U.S. sanctions? In July 2016 you stated that, ‘‘Congress must act to change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian 

regime.’’ Is the policy goal of U.S. sanctions on Iran to attempt to induce regime 

change? 

Answer. The Administration is working to fix the JCPOA, and that process continues. The Trump Administration’s Iran policy addresses the totality of Iranian 

threats, and sanctions are an important tool to help achieve our foreign policy goals. 

With respect to Iran, the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a change in the Iranian regime’s behavior. 

Question 17. If the President does decide to withdraw from the nuclear agreement, 

what will the United States strategy be for addressing Iran’s nuclear program? Is 

the United States really prepared to impose sanctions on Europe, China, India, 

South Korea, and others, as part of ‘‘snapping back’’ secondary sanctions on Iran? 

How do you believe these countries will react? What strategy will you pursue to 

build and strengthen the multilateral sanctions regime that once brought Iran to 

the negotiating table to conclude the JCPOA if the United States withdraws from 

this agreement? 

Answer. It is too early to prejudge the outcome of the on-going Iran-related negotiations with the E3. The Administration is currently working to secure a supplemental deal and address non-nuclear issues like Iranian aggression in the region. 

The President announced a clear and comprehensive Iran strategy in October 2017 

and issued a statement in January 2018 outlining steps he wanted the AdministraFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

269 

tion to pursue to counter the variety of threats emanating from Iran. If confirmed, 

this is the policy I intend to implement. 

Question 18. In 2016, along with Representatives Lee Zeldin and Frank LoBiondo, 

you applied for a visa to visit Iran for the purpose of inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities. Please explain what you hoped to accomplish with this visit. In detail, 

please describe what you intended to see during these inspections. Did you believe 

that you and/or Representatives Zeldin and LoBiondi have the necessary technical 

expertise to conduct such an inspection? 

Answer. As explained in my visa application and op-eds, I had several goals in 

my attempted travel to Iran, including demanding the release of detained American 

citizens; meeting with human rights activists; testing proclaimed Iranian openness 

to dialogue with the West; and understanding better Iranian leadership understanding of the JCPOA terms and the regime’s intent to comply with the JCPOA. 

That trip did not materialize because the Iranians did not grant my visa request. 

Question 19. Last year you sent a letter to Qassem Soleimani, the commander of 

Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force, allegedly warning him not to attack U.S. interests 

in the region. Please explain what you intended to accomplish in sending this letter. 

Did you consult Defense Secretary Mattis or Secretary of State Tillerson before 

sending this letter? 

Answer. The letter was meant to be a clear warning to Iran not to attack U.S. 

interests in the region. I consulted with all relevant parties in the U.S. government 

before sending the letter. 

Question 20. Do you agree with your colleague Mr. Bolton that 123 agreements 

between the U.S. and other countries must include the gold standard—a commitment to forgo any uranium enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing, two technologies 

crucial to developing nuclear weapons? Should a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia 

include this commitment? If not, why? Given that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has made recent, public remarks that Saudi Arabia will pursue 

nuclear weapons if Iran does, do you believe it is better for the United States to 

forgo any civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia or settle for a compromise that forgoes these important nuclear nonproliferation controls? How do you 

think other countries would perceive the United States withdrawing from the 

JCPOA while concluding a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia that does not include 

these important nonproliferation controls? 

Answer. As I told the Committee during the hearing, I support the gold standard. 

The United States has significant strategic, commercial, and nonproliferation incentives to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia. Such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities for U.S. firms and ensure the Saudi nuclear 

power program is subject to the highest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards. In the absence of a 123 agreement, U.S. firms will lose the opportunity to compete and will likely be replaced by state-owned enterprises from other countries 

with lower nonproliferation standards. 

With respect to the JCPOA, one of its most significant shortcomings is that it falls 

short of verifiable non-proliferation gold standards. 

Question 21. The Atomic Energy Act requires the President to keep Congress, 

‘‘fully and currently informed of any initiative or negotiations relation to a new or 

amended agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.’’ If confirmed, will you commit 

to personally briefing this committee on the status of U.S.-Saudi 123 discussions as 

soon as possible, to include an intelligence briefing on what is known about Saudi 

Arabia’s intentions for its nuclear program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to keeping the Foreign Relations Committee fully informed of the status of 123 agreement negotiations, consistent with 

the Department’s statutory obligations under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. 

I would be pleased, if confirmed, to arrange a classified briefing for the Committee 

at an appropriate time. 

Question 22. The United States has invested in establishing security and rule of 

law in Haiti, including in increased professionalization of the Haitian police force. 

However, less than 150 Haitian police officers are currently stationed on the border, 

and there is little to no infrastructure or technology that would allow them to follow 

effective customs procedures. This allows contraband to enter Haiti easily and organized criminal enterprises to flourish. What will the Administration do to encourage 

the Government of Haiti to invest in the necessary border infrastructure and train 

additional security personnel? How will the Administration ensure the Haitian govFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

270 

ernment actually places adequate security personnel on the border and builds the 

technology and infrastructure essential for effective border control? 

Answer. I understand the Department of State provides training, material support, and technical expertise to build the capacity of the Haitian National Police. 

I also understand the USAID Customs Support project is a $4 million initiative to 

modernize the Haitian customs service processes for revenue collection, traveler 

processing, and contraband interdiction. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

(Questions 1–38) 

Question 1. You have said that the President seeks the ‘‘verifiable, irreversible 

denuclearization of North Korea.’’ Does the administration have preconditions ahead 

of the planned meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader, Kim 

Jong-un? 

Answer. The United States and North Korea have been holding direct talks in 

preparation for a summit, and North Korea has confirmed its willingness to talk 

about denuclearization. The Trump Administration has been working to create the 

conditions so that the President and Kim Jong-un can sit together to begin to resolve this vexing, difficult challenge. 

Question 2. Do you believe the complete denuclearization of North Korea is 

achievable through diplomacy? 

Answer. I agree with the President’s view that the continuation of a coordinated 

pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to achieve a successful 

diplomatic outcome in North Korea. To achieve our goal of denuclearization, we will 

need a serious and sustained campaign to implement United Nations and U.S. sanctions to maintain the pressure on North Korea, along with a diplomatic strategy to 

negotiate credible denuclearization. 

Question 3. What is your definition of ‘‘complete denuclearization’’ of the Korean 

Peninsula? 

Answer. Denuclearization means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible abandonment by North Korea of its nuclear weapons programs and existing nuclear and 

delivery programs. 

Question 4. If, after the first meeting between the President and Kim Jong-un, 

North Korea’s nuclear program and live tests remain frozen, do you see a phased, 

longer-term approach toward denuclearization being possible? 

Answer. It is my full anticipation that however the President’s meeting goes, 

there will be an enormous amount of diplomatic work remaining. To achieve our 

goal of denuclearization, we will need a serious and sustained campaign to implement United Nations and U.S. sanctions to maintain the pressure on North Korea, 

along with a diplomatic strategy to negotiate credible denuclearization. 

Question 5. If you determine full denuclearization is not possible through diplomacy, at what point would you recommend military action to the President? 

Answer. If confirmed, my role and focus as Secretary of State will be diplomacy. 

Although all options remain on the table, we have not exhausted our diplomatic options with respect to North Korea. 

Question 6. Without commenting on whether it would be advisable to do so, would 

the United States, today, be justified in launching preventive military strikes on 

North Korea in response to the current crisis? 

Answer. If confirmed, my role and focus as Secretary of State will be to solve the 

North Korea issue through diplomacy. While, as the President has made clear, all 

options are on the table, the Administration is focused on the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un. 

Question 7. Do you believe President Trump would need to consult with the Congress before launching a military strike on North Korea? 

Answer. The Administration’s goal is not war with North Korea, but rather the 

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The 

Administration continues to pursue its maximum pressure campaign to persuade 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

271 

North Korea to change course and end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. 

The Administration is not seeking an authorization to use military force against 

North Kore from Congress, and any decision to use military force is a most serious 

decision that requires a careful fact-specific and legal assessment at the time the 

use of military force is contemplated. As I said in my hearing, working with the 

Committee and Congress can strengthen Administration actions. 

Question 8. If not, at what stage in a potential conflict do you believe Congressional authorization would be required? 

Answer. I believe it is very important to engage actively with Congress on these 

issues. I am focused on a diplomatic solution and cannot speculate on what Congressional authority would be necessary in a hypothetical conflict. 

Question 9. Do you believe the United States should seek concurrence from South 

Korea before taking any military action in North Korea? 

Answer. The Republic of Korea is a valued, close ally and we are working closely 

toward achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North 

Korea via diplomatic means. The President has been clear that the Administration 

prefers a peaceful solution, but that all options are on the table. We will remain 

in close contact with South Korea regarding North Korea. 

Question 10. Do you agree with Secretary of Defense Mattis’ statement that the 

continued U.S. implementation of the JCPOA remains in the U.S. national security 

interest? 

Answer. The President in his January 12 statement directed his Administration 

to engage our European allies to try to fix the serious flaws of the JCPOA. I support 

this effort. Based on the progress of our discussions, the President will decide how 

to proceed on May 12. 

Question 11. Do you agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph 

Dunford, that a unilateral U.S. decision to withdraw from the JCPOA would have 

an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements with the United States? 

Answer. I want to fix the JCPOA, and that is our current goal. But if there is 

no chance that we can fix the JCPOA, I will recommend to the President that we 

do our best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome. 

Question 12. As Director of the CIA, was there any intelligence that you were 

made aware of that indicated Iran was in material breach of the JCPOA? 

Answer. During my time as CIA Director, intelligence reporting and analysis indicated, based on all available reporting, Iran was substantially in compliance with 

the technical limits of the JCPOA. 

Question 13. If the United States does decide to withdraw from the JCPOA, what 

sanctions would the United States seek to re-impose and when? What specific provisions of the JCPOA would the United States invoke? 

Answer. Should the United States withdraw from the JCPOA, I believe the President will re-impose the sanctions that are deemed necessary to advancing U.S. foreign policy goals. I am focused on a diplomatic solution. 

Question 14. If the United States withdraws, what is the administration’s strategy 

to ensure Iran does not return to pre-JCPOA activities that left it within months 

of a bomb? 

Answer. Regardless of the future of the JCPOA, Iran’s nuclear activities must remain exclusively peaceful and Iran must cooperate fully with its continuing Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and related IAEA safeguards obligations. The Administration has demonstrated it will hold the Iranian regime fully accountable for 

its actions. 

Question 15. In 2014, as P5+1 negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program were 

ongoing, you appeared to favor military action, saying, ‘‘It is under 2,000 sorties to 

destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task.’’ If the 

United States withdraws from the JCPOA, do you view military action as an alternative to addressing Iran’s nuclear program? 

Answer. This Administration’s policy and my view is that the best solution to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy. 

Question 16. In your nomination hearing, you declined to commit that the United 

States would insist on the ‘‘gold standard’’ in a 123 civilian nuclear cooperation 

agreement with Saudi Arabia, which would preclude indigenous uranium enrichFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

272 

ment and spent fuel reprocessing activities (ENR). Why wouldn’t you require Saudi 

Arabia to meet the same standards as the UAE and others? 

Answer. The United States has a longstanding policy of seeking to limit the 

spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies around the world. If confirmed, 

I will support pursuing the strongest nonproliferation standards that are achievable 

in all 123 agreement negotiations, including negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Bringing into force such an agreement would provide substantial economic opportunities 

for U.S. firms and ensure the Saudi nuclear power program is subject to the highest 

nonproliferation, safety, and security standards required by any nuclear supplier in 

the world. 

Question 17. What do you assess the non-proliferation risks of a more lenient 123 

agreement would be in the region? 

Answer. All 123 agreements include, at a minimum, the legal requirements listed 

in Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. On their own, these requirements represent the strongest nonproliferation, safety, and security standards required by any nuclear supplier in the world. 

Beyond these legal requirements, the United States has a longstanding policy of 

seeking to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies around the 

world. If confirmed, I will support pursuing the strongest nonproliferation standards 

that are achievable in all 123 agreement negotiations, including negotiations with 

Saudi Arabia. 

Since I have not been involved in 123 agreement negotiations with Saudi Arabia 

to date, I am not in a position to speculate about the regional implications of potential terms under consideration for such an agreement, which I understand are still 

subject to discussion both internally and with Saudi Arabia. 

Question 18. President Trump has indicated that the United States should work 

with Russia to ‘‘end the arms race.’’ The State Department certified in February this 

year that Russia verifiably met the Central Limits of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and that continued implementation of the Treaty remains in the U.S. national security interest. New START is due to expire in 2021 

but can be extended an additional five years through mutual agreement. Will you 

commit to convene a strategic dialogue with Russia to discuss extension of the New 

START Treaty, Russia’s violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 

(INF), and related issues shortly after taking office? 

Answer. My understanding is that the United States will continue to fully implement New START and consider next steps related to extension at the appropriate 

time. The United States is also pursuing an integrated strategy of diplomatic, economic, and military measures to seek to return Russia to full and verifiable compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. If confirmed, I will 

consider the most effective approaches to advancing U.S. national security interests 

regarding these two treaties. 

Question 19. The Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence community 

have long stated that they view climate change as a threat to American national 

security and military readiness, calling it a ‘‘threat multiplier.’’ Do you agree with 

Secretary Mattis and General Dunford that climate change is a national security 

threat? 

Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I believe that the climate 

is changing and there is likely a human component. As we find tools that are effective to prevent any risks to the United States and our national security interests, 

the State Department ought to be appropriately involved in them. 

Question 20. If [you agree with Generals Mattis and Dunford on the previous 

question] so, how will you commit to ensuring the issue is incorporated into U.S. 

foreign policy planning? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department is always informed 

by the best scientific and intelligence assessments as we develop relevant policies. 

Question 21. The 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence 

Community, states, ‘‘The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, 

more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic 

and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.’’ Do you stand by 

those words today? 

Answer. I agree with the sentiments expressed in this statement. 

Question 22. In our meeting in my office, when I asked you if you would stand 

up for the protection of the LGBTQ community, you responded with ‘‘every day.’’ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

273 

However, while Director of the CIA, I understand you cancelled a speech scheduled 

to be given by Matthew Shepard’s parents at an LGBTQ event during the Pride 

Month. Do you feel you were standing up for the LGBTQ community that day? 

Answer. Yes. As CIA explained to the Shepard family, the Agency decided on a 

Pride event at CIA in 2017 with a national security focus. The Pride event we held 

with Senator Tammy Baldwin achieved that goal and was well-attended by the CIA 

workforce, including members of CIA’s LGBTQ community. 

Question 23. Do you believe that the United States should, as a matter of policy, 

provide support for refugees worldwide, as a humanitarian, development, and security matter? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 24. If so, do you believe that there is a benefit to funding programs that 

focus on women’s health and welfare, as a humanitarian, development, and security 

matter? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 25. Do you agree with the body of research that finds access to education 

for young women and girls is a key indicator for a country’s economic success? 

Answer. When young women and girls are educated and are able to enter the 

workforce, economies are stronger. If a girl remains in school, she is more likely to 

be able to earn an income that she is likely to invest into her family and community. As the President noted in his statement on the International Day of the Girl, 

the girls of today will tomorrow be leaders in every nation and every sector of the 

economy. 

Question 26. Do you agree with the body of research that indicates that access 

to family planning is a strong indicator of a young woman’s ability to obtain an education? 

Answer. While I am not familiar with the research cited, I welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you if confirmed. 

Question 27. While the State Department had consistently scored highly in federal 

employee satisfaction surveys, in just over one year, morale plummeted as a result 

of Secretary Tillerson’s team’s efforts to dismantle the capable and patriotic corps 

of civil service, Foreign Service, and contractors who worked to advance and defend 

America’s interests around the world. What steps will you take to rebuild the staffing and morale of the State Department? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that vacancies in the senior ranks of 

the Department are filled as soon as practicable with talented and capable people. 

I will also work to ensure that key State Department priorities are properly 

resourced. As discussed at my hearing, my goal is to ensure that the State Department is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy. 

Question 28. Will you speak out publicly to defend your Civil and Foreign Service 

teams against a damaging denigration campaign to politicize their service that is 

perpetrated by some in this administration? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will defend and rely upon the talented career employees 

of the State Department, as I have done at the CIA. 

Question 29. In response to the January 2017 Executive Order on the so-called 

‘‘Muslim Travel Ban,’’ hundreds of State Department officials signed a Dissent 

Channel Cable in protest. Since then, the cable was leaked to the press. Can you 

confirm that there have been no negative impacts to the employees who signed the 

cables in relation to hiring and paneling decisions? Can you commit to looking into 

this issue and doubling down on efforts to ensure employees have safe ways to express dissent? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the principle and use of the Dissent 

Channel. The Department is stronger because of informed, creative discussion of the 

complex issues we handle. I am not aware of any employees having been disadvantaged in assignments or paneling decisions because of an association with the Dissent Channel, but I commit to looking into this issue, if confirmed. 

Question 30. While at the CIA, you asserted that the intelligence community came 

to the conclusion that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election had no 

effect on the electoral outcome, when the intelligence community made no such assessment. A CIA spokesperson had to later correct your statement. Do you believe 

it is appropriate for a CIA Director to insert himself or herself into political debates 

in this way? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

274 

Answer. I believe it is entirely appropriate for a CIA Director to engage the public 

and answer questions about the Agency and its mission, consistent with our national security obligations, to serve the interests of transparency and to help the 

American public understand CIA. 

That was my purpose in speaking at a forum at the Foundation for the Defense 

of Democracies on 19 October 2017, where I was asked many questions. To clarify 

my response to one question from a reported at the forum, I later directed that CIA 

release a statement making clear that the intelligence assessment on Russian election meddling had not changed and that I did not intend to suggest that it had. 

My views on this issue have been consistent. I stand by the 6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment regarding Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections and I have stated so publicly on many occasions. 

Question 31. What impact do you believe President Trump’s Muslim travel ban 

has had on U.S. relations with the Muslim world and the countries impacted? 

Answer. The United States has strong partnerships with the Muslim world. As 

the CIA Director, I have worked closely with our intelligence partners throughout 

a broad range of Muslim-majority countries over the past 15 months. I assure you 

that if confirmed as Secretary of State, I will continue to work to build strong partnerships globally with Muslim-majority countries. 

Question 32. Do you believe the Muslim ban is good policy? 

Answer. There is no ban on Muslims from entering the United States. 

Question 33. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, on the floor of the 

House of Representatives, you stated that, ‘‘it’s been just under two months since 

the attacks in Boston, and in those intervening weeks, the silence of Muslim leaders 

has been deafening.’’ You then went on to call Muslim-American leaders ‘‘complicit’’ 

in such attacks. However, leaders of multiple American Muslim organizations issued 

statements condemning the attack within 12 hours. Do you stand by your comments 

blaming all American Muslims in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings? 

Answer. I applaud those leaders who condemned the Boston Marathon attack. 

As I stated clearly at my 12 April confirmation hearing, it was never my intention, in any respect, to suggest that Muslim leaders were part of the chain of events 

that led to the Boston Marathon attack. 

Question 34. Do you believe your past statements regarding Muslims, which some 

consider Islamophobic, will impact your ability to conduct diplomacy with Muslim 

nations? 

Answer. No. I will treat persons of each faith or no faith with the dignity and 

respect that they deserve, as I have done during my tenure at the CIA. In this capacity, I have worked closely with Muslim leaders and with governments of Muslim 

countries. Working with leaders of all faiths is at the core of who I am. If confirmed, 

I will work towards creating a more diverse State Department work force in every 

sense: in terms of race, religion, background, and more. As I have done at the CIA, 

I will achieve this by focusing on the mission and treating every team member with 

dignity and respect. 

Question 35. How will you seek to address the ethnic cleansing against the 

Rohingya in Burma? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with like-minded countries and international organizations to use available legal and diplomatic measures to promote accountability for these heinous acts, and I will address the issue directly with the Burmese 

government. I will also consult with experts at the State Department and review 

other tools at our disposal that could be used to promote accountability and to pressure the military and Burmese government to change their behavior. 

Question 36. In our conversations you committed to urging President Trump to 

speak publically about the ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. How important 

do you think it is for United States leadership in the world for the President to 

weigh in on this? 

Answer. It is very important, which is why this Administration has worked with 

allies and partners to hold accountable those responsible for ethnic cleansing in 

Burma. If confirmed, I would advocate for the President to continue to be a vocal 

and forceful advocate against atrocities, including ethnic cleansing in Burma. 

Question 37. How will you support Bangladesh in its efforts to provide support 

to Rohingya refugees? 

Answer. The United States must remain committed to helping address the unprecedented magnitude of suffering created by the Rakhine State crisis. I underFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

275 

stand that since the beginning of FY 2017, the U.S. government has provided nearly 

$181 million—$123 million of which was State Department funding—throughout the 

region in life-saving humanitarian assistance to displaced persons, including 

Rohingya, in and from Burma. Nearly $123 million of total U.S. funding was for 

Bangladesh. If confirmed, I will ensure we continue to support Bangladesh in its 

efforts to provide protection and assistance to those affected by the crisis in Burma, 

including Bangladeshi host communities. I will also advocate for other donor nations 

to provide robust support to the humanitarian response in Bangladesh. 

Question 38. Will you advocate for additional funding to help address the faminelike conditions in countries around the world, include in Nigeria, Yemen, South 

Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize diplomatic efforts and funding to address 

the famine-like conditions in countries around the world. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE

NOMINEE HON. MIKE POMPEO BY SENATOR CORY BOOKER

(Questions 1–13) 

Question 1. LGBTQ people globally continue to face violence and discrimination, 

including in Chechnya where we’re commemorating one year since reports emerged 

that gay men were abducted, held prisoner, and tortured by authorities because of 

their real or perceived sexual orientation. 

If confirmed, will you see LGBTQ rights as human rights, extending the rights 

to live free of violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the highest attainable 

standard of health, to all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, 

gender expression, or sex characteristics? 

Answer. The horrible treatment of LGBTI persons by Chechen authorities is truly 

despicable, and, if confirmed I will stand with the persecuted people of Chechnya, 

including LGBTI persons. I respect every person equally, and, if confirmed, I commit 

to defend the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their race, ethnicity, 

religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. If confirmed, consistent with the Administration’s prior commitment, I intend to retain the position of Special Envoy for 

the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. 

Question 2. How do you reconcile your previous statements and affiliations with 

your ability to uphold human rights if confirmed as Secretary of State? 

Answer. As I noted in my opening remarks, America is uniquely blessed, and with 

those blessings comes a duty to lead. As I have argued throughout my time in public 

service, if we do not lead the calls for democracy and human rights around the 

world, these values will suffer around the globe. No other nation is equipped with 

the same blend of power and principle. If confirmed, you have my pledge to put into 

action America’s commitment to human rights. The previous statements to which 

I believe you are referring are entirely consistent with this view. Thus, reconciling 

these two ideas are straight forward. 

Question 3. As CIA director, your budget was not subject to broad oversight, and 

you directed enormous analytical capability and operations that were covert. Development and diplomacy, on the other hand, is by definition, overt, choreographed, 

and exposed. What is your view of the role of development and diplomacy? 

Answer. Development and diplomacy play an indispensable role in advancing 

peace and security, expanding American influence, and addressing global crises. The 

State Department’s and USAID’s efforts in this area work to advance a more secure 

and prosperous world and ultimately U.S. security. 

Question 4. I just returned from Niger, where we have a significant Department 

of Defense footprint. If you were to visit Niger, who would you go to first—the Ambassador and our Embassy team or your current intelligence colleagues? 

Answer. If I were to visit Niger as the Secretary of State, I would first engage 

the Ambassador and would look forward to hearing the expert views of the Country 

Team. 

Question 5. The President’s new Rules of Engagement standards called the Principles, Standards, and Procedures are meant to ensure that Chiefs of Mission are 

read into any DoD operational plan in country. Do you commit to ensuring that perFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

276 

sonnel have the backing from you and the resources it needs so that the State Department has insight and provides guidance, and approval on any operation? 

Answer. While I am not in a position to comment on Defense Department Rules 

of Engagement, I would be committed to advancing and protecting Chiefs of Mission 

authority around the globe, if confirmed. As part of this commitment, it would be 

essential to ensure that our Chiefs of Mission have the resources they need to conduct U.S. diplomacy. 

Question 6. Current U.S. law and policy governing U.S. global health assistance, 

including President Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance and the 

Helms amendment, permit exceptions in access to abortion services for the health 

of a women or girl and in the case of incest or rape. As a member of Congress, you 

repeatedly co-sponsored ‘‘personhood’’ bills that would effectively prohibit some 

forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. Beyond voting for bills that restrict 

access to legal abortion, you have said that you oppose access to abortion even in 

the case of rape or to save the health of the pregnant women or girl. As Secretary 

of State, you will oversee monitoring and implementation of U.S. programs related 

to billions of dollars of global health assistance that allow for abortion in the case 

of rape. Do you agree that it is cruel and extreme to force a young girl or woman 

to carry a pregnancy that has occurred as a result of rape or incest? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure departments and agencies are monitoring 

partners to ensure their programs adhere to U.S. statutory and policy requirements 

on abortion. 

Question 7. Will you faithfully uphold the law and policy—allowing women and 

girls pregnant from rape, to receive access to abortion services? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure departments and agencies are monitoring 

partners to ensure their programs adhere to U.S. statutory and policy requirements 

on abortion. 

Question 8. China is one of the largest contributors to foreign direct investment 

in Africa and passed the U.S. as its largest trading partner almost 10 years ago. 

With Chinese interests in raw materials and the continent’s untapped reserves of 

numerous natural resources including uranium, iron ore, copper, and natural gas, 

many Sub-Saharan African countries are targets for intense courting by Chinese 

companies willing to invest with few, if any, benchmarks for governance and rule 

of law. Former Secretary Tillerson raised concern with the nature and scope of Chinese lending in Africa before his trip, and several of my colleagues on the House 

and Senate Armed Services Committees have raised questions with the commander 

of AFRICOM about China’s growing economic influence in places like Djibouti. I just 

returned from a week-long trip to the continent with several of my colleagues, and 

our interlocutors simply feel ignored by this Administration, at best, and at worst 

feel deeply offended by the President and this Administration. How do you plan to 

undo the damage done by President Trump’s unfortunate comments about Africa 

and reassure our allies and friends in Africa that we value their partnership and 

relationship? 

Answer. The United States deeply values its partnerships throughout Africa, and 

its commitment to working closely with the people of Africa remains as strong as 

ever. I understand that President Trump conveyed this message in a letter to African leaders participating in the African Union Summit in January 2018. If confirmed, the Department’s partnership with Africa and its commitment to continued 

growth and success on the continent will be unwavering. I will continue to work to 

advance our common interests and goals through U.S. partnerships with the governments and people of Africa, by focusing on countering terrorism, advancing peace 

and security, promoting good governance and health, and spurring mutually beneficial trade and investment. 

Question 9. How do you view China’s growing presence on the continent? 

Answer. I believe that China should apply and uphold the highest international 

standards of openness, inclusivity, transparency, and governance in all its development activities. If confirmed, I would oppose all opaque and unsustainable investment and development initiatives that impose undue costs and burdens on recipients, limiting their options for determining their own future. 

Question 10. Do you agree that unless the U.S. makes drastic changes to our approach and posture toward Africa, China will end up as Africa’s partner of choice 

and will continue to be the ‘‘go to’’ commercial partner for the future? 

Answer. I believe that the U.S. model of promoting mutually beneficial, transparent, and private sector-led trade and investment on the continent remains the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

277 

most beneficial to Africa’s population and will prove the most enduring. U.S. companies, many of which are world leaders in their sectors, should be competitive choices 

for regional infrastructure development. If confirmed, I will press our missions to 

ensure that American firms and U.S. experts can compete for these opportunities 

and will encourage partner governments to follow best practices for lending and 

commercial agreements. 

Question 11. Secretary Mattis has indicated that if the President directed the 

military to use interrogation techniques that go beyond the law, including torture, 

he would not do so. Can you make a similar commitment, if you are confirmed, regarding renditions whereby if asked to negotiate the transfer of detainees in U.S. 

custody to a country where they would be at risk of torture that you would refuse 

to do so and advise against it? 

Answer. Yes, I would follow the law. 

Question 12. Over 300,000 women worldwide die every year in pregnancy or childbirth. The vast majority of these deaths are preventable. We know ensuring women 

can utilize the modern contraception they want would dramatically reduce maternal 

and newborn deaths-- when women are able to space their pregnancies at least 

three years apart, they are more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and 

their children are more than twice as likely to survive infancy. If we addressed 

unmet need for family planning, maternal deaths would drop by two-thirds and 

newborn deaths by three-fourths. Moreover, every additional dollar spent on contraceptive services will save $2.22 in pregnancy-related care. Providing family planning 

services is one of the most effective and cost-effective tools we have to save mothers’ 

and newborns’ lives. Yet, this administration has proposed dramatic and disproportionate cuts for this life saving and effective program. Do you think that access to 

voluntary contraception and accurate and comprehensive information is important 

to women’s health and U.S. development goals of preventing maternal and child 

deaths, controlling the AIDS epidemic, achieving gender equality, and empowering 

women and adolescent girls? 

Answer. I understand the United States is a leader in the provision of maternal 

and newborn health care, including voluntary family planning. If confirmed, I will 

support the Administration’s policies and programs to reduce maternal and newborn 

deaths, combat the AIDS epidemic, promote gender equality, and empower women 

and girls. 

Question 13. To ensure that we continue to make progress on ending preventable 

maternal and child deaths globally, will you fight for funding and policies that 

prioritize expanding access to modern contraception as an efficient and effective way 

to reduce maternal and newborn deaths? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration’s efforts to support the 

maternal health and family planning needs of women around the world. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

278 

Correspondence Submitted for the Record Supporting the 

Senate’s Confirmation of Hon. Mike Pompeo’s as Secretary 

of State 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

OFFICIALS, PLACED IN THE RECORD BY SENATOR CORY GARDNER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


FormerNationalSecurityOfficials-1.eps
279 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


FormerNationalSecurityOfficials-2.eps

Pompeo attended Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and 

went on to a successful career in business. Along the way, he once again heard the call to 

service and was elected to Congress where he served on a range of committees, including the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and earned a reputation as a smart and 

disciplined policymaker. 

Following his service in the House, Director Pompeo was nominated to serve as head of 

the CIA and was confmned on a bipartisan 66-32 vote. When Director Pompeo arrived at CIA 

in January 2017, he faced an anxious workforce. A major reorganization had just occurred at 

CIA and some of its personnel questioned what direction the new Director and the new President 

would take them. Director Pompeo quickly took the pulse of the building, determined what was 

working and what wasn't and moved forward smartly. He has used his strong relationships 

within the National Security Council and the Congress to maintain strong support for CIA's core 

missions. He has likewise ensured that CIA has remained focused on its core mission and 

empowered- and listened to-the professionals. For this, he earned the respe.ct of the agency 

and its people. 

We are confident that Director Pompeo can do the same thing at the State Department, 

should the Senate confirm him. We have no doubt that if con finned, Director Pompeo would 

work diligently to restore the Department of State to its rightful place and would serve with 

honor and distinction as he has in his previous service for our nation. 

1l1ank you for the opportunity to write to you today and we look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

Sincerely, 

Gen. (ret.) Keith B. Alexander 

Former Director, National Security Agency and Founding Commander, U.S. Cyber Conunand 

J. Michael Allen 

Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter-Proliferation Strategy, 

National Security Council, The White House 

Stewart Baker 

Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security 

Jeremy Bash 

Former Chief of Staff, Central Intelligence Agency & Department of Defense 

Frank Cilluffo 

Fonner Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, The White House 
280 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


FormerNationalSecurityOfficials-3.eps

John A. Davis 

Major General, U.S. Army (Retired) 

West Point Class of 1980 

Karen S. Evans 

Fonner Administrator for E-Govenunent and IT, Office of Management & Budget 

Michael Geffi·oy 

Fonner venera I Counsel, U.:S. :Senate :Select Committee on intelligence 

Sarah R. Gcffroy 

Fonner Chief Counsel, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

Matthew Heiman 

Fonner Attorney-Advisor, National Security Division, Department of Justice 

Jamil N. Jaffer 

Fonner Chief Counsel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

GeofKalm 

Fonner Senior Advisor to the Chief Operating Officer, Centrallntelligence Agency 

Joel Kaplan 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to the President, The White House 

Andy Keiser 

Fonner Senior Advisor, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

Jack Livingston 

Fonner Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 

John Maguire 

Forn1er Professional Staff Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Michael B. Mukasey 

Fonner Attorney General of the United States 

Lester Munson 

Fonner Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

Benjamin A. Powell 

Fonner General Counsel, Office of the Director ofNatiooallotelligeoce 
281 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


FormerNationalSecurityOfficials-4.eps

W. Price Roe 

Fonner Counselor to the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security 

Mike Rogers 

Fom1er Chainnan, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

Marie O'Neill Sciarrone 

Fonner Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security & Senior Director for 

Cybersecurity and lnfonnation Sharing Policy, The White House 

Bryan Smith 

Former Budget Director, U.S. House Permanent Select Corrunittcc on Intelligence 

Hugo Teufel Ill 

Fonner Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Ted Ullyot 

Former Chief of Staff to the Attorney Genera l, Department ofJustice 

Michael G. Waltz 

Fonner Special Advisor to the Vice President for South Asia and Counterterrorism, The White 

House 

Julie Myers Wood 

Fonner Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security 

Amit Yoran 

Fonner National Cybersecurity Director & Founding Director, US-CERT, Department of 

Homeland Security 

Roger Zakheim 

Fonner Genera l Counsel & Deputy StaffDirector, U.S. House Armed Services Committee 

Juan Zarate 

Former Deputy Assistant to the President & Deputy National Security Advisor for Combatting 

Terrorism, The White House 
282 

Correspondence Submitted for the Record Opposing the 

Senate’s Confirmation of Hon. Mike Pompeo’s as Secretary 

of State 

MATERIAL PLACED IN THE RECORD BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY Human Rights Watch 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HumanRights-1.eps
283 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HumanRights-2.eps

to represent all Americans. More specifically. this could undermine the State Department's authority 

to fairly designate individuals or entities as foreign terrorist organizations. If confirmed, he would be 

tasked with upholding laws and legal obligations against which he fought vehemently as a Member of 

Congress. In addition, Pompeo has co-sponsored and voted for le-gislation that would significantly 

restrict women's and girls' access to reproductive health care beyond current law and policy, and has 

stated he does not believe women should be able to access abortion services even in the case of rape. 

His opposition to LGBT rights will send the wrong message abroad and could harm efforts by the State 

Department to attract and retain foreign service officers who broadly represent the breadth and scope 

of Americ.a. His views on women's access to certain reproductive health services, induding on some 

forms of contraception or abortion after rape or to save a woman•s health, could hinder his ability to 

c.arry out existing US laws. policies, and programs under the State Department's authority related to 

women and girls. 

The US Senate is charged with scrupulously examining the administration's nominees for senior 

positions in government. Confirmation of Michael Pompeo as Secretary of State not only runs the risk 

of eroding US law on torture and other ill-treatment but also undermines US engagement in the 

international legal system and the State Department's commitment to human rights as a core tenet of 

US foreign policy. We opposed the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as CIA director and now. for many of 

the same reasons, described above and in greater detail below, we urge you to oppose his 

nomination to be Secretary of State. 

Sincerety, 

Sarah Margon 

Washington Director 

Human Rights Watch 

Nicole Austin·Hillery 

Executive Director, US Program 

Human Rights Watch 
284 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HumanRights-3.eps

APPENOlX 

A. Tacit Appro"ol of Torture 

Pompeo has ••pressed suppon for the use of~enhanud intetrog~~tion" techniques as part 

~ 

of the CIA ROI program, which he said were ''being used within the law," and he 

President Barack Obama for ending the CIA program. ~le opposed relt<~sing the 

Senate Intelligence Committee summary of its report on the CIA program in December 

2014. During his eonlirmation hearing to be CIA director, Pompeo acknowledged that 

watcrboarding and other previously used interrogation techniques that amounted to 

torture were barred by a 2015 federal law. But in wriuen follow-up questions, he raised 

the DO<sjbility that the law may have to be revised if it became an impediment for US 

inlerrogatOrs. That reasoning was repeated publicly as recently as in a January 2018 

at the American Enterprise Institute and in a July 2017 sneesh at the Aspen Forum. 

B. Anti-Muslim Views 

Pompeo has depicted American Muslim leaders as "ootcntinlly comolicj!" in violent 

attacks in the United States, clnimjng wrongly that they failed to spt<~ k out against attacks 

commiued by Muslims. He also said th31 this alleged behavior "casts doubt upon the 

commitment to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith." As ~ by Tire Jmercept, 

Pompeo described a "minority" of Muslims who "abhor Christians" as a "threat to 

America" in a 201 4 speech to a church group and appt<~red to depict US counterterrorism 

efforts as a connict between Christian and Muslim ideologies. While in Congress, 

Pompeo co-soonsored leeislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign 

terroriSt org~~niunion, an action !bPI \\OUid undermine the ability of the Muslim 

Brotherhood's members and supporters to panieipate in democratic politics abroad and 

would threaten the rights to association of Muslim groups in the United States. 

C. Opposition to LGBT and Women 's Riglrts 

While serving as a congressman from Kansas, Pompeo repeatedly issued discriminatory 

comments about LGBT people and supported attempts at discriminatory legislation. 

When the Supreme Court endorsed marriage equality in 20 IS, Pompeo called it a "a 

shocking abuse of power" that "nics in the face of centuries of shared understanding of 

our Constitution.• On the campaign trail, Pompeo opoosed the rept<~l of Don't Ask, 

Don't Tell in the US armed forces and has !:!lk!! families with same-sex parents less 

"ideal." He ~ the Violence Against Women Act, in large part because it included 

a provision covering LGBT survivors of domestic violence. lie eo-sponsored legislation 

that sought to slow the spread of marriage equality and co-sponsored two bills that would 

have limited recognition of same-sex marriages .. the Marrjagc Ql!d Religjous Freedom 

Act of20 13 and the State Murrjauc !)cfcnsc Act of2014 following the 2013 Supreme 

Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act. 

As a member of Congress, Pompeo took the lead on measures to restrict women's 

reproductive rights. He repeatedly co->ponsored "personhood" bills that would 
285 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HumanRights-4.eps

effectively prohibit some forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization, and bills 

limiting women's access to reproductive health services. Beyond voting for bills that 

restrict access tO legal abortion, he Qpooscd access to abo11ion in the case of rape or to 

save the health of the pregnant women or girl. Even the Protecting Life in Global Health 

Assistance (previously the Mexico City Policy, also referred to as the Global Gag Rule) 

and the Helms amendment, both governing US global health assistance, permit 

exceptions in access to abortion services for the health of a women or girl and in the case 

of incest or rape. As Secretary of State, Pompeo will be overseeing monitoring and 

implementation of US programs related to billions of dollars of global health assistance, 

as such we are very concerned that his positions on women's reproductive health make 

him unsuitable to implement even the very restrictive policies and laws that the US 

undertakes abroad. 
286 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE Leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


LCCHR-1.eps
287 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


LCCHR-2.eps

April9, 2018 

Page2or4 

who even accused Grover Norquisl of ties to Islamic infituators.1 In addition, as a I louse member, Mr. 

Pompeo voiced support for expanding mass surveillance programs,• and he cosponsored legislation to ban 

all refugee admissions, regardless of country, even though refugees were already subjected 10 a years-long 

vetting process.' ln2014, he chatacteri?.ed the Senate's report on CIA torture as a .. liberal game being 

played by the ACLU and Senator f'elnstein,"' and called those who engaged in torture ''palrlOIS.''1• 

Mr. Pompeo also has a history of marginalizing other vulnerable populations. f:or example, long after the 

repeal of the failed .. Don't Ask. Don't Tell'" policy barring LGBTQ people from military service, he 

con1inued to argue for their exe:lusion., and he characterized I he 20 IS Supreme Cour1 ruling establishing 

marriage equality as a .. shocldng abuse of power." 11 And he has repeatedJy voted to restrict women's 

access to vital reproductive health c.arc both in the United Sunes and abroad. As a membet ofCOC'Igress, 

he voted to climina~e federal funding for Planned Parenthood. 11 even though the organization can by law 

only use federal funds for services S\leh a.s cancer screenings Md binh contrOiu and is the largest provider 

of contre«pt_ion for low·inc.ome women. He also suppor1cd imposing the Mexico City Policy/global gag 

rule)" which forces hc,alth providers to choose between their ethical obligations to infonn their clients 

about all legal reproductive health can: options or forego crilically needed resources to serve women in 

poor countries. Mon: rt"«ndy, Mr. Pompeo's reponed hostility toward CIA diversity and inclusion 

initiatives•J raiSe$ serious conc.:ms about hi$ commitment and ability to lead lhe Department ofStare·s 

diverse, muhinational workforce. 

The Secretary of State is one of our most impon:ant positions for promotin.g Md protecling human rights. 

This cabinet level position has a unique and important role-requiring lhe ability to build international 

coalitions and serve as our representative in international nesotiations. Mr. Pompc.o's documented anti· 

Muslim biM is dangerous to American foreign policy, will cripple his ability 10 develop essential 

relationships with Muslim·majority «>untries. and will irrcp.'lrably undermine his ability to lead the State 

Depanment workforu. In light of Mr. Pompeo's divish·e and extreme record, we urge you to oppose;: his 

confinnation. ThMk you for your co~ideration of our views. 

Sincerely, 

The U:adership Conference on Civil end Human Rights 

18MillionRising.org 

Alliance for Justice 

American Jewish World Service 

' hnps:J/www lbedailybeast.cornlmikc pompeos-dinurbingly~n.sistent~ftitndsbjps·with-anti muslim-bigots 1 1mp-J/www.mcc:la,ehydc.oom/newslnation .. "'-orldfnationa.VnationaJ-sccurity/a!1iclcS6$69248.htJnl 

• hn :l/fonippolky.c:<lmi20J6106/IS/house-rcpublkans-scek-blanket·ban-on -~fu~sf 

lO hnp://www.kan58S.COIN'ftews/politle&-go\·crnmtntlek<:tionlanicle 1156:36S6J.html 11 tmps:t/Www.•<h'Oette,oonVpoliticS/20 1313/ 1 J/~retiU)'·S1ate ck mtke pompeoob!'ltliS•Int -IQtl1-fe¢0rd bim 

u http://www.ib&hnes.~S·ways•mike--pompco-dilfcrcnt-fex Cilkrson-2622431 

13 httPJ:I/www.factc.htck.ortf2:0 11104/planneO-partntboodl 14 http://clcrk.house.gov/evsf2011/roll1 47.xml 

'' hnp:l/foroig11policy.c:onV2017/09/081m~wt!hc-•mOf'C-male-morc.-jesus-cia-empioycC$·fc3t·potnpco.is-qt.IICdy• 

killing-lhe-agmc:ys-di\'et'Sity-mandatel 
288 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


LCCHR-3.eps

April 9, 2018 

PageJ of4 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

Americans United for Separation of Church and Suue 

Arab American lnstitule 

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALOEF) 

Asian Americans Advanclng Justice· AAJC 

Asian Paeltle American labor Alliance 

Ccnlcr f01 Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) 

Cen ~r for the Study of Hale & Extremism, California State Uniwrsity~San Bernardino 

Clcarin.ghouse on Women's Issues 

Defending Rights & Dissent 

Emgage Aetion 

Equal JllS'icc Society 

EqUAl Rishts Advoeai<S 

Equality California 

Fa.nnworkcr Justice 

Global Forum on MSM & I·IIV 

Global Network of Black People working in II IV 

Housing Works. Inc. 

Human Rights Advocates 

Human Rights Campa.ign 

Human Rights Watch 

Indivisible 

lntcmatione.l Association of Womf:n in Radio and Television - {A WRT 

JtlpAne§e American Citiz.e0$l.eague 

Lambda Legal 

Manhew Shepard foundation 

Muslim Advocates 

Muslim Public AftairsCouncil 

NAACP 

NARAl.. Pro-Choice America 

National A.o;:soei.cuion of Human Rights WoT'kers 

National Association of Social WorkerS 

Netioool Center for Transgender Equality 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Hispanic Media Coalition 

National Immigration Law Center 

National LatiMins.titutt for Reproductive Health 

Na!ior101 LGOTQ Task Force Action Fund 

National Organization for Women 

People For the American Way 

PFLAG National 

Planned Parenthood Federation of AmeriCii 

Population Institute 
289 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


LCCHR-4.eps

April9, 2011 

Pl&e~or~ 

Proctc1 Dcmocl'l<)' 

Southern Povt'tl)' Law Cente-r 

Thelnt<1'fallh Center of New York 

UnldosUS (fonncrly tbe Natioool Couneil ofl.a Raze) 

Veterans for PcBCe 

Wo111enNC 

Woodhull Frt<dom Fo .. ulation 

World Witbe<JJ Genocide at Mitchell Hamlinc School of Law 
290 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY Amnesty International 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


AI-1b.eps

AMNESTY Jt 

I NTDINAnOIW. C:t:j.: 

April 10,2018 

Senator Bob Corker 

Chair. Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

423 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Senator Bob Menendez 

Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee 

423 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Re: April1 2 confirmation hearing for Secretary of State Nominee Michael Pompeo 

Dear Chairman Corker. Ranking Member Menendez. and Members of the Committee: 

On behalf of Amnesty International USA ("AI USA") and our more than one mill ion 

members nationwide, we hereby submit this statement for the hearing record. The President's 

nominee. Michael Pompeo. 10 be the next Secretary of State has raised concern, at home and 

abtoad. about the administration's commitment, or lack thereof. to human rights. This 

Committee is taking up the Pompeo nomination at a time when the world is facing a growing 

threat ofthcm10nuclear war, an unprecedented 65.6 milljon people around the world have ned 

their homes in search of humanitarian protection, and journalists and human rights defenders are 

being jailed end killed by oppressive .:ovcmmcnts. A! USA urges this Committee to thoroughly 

probe Pompeo's human rights record. 

Although the Senate confirmed Pompeo as CIA Director, this Committee must not 

rubber-stamp his nomination as Secretory of State. This Committee must conduct a vigorous 

probe anew, tls the two cabinet posts arc dramatically different and therefore require 

diffcrerll qualifications and present different considerations for the Senate. The CIA 

Din."Ctor's mission is ro collect intelligence and data to assist the national sccurit) of the country. 

The Secretary nfSrate i< the notion'• top diplomat and the face of human rishl$ •brood. In 
291 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


AI-2b.eps

AMNESTY Jt 

INTERNATIONAL (:f:f 

representing the U.S. to the world, the Secretary of State must be a respected leader who evinces 

the nation's longstanding leadership on international human rights laws and standards. 

The Secretary's duties include conducting high-level human rights dialogues with other 

governments, raising human rights issues and cases through diplomatic and public channels, and 

coordinating human rights policy. Prior Secretaries of State have used diplomatic and other 

channels to press governments to re lease political prisoners, to investigate crimes against 

humanity, and to bring human rights violators to justice. Pompeo's prior statements supporting 

torture and indefinite detention. and his record of hostility towards refugees, Muslims, women, 

and LGBTI individuals reveal a nominee who has flagrantly disregarded human rights, civil 

rights, and international law. 

Espouses torture: The prohibition on torture is a central tenet oft he modern 

international human rights legal framework. As a party to the Convention Against Torture, the 

U.S. is obligated tO "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to 

prevent acts of torture in any territory under its j urisdiction." Pompeo, however, has voiced 

support for the use of interrogation methods that amount to torture. As congressperson, Pompeo 

espoused torture, stat.lng that those who perpetrated the crimes outlined in the 2014 Senate 

"torture repmt" were "not torturers, they [were) patriots." The State Department plays a key role 

in ensuring that individuals in U.S. custody are not sent to places where they face a risk or 

torture. Pompeo's prior support for torture and his expressed frustration with laws banning 

torture raise concerns that he could support the use of secret unlawful renditions or proxy 

detentions, in violation of international law. 

2 
292 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


AI-3b.eps

AMNESTY Jt 

INTERIIAnONAL ~ 

Supports indefinite detention: Pompeo opposes closing the Guantanamo Bay prison 

and instead supports indefinite detention without charge or trial. I lis staunch support of the 

prison is very troubling in light oft he President's plans to expand it, over the recommendations 

of a broad range of national security experts across the political spectrum. 

Hostility towards Muslims: After the 2013 Boston Marathon attacks, thenCongressperson Pompeo falsely accused Muslim-American leaders of failing to condenmthe 

attacks, equating their silence with compliciry in terrorism. During events he hosted in his home 

state of Kansas, Pompeo voiced that the thrca! to the United Stntes is from "people who deeply 

believe that Islam is the way.'' 

As Secretary of State, Pompeo would be the nation's chief diplomat to the entire world 

including Muslim-majority countries. He would also oversee the Slllte Department's designation 

of entities as individuals and organizations as so-called foreign terrorist organizations. Given his 

record of hostility against Muslims, it remains very much in question whether Pompeo could 

effectively represent and advance the U.S. human rights agenda. 

Ln addition. as the head of the State Department, the Secretary of State oversees most of 

the U.S. government's human rights work including as pertains to of the Bureau of Democra~;y, 

Labor. and Human Rights ("DRL"), the Bureau of Population. Refugees. and Migration 

("PRM''), Office of Global Criminal Justice (''GCJ"). and the Office of Global Women's Issues 

("G\VI"). These offices lead and coordinate the U.S. government's work on human rights 

reponing, refugee resettlement, war crimes investigations, and fighting gender-based violence. 

Whether Pompeo would effecti vely advance--or undermine-the human rights aspects of these 

programs is an open question. 

3 
293 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


AI-4b.eps

AMNESTY Jt 

INmiiiAnOIIAL ~ 

Supports refugee ban: As congressperson, Pompeo co-sponsored legislation to ban all 

refugee admissions, regardless of country, even though refugees were already subject to a multiyears-long vetting process. His espousal of an outright refugee ban is highly problematic given 

that PRJ\.1 is tasked with protecting and resettling refugees who have ned persecution and 

dangerous conditions. PRM works with the United Kations refugee agency and other 

governments to screen. vet, resettle, and welcome refugees, in accordance with best practices in 

humanitarian principles. 

Opposes reproductive rights: As a congressperson, Pompeo cast dozens ofvotcs 

against women's health. He eo-sponsored legislation to make abortion illegal nationwide in 

nearly all cases, and voted to defund Planned Parenthood even though Planned Parenthood 

provides critical health services, other than abortion, to low-income women and women of color. 

He also supports the Global Gag Rule, a deadly policy that bars overseas health clinics from 

receiving U.S. aid if they use their own money to so much as educate their communities on 

where to access safe abortion. Pompeo's staunch opposition to reproductive rightS is especially 

dangerous given that the Secretary of State oversees GWI and DRL, both key offices charged 

with reporting and advancing human rights including women's rights. 

Hostility to LGBTI communities: mpeo ~ the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell 

("'DADT''}, and even after the DADT repeal, cgntinucd to call for the exclusion of LGBTI 

people from military service. As congressperson, Pompeo co-soonsorc4 legislation opposed to 

marriage equality, and characteri7.ed the 20 15 Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality as a 

"shocking abuse of power." More recently, as CIA Director, Pompeo cancelled a planned 

speech about diversity and LGBTI rights. I lis anti-LGBTI rights record is extremely troubling 

4 
294 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


AI-5b.eps

AMNESTY Jt 

IIITIRNATIONAL ~ 

given the rise in anti-LGBTI violence in Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and other countries. It is 

essential that the Secretary of State be recognized as a serious leader who is willing and able to 

press world leaders to halt anti-LGBTI violence. 

At a time when human rights are under assault across the globe, it is essential that the 

Secretary of State commit to fighting for human rights through all diplomatic channels, 

investigative tools, and rigorous documentation. AI USA urges this Committee to press Pompeo 

to commit publicly on the record to uphold the State Department's long-established record of 

protecting and resettling refugees, investigating war crimes and genocide, fighting gender-based 

violence, and documenting human rights abuses across the world. It is critical that the Senate 

usc its constitutionally granted power, as a co-equal branch in foreign policy, to lay a clear 

marker on human rights protection and demand that the next Secretary of State live up to 

international law and standards. 

For more infonnation, please contact me at jlinl{i'aiusa.org or 202/509-8151. 

Sincerely, 

Joanne Lin 

National Director 

Advocacy and Government Affairs 

5 
295 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE National 

Center for Transgender Equality 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


TG-1.eps
296 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY NIAC Action 

(National Iranian American Council) 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NAIC-1.eps
297 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NAIC-2.eps

confirmed, my role will change," he testified. " It will be to drive the Agency 

to aggressively pursue collection operations and ensure analysts have the 

time, political space, and resources to make objective and methodolog ically 

sound j udgments. •· 

However, as CIA Director· despite 10 separate IAEA reports confirming 

Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal • Pompeo continued his political 

assault against the deal and lobbied Trump to exit the deal. According to a 

July report in Foreign Policy, "Although most of Trump's deputies 

endorsed c ertifying that Iran was abiding by the deal, one senior figure 

has emerged in favor of a more aggressive approach - CIA Director 

Mike Pompeo. At White House deliberations, the former lawmaker 

opposed c ertifying Iran while suggesting Congress weig h in on the 

issue, officials and sources close to the administration said ... 

Additionally, as former CIA analyst Ned Price wrote "Intelligence analysts 

familiar with the matter recounted to me that ... Pompeo would adopt 

the Dic k Cheney-esque strategy of asking the same question 

repeatedly- namely whether Tehran remained in compliance w ith the 

terms of the deal - apparen tly hoping for a different answer. Even 

w i thout the facts on his side, Pompeo was said to have argued in favor 

of trashing the accord and ramping up the pressure on Iran." 

Pompeo argued for bombing Iran during the nuclear talks, and said it would 

be easy 

In the midst of the nuclear negotiations with Iran in 2014, Pompeo joined 

Sen. Tom Cotton in a roundtable with reporters to call for an end to the 

negotiations. Pompeo argued for military action rather than diplomacy, 

saying "In an unclassified setting, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the 

Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition 

forces." 

Pompeo has consi stently hyped intelligence and spun the facts on the JCPOA 

As Congress prepared for a vote on the fate of the nuclear deal in 2015, 

Pompeo travelled to Vienna with Senator Cotton for meetings with the 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There, they were briefed on a 

technical implementation plan between the IAEA and Iran to resolve a n 

inquiry into Iran's past nuclear activities with possible military dimensions. 

The plan was confidential, which is standard - arrangements between the 
298 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NAIC-3.eps

IAEA and the countries it inspects are protected to ensure confidence that 

working with the IAEA will not lead to the disclosure of sensitive information 

and therefore deter countries from allowing robust inspections. However, r 

ather than use this information to better understand the technical details of 

the JCPOA, Pompeo and Cotton publicly announced that the technical plan 

was a " secret side deal" that Obama was withholding from the American 

public. The claim became the basis for the House of Representatives passing 

legislation authored by Pompeo alleging that Obama had broken the law and 

that the JCPOA was therefore void. 

Pompeo has engaged in stunts to boost his own profile at the expense of U.S. 

interests 

Far from diplomatic e x perience, Pompeo's history on foreign policy is full of 

bluster and cheap theatrics. Perhaps no incident demonstrates this better 

than his campaign, along with Reps. Lee Zeldin and Frank LoBiondi, to seek 

visas to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities in February 2016 - an echo of the 

infamous Tom Cotton letter to Iran. The letter, dripping with sarcasm, was 

sent to Iran's Supreme Leader and head of Revolutionary Guards. It was 

aimed at stoking tensions and raising Pompeo's personal profile at the 

expense of U.S. diplomatic credibility. It came at a sensitive time for 

implementation of the JCPOA when many hoped that good faith 

implementation of the agreement on all sides could open opportunities to 

negotiate additional compromises from Iran outside the nuclear sphere. 

Pompeo's political stunts continued at the CIA 

As CIA director, Pompeo revealed late last year that he sent a warning letter 

to Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran's Qud's Forces. Former CIA heads and 

officials, Congressional staff, and other national security experts called the 

effort a "political stunt" and evidence that Pompeo was "acting more like a 

Trump political surrogate in his CIA post than a discreet intelligence chief." 

Tehran, meanwhile, seized on the effort- publicizing that Soleimani did not 

bother to open the letter. 

Pompeo leaked information to advocacy groups while at CIA aimed at 

undermining the JCPOA 

Even at CIA, Pompeo worked closely with some of the most prominent 

advocacy groups working to kill the Iran deal. Pompeo spoke at a conference 

for the ideological anti-Iran diplomacy group Foundation for Defense of 

Democracies, and even provided the group's in-house publication "The Long 
299 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NAIC-4.eps

War Journal" with advance copies of declassified materials aimed at 

increasing political pressure against the Iran deal. 

Thank You, 

Jamal Abdl 

Executive Director, NIAC Action 
300 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY A GROUP OF MEMBERS

OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-1.eps
301 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-2.eps

that would force the Department of Defense to discriminate against LGBTI savicc memben 

who wanted to hold private evcnts on military properties. 

Even after the Supreme Court suuck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional tn 

2014, Mr. Pompeo joined on multiple pieces of!egislauon intended to circumvent the Supreme 

Coun's ruling and give states the right to continue to discriminate against the LGBTI 

community. The fact that Mr. Pompeo chose to continue to oppose Americans' constitutional 

rights to equality despite the unequivocal ruling of the judiciary is extremely concerning and 

raises the question of whether Mr. Pompeo, as Secretory of State, could be trusted to execute the 

laws of this country, which require him to trcmoll State Department employees equally, 

rcs-rdlcss of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, many Americans of all 

orientations, religions, backgrounds, and cthnicities work abroad on behalf of the United States, 

sometimes in hazardous conditions, and they need to know they hove support of State 

Department leadership. 

Moreover, in recent years there has been a widespread and concerted effort by foreign leaders to 

engage in or encounge violence, discrimination, and marginalization againstlGBTI or 

suspected LGBTI people. Over just the past year we have seen govemma~t led crackdowns and 

violence against LGBTI communities in Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Azetbaijan and others. The 

United Statca has a long bipartisan tradition of promoting the human and civil rights of all 

people. Mr. Pompeo's opposition to fundamental human rights and equality for LGBTI 

individuals sends the wrong message at home and abroad and leaves the door open to foreign 

leaders who would seek to persocute their LGBTI citizens. 

We arc also extremely concerned by Mr. Pompeo's record on torture and the use of"enhanced 

interrogation techniques" by the United Stoles. Mr. Pompeo has previously defended the use of 

"watcrboarding," saying that it does not constitute torture. And though Mr. Pompeo committed 

in his CIA confirmation bearing that be would not follow any orders to break current law, he has 

since u.id- in public comments responding to a question lamenting that "black sites" are no 

longer available for interrogating detainees----that if presented with a situation whct"C current law 

didn't -ddiver,ft he would support efforts to rewrite laws to get what uAmerica needs." 

These positions were troubling when Mr. Pompeo was seeking the role of CIA Director, but are 

equally concerning as Mr. Pompeo seeks the position of Secretary of State. Vulnerable 

populations including the LGBTI community are at greater risk of being subject to torture and 

other tllegal detention methods, whcthcr by govenunent, police, or non-government entities. As 

the country's top diplomat, Mr. Pompeo would bo expected to represent the United States' 

positions with leaders offoreign governments, many of whom engage in torture. It is difficult to 

imagine that he would credibly be able to criticize or condemn foreign governments for engaging 
302 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-3.eps

in torture, in light of his own record on the subject. The elevation of Mr. Pompeo to the role of 

Secretary of State would clearly put these vulnerable communities at greater risk. 

American foreign policy has been rooted in the belief of universal values and support for human 

rights for decades. We believe that the eonfinnation of Mike Pompeo to the position of Secretary 

of State is contrary to the American values of respect for the rule oflaw and human rights, 

especially respect for the safety of the individual and the fundamental right to security in one's 

pers<ln. The Secretary of State must be a champion of American values and Mr. Pompeo clearly 

does not represent the views of the nation. We respectfully urge you to oppose the con_finnation 

of Mr. Pompeo to the position of Secretary of State. 

Sincerely, 

Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Member of Congress 

~~o~m~~ Member of Congress 

Alan Lowenthal 

Member of Congress 

Barbara Lee ~t?e Member of Congress 

Brian 

~~~~ Higgins 

Member of Congress 

Ad

~~.riano Espaillat 

Member of Congress 
303 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-4.eps

VMJ(& 'k8 Q Mark DeSaulnier 

Member of Congress 

Donald A. McEachin 

Member of Congress 

Daniel T. Kildee 

Member of Congress 

Bradley S. Schneider 

Member of Congress 

~~ Betty McCollum 

Member of Congress 

a.~-K~n~ Member of Congress 

Darren Soto 

Member of Congress 
304 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-5.eps

f'Jdk.tU~M Debbie Wasserman Schultz 

Member of Congress 

~&.t:f~ Member of Congress 

~n 13~ Nanette Diaz Barragan 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

tfj~ Member of Congress 

Dina Titus 

Member of Congress 

)Ja.CJI 

Salud 0. Carbajal 

Member of Congress 

~~Jl,el~ ember of Congress 

Bill Foster 

Member of Congress 

~ .. v~ --< Suzan IBene 

Member of Congress 
305 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-6.eps

CruuR. d\%11\. Carol Shca-Poner 

Member of Congress 

Ruben Gallego 

Member of Congress 

Karen Bass 

Member of Congress 

(l.~lf361W Mem bcr of Congress 

MarkPocan 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Chellie Pingree 

Member of Congress 
306 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Congressmany-7.eps

Lisa Blunt RoclJester 

Member of Congress 

CC: 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader, US Senate 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader, US Senate 

Anthony G. Brown 

Member of Congress 

Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
307 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY A COALITION OF

VARIOUS INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


coalition-1.eps
308 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


coalition-2.eps

Signed, 

1. 9to5, National Association of Working Women 

2. Advocates for Youth 

3. African American Ministers In Action 

4. American Jewish World Se1vice 

5. Athlete Ally 

6. Bailey House, Inc. 

7. Bangladesh Model Youth Parliament 

8. Barnabas Charity Outreach 

9. Beyond the Bomb 

10. CADIRE CAMEROON ASSOCIATION 

1,1. Catholics for Choice 

12. Center for Biological Diversity 

13. Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) 

14. CenterLink: The Community ofLGBT Centers 

15. Equality North Carolina 

16. Feminist Majority Foundation 

17. Fundacion para Estudio e lnvestigaci6n de la Mujer ·FEIM· 

18. GiriForward 

19. GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality 

20. Global Rights for Women 

21. Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation 

22. Health Global Access Project 

23. Human Rights Campaign 

24. International Women's Health Coalition 

25. !pas 

26. JAGO NARI, Bangladesh. 

27. Lambda Legal 

28. Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense Fund 

29. Medical Students for Choice 

30. NARAL Pro-Choice America 

31. National Abortion Federation 

32. National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) 

33. National Black justice Coalition 

34. National Center for Lesbian Rights 

35. National Center for Transgender Equality 

36. National Council of jewish Women 

37. National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH) 

38. National Organization for Women 

39. OutRight Action International 

40. OutServe-SLDN 

41. PAl 

42. Peace X Peace 

43. People For the American Way 

44. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
309 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


coalition-3.eps

45. Population Connection Action Fund 

46. Population Council · 

47. Population Institute 

48. Prevention Access Campaign 

49. Promundo-US 

50. Rainbow Pride Foundation 

51. Religious Institute 

52. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) 

53. The Global Forum on MSM & HIV 

54. Transgender Law Center 

55. Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity 

56. Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights 

57. Win Without War 

58. Witness to Mass Incarceration 

59. Women Thrive Alliance 

60. Women's Refugee Commission 

61. Woodhull ~·reedom Federation 
310 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY SEVERAL

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NGOLetter-1.eps
311 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NGOLetter-2.eps

• Defending Torture: Pompeo's detense of torture, including waterboarding, is abhorrent and 

should be categorically rejected. His words offer other repressive governments a justification 

for their own brutality. 

Make no mistake: President Donald Trump is assembling a War Cabinet with Mike Pompeo at 

the helm. Our concerns are only further heightened with the recent appointment of John Bolton 

as National Security Advisor, a man who shares many of the same dangerous and disturbing 

policies and positions as Pompeo. There is no doubt that the Senate would have blocked the 

nomination of Ambassador Bolton to any Senate-confirmable position, and they must not now 

allow his radical and extreme agenda to be implemented by having Mike Pompeo join him in 

Donald Trump's cabinet. 

After two costly, bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a national folly to put 

advocates for another major war in charge of U.S. foreign policy. The costs would be devastating 

for civilians around the world, U.S. soldiers sent to war, and our national treasury. To preserve 

America's global standing and advance our national interests, U.S leaders must champion human 

rights and continue to promote global development and diplomacy. 

Pompeo is unfit to serve as Secretary of State. We urge you to oppose and reject his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

198 methods 

350.org 

About Face: Veterans Agai nst the War 

act. tv 

Action Corps 

Action Together Network 

ActionAid USA 

Advocates for Youth 

American Family Voices 

American Friends Service Committee 

Americans for Peace Now 

Beyond the Bomb 

Campaign for America's Future 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Health and Gender Equity 

(CHANGE) 

Climate Hawks Vote 

ClimateTruth.org 

CODEPTNK 

Common Defense 

Council for a Livable World 

Council on American-Islamic Relations 

Courage Campaign 

CREDO 

DailyKos 

Demand Progress Action 

Democracy for America 

Demos Action 

Friends of the Earth U.S. 

Gasp 

Global Forum Oil MSM & HTV 

Herd Oil the Hill 

Indivisible 

J Street 

Jewish Voice for Peace 

Jewish World Watch 

Just Foreign Policy 

MoveOn.org Civic Action 
312 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


NGOLetter-3.eps

MPower Change 

NARAL Pro-Choice America 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Immigration Law Center 

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund 

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice 

NextGen America 

NIACAction 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Oil Change International 

Only Through US 

Pantsuit Nation 

Peace Action 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America 

Population Connection Action Fund 

Power Shift Network 

Presente.org 

Progressive Congress Action Fund 

Public Citizen 

Rachel Carson Council 

RootsAction.org 

STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End 

Mass Atrocities 

Sunrise Movement 

Sustain US 

The Sierra Club 

The Y cmen Peace Project 

United for Peace and Justice 

Vote Vets 

Win Without War 

Women's Action for New Directions 

World BEYOND War 

CC: Chairman Bob Corker and Ranking Member Bob Menendez, Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee 
313 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY Muslim Advocates 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


MuslimAdvocates-1.eps

MUSl.IM ADVOCATE.$ 

P.O. Box 7lOe0 

OakJand, CA 94612 

T/4t5.692.1418<t 

F/ 41!i,1GS.1n4 

El nlo .mutllm•tJvo~;a le$ OfQ 

www MytlimAqvocat!! otq 

BOARD OF DI RECT ORS : 

NAHIO AU NIAZEE 

PI'IJI•nrhtop ~t, comm~llity Acritti#t 

RASHID ALVI 

M1nllglng DitiJCIOr, H•tvlttd 

C~pll~l Grot;p 

MOHAMMAD FADEL 

Anoc;-. Protu~cw or (..fw, 

Unlvtlt<y 01 TorontD 

DR, AAli'I'A 'I'AOU9 

Phy1;a1m, Entr*pr•n.ut 

FAIYAZ HUSSAIN 

s.n!or Co!nMLJnMgt•!«<Ph~y 

Solll'.m.. &¥1M H!Mti'Jc.ant eo.-

SAE.UA SOMAL VA 

Sfn/(N VICIJ PtuidtJIIl, 

Filitt TlltttJOflllf 

FARHANA 'I', K.HERA 

Ptuldont 6 Ex•curlv• DlffctO(, 

l.lusJm• AdV<J>Cllteg 

SHAHZAO A. MAl.! I( 

S1'141ttlllfJ/dt:t, $ttldlmg Yocu 

Ctuf$nn 4 R1111th, P.C, 

M . Y USUF M . MOHAtJEO 

AIIOC. G•n•1•! Couns•l, 

Tlllflt Mtuors, Inc. 

OR. IAFAN GAt,AAIA 

RfC<Ifll.ti~CIIVf Sllf{JfOfl, 

a.,.,,. l••t~c surg•rr 

KAir.1CELAH MU'U IN RA$HA0 

PfflfdtJnt, Mu-.Jim W•litJUI 

Foundlltlon 

Fe.IIDw, Spiritus/ity, Wltllnu• I. 

SOCul! J111tic•, Unlvt1t6fly of 

Ponn1ylv~nf11 

NAIEl i OBAl 

n'gft GfObt f Mantgfm M~ 

. 0 

mushm ~r advocates P ROM OTING FREEDO M & JUSTICE FOR ALL 

Aprll4, 2018 

Chairman Bob Corker 

Ranking Member Bob Menendez 

United State Senate 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

423 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, 

On behalf of Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy and educational 

organization that works on the frontlines of civil rights to guarantee 

freedom and justice for all Americans of all fa iths, I write to oppose the 

nomination of Mike Pompeo to be the U.S. Secretary of State. 

Few positions in government are as critical to representing the best of 

America - and establishing how we are seen around the world- as 

Secretary of State. The Secretary of State plays a crltical role in fighting for 

the protection of human rights in the United States and around the world. 

With this in mind, Mr. Pompeo's career-long record of bigotry and hostility 

toward Muslims and the LGBTQ community raise serious questions about 

his fitness to serve as the nation's chief diplomat. 

We are particularly troubled by Mr. Pompeo's views, which dangerously 

frame the world as at war with Islam and in a clash between cultures and 

religions. For instance, he stated in remarks in 2014 that a minority or 

Muslims "abhor Christians, and will continue to press against us until we 

make sure that we pt·ay and stand and fight and make sure that we know 

that jesus Christ is our savior is truly the only solution for our world." 1 

Mr. Pompeo also stunningly accused American Muslim leaders of being 

"potentially complicit"' in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Specifically, 

he >tated: "The silence of Muslim leaders has been deafening. Instead of 

responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders potentially complicit in 

'https:f fvimeo.comf192276678/33c5857cb8 
314 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


MuslimAdvocates-2.eps

these acts, and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."' Aside 

from promoting the offensive idea t hat American Muslims were collectively 

responsible for the actions of two men, his statements were inaccurate; 

many Muslim leaders and advocacy organizations issued statements 

condemning the attack.l 

in addition, Mr. Pompeo's rhetoric regarding Muslims and islam garnered 

him high praise from the largest anti-Muslim group in America, ACT for 

America.• ACT preaches anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, denigrates 

American Muslims, and equates Islam with violence. Brigitte Gabriel, 

founde r of ACT, explicitly stated that a practicing Muslim "cannot be a loyal 

citizen of the United States of America."S In 2016, ACT presented Mr. 

Pompeo with the National Security Eagle Award, their highest honor, calling 

him a "steadfast ally of ours since the day he was elected to Congress."6 

The Committee should a lso be concerned about an incident from 2010 in 

which Mr. Pompeo's congressional campaign tweeted a post referring to his 

Indian-American opponent, Raj Goyle, as a "turban topper.• The post 

included the comment, "This guy could be a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist etc 

who knows, only God, the shadow and ... goyle knows! One thing's for sure 

___ goyle is not a Christian!"7 Pompeo blamed the tweet on a staffer, but 

declined to fire the individual responsible. 

Finally, Mr. Pompeo has a troubling record of opposing civil rights 

protections for the LGBTQ community. I' or example, in a debate during the 

2010 midterm elections, Mr. Pompeo stated regarding the "Don't Ask, Don't 

Tell" policy: "when you're in the army, you give up a few of your rights."• 

The following year, he returned to the issue- now settled by an act of 

Congress - stating in a speech that "[w]e cannot use military to promote 

social ideas that do not reflect the values of our nation."• He also expressed 

being "deeply saddened" by the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefe/1 v. 

Hodges that effectively legalized same-sex marriage.'• 

' http:/ fwww.k:msascity.comfnewsjpolitics-govern mentjarticle 115666818.html 

' https:/ fwww.huflingtonpostcomfanai-rhoadsfmuslim-groupspompeo_b_3431339.html 

• See https:/ fwww.splcenter.org/fighting-hatejextremist-filesjgroupfact-arnerica; 

https:/ fwww.adl.orgjresourcesjprofilesjact-for-america. 

• https:/ fwww. theatlantic.comfpoliticsfarchivcj20l7 /03 fa mericas-most-anti · 

muslim-activist-is-welcorne-at-the-white-house/520323/ 

• http:/ fwww.actforamerica.orgfbgcoy 7 http:/ fwww.mcclatchydc.comfnewsfpolitics-govemmentfartlcle24590281.html 

• https:f fwww.youtube.comjwatch?v=Tcku7HW4UTA&app=desktop 

• http:/ freligiondispatches.orgjgay-bashing-the-religious-rights-forever-issuej 

" https:/ fwww.nbcnews.comjfeaturefnbc-outflgbtq-advocates-see-pompeo-recklesschoicc-top-dlplomat-n856881 

2 
315 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


MuslimAdvocates-3.eps

Any one of these concerns independently could potentially disqualify a 

nominee for any high position in government. Combined, they are 

particularly problematic for an individual who will serve as the nation's 

chief diplomat. As we face crises both here and around the world, the State 

Department needs a leader who can move it forward. Whenever given an 

opportunity, Mr. Pompeo has expressed views, which, if acted upon, would 

force the nation backward. He is the wrong person to lead the Department 

of State. I urge you to oppose his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Farhana Y. Khera 

President & Executive Director 
316 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY Emgage Action 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


EmgageAction-1.eps

e M gage 

Emgage Action 

1250 1 Street NW 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005 

St:nal~ Foreign Rdations Committee 

423 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

March 23, 2018 

ACTI ON ~ 

To the Distinguished Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

On oohalf of Em gage Action, a national civic education and engagement organization for 

Muslim Americans, we urge you to oppose the nomination of Mike Pompeo for U.S. Secretary 

of State due to his well documented anti-Muslim biases and ties to hate groups, as weJI as 

support for using torture as a legitimate tactic to combat terrorism. As our chief diplomat to the 

world, the Secretary of State should uphold our values, including protecting religious liberty and 

defending human rights. Mr. Pompeo's track record demonstrates a commitment to the contrary. 

As an elected member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Pompeo testified during a bearing 

following the Boston Marathon attacks, claiming that Muslim religious leaders were "potentially 

complicit" in the attacks for not vigorously denoWicing the bombing, despite widespread 

condemnation by Muslim American organizations of terrorism in general and the Boston attacks 

in particular. These accusations were insensitive and reckless, and do not reflect the temperament 

required to serve as our chief diplomat. The Department of State represents the international 

voice for America, and appointing an individual who denigrated the world's second-largest 

religion would be a mistake. 

In addition to his inflammatory and misguided testimony, Mr. Pompeo has established ties to 

Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffuey, leaders of Act for America (ACT), a well known hate group. 

In 2016, he was a recipient of the National Security Eagle Award, the highest honors awarded by 

ACT. Mr. Pompeo has also appeared on Mr. Gaffuey's radio shows and spoke at his summit in 

2015, titled Defeat Jihad. Mr. Pompeo's association with hate groups demonstrates a disturbingly 

high level of ease in vilifying Muslims. As Americans who take pride in our diversity and 

tolerance, we cannot reward Mr. Pompeo for his association with organizations labelled as hategroups. 
317 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


EmgageAction-2.eps

e M gage 

ACT ON~ 

Beyond his anti-Islam views, Mr. Pompeo has publicly condoned human rights violations by the 

CIA. He infamously defended the use of torture after it was revealed in a 2014 Senate report on 

the CIA's torture methods and the individuals who performed these acts by declaring, "these men 

and women are not torturers, they are patriots." He also opposed a 2009 decision to shut down 

CIA "black sites," a term used to describe secret prisons used to torture suspects overseas. 

These are simply a few ofMr Pompeo's miaguided comments and actions. They reflect a 

disturbing trend of parochialism that has no place within our government nor reflect the values of 

the United States. We therefore urge the Senate Foreign Relations Commission to reject the 

confirmation of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. 

Sincerely, 

·") 2 -:>.- ~....-'"

---r-;::-;r ~ __.. 

Wa'el Alzayat 

CEO 

Emgage Action 
318 

A LETTER SUBMITTED BY J Street 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


JStreet-1.eps

SENATORS MUST REJECT NOMINATION OF EXTREME HAWK POMPEO TO LEAD STATE 

DEPARTMENT 

March 13,2018 

J Slteet is deeply troubled by the President's abrupt move to replace Secretary of State Rex TIIIerson with CIA 

Director Mike Pompeo. We oppose Pompeo's nomination and urge Senators to vote against his confirmation. 

Pompeo is deeply Ill-suited to manage US foreign policy and, in particular, the future of the JCPOA nudear 

agreement with Iran. 

Even In an administration known for its fundamental hostility to diplomacy, Pompeo stands out as a hawkish 

ideologue and an extreme advocate for the use of military force. He called for the use of military force against 

Iran even In the midst of productive negotiations and has promoted the doctrine of 'regime change· - a recipe 

for another destructive war in the Middle East. Time and time again, Pompeo has actively called for the US to 

withdraw from the JCPOA and has fundamentally misrepresented the agreement's core provisions and details. 

Secretary Tillerson, while at times showing an interest in multilateral international cooperation and non-violent 

conflict resolulion, also presided over a steep decline in the resources. capacity and prominence of the State 

Department and of US diplomacy in general. Under the leadership of Pompeo, we fear that this dangerous 

trend will only accelerate. 

There is good reason to believe that when it comes to Iran and other highly sensitive issues, Pompeo will 

validate and encourage President Trump's most reckless, aggressive and dangerous policy Instincts. Indeed, in 

his own comments today, the president made clear that he had disagreed with Tillerson on the subject of the 

JCPOA, while he believes Pompeo to be in line with his own desire to 'either break [the agreement) or do something." 

Pompeo also has a disgraceful history of expressing anti-Muslim views, using inflammatory rhetoric to 

demonize and stereotype Muslims in the United States. That kind of ideology and rhetoric should have no place 

anywhere in our government -let alone in the office of America's top diplomat. In addition to being morally 

unacceptable, it renders him a totally unsuitable interlocutor on critical issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The disastrous foreign policy of the Trump administration is alienating the US from our allies and abdicating our 

responsibilities, while exacerbating conflict around the world. By refusing to confirm Pompeo as Secretary of 

State, Senators can send a clear message that they oppose this agenda and will not stand idly by white the 

president and his cabinet seek to withdraw from the JCPOA and drag us into wars of choice. 

### 

Dylan J. Williams 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

J Street 

1202) 204-796~ I @dylanotes 

www .jstrecL.org 
319 

A REPORT PREPARED BY PEW RESEARCH, SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER A. COONS

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


PewCoons-1.eps
320 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


PewCoons-2.eps

Trump finds little support around the world, with Merkel inspiring most confidence 

Confidenre in_ to do the right thing regarding world affairs 

u.s. President German ChancelkM' Chinese President Russian President 

Donald Trump Angela Merkel Xi Jinping Vladimir Putin 

C.neda - 2~ 66% - 30% - 19% 

H'-"&OIY - 29 ltaly - 25 

.

.

14 

15 -- 26 34 Poland - 23 I s I 4 

UK - 22 - 31 - 19 

Greece - 19 - 17 50 

Neth<ortands • 17 - 28 . 12 

France . 14 - 20 

Ge rmany . 11 - 23 -- 18 25 

Sweden . 10 - 22 . 12 

Spain I 1 • 10 • 8 

Russia - 53 53 87 

PhilP pines 53 

Vietnam - 18 79 

lndie - 21 Austrelie 29 

- 43 27 Japan - 24 . 11 - 28 

lndonesll - 23 - 34 - 31 

South Korea • 17 - 38 - 27 

Israel 56 57 - 28 - 28 

Tl>lisia - 18 

- 48 - 31 - 32 

Lebanon • 15 - 24 

- 43 - 46 TU"key . 11 • 14 - 20 

Jordan . 9 - 26 - 33 I 2 

Ni&erla 58 - 42 - 39 

Ke~ 41 33 

Tenzanifll 50 58 51 

Ghano 49 45 

South 

Senega Atrice l -

- 26 39 -- 38 52 

Ve nezuela - 20 • 14 - 28 - 22 

Peru • 17 - 23 - 24 - 24 

C.lombla • 15 

- 29 - 20 - 23 Brazi . 14 

- 38 - 22 - 19 

Argentina • 13 - 26 - 20 - 19 

Chile • 12 - 31 - 20 - 20 Mexico I 5 

- 30 - 23 - 19 

GLOI!AL MEDIAN - 22 -42 - 28 -27 

Source So<m&2017Giobal.lnltudes5un.O) Q30e-d 

PEW RES£ARCH CENTER 
321 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


PewCoons-3.eps

Xi Jinping gets negative ratings in many of the countries surveyed. Across 10 EU countries, a 

median of only 18% have confidence in the Chinese leader to do the right thing in world affairs. 

Japanese (I I%) and Indians (21%) also lack confidence in Xi, though a majority of Indians 

(56%) do not have an opinion. 

On the other hand, there is strong confidence in Xi in sub-Saharan Africa, where China has made 

heavy investments over the past decade. Nearly two-thirds in Tanzania (66%) and more than half 

in Nigeria (54%) and Senegal (53%) have a positive view of his international leadership. Xi also 

gets significant support in Russia and the Philippines (53% each), both countries with leaders 

who have pursued improved ties with China. 

Put in inspires Jjnle confidence as an international leader. Roughly six-in-ten across the 37' 

countries surveyed say they have linle or no confidence in him. Outside of Russia, only in 

Vietnam (79%) does a majority say they trust Put in's handling of world affairs. About half or 

more in the Philippines (54%) and Tanzania (51%) say the same. 

In Europe, with the exception ofGrecc.e, relatively few have confid<:'tlce in Put in when it comes 

to international affairs. Poles (4%) express the least confidence. In Canada, roughly two-irHen 

( 19%) have confidence in the Russian leader. 

3 
322 

A LETTER FROM CONGRESSMEN KEITH ELLLISON AND ANDRE ́ CARSON, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR CORY A. BOOKER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


PompeoBooker-1.eps
323 

Æ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


PompeoBooker-2.eps