U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–175PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

STRENGTHENING AMERICAN DIPLOMACY:

REVIEWING THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET,

OPERATIONS AND POLICY PRIORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 23, 2018

Serial No. 115–140

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State .... 5

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Mike Pompeo: Prepared statement .............................................. 8

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 80

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 81

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 83

Written responses from the Honorable Mike Pompeo to questions submitted 

for the record by: 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .............. 85

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ...................................................................................................... 86

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey ................................................................................... 121

The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey .................................................................................................... 132

The Honorable Paul Cook, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 137

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly ..................................................................... 143

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Rhode Island ....................................................................................... 147

The Honorable Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 150

The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 155

The Honorable Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois ................................................................................................. 162

The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada .......................................................................................................... 164

The Honorable Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Illinois ........................................................................................... 166

The Honorable Ted Lieu, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 175

(1)

STRENGTHENING AMERICAN DIPLOMACY: 

REVIEWING THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET, OPERATIONS AND POLICY 

PRIORITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2018

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will call the committee to order. 

I’d like to welcome Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and congratulations, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations on your service to the 

U.S. Army, to your service in the U.S. House of Representatives, 

as CIA Director, and now, as our Nation’s 70th Secretary of State. 

The committee looks forward to working with you, in a bipartisan way, to meet our challenges and to seize our opportunities. 

We have made important progress on a major security challenge—routing ISIS on the battlefield. This is a big development, 

one that you’ve played a role in, and, Mr. Secretary, we must maintain the momentum. 

Islamist terrorism will threaten us for years and years to come. 

Increasing pressure on Iran and checking its hegemonic moves is 

imperative. 

Our partner, Israel, is on the front lines. But Iran’s ICBM program is a danger to us—intercontinental means from there to here. 

Your Monday speech, Mr. Secretary, outlined a much-needed 

strategy to match Iran’s range of hostile activities. The challenge 

now is to present a unified front with our allies. 

Last budget hearing, I said that our Nation’s longstanding commitment to global stability, open markets, alliances, and the rule 

of law, and human rights has paid off greatly. If we don’t lead, others will. 

Our formidable military, though, is only one side of the coin. You, 

Secretary Pompeo, have rightly recognized that diplomacy must 

lead our foreign policy. 

American diplomats serve on the front lines. We need them welltrained. I’m encouraged by the department’s interest in strengthening the Foreign Service Institute. 

2

And we need sufficient funding to combat wildlife and drug trafficking, to build open markets, to save lives during natural disasters, and to do the many other things our aid accounts support. 

The appropriations process will adequately fund diplomacy and 

development, I believe. The National Endowment for Democracy, in 

particular, should be strongly supported. 

Let’s face it. Democracy is on the ropes worldwide. Supporting it 

is a moral and strategic good. NED is backing critical programming 

in Venezuela, Nigeria, and worldwide. 

It is no time to cut this programming. On the challenge of Russia, yes, we should cooperate with Moscow when possible. But we 

must diligently protect our national security. 

The administration has rightly provided lethal arms to Ukraine, 

which remains under siege by Russian proxies. A far more severe 

threat is Moscow’s information war. This committee has heard that 

Moscow’s goal isn’t so much to make Western citizens think this or 

think that. Russia’s goal is to destroy all confidence in objective 

thought. 

By undermining fact-based discussion with lies, our enemies 

hope to gravely damage Western democracies. The State Department must aggressively counter disinformation through its Global 

Engagement Center, other means, and with department officials 

speaking out for the truth. 

We wish the administration success negotiating with North 

Korea. It will be a tall task to strike a viable, effective nuclear 

agreement. 

Ranking Member Engel and I have led efforts to ratchet up the 

financial pressure on North Korea over many years with the legislation we have passed here in the committee. Keep up that pressure, Mr. Secretary. 

It is a big reason why the Kim regime wants to talk with President Trump. And as this process plays out, work closely with Congress. We’re stronger together. 

And I’ll now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We always pride our committee in being the most bipartisan committee in Congress and always say that we believe when we talk about foreign policy, partisanship should stop at the water’s edge. 

It doesn’t mean that we won’t have disagreements and some of 

those we are going to discuss today. But I think that this committee, perhaps more than any other committee in Congress, has 

worked very effectively to set up bipartisan majorities. 

So welcome, Mr. Secretary. You’re no stranger here, and we look 

forward to what you have to say, obviously, today. 

After the administration sent its 2017 budget request, which we 

were very disappointed with, Congress’ message was clear. Cutting 

diplomacy and development by a third was unacceptable. 

We sent that message through letters and statements and, finally, with the 2018 funding bill, and let me say once again bipartisan majorities stopped those draconian cuts from going forward. 

But this administration has ignored that message, unfortunately, 

and rejected the will of Congress. The White House wants to cut 

$334 million as part of the so-called recision package. 

3

How short-sighted is this request? The day after we received these proposed cuts including cutting $1⁄4 billion from our Ebola response, reports surfaced of an Ebola outbreak in the DRC. 

The reason we fight pandemic overseas is so we don’t have to 

fight them here at home. The American people, whether in New 

York or in Kansas, are concerned about things like Ebola because 

diseases don’t respect borders. 

We cannot allow another outbreak to go unchecked because the 

White House considers arbitrary budget cuts to be good politics. 

Now, the State Department—and I realize this was all happening before you came, Mr. Secretary, so I am hoping that you 

can work with us in trying to change these things and to right the 

wrongs—the State Department has now sent us another budget 

that would again slash diplomacy and development efforts to promote our security that keep America safe. It’s, frankly, insulting 

that the administration would send us another request like this 

when we rejected it last year. 

So I predict that Congress will reject this budget just as we did 

last year’s. Again, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, rejected the 

budget. 

Fortunately, Congress has the final say on how much we spend 

on international affairs. But whatever the size of the check Congress writes, it’s, obviously, the administration’s job to make policy 

and manage departments and, Mr. Secretary, I worry about what 

you’ve inherited at the State Department. 

The administration’s first priority was an ill-conceived reorganization effort. It cost millions of taxpayer dollars for private consultants but resulted in absolutely nothing beyond a demoralized 

and depleted State Department. 

On your predecessor’s watch, the department lost more than 200 

Foreign Service officers, many among our most senior diplomats, 

some of the very experienced diplomats you once called incredibly 

professional. 

The department will soon have only a single official at the rank 

of career Ambassador, the highest rank of our diplomats. A staggering number of senior positions remain vacant. 

Perhaps most troubling are the allegations from whistleblowers 

who have reported to this committee that the administration has 

targeted career employees because of their perceived political beliefs. 

This is, potentially, a violation of laws governing State Department personnel. It also strikes at the idea that politics should stop 

at the water’s edge—that the way we carry out foreign policy 

should put American interests first and leave partisan interests 

and concerns behind. It’s how we run this committee. 

But that principle has been under attack recently. I think you 

can draw a line from the moment straight back to the most egregious example, the recent memory of playing politics with a tragedy. I know the Benghazi Select Committee on which you sat, the 

creation that was set up to tear Hillary Clinton down as the majority leader admitted that was used to impugn the character of one 

of your predecessors. 

Partisanship has no place in the halls of the State Department. 

I am glad the Inspector General is now looking into those whistleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:48 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\052318\30175 SHIRL
4

blower allegations as Senator Menendez, Mr. Cummings, and I advised. 

But the department has not produced the required documents 

that would allow Congress to conduct effective oversight despite a 

commitment from the spokesperson to do so. 

So I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you’ll help to get us those documents and that you’ll leave behind any political considerations in 

the way the department is run under your leadership. 

Unfortunately, after 16 months we are feeling the effects of a foreign policy that has marginalized diplomacy and made Americans 

less safe. 

The President has alienated our friends, doubted the value of our 

alliances, and undermined American credibility around the world. 

The result? A recent Gallup poll put America’s global approval 

rating at an historical low of 30 percent, nearly 20 percent lower 

than the previous year. 

At the rate we are breaking our word and unwinding our country’s commitments, I imagine we will see that number dip even further. 

The administration’s slogan of ‘‘America first’’ it’s looking, unfortunately, more like ‘‘America last’’ and ‘‘America alone’’ and ‘‘America by itself in the world’’ where we don’t nurture alliances and cultivate new friendships, where we don’t put our values at the center 

of our politics, where we don’t help countries become stronger and 

more stable partners on the global stage. 

An America in that world is an America that’s less safe. Perhaps 

the worst example that the administration has blatantly ignored is 

the ongoing threat to our security, which is Russia’s attack on 

American democracy. 

As you said when you served as CIA Director, we are staring another Russian attack in the face. I agree with you. I am worried 

that the President is just going to let it happen. 

I am worried that even if we did want to push back, the State 

Department is so hobbled and hallowed out that we won’t be able 

to. I am worried that the administration is giving Russia a pass because Putin supported President Trump over Hillary Clinton. 

If we allow foreign interference in our elections so long as it supports our political objectives, then we have put party before country 

and put our democracy in crisis. I would be just as outraged if the 

Russians helped Hillary Clinton. I think the Russians should stay 

out of our democracy. 

There are so many issues I could get into but I want all our 

members to have a chance to ask questions today. There are tough 

questions, Mr. Secretary, but I look forward to working with you 

and I know that your service here in the House will do you well 

in working together with the House to effectuate a better foreign 

policy for our country. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. This morning, I am pleased to welcome Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to the committee. Secretary Pompeo 

previously served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 

and as a Member of Congress representing the people of the Fourth 

District of Kansas. 

5

Among his committee assignments, he served as a member of the 

Intelligence Committee. He also served in the U.S. Army and is a 

graduate of both West Point and Harvard Law School, and we appreciate the Secretary being with us today. 

Without objection, the witness’ full prepared statement will be 

made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions or any extraneous material that 

they might have for the record. 

The goal today is to get to all of our members. To make that goal, 

I’ll ask members to be aware of their allotted 5 minutes. That’s for 

your question and that’s for the Secretary’s answers to your questions. 

We do have questions for the record, and speaking of that, I have 

a question for the record that I’d like to submit on behalf of Mr. 

Donovan, without objection, addressing the State Department’s role 

in combating the opioid crisis that is ravaging communities across 

America. 

So we will begin now with Secretary Pompeo’s testimony. 

Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY 

OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Royce. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Engel. It’s good to see you both 

again, and thank you, distinguished members of the committee, 

that I had the privilege to serve with. It is great to be back, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the 2019 budget request——

Chairman ROYCE. And, Mr. Secretary, maybe if we straighten 

the microphone it’ll be——

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. How’s that? Is that good enough? 

Chairman ROYCE. Perfect. 

Secretary POMPEO. All right. Very good. 

Thanks. I want to talk about both the State Department and 

USAID’s budgets this morning. In order to achieve the objectives 

laid out in the national security strategy we have a plan and you’ll 

hear a great deal about it today. 

The proposed request reflects our obligation to use taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively. Our request also makes clear the United 

States must exert a proportional financial commitment in the pursuit of goals shared by the entire international community. 

It’s time for other nations, especially those with high GDPs, to 

assume greater responsibilities and devote greater resources toward our common objectives. Whether it’s crushing terrorists, stopping Iran’s malign behavior, strengthening the NATO Alliance, 

eradicating infectious diseases, and so much more, we expect good 

help—good financial support from our partners and allies. 

President Trump is committed to diplomacy as the primary 

means of achieving the United States foreign policy objectives. So 

am I. 

We must maintain America’s historic role as a truly global power 

whose first instinct and overwhelming preference is to use diplomacy to solve global challenges. We are already seeing this in the 

preparations for our historic meeting with North Korea, still scheduled for June 12th. 

6

We have a generational opportunity to resolve a major national 

security challenge. Our eyes are wide open to the lessons of history 

but we are optimistic that we can achieve an outcome that would 

be great for the world. 

Our posture will not change until we see credible steps taken toward the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of 

the Korean Peninsula. 

On Monday, I unveiled a new direction for the President’s Iran 

strategy. We will apply unprecedented financial pressure, coordinate with our DoD colleagues on deterrence efforts, support the 

Iranian people—perhaps more importantly—and hold out the prospect for a new deal with Iran. It simply needs to change its behavior. 

We seek to work with as many partners, friends, allies as possible to achieve the common objective of stopping all of Iran’s nuclear and non-nuclear threats. 

The President’s highest priority is keeping the American people safe. This request for $7.3 billion in security assistance will help 

protect Americans at home and overseas and I look forward to talking more about that today. 

The State Department will continue to lead the international efforts to denuclearize North Korea and prevent other actors from 

unlawfully acquiring weapons of mass destruction as their means 

of delivery, while strengthening the capacity of partner nations to 

do so as well. Countering proliferation is at the top of President 

Trump’s national security agenda. The budget request also calls for $5.7 billion support for coalition 

efforts to continue to defeat ISIS and other transnational terrorist 

and criminal groups that threaten Americans everywhere. 

The State Department and USAID will sustain programs that 

address the conditions on the ground that give rise to those threats 

and we will diligently work to attract additional donors to support 

these very same efforts. 

America’s prosperity and national security depend on a strong 

and growing American economy. This budget request seeks $2.2 

billion to help stimulate American economic growth by expanding 

markets for U.S. investment and ensuring that partner countries 

can fully participate in the global economy. 

America’s message, a noble one, must be shared with the world 

at all times. 

Chairman Royce, you mentioned the Global Engagement Center. 

We will work with the $55 million-plus available to cover both its 

original mission—counter extremism—plus countering state-sponsored disinformation campaigns. 

We will not tolerate Russian interference in our 2018 elections. 

Much work has been done. There is more to do. Rest assured that 

we will take the appropriate counter measures in response to the 

continued Russian efforts. 

Finally, let me also update you on what’s happening inside the 

State Department. Our workforce is the most important asset. 

Since become Secretary of State, now 3 weeks and a couple days 

ago, one of my highest priorities has been ensuring the finest diplomatic corps in the world is fully prepared and empowered to do its 

work in every corner. 

7

I am unleashing teams to do what they do best on behalf of the 

American people. Last week, I held my first town hall in which I 

laid out my vision and committed to working as one team with all 

of our personnel. 

In 3 weeks, they’ve give me great support. I have taken their 

counsel and I have relied on their expertise greatly. There are 

many challenges that remain. 

Among my first acts was to begin to put the team back on the 

field. We lifted the hiring freeze on eligible family members—indeed, broadened that to lifting the hiring freeze for the entire Foreign and Civil Service. 

All Foreign Service and Civil Service hiring will be consistent 

with funding levels but the freeze is no longer. To help the team 

get on the field, I also know that we have got work to do on some 

of our systems’ IT at the front. 

I know our professionals need that assistance to perform their 

work efficiently. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to conclude my statement, as it’s been submitted for the record. I am happy to take 

questions from you and the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Pompeo follows:]

8


30175a-1.eps

SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO 

STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET 

MAY 23,2018 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Administration's FY 2019 budget request for the State 

Department and USA !D. 

Last December the Trump Administration released the National Security Strategy. The four 

pillars of the strategy are protecting the American people, the homeland, and our way oflife; 

promoting American prosperity; preserving peace through strength; and advancing American 

influence. 

In order to achieve these national security objectives, the Administration has submitted our FY 

2019 budget request of $39.3 billion for the State Department and US AID. The proposed 

request reflects our obligation to use taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively. 

Our request also makes clear the United States must exert a proportional tinancial commitment 

in the pursuit of goals shared by the international community. Tt is time for other nationsespecially those with high GDP- to assume greater responsibilities and devote greater resources 

toward common objectives, whether it's crushing terrorists, stopping Iran's malign behavior, 

strent,>thening the NATO alliance, eradicating infectious diseases, and so much more. We expect 

greater burden sharing for our allies and partners. 

The President is committed to diplomacy as the primary means of achieving the United States' 

foreign policy objectives, which are further detailed in our State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan. 

We will use every dollar to deliver on our duty to serve the American people and the enduring 

foreign policy victories that are within sight. 
9


30175a-2.eps

Our top national security priority has been the de-nuclearization of North Korea. The maximum 

pressure campaign of diplomatic and economic sanctions is bearing fruit with the historic 

meeting set to take place on June 12th. This campaign has been undertaken in concert with an 

unprecedented number of allies and partners. Our posture will not change until we see credible 

steps taken toward the complete, verifiable, and irreversible de-nuclearization of the Korean 

peninsula. We are clear-eyed about the regime's history. It's time to solve this once and for all. 

A bad deal is not an option. The American people are counting on us to get this right. If the right 

deal is not on the table, we will respectfully walk away. 

On May 21st I unveiled a new direction for the President's Iran strategy. We will apply financial 

pressure, coordinate with our DOD colleagues on deterrence efiorts, support the Iranian people, 

and hold out the prospect of a new deal for Iran- if it changes its behavior. We seek to work 

with as many partners, friends, and allies as possible to achieve the common objective of 

stopping all of Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear threats. 

The progress against ISIS has been predominantly accomplished through military action. But 

there is a very important role for diplomacy and assistance in ensuring the pennanent defeat of 

ISIS. We must continue robust stabilization activities with our Coalition partners in order to 

prevent ISIS from resurfacing. We are also countering ISIS's attempts to gain safe havens in 

areas such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Mrica. In addition to providing targeted security 

sector assistance funding, we are working with our allies and partners to stop foreign fighter 

travel, cut off sources of revenue, attack lSlS online, share intelligence, and prosecute those who 

come off the battlefield. 

We know Russia poses a challenge to our strategic interests and the security of our allies. This is 

evident from the chemical weapons attack in the UK, for which we imposed consequences in 

concert with several partners and allies. We've been clear with Russia it must honor its 

commitments under the Minsk Accords if peace is to prevail in Ukraine. As a guarantor of the 

Assad regime, Russia has a responsibility to be a constructive actor for stability and peace in 

Syria, which includes stopping the regime's use of chemical weapons. We are holding Russia 

accountable to its commitment to the Geneva process. 
10


30175a-3.eps

China is a rising strategic competitor. We must work constructively with a nation of China's 

importance, as we are doing on North Korea, but we cannot sacrifice the interests of the 

American people and our economic competitiveness, relinquish freedom navigation and the law 

of the sea in the South China Sea and elsewhere, or passively watch as American intellectual 

property is stolen. We are making clear to China that the protection of human rights is integral 

to any country that wishes to be regarded as a great nation. Elsewhere in Asia, we are reaffirming and expanding partnerships in the Indo-Pacitic region with nations that share our 

commitment to security, economic freedom, sovereignty, and liberty. 

Finally, in our own hemisphere, we are embracing the '·Year of the Americas," by re-atlirming 

our commitment to longstanding partnerships grounded in shared interests and values. On 

Venezuela, we have imposed new economic pressure on the Maduro regime to help steer that 

country back toward democracy, and we are rallying like-minded regional partners to do the 

same. 

Across the world, we have encouraged nations to assume greater responsibilities for maintaining 

their own and our shared security and stability. In the face of a resurgent Russia, and in response 

to our urging, many NATO members are newly meeting their commitments to funding 

deterrence and defense initiatives. President Trump's call to leaders of Middle East countries in 

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, rallied leaders of those nations to more aggressively combat terrorism 

inside their own borders and to counter violent extremism abroad. And as part of the new South 

Asia strategy, we have been clear with Pakistan that ensuring reconciliation, peace, and security 

in Afghanistan in large part depends on Pakistan's willingness to crack down on terrorist safe 

havens and instigators of terrorist activity in its own country. 

Our highest priority is keeping the American people safe The FY 2019 budget request for $7.3 

billion in security assistance will help protect Americans at home and overseas. The State 

Department will continue to lead international efforts to denuclearize North Korea, and to 

prevent Iran and other actors from unlawfully acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their 

means of delivery, while strengthening the capacity of partner nations to do so as well. 

2 
11


30175a-4.eps

This budget request calls for $5.7 billion in support for Coalition efforts to defeat ISIS and other 

transnational terrorist and criminal groups that threaten the American homeland. The State 

Department and USAID will sustain programs that address the conditions that give rise to these 

threats, including poor governance, weak institutions, lack of economic opportunity, corruption, 

and persistent human rights abuses, and attract additional donor nations' support for these 

efforts. 

America's prosperity and national security depends on a strong and growing U.S. economy that 

can maximize trade and investment opportunities in a free, fair, open and stable international 

market. This budget request seeks $2.2 billion to help stimulate American economic growth, 

expand markets for U.S. investment, and ensure partner countries can fully participate in a global 

economy. 

This budget request includes an important proposal for a new standalone development finance 

institution (DFI) broadly consistent with HR 5105, the Better Utilization of Investments 

Leading to Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act of 20 18), being considered by this 

Committee. Like the BUILD Act, the Administration proposal consolidates existing functions 

now spread across various agencies to improve eft'iciencies and better mobilize private sector 

resources. If approved by Congress, the DFI will advance U.S. national security and 

development objectives by deploying refonned and modernized development finance tools that 

support, without displacing, the private sector. The Administration shares the goals of this 

Committee to foster sustainable development in developing countries and provide strong 

alternatives to state-directed initiatives. With the consolidation we have both the opportunity for 

greater impact but also the responsibility to create strong interagency coordination with USAID 

and other development agencies to advance development outcomes, promote self-reliance among 

partner countries, and advance U.S. interests and values. To this end, the budget requests $56 

million for State and USAID to collaborate and coordinate programming with the DFI and 

leverage its tools. 

3 
12


30175a-5.eps

Americans benefit from sustained engagement with the rest of the world that serves our interests 

and those of our allies. This budget upholds our commitments to our allies, including $3.3 

billion in support of the recent, ten-year Memorandum of Understanding between the United 

States and Israel regarding U.S. military assistance, a 6.5% increase tram last year's request. In 

recognition of our critical strategic partnership and new five-year Memorandum of 

Understanding with Jordan, the budget also strengthens our high level of support by requesting 

$1.275 billion for Jordan in FY 2019. 

In light of continuing significant humanitarian needs, largely driven by ongoing cont1icts in 

Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere, the FY 2019 request includes $6.4 billion for humanitarian 

assistance, an increase of $1.1 billion, or 21 percent, from the FY 2018 request. We will use 

these resources strategically as part of a new approach to relief to increase burden sharing by 

other donors, improve U.S. government internal humanitarian assistance coordination, and 

catalyze refonns and efficiencies at the UN and other implementing partners. The ultimate 

objective is to maximize the impact of hard-earned U.S. tax dollars and deliver the best outcome 

for those dollars. 

The President's budget continues global health funding at a level that will sustain our work and 

our leadership in this area, including through t1agship programs like PEPF AR and the President's 

Malaria Initiative. 

We sustain our support for these assistance programs because we know they are a projection of 

American leadership and they contribute to economic growth, and social and political stability. 

They are not only measures of the values of the American people, but they contribute to our 

interests. As we have seen with outbreaks of Ebola and other diseases in the past few years, 

these health programs have provided a foundation to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious 

diseases of epidemic potential, which helps protect the American people. 

America's message must be shared with the world at all times. The FY 2019 budget request 

further defends and advances America's values by devoting $565 million to public diplomacy 

programs. These programs are essential to informing public opinion abroad and communicating 

4 
13


30175a-6.eps

American values like respect for human rights and the rule of law. The people of the world must 

know not only the policies, but also the principles for which the United States stands. Even as 

our public diplomacy budget calls for greater burden-sharing oflong-standing programs, the 

$55.4 million requested for the Global Engagement Center covers both its original counterextremist mission, plus an increase of $20 million to counter state-sponsored disinformation 

campaigns. We will not tolerate Russian interference in the 2018 elections, and we must take 

countermeasures in response to an effort to do so. 

Finally, I would like to update you on what is happening inside the Department The 

Department's workforce is our most valuable asset Since becoming Secretary, one of my 

highest priorities has been ensuring that the finest diplomatic corps in the world is fully prepared 

and empowered to achieve our mission. I am unleashing our teams to do what they do best on 

behalf of the American people. 

Just last week I held my first town hall in which I laid out my leadership vision, and committed 

to working as one team with all our personnel. I'm listening to their expertise and counsel. 

With so many challenges before us, the State Department needs a full team on the field, from 

locally employed stati around the world to senior leaders in Washington. That's why I lifted the 

Eligible Family Member hiring treeze as one of my first acts as Secretary, and also lifted the 

hiring treeze for all Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel last week. All Foreign Service 

and Civil Service hiring will be consistent with the funding levels that Congress recently 

enacted. 

Additionally, I know that our career professionals work best when the goals are clear and the 

leadership team is at full strength. I have devoted a great deal of time to filling vacancies at the 

Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Ambassador levels. We need our men and women on 

the ground, executing American diplomacy with great vigor and energy, and representing our 

great nation. We need the best tools as well: this budget would also invest $150 million for IT 

modernization. We need to work at the speed of 21st century diplomacy. 

5 
14


30175a-7.eps

As I have said many times, my great goal is to restore the trademark State Department swagger 

that has been instrumental in advancing American security, prosperity, and liberty for centuries. 

I define swagger this way: we must be everywhere with the best ideas. We must create value 

during the policy formation process. We must outwork and out-hustle others. We must be 

aggressive in working with our allies and ferocious in defending American values against our 

adversaries. 

Today I ask for your support to ensure that our diplomatic, development and organizational 

initiatives are successful for the State Department and USAID, and, most importantly, for the 

American people 

Thank you for your time. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

6 
15

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me begin by recognizing your efforts to secure the release of 

Americans wrongly detained in North Korea. So we are very glad 

to have them home. 

When we think about what happened to Otto Warmbier, your efforts were all the more important in terms of securing them. You 

are one of the few Americans also to have met Kim Jong-un, and 

I would just ask you for your opinion on this. What are his goals 

for this negotiation? 

Many have speculated that one of those goals is to try to split 

the U.S. and South Korea and our alliance with South Korea. I will 

just ask you what do you think his goal is here? 

Secretary POMPEO. So in my conversations with him, we’ve 

talked about what our mutual goals are—the things that the world 

demands and that America demands and the things that North 

Korea wants to see for itself as well. 

There’s places where we still have lots of work to do to find common ground. But he has shared, candidly, that he understands that 

economic growth for his people, the well-being of his people depends on a strategic shift and we hope he’s prepared to make that. 

Our demands have been unambiguous. When I spoke with him, 

I could not have been clearer about the scope of the verification 

work that would be required—all of the elements that would be 

necessary in order for America to understand that there had been 

real denuclearization. He took those on board. In return, he made 

clear it was important to him that when that time came—when 

those objectives had been achieved—that he, in turn, would receive 

economic help from America in the form of private sector businesses, knowledge know-how from others, perhaps—contributions, 

foreign assistance, and the like and that he wanted security assurances from the world—the end of the status that sits between 

South and North Korea, with the eventual goal of being a peace 

treaty. 

Those were the objectives we discussed. I am very hopeful that 

he and President Trump will get a chance to elaborate on that further in the next couple weeks. 

Chairman ROYCE. As you prepare for the potential June summit 

in Singapore, I think it’s very important we keep the pressure applied here to the Kim regime. 

I will ask you this question—when will the administration begin 

implementing sanctions against shipping registries—this is something that I’ve had a particular concern about—on those governments that knowingly violate U.N. Security Council resolutions 

barring trade with North Korea? 

These were mandated by Title 3 of the act we passed here, the 

Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know the answer to that. Let me get 

back to you, Congressman Royce. I do know the administration 

has, again, redoubled its efforts on ship-to-ship transfers——

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. Something I think is imperative. 

With respect to the registry and sanctions, if I may I will take that 

back for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate that. 

16

The last question I was going to ask you, Mr. Secretary, is for 

those who’ve talked to anybody who’s ever been in and out of those 

prison camps in North Korea, it is a human rights nightmare. 

You have got over 100,000 North Koreans suffering in barbaric 

conditions in those camps. It’s important that any future economic 

engagement with North Korea not empower the regime to continue 

its brutal mistreatment of Koreans in that kind of circumstance, 

and regardless of any agreement, we should be ramping up, I 

think, Radio Free Asia broadcasting and dissemination of information. 

And I think it’s critical that we maintain our military deterrence. 

Last week, the U.S. reportedly cancelled a U.S. B-52 bomber exercise over South Korea. Was this a concession to Kim Jong-un’s regime? 

Secretary POMPEO. Chairman Royce, I will leave the discussion 

of that military exercise to Secretary Mattis. It is my view that we 

have made zero concessions to Chairman Kim to date and we have 

no intention of doing so. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Well, in our interest to get to all the members, I am going to go 

to Mr. Engel now for his questions. 

Thank you. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, budgets reflect an administration’s values, or lack 

thereof, and I realize a lot of this happened before you came. So 

we are looking for you——

Secretary POMPEO. For 2020, yes. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. To try to right the wrong. The international affairs budget proposal that President Trump now has 

sent to Congress 2 years in a row brings with it a clear message 

to the world that the United States has no interest in maintaining 

our global leadership role because of the cuts. 

It’s a budget that makes Americans less safe. And as you know, 

I am not alone in feeling this way. Over 150 retired generals and 

admirals, former Secretaries of State from both parties, Fortune 

500 CEOs, and religious leaders all agree that the administration’s 

proposed cuts to the international affairs budget would have a devastating effect on U.S. global leadership. 

So why are all these people wrong? In the last 2 years, Congress 

restored the cuts. Is Congress wrong, too? I would like to hear your 

views on it and I hope you will lead us into a more enlightened 

path than we’ve seen so far. 

Secretary POMPEO. Ranking Member Engel, thanks for the question. 

Here’s the commitment I’ve made to the team at the State Department, the commitment I’ve made to President Trump, the commitment I will make to you here today. 

I will ensure that the State Department has every dollar it needs 

to achieve its mission around the world. You mentioned the international affairs budget. There’s humanitarian assistance money. 

There’s lots of different pieces of the State Department’s budget. I 

will make sure we have every single dollar we need and not $1 

more. 

17

Mr. ENGEL. And I hope not $1 less. 

Secretary POMPEO. Every dollar we need, not $1 more. 

Mr. ENGEL. This past March, Ranking Member Cummings, Senator Menendez, and I wrote to the State Department expressing 

concern over allegations that senior officials, including the Director 

of Policy Planning, retaliated against career State Department employees based on their national origin or because they were perceived as not sufficiently loyal to the President. 

Do you believe officials who targeted career employees in this 

way should be working at the State Department? 

Secretary POMPEO. I do not. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. In the letter I sent with Ranking Member Cummings and Senator Menendez, we requested access to 

emails and other documents, a request that Heather Nauert confirmed to the press would be granted. 

So far we haven’t heard anything. Can you give us an idea of 

when will we be granted access to those documents? 

Secretary POMPEO. I can’t, but I will get you an answer. You 

have my commitment I will have you an answer on the time line 

by the end of this week. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. Thank you. 

And finally, you said—and I agree with you—that Russia is 

working to interfere in this year’s election just as it did in 2016. 

Has the administration done enough to deter and countering Russian interference in our next election, which is only 6 months 

away? 

Secretary POMPEO. Indeed, elections are ongoing, as you all know 

better than I do, right. We have primary elections going on even 

as we speak. 

There is a great deal more work to do. Having said that, I am 

incredibly proud of the work that this administration has done in 

countering Russia. It is light years better than was done in the previous administration. I could go on for a long time speaking about 

them. I am happy to enumerate them if you’d like to do so. 

But I have to say there’s more work to do. We have not been able 

to achieve effective deterrence of some of these efforts of the Russians. But this administration has taken enormous efforts to push 

back against Russia that haven’t been done in an awfully long time 

either here in the United States or, frankly, from our partners who 

are even more threatened by Russia than we are in Europe and 

elsewhere. 

Mr. ENGEL. So is it your position that the administration has 

forestalled the next attack on our democracy? Because if so, I 

haven’t seen it. 

Secretary POMPEO. No responsible government official would ever 

state that they believe they’ve done enough to forestall any attack 

on the United States of America. 

We work diligently at it each day. We reduce threats. We take 

them from the battlefield. We take them from the economic sphere. 

We reduce them diplomatically. We work at it hard every day. But 

I will never share with you that I believe we have accomplished 

that to 100 percent certainty. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. I look forward to working with you on all 

these issues. There are, obviously, many important issues—our 

18

support for Israel, Iran’s aggression, and we could go on and on—

and I hope that this committee can be a partner with you. 

Our views may diverge, but we are all Americans and we all care 

about these issues and I think it’s very important to discuss them, 

to have hearings, and we are glad that you’re here this morning. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. I am counting on the partnership 

with this committee on both sides of the aisle. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. It’s great to see you in this position. I 

wanted to commend you and the administration for calling this 

week’s election in Venezuela what it was—a sham and illegitimate. 

The administration has stood strong in support of the Venezuelan people, using new Executive orders and targeting the 

Maduro regime with sanctions. Thank you for that. 

I also want to thank you for the actions the administration has 

taken against the Ortega regime. The situation in Nicaragua is 

quickly deteriorating and it is alarming—over 75 killed and hundreds more injured or detained in just these past weeks. 

We need to take swift action before we are facing a similar situation—a crisis in Nicaragua—that we face in Venezuela. 

I urge the administration to press our friends in the Senate to 

pass our NICA bill so it has even more tools at its disposal to hold 

Ortega accountable. We passed it out of the full House twice already. 

I also wanted to follow up on a letter that I had sent to you last 

week alongside Congressman Deutch, McCaul, and Lowey. We’ve 

met with the families of the American citizens and legal permanent 

residents being held in Iran many times and it’s clear that they’re 

growing frustrated. 

They see Americans being freed from North Korea and they are 

so happy for them and their families, but I only reminds them that 

there hasn’t been any continuity or leadership within the administration to resolve their cases. 

But now that the President has announced his intent to appoint 

a special Presidential envoy for hostage affairs, we sincerely hope 

that this individual will lead on those hostage cases and have the 

authority to bring them home. 

I ask for a written response on this following question, Mr. Secretary. Does the administration support the Reciprocal Access to 

Tibet Act, H.R. 1872? 

It’s a common sense that would help stop China’s destabilizing 

behavior in Tibet by revoking the visa of any Chinese official found 

to be responsible for restricting the access of U.S. citizens to Tibet. 

And then the one question that I have for you to answer—the 

what question—I wanted to follow up on something that I had 

asked Ambassador Satterfield last month. He said he would get me 

a written response but I don’t—I don’t have it yet. 

What is the justification for allowing the PLO office to remain 

open, given the lapse in waiver authority with no new waiver having been issued? 

19

And it’s particularly timely, Mr. Secretary, given that the Palestinians submitted a referral on Israel to the ICC this week, 

which would trigger several provisions of U.S. law. 

So that’s the one question I have and thank you for the administration moving the Embassy to its rightful capital. 

Secretary POMPEO. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, thank you. 

With respect to leaving the office open without a waiver, with 

your permission I will get back to you and find out the details. 

There may be a legal issue that I am not aware of. 

With respect more broadly to issues there, continued funding for 

UNRRA is under review. We are trying to figure out how to make 

sure we get that right, to continue to make sure that there’s security while note rewarding bad behavior. We are deeply aware of the 

Taylor Force Act and its implications as well and we are working 

through that process. 

I’ve had one chance to be briefed on the State Department’s role 

there. There will be more. And if I might take just 1 second to address two other points you made, first, with respect to Venezuela 

we did this morning receive a formal notification that our charge 

d’affaires had been PNGed. 

We will respond appropriately, certainly, reciprocally. But perhaps more than that, perhaps proportionately. 

We understand that there’s a second U.S. officer who will also be 

PNGed. We are watching the Maduro regime continue to engage in 

destructive behavior for the Venezuelan people. 

And then, finally, you opened with your concerns about the hostages being held by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I know those 

cases well—the case of Bob Levinson. I mentioned three others in 

my remarks on Monday. 

I know Mr. O’Brien as well, who will be our special envoy, know 

that it will a very important part of what the State Department 

does to try and get not only those held in Iran but Americans held 

throughout the world back home to their families. It was quite a 

remarkable thing to be able to bring home three from North Korea. 

There remains a great deal of work to do. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It’s so wonderful to have you in this post. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will have a number of statements and questions 

for the record. I know we have this 5-minute time limit and I look 

forward to reading most of your answers. 

As to Iran—you knew I would do that—as to Iran, we need to 

get Europe on our side to impose sanctions, whether or not they 

view those as sanctions because they don’t like the Iran deal or because they don’t like Iran’s other non-nuclear policies. 

I want to thank you for bringing to the attention of our European 

friends the assassinations that Iran has been responsible for in Europe. I know you faced some push back on that. 

But whether it’s the death in Bulgaria in 2012 by the assassination of Hezbollah, an Iranian surrogate, or whether it’s the death 

just last year in Istanbul or whether it’s the Netherlands assassination of an advocate for the Arab minority in Iran, there are assassinations in Europe. 

20

And you should know that sitting right there Secretary Kerry 

told this committee that it is fully consistent with the JCPOA for 

the United States to impose sanctions on Iran for their non-nuclear 

wrongdoing including sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. 

I had only wished that the administration had gone to Europe, 

urging sanctions for that reason rather than asking them to repudiate the JCPOA. 

I want to associate myself with the ranking member as to the 

issue of resources and particularly ask you to focus on appointing 

an East Asia and South Asia Assistant Secretary. 

As to Pakistan, it is a country of great importance to us and has 

various regions. I hope the State Department would do public diplomacy in the Sindhi language and I hope that you would reach 

out to the leaders of Pakistan about the disappearances in Sindh—

the force disappearances. 

As to North Korea, I can understand that your bargaining position is a complete immediate dropping of their entire nuclear weapons program in a verifiable and irreversible manner. 

That has been referred to as the Libya model. I would hope that, 

while you can go into negotiations with that, if you can come out 

with verifiable limitations, an end to the creation of new fissile material, a halt permanently to their ICBM program, that should not 

be regarded as a failure simply because you don’t get complete 

verifiable irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

As to Turkey, I hope that the administration would oppose the 

sale and prevent the sale of the F-35s. They are not a weapon to 

be used against terrorists. They’re a weapon to be used against 

Greece. 

And I hope the State Department would at least be neutral 

should Congress consider, as we are considering, the remembrance 

of the millions of Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syriac 

victims of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the last century. 

As to our trade deficit with China, that grew from $309 billion 

to $337 billion in the first year of the administration and I hope 

that we don’t see a shuffle where we continue to import oil, then 

China buys our oil and natural gas, and then we are told, oh, we’ve 

done something about the trade deficit. We should not count oil 

and gas exports to China as a reduction in the trade deficit. 

I would hope that when you talk to President Sisi you urge him 

to protect the Christian minority and note that only 53 permits 

have been issued to renovate or build churches when over 5,500 applications have been made. 

One question for an oral response or a quick response, and that 

is: Can we meet our challenges around the world with a 30 percent 

cut in the foreign aid budget? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am still poring through the reports on this. 

A 30 percent cut seems like an awful lot to achieve, so you have 

my word. As I said, we are going to get this piece right, I assure 

you. 

And I want to comment on one other. I am close to making a 

number of significant announcements about new members of the 

team—Assistant Secretary for East Asia Affairs and South Central 

Asia amongst them. 

21

Ambassador Shannon is retiring here shortly. We’ll need a replacement for him and we are very close to moving along. We’ve 

got to get them through the Senate, but I am looking forward to 

getting the whole team built back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your leadership. Thank 

you for recognizing the existential threat that Iran poses with regards to nuclear weapons and for recognizing what needs to be 

done to try to get us to a better place and a negotiated text that 

is viable and predictable and will protect the security of the United 

States, Israel, and others. So thank you for that. 

Mr. Secretary, as author of the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, a law that created a comprehensive whole of government approach to combatting sex and labor trafficking, protecting women 

from this unbelievable cruelty, both domestically and internationally, I respectfully ask, if you would, to move as quickly as possible 

on appointing an Ambassador-at-Large. 

That post, which is the point person, has gone unfulfilled, and I 

know you’re new on the job, and I know that you care deeply about 

that issue. Please move on that. 

And in like manner, in 2004 I authored the Anti-Semitism Special Envoy. That too has not been filled, and I know you care deeply about combatting this scourge of anti-Semitism which is rising 

all over the globe. Please move on that as well. 

Secretary POMPEO. You have my word we’ll move on them. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. 

And thank you for ratcheting up the pressure on Joseph Kabila. 

You know, we have been working really hard in our Subcommittee 

on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 

Organizations. 

We want a smooth transition, as smooth as possible, and Kabila 

certainly has the capability to cause unbelievable violence and war, 

and the sanctions certainly play a real—and I know you have already meted out some of those sanctions. 

I especially want to thank you for designating India, Brazil, and 

now Japan as violative of the Sean and David Goldman International Child Parental Abduction Return Act. 

Japan is notorious for not returning American children, including 

American service members’ children, and your department now has 

taken that step which previously was not done to say they are noncompliant with the Goldman Act, and I deeply appreciate that and 

I hope there will be follow-up on sanctions with that. 

With regards to the negotiations with China, one of the big 

misses with North Korea, China, and Iran, especially with the hostages, was not including human rights in the talks. 

Andrew Natsios, who worked on North Korea issues very effectively—a former USAID Administrator—said the big miss with 

North Korea was keeping human rights separate from all the negotiations. So I encourage you, if you would. Xi Jinping is in a race 

to the bottom with Kim, frankly, and other dictators around the 

world on religious freedom persecution and like-minded human 

rights abuses. So please make that a more robust part of the efforts. I know you, personally, believe that and I hope you will do 

that. 

22

And, finally, over the last couple of days, weeks, I’ve been meeting with Hua Qu, whose husband has now been held in Iran in 

Evin Prison for 653 days. Her husband, Xiyue Wang, is an American. He’s a graduate student and has done nothing wrong. He had 

all the preclearances before he went to Iran to do his studies and 

then before he returned was arrested and has been maltreated. 

His wife, at a big Princeton rally that she put together, said, and 

I quote—very, very telling—she appealed to you and to the President. ‘‘My husband,’’ she said, ‘‘is an innocent man, Mr. President. 

He is in prison solely because he is an American.’’

I just encourage you and I know you believe this and we now 

have a hostage and perhaps it’ll be part of his portfolio—Mr. 

O’Brien—Charles O’Brien—who will work on this. It has to be 24/

7 to get these Americans to safety because they are being used as 

pawns by the Iranian regime. 

And, again, having seen her tears, her family, her little boy, it 

just breaks your heart. So the more you can do on that, the better. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. She is correct in her analysis. Her 

husband is completely innocent and held for a singular reason, and 

I hope you will come out and join me at the State Department in 

a couple weeks when we roll out our International Religious Freedom Report. I invite all of you to join us. It’s an important day. 

Much work to be done there as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, and I would note David 

Saperstein, our former Ambassador-at-Large, obviously, did a wonderful job, and Sam Brownback is doing a wonderful job. You’re 

doing a great job on religious freedom. It is one of the most elemental of all human rights in the world. It is under assault perhaps as never before from radical Islamic belief to communist dictatorships. 

So, again, I want to thank you for the work that you’re doing on 

that. My hope is that Vietnam will be designated a CPC country. 

I also hope that Erdogan in Turkey would also be so designated for 

what he has d1 years to date against the Orthodox as well as so 

many others. 

So I thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Greg Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have some concerns because I can recall your 

immediate predecessor sitting here and he said almost exactly the 

same thing that you said about the budget—that they would not 

spend $1 more. And yet, we received such drastic cuts that you 

heard Mr. Engel speak about and other members. 

So I am worried about that aspect of it. You know, when preparing for this hearing I couldn’t help but go back and I looked at 

some videotape, and the videotape was actually of you, Mr. Secretary, and the attitude that you had about a predecessor—you 

didn’t give her any courtesy when Secretary Hillary Clinton was 

sitting in a seat before the Benghazi Committee and you scolded 

her. You went after her with venom. I couldn’t believe the tape 

when I saw it and you basically went after her about the QDDR 

report, which you said only included two pages of Diplomatic Security. You then said and implied and said clearly that meant that 

the report had no balance and therefore diplomacy security was 

23

only mentioned a few times and so the insinuation was that therefore the Secretary was not interested in Diplomatic Security. That 

came from your mouth at that time at that testimony. 

So I went back and I looked at your testimony, Mr. Secretary, 

when you were before the Senate for confirmation. I waited patiently here listening to your testimony here today, Mr. Secretary. 

I have not heard you mention one single time about Diplomatic 

Security—not once—not once. And then, I know at the time too, 

and I will try not to play with my colleague playing politics but we 

are here on hallowed soil so I think we’ve got to get to the facts 

of the matter, and on the facts of the matter we heard the majority 

leader, Kevin McCarthy, at the time say that it was about bringing 

Hillary Clinton down. 

And so I hear that I may be giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

If it wasn’t about bringing Hillary Clinton down at the time, then 

I ask you, Mr. Secretary, should we conclude that because you have 

not mentioned it, not once, should we conclude, based upon that 

fact, that you do not care about Diplomatic Security, Mr. Secretary? 

Haven’t heard it from you—not once. 

Secretary POMPEO. No. You should not conclude that. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay. I will take you at your word. 

Secretary POMPEO. You should note—if I may—if I may respond——

Mr. MEEKS. I will take you at your word. You said no. I take you 

at your word. 

Secretary POMPEO. No, but I feel like I need at least——

Mr. MEEKS. I only have 5 minutes so I am going to take you at 

your word. You will have time. I am going to take you at your 

word——

Secretary POMPEO. You should know the very first briefing——

Mr. MEEKS [continuing]. Because I happen to agree with you. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. The very first briefing I received 

as a nominee was from the head of Diplomatic Security. 

Mr. MEEKS. I happen—Mr. Secretary——

Secretary POMPEO. You should know that the very first briefing 

I received——

Mr. MEEKS. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Secretary, I happen to 

agree with you. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. When I became the Secretary of 

State was from the head of Diplomatic Security. 

Mr. MEEKS. I happen to agree with you. 

Secretary POMPEO. You should know that I am diligently working on it. I am——

Mr. MEEKS. I happen to agree with you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POMPEO. I take Diplomatic Security very seriously. 

Never make an accusation of that kind. 

Mr. MEEKS. I happen to agree with you. Oh, now the real Secretary is coming out. 

Chairman ROYCE. If I—if I could just—if I could just explain. 

Mr. MEEKS. I am reclaiming my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We are going to give you time but we 

want to give the Secretary a chance to respond. 

Mr. MEEKS. Well, he didn’t do that with Secretary——

[Crosstalk.] 

24

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. 

Mr. MEEKS. He did not—he did not do that with Secretary Clinton, let me tell you that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Well, we are going to—we are going to 

proceed with the questions and the answers. 

Mr. MEEKS. But I agree. I am taking him at his word that because—simply because something is not mentioned in a report it 

does not mean that someone doesn’t care. I believe that you do. 

That’s why I am taking you at your word. 

But I think that we can conclude that what does matter is how 

much money is appropriated for Diplomatic Security, and in this 

whole thing, when I look at the budgets that was for Diplomatic 

Security I saw that in fiscal year—under the Obama administration, over $3 billion went to Diplomatic Security. But once President Trump came in, I see it went down to $2.1 billion and fiscal 

year 2019 down to $1.6 billion. 

So the budget or the money for Diplomatic Security has gone 

down about 45 percent from the Obama administration. So where 

is the concern now on the side of this administration about Diplomatic Security? 

Secretary POMPEO. Diplomatic Security is not about dollars expended. It’s about delivering real security. It’s about getting the 

right outcomes. It’s about having the right people in place. It’s 

about being thoughtful about where you put people. 

We are going to take risks. We are going to be an expeditionary 

State Department. I think President Trump demands it. I think 

each of you do as well. 

But I will take a back seat to no one with respect to caring about 

and protecting the people that——

Mr. MEEKS. Nor did Hillary Clinton take a back seat about diplomatic security in this country. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. [Sounds gavel.] Order. 

Next in the queue is Mr. Dana Rohrabacher or California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, might I suggest that we have 

more opportunities and I hope that now that you are the Secretary 

to talk to you privately and have discussions like this so we 

wouldn’t have to use up time at a hearing and do things publically. 

So I hope that——

Secretary POMPEO. Mr. Rohrabacher, can I say this? I would welcome that with as many of you as I can. My theory on this is as 

many cups of coffee as we can have to have these discussions, the 

more we can work together to achieve American——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let’s have some of those sessions so people 

can get their points across and have a discussion because we are 

limited with time here. 

I am very pleased that we have an administration now and a 

Secretary like yourself who knows that we shouldn’t be treating enemies like friends. We should be treating enemies like enemies and 

friends like friends, not the other way around, and I am afraid that 

our Government quite often has gotten into that pattern. 

I would like to ask—based on that concept, I would hope that we 

are going to be supporting the Kurds. Erdogan has become our 

enemy. He is not our friend and the Kurds are the people who need 

our help. 

25

I hope that we are going to have a relationship with India and 

Japan and accelerate that relationship because that is pivotal. 

They are friends that are pivotal to helping us defeat our enemies. 

I understand that the budget request has no increase for Pakistan. I don’t see any reason whatsoever to give the Government of 

Pakistan any money in terms of our foreign aid until Dr. Afridi, the 

man who helped us bring justice to Osama bin Laden, the man who 

slaughtered 3,000 Americans and our Pakistani friends have proven their friendship by keeping him in a dungeon. 

In Afghanistan, we have a great friend, a man—if anybody’s seen 

‘‘12 Strong’’—helped defeat the Taliban and Dr.—and right now, he 

is the vice—supposedly the vice president, General Dostum—he is 

in virtual exile now and he’s—there’s been assassination attempts. 

I hope that we make it very clear that General Dostum is the guy 

who can defeat the Taliban. He’s done it before, and we need to 

stick by him. 

Third, again, Egypt—in Egypt now we have a government that 

is against radical Islamic terrorists and in fact they replaced a government that was pro-Muslim Brotherhood. 

But we have policies that make it more difficult for Egypt to purchase American weapons than when Egypt was under the President who was part of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

This is ridiculous. I hope that that would get your attention. 

Finally, Iran—congratulations on taking hold of this situation 

and stepping forward with positive leadership as you have. Let me 

just note, when it comes back to treating your enemies as enemies 

and your friends as friends, we have a lot of friends in Iran. 

People always mistake, and I keep reminding our folks here, the 

Iranian mullah regime—that’s the enemy. The people of Iran are 

our friends. 

These folks over here in their yellow jackets, these are Iranians 

who love freedom and we need to make sure that we work with the 

Baloch, with the Kurds, with the Azaris, and others, and the Persians who are pro-freedom in Iran and be proactive like Ronald 

Reagan was when he ended the Cold War and we can defeat the 

mullah regime without having a military operation by helping 

these people who believe in freedom. 

And now I’ve given you a minute to reply. [Laughter.] 

Secretary POMPEO. If I might, I will try and tackle two of those. 

I will tackle Pakistan and then the Kurds, if that’s okay. 

So with respect to Pakistan, we released far fewer funds in 2018 

than in the year prior. The remainder of the funds available are 

under review. My guess is that that number will be smaller still. 

I worked diligently on the issue of Dr. Afridi in my previous role, 

unsuccessfully. Please be aware that it’s in my heart and I know 

it’s important and we can do that. We can achieve that outcome. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. When it’s getting worse in Pakistan—if people in Karachi and the Sindhs and the others, they are now facing 

these—you know, people who are killing their leaders or killing 

their people who believe in certain things that are different than 

the radical Islamic philosophy of some of the people in the Pakistani Government. 

Secretary POMPEO. Our State Department officials are being 

treated badly as well. The folks working in the Embassies and in 

26

the consulates and other places are not being treated well by the 

Pakistani Government either—a real problem that we need to take 

the measure of also. 

If it’s okay, I will get back to you on the Kurds in a written note. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right, and as I say, Mr. Secretary, looking 

forward to some private sessions where we can all discuss things. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Albio Sires of New Jersey. 

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

for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, going to the Western Hemisphere, as I look at it, 

being a part of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I 

look at Venezuela, which basically has become a satellite of Cuba 

with Cuba having 30,000 people or more in Venezuela running just 

about everything, from security to all the other things that run 

somehow in Venezuela. 

The other concern that I have is, obviously, Nicaragua—I am 

glad that the administration is finally speaking up on Nicaragua. 

I think we definitely have to support those student and the people 

that are on the streets. 

But one of the things that always concerns me is as part of the 

Ayatollah’s efforts to export the revolution, it seems that we have 

been building cultural centers in some of these Latin American 

countries. 

Are we really monitoring to see how much influence they have 

and how many they’re opening? I mean, they started out with 10. 

Now they’re about 100. 

I am concerned about the security. Can you——

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know the answer to how well or how 

frequently we are monitoring that. I will get you an answer. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay, because I think——

Secretary POMPEO. I am aware of this issue but I don’t know 

what monitoring is taking place. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Going now to Cyprus, are we considering to lifting the arms embargo in Cyprus so we can sell them arms? 

What’s happening in Cyprus is Turkey keeps sending people, 

more and more on their side, and this is an issue that the Cyprus 

people feel that they have to have in order to protect themselves, 

and we have an arms embargo. 

I know that you only just got to the State Department but these 

are questions that I think that we should look into. 

Secretary POMPEO. I will mention this. I don’t want to address 

that issue in particular but, rather, talk about issues in the Eastern Med, more broadly. 

I met with the Greek Foreign Minister on Monday of this week. 

There is a great deal of work we have—increasing threats—that 

America has enormous interests that we have to figure out precisely how to deal with each of them. It’s a complex place. 

Congressman Rohrabacher mentioned Turkey. Maybe a couple 

others have as well. We have a NATO ally, that I will meet with 

their Foreign Minister early next week to try and plot a path forward together with them in Syria but who is proving incredibly difficult. 

27

Mr. SIRES. And I hope that you consider not giving them the F35s in the future. It seems that we give and give and give, and we 

get slapped in the face when we need them. 

I represent the largest Coptic Christian community in New Jersey and I am always very concerned about the security. 

I hope that the State Department makes an effort to really concentrate on the safety of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. It is important there were over 16 million Coptic Christians in Egypt and 

they were under assault day in and day out. 

So if we can put more pressure on the Government of Egypt to 

give them more protection, that would be good for all those people 

that are under such pressure. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

I think the administration has done a reasonably good job. I 

think we’ve made real efforts. I agree with you that there remains 

a great deal of work to do to make sure that they have the protections they need to practice their religion in Egypt. 

Mr. SIRES. And going back—I have about a minute—and going 

back to the Iran question, they seem to be building more and more 

their forces in Syria. 

How closely are we monitoring this? It seems that they’re getting 

ready for something. 

Secretary POMPEO. So I actually am very familiar with this 

issue—the Iranian efforts in Syria. Their forces have expanded 

modestly over this past 24 months. But they have become more 

willing and more capable. 

That is, the weapons that they have moved into Syria have become more capable. That is, their capacity to threaten the region 

including Israel has increased over those same 24, even 36 months 

now. 

It is a difficult complex environment to respond in. Rest assured, 

we are working closely with our European partners, our Israeli, our 

Arab partners. 

We are well aware of the threat from Iran and we are working 

to develop details under the strategy I laid out on Monday about 

how to respond to that. 

Mr. SIRES. And how is the investigation on what happened in 

Cuba going with our diplomats? 

Secretary POMPEO. So the Accountability Review Board, I am 

told, will have a report to me by the middle of next week. 

And if I may, you’re speaking about the incidents—the incidents 

in Havana? 

Mr. SIRES. Yes. 

Secretary POMPEO. If I might add here for the benefit of those 

who saw the news last night, we had an incident in Guangzhou 

that the medical indications are very similar and entirely consistent with the medical indications that have taken place to Americans working in Cuba. 

One incident—we announced it to the workforce while we slept 

here last night. We have medical teams that are moving to be on 

the ground there. We are working to figure out what took place 

both in Havana and now in China as well. 

28

We’ve asked the Chinese for their assistance in doing that and 

they have committed to honoring their commitments under the Vienna Convention to keep American Foreign Service officers safe. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We appreciate very much your department 

keeping us in the loop on this as this proceeds. 

We go to Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Secretary, as a founding member of the Congressional 

Taiwan Caucus, I would like to focus first on one of our key allies 

in what can be, obviously, a very dangerous world—the nation of 

Taiwan—and I say nation intentionally. 

It’s not a faux pas. Taiwan has been a de facto independent country for more than half a century now. They, of course, have to put 

up with China’s bullying on an ongoing basis. 

The State Department had a self-imposed policy that prevented 

top Taiwanese officials—the President, Vice President, Foreign 

Minister, and Defense Minister—from coming to the United States, 

including to our Nation’s capital here, Washington, DC. 

They could transit through, say, Los Angeles or San Francisco as 

they headed to South America, for example, but that was it. 

And top U.S. officials couldn’t travel to Taiwan. That policy was 

disrespectful and counterproductive, in my view. Recently, the 

House unanimously passed H.R. 535 and I would like to thank my 

Democratic colleague, Mr. Brad Sherman, as well as Chairman 

Royce and others for joining me as principal sponsors in what 

passed the House unanimously and passed the Senate unanimously, and then President Trump—God bless him—signed it into 

law. 

I would note that the resolution not only allows high-level visits 

but encourages them. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to encourage you and the rest of the 

administration to take advantage of this, and I don’t want to put 

you on the spot or anything but I would hope that at some point 

in the not too distant future, President Tsai of Taiwan herself could 

come and address a joint session of Congress or visit President 

Trump in the White House. 

So, that being said, Mr. Secretary, could you comment on the 

Taiwan Travel Act and how you would see it working in real time? 

Secretary POMPEO. In my previous role, I was part of the discussions around that, trying to at least understand American national 

security implications for it. 

The administration has had many discussions. We understand its 

implications, not only its urgings but the direction of travel that 

was required by that, and you should have great confidence that 

we will continue to abide by that. 

My recollection is there was an Assistant Secretary that travelled 

there just before my time or maybe it was a couple months before 

my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and we are sending a letter 

I believe today to John Bolton to encourage him perhaps to go as 

well. So my guess is he would probably like to do that. 

So thank you very much. 

29

The next thing I would like to mention, we had a hearing last 

week. I’ve introduced legislation a number of times. As you know, 

gas prices have gone up to $3 a gallon in Cincinnati and other 

places. They’re higher here in DC. But they’re hurting a whole lot 

of people. 

And it was called NOPEC—I would introduced it with John Conyers in the past. We’d passed it in the House. They passed it in 

the Senate. But it wasn’t identical. There would be climate change 

stuff put in in the Senate. So for whatever reason we didn’t get it 

across the finish line. 

It’s my understanding that President Trump likes the idea. In essence, what it does is it would allow the attorney general to file a 

lawsuit for anti-competitive violations, basically, which would be in 

violation of anti-trust law—the Sherman Act—and I would encourage you to take a look at that. The legislation, hopefully, will be 

passed here in the House in time in the near future and those 

OPEC companies who work with Russia and others are artificially 

keeping production down, which drives the price up. So if you 

would take a look at that I would greatly appreciate it. 

Secretary POMPEO. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Secretary POMPEO. And I also hope the good oil and gas people 

of your great state would get after it as well. 

Mr. CHABOT. I totally agree with you. 

And then one final thing I would like to do, and I would like to 

commend my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for not letting 

the world forget about Crimea, which too often, I think, they have. 

I think Russia’s invasion and criminal annexation of part of 

Ukraine—Crimea—is going uncommented on by the rest of the 

world too often. 

So if you could elevate that in any way I would greatly appreciate it. I don’t know if in the little time you have left if you could 

comment on that. 

Secretary POMPEO. I appreciate the need to elevate that. The last 

trip I took in my previous world was actually to the Donbass to see 

the challenges that are presented to Ukraine and its people there. 

This is a very, very serious matter. The Russians annexed onefifth of that country. We should never forget that that’s the case. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thanks for your service to our country 

and thanks for being with us today. 

As my colleagues know, I make the same request of every official 

who comes before this committee. You have already had a chance 

to speak to this and you and I have had many conversations over 

the years about Bob Levinson, the longest held American hostage, 

and all the other Americans who are held in Iran. I appreciate the 

commitment that you have made here today to focus on bringing 

them home and we are proud to be joined today by Bob’s youngest 

son, Dan, who’s sitting with us here. 

Because there are now no longer any regular direct channel talks 

with Iran, where the American hostages were brought up on then 

sidelines, I just would ask that, at a minimum here, for you to comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:48 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\052318\30175 SHIRL
30

mit to continuing to communicate with the Levinson family to keep 

them apprised of the extent of your efforts to help bring him home. 

Secretary POMPEO. Of course. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Secretary, you said in your testimony that we won’t tolerate 

Russian interference in the 2018 elections and we have to take 

countermeasures in response to an effort to do so. 

I just wanted to get your quick response to something. Yesterday, 

particularly given your previous position—in January 2017, ODNI 

found the Russian Government favored the Trump campaign over 

Hillary Clinton and that Putin personally ordered to influence the 

campaign to undermine public faith in the American democratic 

process. 

Yesterday, our Homeland Security Secretary said that she didn’t 

believe that she’d seen that conclusion that the specific intent was 

to help President Trump win. 

I just wanted to confirm that you share the view of the intelligence community and the conclusion that they reached in January 2017. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. I haven’t seen anything that would dissuade me from believing it’s right. It’s worth noting, however, that 

that particular judgment that was made was the least confirmed—

that is, there was the least support for that and the intelligence 

committee report make that clear as well. 

Mr. DEUTCH. So and just confirming that it’s—it was still a conclusion reached by the intelligence community. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Also, again, not tolerating Russian interference in 

2018 also means, I think, that we need to fully understand everything that happened in 2016. 

To that end, I just wanted to ask whether you support allowing 

the Mueller investigation to play out so that we can gather all of 

the necessary information to make conclusions about what happened in 2016 in order to safeguard, as you point out in your testimony, and prevent any Russian interference in the 2018 elections. 

Secretary POMPEO. I am not going to comment on any of the ongoing investigations. As I said in my confirmation hearing, I was 

interviewed by Mr. Mueller’s team. So I’ve been part of it. I was 

part of it in my role as Director of the CIA, providing information 

to committees here in the House, committees in the Senate as well. 

I am simply going to make no comments about any of the ongoing investigations. 

Mr. DEUTCH. On Iran, I want to just go back to the President’s 

decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and where things stood the 

moment before that happened and just ask whether—as your sense 

of how things can go forward. 

At that moment, there were ongoing discussions—negotiations 

with our European allies about addressing the shortfalls in the 

JCPOA, specifically, the inspections regime, the sunsets, and the 

ballistic missiles, and I would add human rights to that. 

And the understanding was by a lot of us that if we could reach 

some agreement on those issues to strengthen the JCPOA and address those shortfalls that that would have been sufficient for the 

administration to remain in the deal. 

31

There is this 180-day period now before the sanctions are fully 

implemented after the President’s decision. Are those discussions 

continuing with our allies? 

Is there any chance, if our allies were to agree to the demands 

of the administration to strengthen the JCPOA and there were an 

opportunity to achieve that with them, would that have an impact 

on what we do over the coming months following the President’s 

announcement to withdraw from the JCPOA? 

Secretary POMPEO. So we will certainly continue to work with 

our European partners. Indeed, the German Foreign Minister will 

be here on Thursday—tomorrow—or maybe it’s even this afternoon 

when he will arrive. 

I was part of those negotiations. While I don’t want to go into 

the details, I can say this. We worked diligently during my 2 weeks 

as Secretary of State to try and bridge that gap and, ultimately, 

the three European countries would not sign up for that. 

It’s worth noting—so there were an extended period that negotiations took place, some of it—some of which predated my time. It’s 

worth noting that during the entire duration of the JCPOA, in 

spite of their attested willingness to put additional sanctions in 

place, no sanctions were put in place. 

So everyone—there was this discussion about how there were 

these—we can still continue with non-nuclear sanctions. The actual 

willingness to do that, to actually engage and say we are going to 

sanction Iranian missile conduct, for example, which would, if put 

in place properly, have required European businesses not to be in 

Iran—they’re still engaged in this missile activity—I think we can 

all agree it didn’t happen. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And so are we prepared to fully impose secondary 

sanctions on our allies? 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman’s time is——

Secretary POMPEO. The answer is the sanctions are back in place 

today with a 90-day and a 180-day wind down period for different 

components. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me say, I appreciate our Mr. Ted Deutch’s 

continued focus on Bob Levinson and his fate. Let me also add that 

I would add this with extreme caution, Mr. Secretary. The U.S. 

permanent resident, Nizar Zakka, is reported to have disappeared 

from prison in Iran and I hope the administration is working swiftly to locate him and ensure his well-being. 

The reason I raise the point is there is reports not only that he 

was in poor health but also reports that he had been tortured. And 

so thank you for your engagement on this. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. We are aware of those reports as 

well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I had the extraordinary opportunity to lead a delegation for the opening of the 

Embassy in Jerusalem. 

What a fabulous positive celebration this was, and I was really 

grateful for the leadership of President Trump, for your leadership, 

32

Ambassador John Bolton, and, of course, the extraordinary Ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

In working with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I believe 

this will help promote the peace process in the Middle East. So 

thank you for your success. 

Additionally, the question would be the results of the most recent 

elections in Lebanon change what’s the status of U.S. policy? Do we 

need to make changes on how to provide our economic and security 

assistance to be more effective to counter Hezbollah and Iranian influence, and what do you see as the most effective tool pursuant 

to U.N. Security Council sanctions that the United States can promote to enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah which, today, has 

150,000 missiles directed at Israeli families? 

Secretary POMPEO. So I think there were three questions there. 

I will start with the last one with respect to Lebanese Hezbollah. 

So we not only now have them as a problem in Lebanon, we have 

them as a problem in Syria as well—Iranian-funded, Iranianfueled. Part of our Iran strategy is aimed, clearly, at reducing their 

capacity to create havoc and conduct terror operations around the 

world. 

Second, you asked about the election. Certainly, changes, but ultimately it’s our assessment at this point that the overall balance 

of power won’t be materially changed as an outcome of that. 

That’s good and bad. The existing balance of power is not a good 

one in its own right and so there are real challenges about how 

America can introduce its influence and get Lebanon to move in 

the direction of that great nation. 

To date, we’ve largely relied on two places including the Lebanese Armed Forces to help us achieve the security element of our 

efforts there and we need to review each of those to make sure that 

we are using American taxpayers’ dollars right and supporting the 

groups that can most likely achieve our outcome there. 

Mr. WILSON. I am also grateful that the administration is providing additional funds for European Deterrence Initiative to provide for military NATO troops and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 

American troops in Poland. 

To me, this is so important. But the challenge that you have is 

that only 15 of the 29 NATO allies have said that they would reach 

the 2 percent minimum by 2024. 

What can we do to encourage our allies to better defend themselves to promote peace through strength? 

Secretary POMPEO. President Trump should be credited with 

making real progress there. That is, there are more countries today 

meeting the 2 percent commitment. There’s a corollary commitment of 20 percent for equipment as well—more countries achieving that as well. 

I was with Jens Stoltenberg this past week. He’s committed to 

putting pressure on each of them to do so. There’s a NATO summit 

in July that the President will attend, and I hope that two things 

will take place—one, that every country will show up with a plan, 

at least, to get to 2 percent. Some of the countries, including Germany, have the financial wherewithal to do so and have simply 

chosen not to; and second, I hope that the countries that have 

33

plans will move their date closer—that they will get to their 2 percent target in a more timely fashion. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am really grateful, a rare example but it’s 

true that we worked together with Gerry Connolly and Steve 

Chabot, and that is that we are concerned about Russian aggression, beginning in Moldova. Then it was the Republic of Georgia, 

and then 10,000 were killed in Ukraine. 

What more can we do to work with our allies to provide proper 

equipment, particularly to the three nations that I mentioned, to 

stop the aggression by the Putin regime? 

Secretary POMPEO. So, Congressman Wilson, I don’t know the details of the armaments issues with respect to those three countries. 

I am happy to take a look at it. 

I was with the Georgian prime minister. We had the seven U.S.-

Georgian dialogue hosted at the State Department this week. We 

can keep these issues at the forefront. 

We can make clear with respect to at least Georgia that we are 

working to get their accession to NATO. These are the kinds of 

things that can support the people of those countries in the right 

way. 

We also, in that same neck of the woods, made the decision last 

year to provide defensive weapons systems to the Ukrainians—

weapons systems that they have now used—and there is much 

work that remains—I concur, this is not partisan—much work that 

remains to promote those former Soviet entities who are on a path 

toward joining the Western world. 

Mr. WILSON. And I’ve seen the success of Bulgaria and Romania, 

and now Georgia. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Bill Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Three things—first, the President’s 

reversal on the telecom giant from China, ZTE—you know, in 2012, 

the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House said 

that ‘‘This company could undermine core U.S. national security interests.’’

Even last week, your nominee to the Counterterrorism Center 

said that they present a serious security risk to the United States. 

Even Senator Rubio said it’d be crazy to go back on this. 

So it’s really not an issue if it presents a security question. Yet, 

the President, by a tweet, took the pressure right off just 3 days 

after getting a loan arrangement that’ll support the Trump brand 

and reverse this. 

Now, either last night or this morning he said, well, maybe it 

could be dealt with with a fine or changing the principles of the 

company, which you know are run by the Chinese Government and 

influenced by the Chinese Government. 

Number one, should that be reversed? Should that ban be reversed and, number two, should the President really divest himself 

of these business interests? 

Now, second quick question is on the President’s phone. There 

have been reports that his cell phone isn’t equipped with sophisticated security devices and it exposes him to hacking and surveillance in that regard. 

34

You wrote, Mr. Secretary, a couple of years ago, dealing with the 

former Secretary described for the letter and spirit of the law in 

her handling of classified information is not a political issue—it’s 

a national security issue that puts American interests and American lives in danger. 

Second question, will you advise the President to change his 

phone and make it more secure in that respect? 

And finally, if you could, you said just a few minutes ago that 

security is about being thoughtful for where you put people. So I 

would like your opinion on the fact that in all the people in the administration and all the qualified people in the United States of 

America, the President has put the chief negotiator for Middle East 

peace in the hands of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is limited 

in his knowledge of this because he’s been denied security clearance necessary, really, to have a full grasp of that issue. 

His temporary clearance was removed due to apparent conflicts 

of interest and a very large number of discrepancies on his SF-86 

form. 

So on those three questions, if you could, Mr. Secretary, please 

respond. 

Secretary POMPEO. Sure. Let me take a swing at all three of 

them. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Secretary POMPEO. I will try to do them in the sequence you provided them. 

With respect to ZTE, you note that this threat has been known 

since 2012. You should note nothing was done in what now 

amounts to almost 6 years. 

This administration is going to do something. We are still working on the appropriate response and how to address it. But it’s 

worth noting that for 6 years, mostly under the previous administration, nothing was done. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Secretary, but just a quick comment——

Secretary POMPEO. Sure. 

Mr. KEATING [continuing]. That doesn’t make it right. 

Secretary POMPEO. No, sir. It doesn’t. 

Mr. KEATING. Either there is danger or there’s not. The President has been in office for a year—over a year now and nothing 

was done, evidently. 

Secretary POMPEO. I agree. 

Mr. KEATING. So time to do it, right? 

Secretary POMPEO. I agree. I agree. We need to make sure that 

America is secure from threats to all. There are multiples—ZTE is 

one amongst many of these same types of threats, and I look forward to working this. This seems to me a bipartisan issue. 

Mr. KEATING. So it still should be banned? 

Secretary POMPEO. We are going to get this right. We are going 

to reduce the risk from ZTE to America. It’s still under review 

what’s taking place. I’ve been part of some of the discussions, although not all of them. 

But I understand, at least as of yesterday afternoon, no final resolution had been reached. 

35

I will leave to others the President’s phone. I won’t walk away 

a single bit from what I said previously. Every government elected 

official has the responsibility to comply with——

Mr. KEATING. Including the President, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary POMPEO. Every government official——

Mr. KEATING. So who would tell him that, in your organization? 

Secretary POMPEO. Congressman, I don’t have any comment on 

that. We all have a responsibility. 

Mr. KEATING. But excuse me—if you know it and it’s true—if it 

is true, would you feel compelled to say, Mr. President, you got to 

change your phone—it’s a security risk? Wouldn’t you at least do 

that for America? 

Secretary POMPEO. [Laughter.] I will tell you this. I will tell you 

this. 

Mr. KEATING. You can’t do that for America? Come on now. 

Secretary POMPEO. We are both great patriots. I think we share 

that. I am going to do everything I can——

Mr. KEATING. You wouldn’t tell the President if he had an unsecure phone, hey, Mr. President, you got to get a new phone? You 

wouldn’t tell him that? Why wouldn’t you tell him? 

Secretary POMPEO. I have managed for 16 months not to talk 

about conversations I’ve had with the President. I do not——

Mr. KEATING. Well, have you had that conversation? 

Secretary POMPEO. I do not intend to violate that principle today 

with respect to conversations between myself and the President. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, I am going to take that, if you will, that you 

have never told the President, hey, you better get a new phone 

that’s secure. 

Secretary POMPEO. I can’t account for how you will take it. I can 

only tell you that——

Mr. KEATING. You can’t account for how he’ll take it? 

Secretary POMPEO. I can’t account for how——

Mr. KEATING. Who can? 

Secretary POMPEO. You shouldn’t construe the absence of a comment from me one way or the other. Know this—every time I see 

a security issue, I try to do my best to face it, whether it’s something that I got wrong or someone else made an error as well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Secretary, it’s great to call you Secretary. It’s great to see 

a friend and former colleague in the position that you are in, having travelled with you to the Middle East and Northern Africa. 

I’ve seen you and your talent as a diplomat and we are just so 

proud of you in the House. 

With respect to the allegations about the Diplomatic Security 

corps, I would just respond that nobody knows that issue better 

than you, having served on the Benghazi Commission where our 

Ambassador was killed in the previous administration. 

I sort of think you appreciate that issue probably more than anyone. And so with that, I would like to move on to Iran. When you 

and I talked about the JCPOA when we were in the Congress together, we had concerns about the ballistic missile capability. 

We had concerns about the inspections not being anytime anywhere, no access to military installations, and the $150 billion that 

36

has gone into terrorism that now we see as the Shi’a Crescent, as 

Netanyahu calls it, into Iraq, Syria, in Lebanon, and now Yemen. 

I know you have these E-3 negotiations that apparently got pretty close to an agreement. 

I applaud the efforts to move forward with more leverage on Iran 

by lifting the sanctions in a 90- to 180-day time frame. 

Can you tell us about what the status of those negotiations are 

and if there is any path forward to come forward with a deal with 

our European allies, the Saudis, and Iran? 

Secretary POMPEO. So we are not very far along. We are only a 

handful of days post the President’s decision to withdraw from the 

JCPOA. But a number of discussions have taken place below the 

Foreign Minister level. 

I am planning for, depending on, frankly, my schedule, sometime 

in earlier June or mid-June to gather up with a number of partners 

including the E-3 partners to plan our way forward. 

There is near perfect overlap in our values and interests on this. 

There is no dispute about the Iranian missile program, about its 

malign behavior, about the assassinations that were spoken about 

earlier. 

Everyone agrees to the problem set. We need to find a path forward together to address it, and economic sanctions get a lot of attention. They’re important. They’re an important tool. 

But there’s a great deal more to that, some of which we can talk 

about in this setting, some of which we cannot, each of which needs 

to be delivered globally. 

So when you think about our allies, it’s not just the three Europeans. We have Arab countries and their back yard. We have the 

airport in Riyadh that has missiles landing in it. 

There are Americans going to land in the Riyadh airport within 

the next 12 hours. These are serious issues. We are simply asking 

Iran to be a normal country. Some said my remarks were fantasy. 

I hope it’s not killing folks. Doesn’t seem like a fantasy. 

We demand it of every country in the world. We certainly ought 

to be able to achieve that and get our partners to agree to help 

Iran be——

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, I think the President put the right man in 

the job to get that done. We have every faith and confidence in you. 

North Korea—you’re one of the few diplomats, if not the only 

American diplomat, to have met with Kim Jong-un, which is an incredible experience, I am sure. 

We know their track record. We have constantly looked at sanctions to get to the negotiation table and they have consistently violated—they have consistently—they got out of the nuclear proliferation treaty—consistently pulled the rug out from under us. 

So what is your sense of the man himself, having that opportunity to meet with him, and what is your sense of any optimism 

that we can achieve a true negotiation that’s good for the United 

States with him? 

Secretary POMPEO. So it is always with the deep knowledge of 

the history of the relationship and North Koreans’ unwillingness to 

honor their commitment that, one, begins any discussion on this—

one, eyes wide open that we have been fooled before and can’t permit that to happen again. 

37

Having said that, the discussions I’ve had with them, he knows 

the file. He doesn’t use notes. He is speaking. We have real conversations through a translator, obviously. We would have hard 

conversations about what America was prepared to do and how we 

might be prepared to do it—our demands, the things we need from 

North Korea in order to achieve that—real conversations, not stilted talking points, as we’ve had in the past with the North Koreans. 

He’s from a different generation and at a different time, and it’s 

my hope that when he and President Trump get a chance to be together that we can get the North Koreans to make the strategic 

shift about how best to serve the country—that the nuclear weapons program isn’t in fact the thing that keeps the regime in power 

but the thing that prevents the regime from being in a place it 

wants to be with economic success. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee. I have four questions 

that really require a yes or no answer before I get to my other 

questions. 

Will you, as Secretary of State, do what so many other Secretaries have not and recognize the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against its Armenian citizens during World War I? 

Yes or no. 

Secretary POMPEO. I can’t answer that. I don’t know the answer. 

I will review the issue. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

You strongly criticized the Obama administration for not including issues like human rights in the nuclear deal with Iran. 

Do you have a commitment from the Kim regime in North Korea, 

the most brutal dictatorship in the world, to take steps to alleviate 

the human suffering of their own people, including opening civil 

and political rights as part of any negotiated deal? 

Secretary POMPEO. The issue was raised directly between me and 

Chairman Kim and it will be part of the discussions as we move 

forward. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Will it be part of the deal? Do you have a commitment from the Kim regime? 

Secretary POMPEO. We have broad outlines of what it is that 

each nation is prepared to do. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

You said in response to written questions for the record during 

your Senate confirmation hearing that you would appoint a new 

special envoy for the human rights of LGBTI persons at the State 

Department. 

That special envoy position has been vacant for some time. Will 

you expeditiously appoint someone fill that post? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And can you give us a time line? 

Secretary POMPEO. No. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Secretary POMPEO. But just know, I have a couple dozen posts 

that are of similar importance, each of which we are working 

through and developing lists. Yes. 

38

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

You have talked a lot about supporting freedoms in the Middle 

East region. Have you raised your concerns with the Government 

of Saudi Arabia about the recent arrests of activists, particularly, 

women activists? 

Secretary POMPEO. I’ve spoken with that with the leadership of 

Saudi Arabia, although I haven’t had a chance to speak to them 

lately on——

Mr. CICILLINE. I hope you will. 

Next, Mr. Secretary, I want to build on Mr. Keating’s question 

about ZTE. Do you believe it’s appropriate for the President’s business organizations to benefit from Chinese Government loans and 

financial incentives while the administration considers official matters related to the Chinese Government? 

Secretary POMPEO. I will leave that to others to comment on. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do you think it’s appropriate? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, I am going to leave that to others. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do you have an opinion as to whether that is appropriate? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. That’s, I think, six levels of hypothetical 

that I don’t know the facts——

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, no, Mr. Secretary, with due respect, it’s not 

hypothetical. 

Secretary POMPEO. No, it is. 

Mr. CICILLINE. The President reversed his decision and received 

a financial benefit. If in fact the President doesn’t divest himself 

of his business interests, how will you ensure that this body, the 

Congress of the United States, that you are not engaging on matters of foreign policy and national security, where the President’s 

interest is really the bottom line, in your mind, rather than the interests of the American people? 

Secretary POMPEO. Well, first of all, I can assure that that’s not 

true. 

Second, I can prove now that it was a hypothetical. You said that 

the President had changed his position. It’s still under review. We 

are still working our way through it. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Secretary, if the President’s business interests remain in place how will you assure the American people and 

this Congress that the decisions that you make on matters of foreign policy will be dictated by the best interests of the American 

people and not the financial benefits to the Trump organization or 

President Trump? 

Secretary POMPEO. If I guess—I guess——

Mr. CICILLINE. When you don’t even have an opinion as to 

whether or not it’s a good thing or a bad thing. 

Secretary POMPEO. I guess——

Mr. CICILLINE. You wouldn’t even render an opinion as to whether or not you think it’s appropriate for the President’s business organization to benefit from financial loans and incentives from a 

government that you’re negotiating with? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am confident that the President will comply 

with the ethics rules that are in place. Right. So, yes——

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Secretary, that’s a very disappointing answer, 

with all due respect. 

39

Secretary POMPEO. I did—I did comment——

Mr. CICILLINE. I will go to my next question. In your speech on 

Iran this week, you outlined 12 demands for the Iranian Government now that President Trump has abandoned the JCPOA. 

And while I agree with all the goals that you laid out in your 

list, I have to say it was more like a letter to Santa Claus than 

a policy document. 

It’s nice that you have 12 things that you want the Iranians to 

do. But that is far different from having the negotiating ability, the 

skill, and the coalition to support those efforts. 

And from what I’ve seen so far, this administration has none of 

these things. In fact, this administration has been in power for a 

year and a half and nothing in the JCPOA prevented the administration from cracking down on Iran’s malign activities in the region 

and they’ve done very little. 

So why will it be different now how you translate this very lovely 

wish list into actual policy? 

Secretary POMPEO. May I actually answer this question? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, please. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

In the almost 3 years of the JCPOA, the Iranians marched across 

the Middle East. They conducted heinous activities. I don’t know 

which of the 12 asks you would like me to get rid of. Do you have 

what you’d like me to drop from the list? 

Mr. CICILLINE. No. No. Mr. Secretary, I am asking how do you 

take this list? Your administration has been in office for 15 

months. They have done nothing to hold Iran accountable on any 

of this malign activity. 

What I am asking you is how you convert this wish list which, 

you know, a terrific list—I agree with its contents—into actual policy—how you make those things happen? What’s the strategy? 

Secretary POMPEO. So I laid that as well. It took me about 13 

minutes at the Heritage Foundation to lay it out. I am happy to 

deliver that to you in the 5 seconds I have remaining. 

You should know we are committed to developing a diplomatic 

solution that gets there. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the chairman will allow you to answer 

the question if you’d like to share the way that you expect to make 

that actual policy. I think it’s——

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and congratulations. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. I will get right to the point. Is there an aggressive 

plan to punish China and Mexico for flooding into the United 

States the extremely deadly drug fentanyl? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. Caught me a little bit off guard there. 

So first off, thank you, Mr. Secretary. In your opening comments 

you talked about how the State Department workforce is its best 

asset, and I couldn’t agree more. 

40

And I think it’s important for all of us to recognize the incredible 

work that that workforce does every day representing the United 

States. 

I am going to turn my focus of my questions to global health. I 

am a physician by training. Public health has been something I’ve 

done for a long time and, obviously, we know that there is an outbreak of Ebola in the DRC right now and we obviously have some 

concerns. 

My concerns are whether the administration is placing the right 

amount of priority on global health security and preparedness and 

here’s why I have that concern. 

If we think about the 2014 Ebola outbreak and the response and 

the lessons learned from that outbreak, there were a few things. 

Part of the delayed response was the lack of funding that was 

available to quickly respond, and as a physician and global health 

expert, it is incredibly important to get ahead of these outbreaks 

very quickly to contain them. So I am grateful for the $8 million that’s been allocated to help 

address this response but also concerned about—you know, we 

spent about $5 billion or we appropriated $5 billion in that 2014 

response. About $1 billion was left over that we allocated to USAID and 

CDC to work in 49 countries to help build better infrastructure 

there, better disease surveillance, et cetera. 

In the current budget allocation or ask the administration is 

talking about pulling funding from 39 of those 49 countries. 

I think that would be a mistake. I also know in the current rescissions proposal the administration seeks to pull back $252 million in residual Ebola funding. That also would be a mistake, particularly given the outbreak that we see right now, and here’s why. 

What we know is we built in some flexibility for response not just 

to Ebola but to other outbreaks and, when we had the Zika outbreak a year and a half ago, we were able to quickly respond, take 

some of that funding and respond to that Zika outbreak and get 

ahead of it. 

As you go back and, again, that rescission decision may have 

been made before the current Ebola outbreak—I would say, you 

know, let’s take that out and I would make that same message to 

the appropriators. 

A third lesson that we learned from that Ebola outbreak was the 

importance of having a command and control structure that could 

take charge, could work across agencies and you had someone who, 

clearly, was in charge. 

I am very worried right now. With kind of the dismantling of 

that—the biosecurity wing of the NSC, the loss of Admiral Tim 

Ziemer, who, clearly, was an expert here, and the loss of some of 

our expertise, with regards to addressing these global health and 

security challenges, I guess my question would be with this reorganization in the midst of a potential Ebola emergency, would you 

agree that this is not the right time to be doing this reorganization—this would not be the right time to be pulling that $252 million and what that org chart would look like in terms of biosecurity 

preparedness? 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you for your question. 

41

A very important topic—frankly, gets too little attention, I think, 

from time to time. 

Three thoughts—first, with respect to the Ebola outbreak, I believe we have the resources in the short run to do the things we 

need to do and to respond. 

Frankly, it’s probably never fast enough, but to respond in a way 

that is important and material and gets ahead of this in a way that 

we weren’t able to do before. I think we’ll execute on that. 

Second, with respect to the rescission package, I will certainly review it. I’ve had conversations even in just these 3 weeks about 

that rescission package. There’s another as well. I’ve expressed my 

views internally inside the administration on each of those. 

And finally, with respect to the broader structural issues, I know 

what existed before. I am not familiar with where those structural 

decisions are today. 

I will have my team come up and help me out to make sure that 

we have command and control right and not only for this immediate issue but as we move forward, thinking about these important global health issues as well, sir. 

Mr. BERA. Well great. Mr. Secretary, I would invite you to work 

with us in Congress, those of us that are interested in global health 

security, to make sure we have the right command and control 

structure and the right personnel in place. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Paul Cook of California. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think one of the previous conversations we had was, I think, in the SCIF talking about the Cuban 

situation with our diplomats and you raised that issue today. It’s, 

like, everything goes full circle. 

I wanted to bring up something and it’s about the Western Hemisphere. You have got a lot on your plate. We got the upcoming conference, everything in the Middle East and everything else. 

But we had group of us that went down to the conference in Peru 

and the takeaway that we had, I think, all of us—it was very, very 

bipartisan in nature—was that our friends in the region feel like 

the United States have abandoned them in many, many ways. 

I think that’s part of the reason your predecessor went down 

there, and there’s a lot of things going on in the world but this is 

an important year. There’s 13 elections. 

You got the upcoming OAS General Assembly, the G-7 Summit, 

the G-20, and they’re all very, very nervous about a lot of things 

going on, particularly with the influence of China—China’s money, 

their economic power, and how they are aligning themselves with 

certain countries. 

And the second, of course, is the Iranian influence. Hezbollah in 

some of the countries, and even some of the countries in the Caribbean which, quite frankly, I think are aligning themselves with the 

Maduro government in Venezuela. Each one of those small countries had one vote in the OAS, the same as the United States. 

What I am looking for is some kind of feedback. I know you got 

a lot on your plate, a lot of balls in the air. But what I was trying 

to convey to you is there’s this feeling of a lot of the countries in 

the Western Hemisphere that we, as a longstanding partner, have 

42

kind of overlooked, ignored our allies and I think it’s incumbent 

upon us to reassure them and do something on that. 

Can you address that comment? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am not sanguine about their views about us 

having abandoned. I spent a fair amount of time there in my previous role. I had a chance to meet many of the leaders in those 

countries. 

In 3 weeks I’ve met with a number of Foreign Ministers. I’ve participated in the layman group discussions. 

Frankly, I’ve found there to be a great deal of energy and shared 

vision for how things ought to proceed in Central and South America alongside of us. 

And so I am very hopeful. I think there’s enormous opportunity 

in that region and I will spend a good deal of my time trying to 

build a team out. 

We have an Assistant Secretary now close to being on board. We 

will—the State Department will have Western Hemisphere at the 

top of its mind across many of these important economic and security issues. 

Mr. COOK. Yes, and in line with this, foreign military sales. A 

number of the countries are concerned. Peru is—I think they’re 

putting in a plug for the C130-Js—very, very interested—and so I, 

obviously, am very, very concerned before in the past we were 

much more involved in that. 

And as I said, there’s a lot of countries, most notably China and 

Iran, that are involved in that. What can we do to increase foreign 

military sales in that region? 

Secretary POMPEO. I, for one, would advocate for working closely 

with them and encouraging them to purchase U.S. equipment that 

fit their country, that was the right tool set for them, for themselves and their security interests. 

I hope that we can across the board streamline the State Department’s process connected with foreign military sales. There’s work 

to do. 

Mr. COOK. And I’ve brought up this subject before in regards to 

NATO. You know, Eastern Europe, they’re still relying on the parts 

from Russia. 

Once you go with another country you’re going to be dependent 

on that. So I think we’ve got to look at that whole situation. Or 

once they buy, they’re going to be buying there for——

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COOK [continuing]. The next five generations or something. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. Welcome. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. So I am going to try to be very calm about this, 

but if I really had my way I would be yelling and screaming because—and not at you, yet. 

Secretary POMPEO. Soon now. [Laughter.] 

Ms. FRANKEL. But soon. No. 

Here’s what I am concerned about. We’ve heard a lot in this committee about the undeniable link between the treatment of women 

43

and global peace and security, and also women’s prosperity and 

that link. 

And I think a lot of us are very, very concerned what’s happening 

to the women of this world by policies of this administration—

slashing international family planning assistance by half, eliminating all assistance to the U.N. Population Fund, which also combats sex trafficking and child marriage, genital mutilation, leaving 

the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues vacant, reinstating and expanding the inhuman global gag rule that forces 

health care providers to cut services for women, and which really 

causes and increase in maternal deaths and unwanted pregnancies. 

And I am not talking about funding abortion, all right. We can 

have that argument on a separate date. I am sure you probably 

know this, abortion is not contraception, and I just want to give 

you an example of what’s going on in your department. 

There were reports every year, I believe it is, 200 countries on 

human rights reports are put out. There’s a section on women. 

Last year, for every country there was a section—women—there 

was a section on rape and domestic violence and then there was 

one on sexual harassment and discrimination and reproductive 

rights. 

The new report has completely eliminated reproductive rights 

and substituted—it’s almost insane what—I will just give you an 

example. 

Last year’s report for El Salvador said that women were being 

imprisoned for miscarriages. That’s an example. 

It said Ugandan men were beating their wives for using contraception and in the Philippines poor women were being denied family planning services. 

Now, basically, there’s a substitute for this—basically, that just—

it just will—it’s almost ridiculous what it says now. 

So, really, my first question to you is—I don’t know whether 

you’re aware of this, whether you will look into this. Why don’t we 

start with that? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am not as familiar with the report as you 

are. It may have been issued on my watch. I would guess it was 

before that. But I am happy to look into the issues. 

Ms. FRANKEL. How about the Ambassador position, on global——

Secretary POMPEO. You mean the global women’s issue? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. Yes, ma’am. It’s on my list. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And how about——

Secretary POMPEO. By the way, I agree it’s important. We need 

to find the right person. I think the issues are incredibly important. 

Ms. FRANKEL. All right. 

The global gag rule has been expanded to not—again, this is 

not—we are not talking about the Federal funding of abortion. 

It’s been so expanded now that health care money is getting cut 

off from agencies that even might refer or mention services that 

will perform abortions. 

So, basically, contraceptive services—I am not talking abortion—

contraceptive services are being cut off. My question to you is 

44

this—whether or not you will take a look and see how this is impacting the women’s health all over this world. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. Always about data and facts. 

Ms. FRANKEL. You’re about—okay. Well, here’s what I would like 

you to be about, please. 

Please stop with this—we have, from this administration, what 

I call abortion hysteria. Because of this hysteria, you’re cutting off 

health care to women all over the world. 

So if I could just ask you to calm down from this hysteria and 

really take a look at the health of what’s happening to women and 

to remember that women’s rights are human rights and it is absolutely tied into the peace and security and prosperity of the world. 

Secretary POMPEO. That’s an easy one. I am fully committed to 

that. This administration has demonstrated enormous commitment 

to the health of every woman. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, no, that’s not true. 

But thank you for being here. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. Congratulations. Thank you for your 

service on multiple levels. I am confident in your judgment. 

I will begin with an observation. I want to commend my friends 

on the other side for their concern about totalitarian communist socialist Russian/Chinese involvement, malign involvement and actions in our country. 

The Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917. So for 99 years I think 

it’s fair to say that they have been silent on this issue and maybe 

a strong case can be made that they actually helped the other side 

in this issue. 

So for 99 of the last 100, I wish they’d have been where they are 

not. But I am happy to see they finally got in the fight and they’re 

here and I am with them in their concern. 

Mr. Secretary, a couple questions. Let’s start with Ukraine. Is air 

defense artillery something that the administration is considering 

regarding our actions toward Russia and thwarting their activities 

and continued activities, of course, which they deny, but I think 

with air defense artillery present it would be hard to deny that 

Russian separatists were indeed flying over Ukraine if one of their 

aircraft landed on the ground? 

Secretary POMPEO. Is your question about what the Russians 

have moved into the——

Mr. PERRY. No. My question is whether we are considering either 

selling or providing air defense artillery in Ukraine. 

Secretary POMPEO. The administration is committed to providing 

the defensive weapons systems to Ukraine. I don’t know with respect to any particular weapons system whether that’s under consideration or not. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. And maybe we can continue the conversation 

along those lines to find more granularity in that and specificity, 

and that includes the conversation that you had with my colleague, 

Mr. Rohrabacher, regarding the Kurds and Turkey. 

I love the Turkish people. However, I find no favor with the 

Erdogan regime and I think it’s a matter of if, not a matter of 

when. It’s a matter of when, not if. 

45

We have to change our strategy there, and if that’s a conversation that you’re going to have in private or otherwise I would like 

to be involved in that conversation with regards to the Kurds and 

Turkey, air defense in Ukraine. 

I read the State Department classification regarding UNRRA and 

the IG report regarding the supply and content of textbooks, and 

I am unsure why it’s classified. And if you can’t divulge that in this 

setting I am happy to sit in another setting with you. 

But I am interested to know if that’s going to change. I’ve read 

the report. I see no reason. But maybe there’s something on this. 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know the answer. I am happy to declassify it if it’s appropriate. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So I am interested in follow up on that. In 

Bosnia, I am concerned that there’s an October election and there’s 

a problem with the constitution. The Dayton Accords were never 

supposed to last 20 years. They have. 

But I am concerned that we are not headed in the right place 

there and I just want to get your thoughts on that. If we are going 

to wait to see what happens, if we are going to take preemptive action, I would hate to see that things burn down and us end up with 

the United States having troops on the ground there to try and secure the peace and also if we are interested in pursuing—putting 

some forces there, again, to thwart Russia and if that’s a consideration. So those two topics, sir. 

Secretary POMPEO. So let me start, first, with Bosnia. We are 

working on the very issue you described. I can’t say a lot about it. 

But you know that the State Department and others—Department 

of Defense are there. 

We understand the risk. We think the region is very important. 

We know the—and this transitions to your second part of the question, which is we know the Russians are hard at work there destabilizing——

Mr. PERRY. As are the Turks, right? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. And so there are a handful, although, 

admittedly, not sufficiently sized levers currently being employed, 

and we are working to develop a strategy that puts us in a better 

place. 

There are important parts of the bulwark of democracy that we 

need to continue to work on. 

Mr. PERRY. I appreciate that, and I would like to pursue that further. 

Mr. Secretary, this is a picture—I am sure you’re well aware of 

an M-1 tank manufactured right here in the United States, paid 

for by the citizens of the United States with their taxes. 

That has a Hezbollah flag on it. I am concerned and have written 

letters regarding the train and equip program in Iraq and the Shi’a 

Crescent and the land bridges they’re building across Iraq with the 

militias there. 

Again, many of the Iranian people want freedom. They want 

peace and they don’t agree with the regime that they’re working—

living under. 

But I offered amendments in the NDAA to stop the funding in 

the train and equip program. One was found in favor, one was not. 

So we leave it up to you. 

46

I want to make sure that you’re aware that this is happening, 

including militias like Kata’ib Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organization for killing American soldiers. 

And if the Congress is unwilling to stop it, I hope you will be 

willing to stop the funding of the train and equip program in Iraq 

and funding the Iranian militias that are willing to kill Americans 

and Jews and everybody across the Crescent that disagrees with 

them. 

Secretary POMPEO. I will say this. It is the case that when we 

perform train and equip functions, from time to time equipment 

ends up in the hands of the wrong people. It’s a risk inherent in 

those operations. 

The question becomes is the value we are getting from that 

training—those exercises—outweigh the risk that happens. You 

should know that the U.S. Government works diligently to put 

rules and process in place to make that picture or pictures like that 

as infrequent as possible. 

Mr. PERRY. I don’t think the Iraqis are complying. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Joaquin Castro of Texas. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for your testimony. Is the North Korea 

summit going to happen or not? 

Secretary POMPEO. Sir, that decision will ultimately be up to 

Chairman Kim. 

Mr. CASTRO. So the President——

Secretary POMPEO. He asked for the meeting. The President 

agreed to meet with him. I am very hopeful that that meeting will 

take place. 

Mr. CASTRO. You have been to North Korea twice and met with 

North Korean leaders to lay the groundwork for a nuclear agreement with Kim Jong-un. 

How do you define the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? 

Secretary POMPEO. Well, we’ve said complete. 

Mr. CASTRO. What does that mean? 

Secretary POMPEO. So there are multiple components of their 

system that threatens America. This would include their weapons 

capability, their missile capability, the technology that goes with 

that. 

So engines and systems associated with space launch vehicles in 

addition to the missile programs and then everything that is upstream from that including the production of fissile material, the 

technology that permits the capacity to produce that material and 

all of the engineering and R&D connected to that. 

Mr. CASTRO. Will you leave them with a civilian nuclear program? 

Secretary POMPEO. We’ve said that it won’t be appropriate for 

them to have the capacity to enrich. I will say it this way. I can’t 

answer that question. I am not in a position that I can answer that 

question for you today. 

Mr. CASTRO. How will you move out the nuclear material? 

47

Secretary POMPEO. Well, there will be long hard discussions 

about how the verification of that work will go. It is one of the most 

difficult verification programs that will ever have been undertaken. 

We have large teams already at work, preparing in the eventuality that we are successful in negotiations so that we can achieve 

that. It’ll take many—it’s a long hard process. It won’t be just 

American. There will be other partners that will participate in it 

as well. 

Mr. CASTRO. Will you suspect that would include Russia? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know if it’ll include the Russians are 

not. It certainly would include the IAEA and others that have tremendous capacity and expertise in this area. 

Mr. CASTRO. One of the things that has hurt this administration 

is that on any controversial issue of foreign policy and domestic 

policy often—but on foreign you often two or three or four different 

answers depending on who you’re speaking to in the administration. That was certainly true when your predecessor, Rex Tillerson, 

was Secretary of State. 

So let me ask you, who is in charge of these negotiations? Is it 

you or Mr. Bolton? 

Secretary POMPEO. President Trump. 

Mr. CASTRO. And who is going to lead up the team? 

Secretary POMPEO. I will. 

Mr. CASTRO. How many members are on the team and who is on 

the team? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am not going to go into the details of how 

the team is being built out. There are different teams work—there 

are lots of teams that work across all over the United States Government, several within the State Department, a number in the 

Department of Energy, Department of Defense. There are many 

folks—folks at the National Security Council. 

There are large teams working not only on—I think your question was with respect to the negotiation but there are lots of teams 

preparing for every element of our work on North Korea. The existing pressure campaign, which continues——

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. Our work to ensure that we are 

working alongside of our allies, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and 

China to make sure that we are connected with them and developing a comprehensive strategy. 

There’s a lot of focus on this summit with that. 

Mr. CASTRO. Well, let me—I know, and I appreciate that. 

Secretary POMPEO. There’s a lot of work to do. 

Mr. CASTRO. Let me ask you—I talked about getting different answers on very controversial and important and consequential 

issues. We saw a prime example of that the other day in the middle 

of a press conference when Mr. Bolton talked about the Libya 

model, which Secretary Mattis has also mentioned before, and 

President Trump corrected him live on camera, it seemed like. 

So let me ask you, since you’re leading up the team, which approach do you take? Are you pursuing the Libya model that Mr. 

Bolton has mentioned? Or do you think that’s not appropriate here, 

as Mr. Trump has indicated? 

48

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t think there’s the distinction that you 

draw. The model that we have laid forth is a rapid 

denuclearization, total and complete, that won’t be extended over 

time, I think, when Ambassador Bolton was speaking about this, 

although, obviously, it would be better to ask him. 

What I think he was speaking of is a comprehensive 

denuclearization that didn’t take place in exchanges that worked 

along the way—a slow years-long process where an exchange for 

act X the United States sends a check across the transom. 

Mr. CASTRO. Well, does that include——

Secretary POMPEO. And he spoke about that and he’s saying 

that’s not our model and it is, indeed, not our model. 

Mr. CASTRO. Does that include helping to remove him 2 or 3 or 

4 or 5 years later? 

Secretary POMPEO. We are focused on denuclearization. The 

President has made clear that we are prepared to provide security 

assurances in exchange. 

If we can get America’s interest safe and secure, we are prepared 

to do a great deal to ensure that we get that. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. DeSantis of Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We had a great Embassy dedication last 

week in Jerusalem—long overdue, very successful. The fact that we 

now are recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—will you support 

allowing Americans born in Jerusalem to have Israel listed on their 

passports? 

Secretary POMPEO. You know, the team is looking at that. I don’t 

know the right answer. I think the President made the right decision to recognize the reality of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. 

With respect to important but technical issues about how that 

will manifest itself, the team is going to give me their expertise 

and I will present those options to the President shortly. 

Mr. DESANTIS. There was strong opposition within kind of the 

rank and file of the State Department for the move to Jerusalem. 

When I travelled last year to look at the Embassy, pretty much everyone I talked to said it would be a total disaster and that really 

hasn’t happened. 

So is there an issue with group think in the State Department 

kind of at the career level that they’re kind of in more of one mind? 

Or do you have confidence that they’re all on board to implement 

the President’s agenda? 

Secretary POMPEO. You know, I think every team—every team 

I’ve been part of in the private sector—when I was a young lieutenant every team always suffers the risk that the status quo is the 

path forward. 

So I don’t—and I view things like that I saw at CIA, too, I am 

sure I suffered as well. And so when leaders make bold changes I 

think teams sometimes lag in their understandings. 

And my observations so far in 3 weeks at the State Department 

is you have a team that very much wants to get out and execute 

America’s foreign policy as directed by President Trump. 

49

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. In terms of what’s going on in Venezuela, 

there’s a pretty significant Cuban presence of military intelligence. 

Is that your estimation? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. DESANTIS. In terms of the situation in Venezuela, propping 

up the Maduro regime, is part of that the Cuban military and intelligence apparatus? 

Secretary POMPEO. In this setting I can say there are a great 

deal of Cuban influence that is working alongside the Maduro regime. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And it’s not helpful to what America wants, correct? 

Secretary POMPEO. It runs adverse to U.S. interests—directly adverse to U.S. interests. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The President, before you were Secretary, announced a really strong re-evaluation of the Obama Cuba policy. 

Not all of that has been implemented. 

When is all that going to finally be implemented? 

Secretary POMPEO. May I take that for the record? I don’t know 

the process or the timing but I will get the answer to you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. In terms of Iran, I think that your speech 

was great the other day and I think the President’s decision was 

the right one. How do we go about—I mean, the Iran deal gave 

them a cash windfall. I guess we are going to now be moving to 

impose new sanctions. Are there going to be other things that have 

not yet been enacted into law that you’re going to want Congress 

to do? 

Because it seems to me Order A has got to be choking off the 

money flow to this regime. 

Secretary POMPEO. So Congress has granted the executive 

branch a great deal of power to execute these sanctions already. I 

am, having said that, confident that we will come back to you seeking further authority to expand the scope of what it is we are permitted to do. 

It also goes beyond just the economic sanctions. There are designations. There are issues with respect to visas. There are a broad 

set of undertakings that not only the State Department but other 

elements of government could take to achieve what the President 

laid out, which is to deny around the wealth creation opportunities 

that have permitted them to threaten the world. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Iranian people, obviously, are not happy with 

this regime. I mean, this is a militant Islamic regime that’s been 

really imposed on a relatively pro-Western populace—educated 

middle class. We see the protests. The President has spoken out I 

think correctly. What can we do to help? 

Because it seems like the regime cracks down on the social networks. They don’t want there to be a free flow of information. But 

I think it’s certainly in our interest to empower people who view 

this regime as illegitimate and not representative of their ideals. 

Secretary POMPEO. It’s long been a U.S. deeply held position that 

we will do the things we can to ensure that peoples all around the 

world have their human rights, their political rights, and their capacity to express themselves. 

50

We shouldn’t shy away from that with respect to Iran either. 

There are a number of tools that we can use, some of which I am 

now responsible for their implementation. Others exist other places 

in government. We should bring them all to bear to allow the Iranian people to be governed by the leaders that they choose. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Final question with respect to North Korea—and 

congratulations on being able to be over there. I think you have a 

chance to make history and there’s no better guy to be in your position than you, in my judgment, to get this done. 

But there’s been this issue about the Libya model or not Libya 

model, and I think, as I read it, I mean, 2003 was actually a good 

model because Gaddafi got scared. He realized that the nukes were 

making his regime less stable, not more stable—at least his program up to that point. But then you have the 2011 Obama model, 

which is after he agreed to give up his weapons they then attack. 

So can you just say what—how does Libya—what’s the model 

that Kim Jong-un is going to look at and say, hey, how is America 

going to react if I do a deal with them? 

Secretary POMPEO. I should study the Libya case more closely, 

perhaps. I could tell you what it is that President Trump has directed me to do with respect to how we are going to proceed against 

North Korea. 

We are not going to do trade for trade. We are not going to let 

this drag out. We are not going to provide economic relief until 

such time as we have an irreversible set of actions—not words, not 

commitments—undertaken by the North Korean regime and when 

we get there, in exchange for that we are prepared to do a great 

deal to help the North Korean people. 

Chairman ROYCE. Robin Kelly of Illinois. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Secretary Pompeo, for coming to testify before the 

House Foreign Affairs Committee. I am the ranking member of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Information 

Technology Subcommittee and we are currently having a hearing 

on the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act 

scorecard. 

And I don’t know if you knew this but the State Department has 

a D minus, and in 2017 the Department of State scored the lowest 

of any agency on the Federal Information Security Modernization 

Act. 

Secretary POMPEO. I did know that. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Well, I guess you don’t want to keep that 

score? You do not? 

Secretary POMPEO. I aim for at least a C, quick. 

Ms. KELLY. The 2016 and 2017 Inspector General reports found 

that the primary reason the department has not implemented an 

effective information security program is because the chief information officer does not have sufficient authority to manage IT activities as provided in the law and is not properly positioned within 

the department to ensure that the department’s information security program is effective. 

And President Trump—his recent Executive order requiring 

CIOs to report directly to the head of the agency, do you plan to 

51

follow this order and restructure the CIO position in the near future? 

Secretary POMPEO. So I, in just 3 weeks, already spent a lot of 

time staring at this. 

Ms. KELLY. Congressman Meadows is interested in this too because we did this together. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. This is an important issue. I actually 

saw this in my previous role as well where the agency that I ran 

was in probably a little better position than the State Department 

is but had a great deal of work to do as well. 

We expended a fair amount of resources but, most importantly, 

we made real progress in improving the systems there. It is central 

that we do it here. There are security issues surrounding it. There 

are efficiency issues surrounding it. There is data management. 

It is a broad system and, as best I can tell, that D is justified. 

The D minus is justified, and I will empower our CIO, but not only 

the CIO—the Undersecretary for Management and everyone that is 

connected to that and, indeed, you don’t fix these processes and 

systems without an organization wide commitment. No one person 

or one team can do it. I will be very focused on this and I understand we have a great deal of resources to attack the problem. 

But I assure you if I don’t have the resources I need I will lay 

out a plan and come back and ensure that we make the case to you 

that we have the resources that we need. 

Ms. KELLY. And the Foreign Affairs Committee always talks 

about being bipartisan but our subcommittee is very bipartisan, led 

by Chairman Hurd, and we want to know what we could do to help 

you implement what you want to do. So——

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. There’s much work to be done but 

it’s important work. 

Ms. KELLY. The State Department has very few women and people of color in senior level positions—a problem that was exacerbated by your predecessor. During your confirmation hearing, you 

spoke about the importance of diversity at the State Department. 

Currently, there are no minorities in senior positions at the State 

Department. How will you make sure senior level officials at the 

State Department better represent the diversity of the United 

States? 

Secretary POMPEO. I did talk about this during my confirmation 

hearing. It’s actually been something I’ve cared about all my life. 

We had some success during my tenure at CIA. We had some 

success when I was running little old Thayer Aerospace back in 

Wichita, Kansas, some years ago to make sure that we had the 

most talented people regardless of their gender, their sexual orientation, their race. 

I am confident we can do that at the State Department as well. 

I’ve asked for the statistics and the history at the State Department. I think I have them but not had a chance to review them 

yet. But know that I will empower the organization—indeed, demand—that it treat every single human being with the dignity and 

respect that they deserve and that we have a workforce that truly 

does represent America. It’s important for diplomatic reasons as 

well as just being the right thing to do. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, and thank you for your time. 

52

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Pompeo, congratulations. Thanks for being here. 

As you know, the world is going through a tectonic shift in world 

powers we haven’t seen since World War II. The State Department 

and our United States Government needs the tools to effectively 

counter and balance some of these rising powers, i.e. China. 

We can’t compete with them dollar for dollar and I greatly appreciate your written testimony regarding the BUILD Act. As you 

know, the White House endorsed the measure in a press release 

and encouraged that Congress consider a few changes to strengthen institutional linkages between the new Development Finance 

Corporation and USAID and a revised funding structure to protect 

taxpayers from risk. 

This committee worked with the National Security Council, 

OMB, to adopt the White House’s proposed changes in the bill that 

was ultimately reported from this committee earlier this month 

and I would like to dive down a little bit more, and ask you your 

opinion of the amended HFAC BUILD Act and if that, in your 

view, more fully aligns with the administration’s goals. 

Secretary POMPEO. It does. I don’t know the details of it. I think 

this is a very important piece of legislation. I think there’s real opportunity for the United States if we get this right and I am happy 

to work with you or others on both sides of the aisle to get to the 

right place here. 

Mr. YOHO. I look forward to doing that because that’s a tool that 

we need. We met with somebody over at the Pentagon and they 

said how this tool is so critically needed today to counter some of 

these other foreign powers that are rising. 

Secretary POMPEO. If I may—I actually think we can—we can 

counter China dollar for dollar. It won’t be taxpayer dollars, necessarily. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO. But this—America has been great not because of the resources we’ve spent from the Federal but for other 

reasons. I think this bill hits that perfectly. 

Mr. YOHO. I think so, and we are excited about that. So I am 

glad to hear that because that was my next question to ask you. 

Let me ask you something else. Earlier this Congress, the House 

passed Chairman Royce’s Cyber Diplomacy Act. This bill would establish an Ambassador for Cyber Issues reporting to the Undersecretary for Political Affairs to ensure that the office covers the full 

range of issues in cyberspace. 

Former Secretary Tillerson presented a plan to this committee to 

create a cyber bureau. Do you plan to implement this proposal? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know. I am looking at it. I am aware 

of that proposal. There were several dozen proposals pending when 

I arrived. I will take a look. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Any information that we can provide you, I 

know they’ll be happy to do that. 

So my second question was dependent on that one. Moving to 

North Korea, the President is scheduled to meet with Kim Jongun in just under 3 weeks. 

53

This committee has led efforts to sanction the Kim regime, passing both H.R. 757 and the Countering America’s Adversaries 

Through Sanctions Act. 

These bills have paved the way for the administration policy for 

maximum pressure. How much more can be applied and needs to 

be done through the use of secondary sanctions? 

I would like to hear your opinion. Do you think we’ve done 

enough with the other countries that are still dealing with North 

Korea as far as funnelling money through their bank accounts? 

Secretary POMPEO. That’s an excellent question. We actually 

made really good progress along multiple dimensions, getting the 

entire world to participate in this effort. 

Mr. YOHO. Sure have. 

Secretary POMPEO. It was well done. Not me, others, did this 

good work. But the world came alongside and it’s come along side. 

Frankly, our focus today is to make sure that that doesn’t change. 

There is a tendency—a historic tendency when there are discussions taking place and it looks like there’s an opportunity for there 

to be a shift, for folks to back away from that——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. To make decisions to begin, for 

example, to rehire North Koreans that would remit money. We are 

spending an awful lot of energy working with those countries to remind them that this is a meeting—an important meeting—but 

there’s a long way left to go and the sanctions that are in place 

today need to remain. There is still work to do. There are still gaps 

in those sanctions. There are still financial agents—North Korean 

financial agents distributed throughout the world that we haven’t 

gotten to yet. Know that the Treasury Department, informed by 

the intelligence community, working alongside the State Department, is working to identify those as well. 

Mr. YOHO. And that’s great to hear and like the BUILD Act, we 

see that as a tool that we have for an administration to direct foreign policy. And so what we’ve done through this committee, and 

I chair the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, is to call out the 

Treasury Department on why certain entities haven’t been sanctioned. 

And one of the ones we are looking at, or two of them, are the 

Agricultural Bank of China and the Chinese Construction Bank. 

We’ll go after the smaller ones but I hope that you will continue 

pressure on these larger entities because no bank or entity is too 

large not to sanction, to keep that maximum pressure campaign. 

I am out of time. I look forward to working with you. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to ask actually about two areas that I don’t 

think you have been asked for the entirety of this hearing. The 

first is with respect to Syria and the $200 million of the stabilization program. 

I am actually the co-founder and the co-chair of the House Free 

Syria Caucus, along with my colleague, Adam Kinzinger. We have 

both worked a great deal on this issue, give its importance. 

54

So I was quite surprised, shocked, when the announcement was 

made that these funds were suddenly put on hold. I just want to 

describe a few things that our $200 million go toward. 

These are funds to ensure that the White Helmet first responders can rush to the scene of an air strike to save lives, and as an 

aside, having had a couple opportunities to meet with the White 

Helmets they are remarkable people who risk their lives to rush in 

to an area that has been bombed by the regime, even knowing the 

regime will then bomb them while they’re trying to rush in and 

save lives. 

These are funds for the investigation and prosecution of persons 

responsible for the most serious crimes committed in Syria since 

March 2011, otherwise known as IIIM, the U.N. mechanism for accountability for war crimes in Syria—funds for digital security for 

those who are willing to stand up to Assad’s war machine, a project 

to counter violent terrorism and a basic recovery for those in territory formerly controlled not by the ISIS—or not by the Assad regime but by ISIS. 

So these funds do good work and are important in terms of U.S. 

interests. So why was this funding suddenly put on hold and what 

can be done to have that hold lifted? 

Secretary POMPEO. Thanks for the question. So that funding— the entire $200 million of that funding is under review. I understand that there is a decision pending. I don’t know what that decision will be and I don’t want to talk about the internal discussions 

that we’ve had. 

I’ve met the White Helmets, too. I know the remarkable work—

I know the remarkable people that they are as well. So we’ll have 

a decision shortly. 

I will say this. We have also been hard at work at getting other 

countries to provide support as well. This is a region surrounded 

by a number of wealthy countries, each of which has a direct interest in the same way that we do in making sure that once ISIS is 

completely removed from the battlefield at least as an organization 

capable of holding real estate that doesn’t—that they don’t come 

back—that we don’t allow that real estate to be retaken. 

Mr. BOYLE. Let me just, since I only have a couple minutes left, 

switch to a topic that hasn’t come up this entire hearing and I 

think gets too little attention here on Capitol Hill, and that’s 

Brexit. 

One of the great achievements of American foreign policy was the 

Good Friday agreement. There is concern here on Capitol Hill—bipartisan concern as well as concern in Ireland, in the U.K., and in 

the rest of Europe that one of the unintended consequences of 

Brexit might be the ripping up of the Good Friday agreement. 

Given the severity of the situation, 32 members of the House of 

Representatives—again, both Democrats and Republicans—sent a 

letter to you requesting that a special envoy be appointed to Northern Island, the position that George Mitchell held and that a few 

others have had subsequently. 

Will you appoint or will the President appoint a special envoy to 

Northern Ireland? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know. I haven’t considered it. I am 

happy to review your letter. 

55

Mr. BOYLE. You haven’t considered the issue yet? 

Secretary POMPEO. I haven’t considered whether we should appoint a special envoy or not. It hasn’t——

Mr. BOYLE. That is very concerning. As I mentioned, 32 Members 

of Congress have written on this issue. I believe we previously have 

been given positive indications that it was under consideration. So 

the fact that actually this issue hasn’t been considered by the leadership of the Secretary of State, I would urge you to please consider 

it and to do so promptly, as the negotiations right now are at a tenuous point. 

Secretary POMPEO. I am happy to do that. 

Mr. BOYLE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. A lot has changed for 

both of us since we sat next to each other on the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

You went and ran the CIA and now you’re Secretary of State, 

and I grew a beard. So it’s been a pretty interesting—a little bit 

of time. 

I just want to say a couple of quick things. I think it’s important 

to note the good work Colombia has done in the Venezuelan crisis 

in terms of housing 700,000 people that have crossed their border, 

152,000 vaccines in 23,000 children in part of this crisis. 

Just a couple of points before I get into my questions. First off, 

there’s a lot of discussion about Russia and about the Libyan 

model. 

Firstly, on Russia, I think it’s important to note that this administration, and I think through your continued leadership we’ll continue to see it, has been one of the most aggressive administrations 

against Russia that we have seen in modern times. 

Everything from pushing back to them in Eastern Europe, in 

Ukraine, and everywhere else, and I think that’s important to note. 

We don’t have to talk about everything that’s being done all the 

time in order to say this has been the most effective administration 

for pushing back against that, not to mention energy development, 

et cetera. 

And on the Libyan model, people are bringing that up a lot, and 

I get it. We all know what the point when it was mentioned the 

Libya model. The point was get rid of all your nukes. 

To push that into when Gaddafi was stabbed in the back of a 

pickup truck is not appropriate. Look, you oppress your people, you 

attack your people, they’re going to rise up and take you out. 

It has nothing to do with the denuclearization of Libya. So I 

think that’s important to note. But I do want to ask you, as my colleague had started to talk a little bit about Syria, I believe that 

with the existence of Assad and that oppressive regime, it actually 

creates a cauldron for the recruiting of ISIS or the next generation 

of ISIS or the next al-Qaeda. 

And so I think staying engaged in Syria is essential to preventing that from happening in future generations. 

56

Mr. Secretary, from your perspective, what would be a successful 

outcome militarily and politically in Syria? And I know that’s a difficult question because it’s a very difficult conflict. 

Secretary POMPEO. It is difficult—difficult especially to do in a 

short time. Our mission statement is pretty clear—at least, the 

near-term mission statement is pretty clear, right. It’s to continue—from the State Department’s perspective, to continue to support the Secretary of Defense’s efforts to defeat ISIS, to provide the 

diplomatic space for them to achieve that so they don’t have 

threats around them; second, to work to de-escalate the violence so 

that we can set some conditions for returnees. There have been a 

handful, right. We are seeing this a little bit in Iraq. 

We hope to be able to set conditions where we can achieve that 

in Syria, although there is an awful lot of work left to do. I can 

walk pocket by pocket in the north. I will meet with my Turkish 

counterpart next week with the expectation that we will walk out 

of there with a plan for how we don’t have two NATO partners at 

each other in that space. 

And in the southwest, we see what happens when Iran continues 

to advance, right. The Israelis are going to do what they need to 

do to defend themselves. And so there’s an important diplomatic 

role there for us as well. To work with the handful of willing partners we have in Syria to create the conditions to first take down 

the level of violence so that the Syrian people have a chance, and 

I will concede this is aspirational for—that seems difficult to see 

today, but have a chance to create conditions for themselves which 

aren’t the desperate ones in which they’ve been living for these 

past too many years. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, and I know it’s an issue you’re passionate about. And I want to echo what Mr. Boyle said about the 

$200 million in aid. You answered that question so I won’t hammer 

on that but I am very concerned with what I’ve seen including the 

freezing of $300,000 for the IIIM, which is investigating war 

crimes. I think we have an obligation as a country to prosecute and 

push back against war crimes and so I would hope that part of that 

review that money is released. 

I do want to shift briefly to the issue of Russia. You served on 

the—you, obviously, understand energy issues as well as foreign 

policy issues. Can you talk about the nexus between our ability to 

push back Russian influence in Europe and the development of European energy, our exports, et cetera, and how that plays together 

and what we can do to actually strengthen our hand there? 

Secretary POMPEO. So, Representative Kinzinger, this slightly 

simplifies it, but to the extent the Europeans are dependent or reliant upon Russian energy, it makes their freedom of movement in 

pushing back against Russia more limited. 

And it’s a little more complex than that but it is a true statement 

at its core. We have the opportunity—the real opportunity to decouple them from Russia across many dimensions coming out of the 

Caucasus. Lots of different parts who can deliver this energy. 

America ought to be part of that. We should continue to push the 

Nordstrom II to be ended. We should not increase the dependence 

that Europe has on Russian energy, and if we can achieve those 

things we will put Europe on a much more sound footing. 

57

So if there’s a day where there is a crisis, where there is a real 

challenge and Russia decides to use that tool to advance its interests that there are substitutes or capacity that that power, that 

lever, that the Russians want to have won’t exist. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. Thank you for your time. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Norma Torres of California. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Pompeo, 

welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I wish you the best of 

luck in everything that you do. As a true American, I hope that you 

will represent all of our interests here at home and abroad. 

I want to talk to you a little bit about Central America. I know 

that you have been very, very busy working on issues with North 

Korea and the Middle East, and all of that is extremely important. 

I hope that you don’t lose focus of what is happening in our back 

yards. I’ve worked with Secretary Tillerson’s folks. They have been 

very supportive of U.S. policy in Central America. 

I am very concerned about what is happening with legislators 

there, in Guatemala specifically. Are you aware that some very corrupt officials and criminals are working to undermine the efforts 

of local prosecutors and judges who are fighting against corruption 

in Central America? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, and I know that the team is engaged to 

work to take down the level of corruption there and to really, 

frankly, to enable the Guatemalans to do so themselves. 

There’s been some progress there. 

Ms. TORRES. Yes. We want to continue and build on that. 

Secretary POMPEO. But much—yes, ma’am, much work remains. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, and thank you for being committed to 

working to continue to improve the lives of the people in that region so they can stay in that region and we can continue to reduce 

the number of young people that are fleeing north to our southern 

border. 

When we become lenient, as we’ve seen with Honduras, they 

were certified—that country was certified in the midst of a terrible 

election. It was a head-in-the-sand time, I think, for us to do that 

and was a slap in the face to the people of Honduras that are facing a dictator. 

So dictators exist in our own hemisphere. Please don’t forget 

that. I want to help you to the extent that I can on ensuring—and 

every time you come to this committee I will focus on this issue, 

I promise you. 

I am very concerned from my constituents’ perspective on what 

is happening at the White House and who is advising the President 

on foreign affairs issues. 

How do you deal with advising the President and his ongoing 

support of Fox News and getting advice from the TV channels or 

newscasters? 

Secretary POMPEO. So I’ve had many, many opportunities to provide the President with intelligence. I did so most days in my previous role. I found him to take on board the professional work that 

the team that I represented then had done. They were lively conversations. They were often lengthy conversations. He took seriously the information that we presented and I often saw him use 

58

that information to make decisive actions—to be actionable. He 

based decisions on that. I’ve only been the——

Ms. TORRES. Are his financial advisors present during these 

meetings? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am sorry. I am sorry. I didn’t hear the first 

part. 

Ms. TORRES. Are his financial advisors present during these 

meetings? 

Secretary POMPEO. Ma’am, the folks who were present most days 

would have been——

Ms. TORRES. Don, Jr. and Eric? 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. The national security advisor, 

myself, a professional CIA officer, the director of national intelligence, often the Vice President, the President himself, and I think 

that’s it. 

Ms. TORRES. Don, Jr. and Eric? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t believe I ever saw either one of them 

at either of those—at any of those meetings nor in meetings that 

I’ve had as the Secretary. 

Ms. TORRES. Senator Rubio just made a comment earlier saying 

that some in the administration are short-sighted over ZTE. I am 

concerned about that decision and how the President came to care 

more about Chinese workers than the workers at a Fontana steel 

mill in my district and the impact that they would have should 

there be job losses with a trade war with China. I am very concerned at how he came to that conclusion overnight. 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t believe that’s an accurate statement 

about the decision the President made. He is incredibly concerned 

about American workers. 

One of the reason he has taken the approach he has with respect 

to China’s nonreciprocal trade arrangements—I am being very polite there—I am learning diplomacy as I go. 

Ms. TORRES. Okay. 

Secretary POMPEO. These are a very unfair set of rules that have 

harmed American workers for an awfully long time and he is determined to change those conditions so we will have more jobs here 

in America. 

He is the first President in a long time to take on that challenge 

with respect to China. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you for your time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ann Wagner of Missouri. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this 

hearing and, Secretary Pompeo, thank you for your time this morning and congratulations to you and your family on your appointment. We are grateful for your service and excited to see the vitality and dynamism that you’re going to bring to the State Department, as a former U.S. Ambassador and for 4 years deeply involved 

with State. 

Last week, a bill that I sponsored, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and 

Atrocities Prevention Act, was passed unanimously out of this committee and, among other things, the legislation highlights the importance of mechanisms like the Complex Crises Fund, or CCF, 

which supports flexible efficient responses to unforeseen crises 

overseas. 

59

I firmly believe that genocide prevention is possible and necessary. But we need to make wise investments in prevention that 

will save lives and taxpayer dollars over the long run. 

The CCF is one of those investments. The Institute for Economics and Peace estimates that every dollar invested now in conflict 

prevention is $16 saved. 

CCF funds were recently deployed in Central Africa Republic, 

Burundi, and Jordan. Can you explain how this money was used 

to mitigate atrocities and prevent further violence? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know the details of that particular deployment of that capital. But it is the case I have the great joy now 

of being the leader of the organization that gets to do the diplomacy—that gets to do this good work—that can do conflict prevention. And there are many, many places where we can use those resources to do just that and to save the American taxpayer money 

in so doing. 

And so I look forward to working alongside you. I am not familiar with the piece of legislation you described, either. But its intent 

seems incredibly important and noble, and if we could achieve 

that—frankly, anyplace we achieve that we will have done a good 

thing for America and for the world. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I think so, too. While the White House fiscal year 

2019 budget recognized the need for these kinds of rapid response 

capabilities related to prevention, it didn’t request funding for CCF. 

How does the State Department plan to rapidly kind of mobilize resources to prevent genocide and mass atrocities? 

Secretary POMPEO. So if I understand the history there right—

I’ve only had one, admittedly short, conversation about this—there 

are resources that are available that are, if you will, on standby. 

That is, they could be accessed——

Mrs. WAGNER. Correct. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. With relative speed to deploy in 

the event that we see these issues emerging—that see the risk of 

genocide emerging. It is often the case that it’s not a resource issue 

but a political will issue or an understanding of the severity of the 

issue. That is, we, the United States, ended up behind the curve. 

We didn’t see it coming fast enough or we reacted too slow to make 

decisions, and not the absence of having resources to do so. 

I think the most important thing we can do is make sure that 

we have teams in place that send the flag up that identify these 

challenges and so that we quickly develop decision making processes that can put our team on the field to address them before the 

conflict actually gets in a place where there is not much we can do. 

Mrs. WAGNER. NGOs have found that comparatively small investments in community identification and response to threats 

have had great returns. And so how does the State Department 

plan to deepen its investment in community-led peacekeeping and 

peace building approaches? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know the answer to that other than 

to say that my experience has been the most effective peacekeeping 

missions have always been driven by folks on the ground, by local 

communities, by NGOs, where we’ve provided some assistance, 

sometimes financial, sometimes technologic or management and 

60

leadership, but almost always bottoms up as opposed to top down 

and I think that’s what you’re describing there as well. 

Mrs. WAGNER. It is, and, to me, prevention is the key here and 

we have seen so many of these atrocities and genocides occurring 

in many places—the Rohingya. We see it, certainly, in Syria. Given 

also that the Burmese Government has cut off Rakhine State to aid 

workers and international observers, how is State working with—

I would be interested in how you’re working with some of the local 

actors to mitigate the violence against Rohingya Muslims in 

Burma. 

Secretary POMPEO. So it’s certainly—the United States is involved trying to do that. It’s not just the State Department. There 

are others——

Mrs. WAGNER. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. Working as well. It’s going to 

take a big team effort. This is an enormous challenge. My predecessor worked on this diligently. So has Ambassador Haley. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Yes. 

Secretary POMPEO. We all identified the challenge and are working to try and find the tools. 

Mrs. WAGNER. We are pleased to have that legislation make it 

through markup. I look forward to working with you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Brad Schneider of Illinois. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, and Mr. Secretary, thank you for 

joining us here today. I appreciate your offer for coffee and I look 

forward to having that opportunity. 

Secretary POMPEO. It’s not the best coffee but it’s coffee. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am not a critic. 

But I would like to focus my limited time I have on Iran’s malign 

activities in the Middle East and Russia’s interference in the U.S. 

election. Earlier when talking about Syria, you had a list of four 

priorities. 

Last among those four was in the southwest. However, in the 

past year, Iran’s advance has accelerated and solidified into substantial bases and troops. 

I am extremely concerned by Iran’s continued and disturbing 

presence in Syria and equally concerned and troubled by the administration’s lack of a strategy to ensure that Iran is not able to 

maintain a permanent foothold in the country. 

As we have seen in recent months, Iran is provoking Israel into 

conflict and is intent on building a permanent presence inside 

Syria. 

I previously wrote to Secretary Tillerson about my concerns and 

have yet to receive an adequate response. I would like to know 

what specifically is the administration doing to counter Iran’s influence in Syria and prevent Iran for expanding its presence there. 

In particular, what are we doing to thwart Iran’s efforts to establish permanent bases and their development of an indigenous missile-making capability not just in Syria but in Lebanon? 

How specifically is the administration supporting Israel, our 

greatest ally in the Middle East and how are we pushing back on 

Iran’s activity on Israel’s northern border? 

And I have a long list of questions. I suspect I will have to take 

your answers back in writing. 

61

I also remain concerned by Iran’s malign behavior beyond 

Syria—in particular, its continued support for Hezbollah. Iran’s 

support has grown beyond weapons transfers to helping build missile production facilities in Lebanon to enable its indigenous rocketproducing capability for Hezbollah. 

This would be a game changer for Hezbollah and for Israel, and 

represents a very significant existential threat to Israel. 

Hezbollah has also recently achieved significant electoral success 

in the elections earlier this month. How is the administration 

cracking down on Iran’s support for Hezbollah? What is the administration doing to stop the flow of Iranian arms to Hezbollah and 

to disrupt their efforts to develop this indigenous missile production supply chain? 

I am also concerned by the lack of a clear plan and the President’s subsequent decision to withdraw the United States from the 

JCPOA. 

While I opposed the JCPOA when it was announced due to the 

inherent risks, gaps, and flaws in the agreement, including sunsets 

on limits to Iran’s enrichment programs and failure to address 

Iran’s ballistic program and malign actions in the region, however, 

once in place this agreement pushed Iran to more than a full year 

away from a nuclear weapon and created a window of opportunity 

for the United States and our allies to craft a comprehensive strategy for the long term. 

Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not 

now, not for the duration of the JCPOA, not ever. I fear that by 

walking away from the JCPOA this way the administration has 

made it more challenging to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear 

weapon. 

Earlier this week, you spoke about the administration’s new Iran 

strategy and that we will work with allies to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities, to address their missile program and proliferation, and that ‘‘We will also ensure Iran has no path to a nuclear 

weapon.’’

Can you please elaborate on how exactly the administration will 

address Iran’s malign behavior, missile proliferation, and nuclear 

program? 

How is this different from actions by previous administrations? 

How do our goals differ? How do the actions we are taking differ? 

How will we measure things differently—measure their compliance 

but also measure our progress toward the goal that Iran never gets 

a nuclear weapon? 

And what is your plan if Iran rejects the demands you laid out 

during your speech on Monday? 

Moving to Russia, every week we seem to learn more about the 

sophisticated activities by Russia used to spread disinformation 

and misinformation in our election. 

Our intelligence chiefs have concluded that Russia interfered in 

the 2016 Presidential election and are unanimous that they will 

seek to do the same in 2018. 

You yourself stated earlier this year that Russian activity and intentions will have an impact on the next election cycle here. 

62

What are we doing to make sure Russia cannot take action? 

What actions are we taking specifically? What actions remain to be 

taken? 

The State Department’s Global Engagement Center was created 

in 2016 to lead U.S. efforts to counter propaganda and 

disinformation from foreign actors. 

I was surprised to learn that we haven’t spent any of the money 

necessary or allocated since 2016 to counter their efforts and I hope 

we’ll continue to invest in the GEC. 

We didn’t spend this money because the department failed to act 

on its transfer authority and wasn’t able to hire during the hiring 

freeze. I hope we will take care of this. 

I would like to hear from you how we are going to fix these problems so the GEC will have sufficient funding and staff to stand up 

to and counter malicious efforts by Russia and how will you ensure 

that the GEC can effectively lead the interagency process with DoD 

and the intelligence community to counter propaganda from foreign 

states? 

And finally, let me thank you for your pledge to support the appointment of a special envoy to combat anti-Semitism. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman’s time has expired. We could 

just do that answer in writing if it’s all right, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. John Curtis of Utah. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. 

Mr. Secretary, I am new here and haven’t had a chance, like my 

colleagues, to get to know you. But they all speak very highly of 

you and you come with great recommendations. 

Secretary POMPEO. Not all of them. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CURTIS. Many of them speak highly of you, and I look forward to getting to know you and working with you. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Mr. CURTIS. As you know, for almost 2 years Utahan Josh Holt 

has been detained in a Venezuela prison without trial and on spurious charges. It’s my understanding that Senator Hatch has 

worked hard with you and other members of the delegation—Congresswoman Mia Love—to bring him home, with his wife, Tammy. 

With the heightened political turmoil in Venezuela, I’ve received 

letters and phone calls, continue to from constituents. Just last 

week, we saw reports of a video of Josh, who Facebooked he feared 

for his life with the riots in El Helicoide Prison. 

Like so many Utahans, I am concerned about his safety and hoping that the U.S. State Department is doing all they can to bring 

him home. 

Mr. Secretary, can you give me any update or on his condition 

or any efforts underway to bring him home? 

Secretary POMPEO. Unfortunately, I can’t give you an update on 

his condition. We were following closely the riots that surrounded 

the place that he’s being unlawfully detained. 

I have spoken with many in your delegation and yourself, Senator Hatch—I’ve communicated with Representative Love as well. 

Our team is very focused on getting his return. 

63

Unfortunately, we are going to have two of our senior officials 

kicked out. So our capacity to reach them on the ground will actually be diminished. I am very worried about that. 

Know that the plight of Mr. Holt is on our minds and we are 

doing the things we can with the tools we can to encourage the 

Maduro regime to at least, in this one instance, do something right 

and send this fellow back. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. On behalf of Utahans and his family, I 

thank you for keeping it top of mind and doing all within your 

power. 

Last Monday, you gave a bold speech and talked about pulling 

out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the Iran nuclear 

deal. 

You insisted that Iran end all of its nuclear enrichment and close 

its heavy water reactors. You promised them that if they didn’t 

they’d see the strongest sanctions in history. 

Recently, I had a chance to travel in that region. As a matter of 

fact, I followed you through a few countries by a couple of days, 

and without exception there’s great concern in the region and, interestingly, I heard different opinions about staying in the deal, 

pulling out of the deal. 

But what was unanimous and was not contested is that the deal 

would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons maybe sooner rather 

than later, but eventually having nuclear weapons, and that was 

unanimous among all the countries that I visited which, as you 

well know, is totally unacceptable. 

In addition to the sanctions, what else can we do and what else 

can I expect the Utahans to expect to move us toward a situation 

where we wouldn’t have nuclear weapons there? 

Secretary POMPEO. So there are many tools in addition to the 

economic sanctions. There are designations of senior leaders that 

will impact those leaders’ capacity to move around the world. 

Our efforts in Syria are designed, certainly, to protect our 

friends, Israel, the Jordanians, and others. But to the extent we 

are successful in the counter ISIS campaign, we also contain the 

space in which Iran can move with great freedom in set conditions 

in Syria, which will, for the first time in a long time, begin to call 

out Iran for what they’re really doing there, which is not fighting 

terrorism but, rather, working to expand their power. 

Iran moves in lots of parts of the world. We are aiming to build 

a global effort, much like we were successful doing it against North 

Korea to call out the Iranians. 

And so if there are Iranians working in countries, we are going 

to work to convince folks that they ought not be doing the things 

that create the wealth, that, frankly, has been used in ways that 

the Iranian people don’t want it used. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. I agree with that comment about their 

influence. 

We hardly visited a country where you couldn’t see an Iranian 

or Russian presence pressing on a border or in some way impacting 

that country. 

Let me quickly turn to North Korea. As the CIA Director, you 

visited there. We have these talks coming up. It seems that the exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:48 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\052318\30175 SHIRL
64

pectations have been elevated to anything less than world peace, 

right, is unsuccessful. 

What would you have me take back to Utahans about reasonable 

expectations? Just a really quick answer, please. 

Secretary POMPEO. At its core, this problem gets solved when 

these two leaders both agree that the solution we are aiming for—

complete denuclearization of North Korea in exchange for fundamental assurances for the North Korean regime—if we can get the 

two to agree that that’s the end state we are working towards, we 

will have had a good day. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. I yield my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Tom Suozzi of New York. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. You have an enormous portfolio. 

Who would consider to be your main point person on Afghanistan 

and Pakistan? 

Secretary POMPEO. So we have a number of people. We have Ms. 

Wells working on it. We have our Ambassador in Kabul, Ambassador Bass. We have our Ambassador in Islamabad, Ambassador 

Hale—each of whom is working on implementing, at least for the 

State Department’s piece, working on delivering the present South 

Central Asia—against the President’s South Central Asia strategy. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So I have the great honor of also serving on the 

Armed Services Committee and it’s clear to me that we really have 

a military strategy to clear and hold in Afghanistan. 

It’s well thought out. It’s a comprehensive strategy. It makes 

sense. I’ve supported the administration’s efforts there. 

But when it comes to the civilian side, it seems like we have 

more of a list than a strategy. We have a lot of little things that 

we are doing both from the State Department and USAID that 

many of our partners are doing, that many different agencies 

throughout the world that are cooperative with us—India, for example, most recently—but it’s a list of things as opposed to a comprehensive strategy. 

And this administration has made a decision that we would move 

to—from a calendar-based strategy to a conditions-based strategy 

as to what we are going to do. But we don’t really know what the 

conditions are that we are looking for for us to move forward. 

What are we going to do? What’s our conditions we are looking 

for regarding terrorism? What’s our conditions we are looking for 

regarding the form of government and its democracy—it’s not going 

to be like our democracy—regarding corruption, regarding the economy overall, regarding security. So I am really looking for you to 

try and describe to me the strategy we have on the civilian side regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Secretary POMPEO. So there are—you may call this a list. I would 

say it is a set of lines of effort that we are undertaking. You laid 

out some of them—you described them. 

But let me start with the end state—what are the conditions that 

we are looking for? The President made this very clear in his remarks, now, goodness—a while back. He said we are looking for 

the conditions where the Taliban no longer believes that it can prevail through the use of force—that we concede that there’s not a 

65

military solution to achieving the stability and peace in Afghanistan that, frankly, most of the world is looking for. 

And so the effort was to apply all elements of the United States 

Government pressure such that the Taliban would come to the negotiating table. 

President Ghani, now a couple months back, agreed. He said he’d 

be willing to be part of those sets of discussions. Now we need to 

find the right leadership inside the Taliban to participate in those 

discussions and then we’ve got to bring lots of different groups to 

bear. 

If you have been there, you know. We have lots of different 

groups that need to view being part of the solution as getting for 

them in their region their particular ethnicity, right—get all of 

those understanding that pieces gives them a better outcome than 

the place Afghanistan has been for the last at least 16 years. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Secretary, respectfully, this is obviously such a 

complex issues and there’s so much that needs to be done to create 

an Afghanistan Government that will be able to provide for its people, and we are not in the business of nation building, according 

to this administration. 

Secretary POMPEO. Right. 

Mr. SUOZZI. But there’s so much being invested regarding everything from schools to infrastructure to electricity, toward training 

not only the police officers but also prosecutors. 

I think that we need to really have a document, quite frankly, 

that says to us this is our plan on the civilian side, taking into account these many different players that are involved here from not 

only the State Department, USAID, the Treasury Department, the 

DOJ, the DEA, and all these many other varied governments, and 

we don’t really have a plan from the civilian nonmilitary side, I believe, that says all these pieces fit together in a plan. 

And I am not saying this as a criticism. Obviously, you’re new 

in this job. But I would like to work together with you to try and 

figure out what that plan is going to be or I am sure that there’s 

pieces of it—lots of pieces. It’s just not in any kind of comprehensive strategy. 

Secretary POMPEO. I welcome the chance to work with you. I 

think it’s more comprehensive than you describe. But I am happy 

to work with you so that we can articulate in a way that does communicate all the various lines of effort that we are engaged in on 

the nonmilitary side. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I’ve approached a lot of people to try and get a document—to try and get something that I can read that says this is 

our strategy—this is our plan—and I haven’t been able to get that 

document. 

So there’s so many moving pieces. There’s so many people in the 

world dedicated toward this effort that I think we need to fit it together into one comprehensive plan. 

Hopefully, under your leadership, that can happen. 

Secretary POMPEO. I would welcome that. It’s worth remembering—you mentioned this, right—it’s not just an American solution to this. There are——

Mr. SUOZZI. A lot of pieces. 

66

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. NATO mission. There are lots of 

other countries working alongside us that have made massive commitments to this as well. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Well, I hope I will be able to work with you on this. 

Thank you so much, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ted Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Congratulations as well. It’s always good to see a House member move up into 

the administration. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. POE. I want to cover a multitude of sins, so to speak, here. 

We’ll start with Iran. 

The last administration—the previous Secretary, Mr. Tillerson, 

said before this committee that he thought that the best end solution for Iran was a regime change—peaceful regime change from 

within. 

Do you still hold that philosophy? 

Secretary POMPEO. What I said on Monday, which is the President’s policy, is that we are very hopeful that the Iranian people 

will get a chance to elect the government that they want. 

Mr. POE. And are we supporting the dissidents and encouraging 

them or supporting them at least politically and verbally in their 

desire of the protests that they’re making to have a regime change 

in Iran? 

Secretary POMPEO. I have certainly spoken, both in my previous 

role and now in this role and then in my previous previous role as 

a Member of Congress, I have spoken about supporting Iranians 

who feel that their voices aren’t being heard. We should continue 

to find our voice in doing that both as a government and I think 

individually as well. 

Mr. POE. And, obviously, here in the audience today we have 

family members of Iranians that have been murdered by the current regime, and their desire is that there’s a free Iran where the 

people make the decisions and not the Ayatollah. 

Just most recently when we moved our Embassy to Jerusalem, 

Iranian student groups, supported by the administration, offered 

$100,000 for someone to blow up the Embassy in Jerusalem. 

That group was sponsored by the IRGC, which is sponsored by 

the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah made the comment, as he has done 

before, ‘‘Death to America.’’

Do you still believe that that is the policy of Iran—long-term is 

death to America? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. POE. The withdrawal from the deal has been talked about 

since long before the deal. I commend the administration for its 

bold decision. It was a bad deal. It’s a worse deal now. 

I am a little disturbed that former Secretary of State John Kerry 

went to the Europeans and to the Iranians right before the decision 

was made by this administration to try to make sure that the deal 

was not withdrawn from the United States. 

But be that as it may, total support for looking out for the interests of the United States. A lot of Americans don’t realize there 

was a side deal made by the IAEA. 

67

Those documents are not public, and looking at those and some 

of the other intel that we’ve had support the decision that’s made 

by the administration to leave the deal. 

Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova—I’ve recently visited with the 

Speakers of the House of all three of those nations, and they’re in 

a bad neighborhood. They’ve got the Russians. Moldova has Russians in their country. So do the Georgians and the Ukrainians. 

They all have Russians in their country. 

I would hope that we would, as a nation, focus on helping those 

three nations move to the West instead of being tempted to go back 

to Russia. Those Speakers of the House of those three countries are 

coming to the United States this summer. 

I hope that there’s time on your calendar to meet with them, if 

that is possible, so that we can encourage them and help them to 

be a free country as opposed to one that’s still influenced by the 

Russians. 

Turkey—do you think Turkey should stay in NATO? 

Secretary POMPEO. They have been an important NATO partner. 

If Secretary Mattis was sitting here he would say we need them 

to be a NATO partner. 

I would agree with that assessment. We need their behavior to 

reflect the objectives of NATO and it’s what we are diligently working to do, to get them to rejoin NATO in a way that their actions 

that are consistent with what we are trying to achieve in NATO 

and not take actions that undermine its efforts. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Connolly and I are on the U.S. delegation to the 

NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which meets this weekend. I hope 

we can bring up this subject of Turkey being a bad child of NATO. 

Most recently, they have purchased or received S-400s from Russia, missiles—which violates sanctions by the United States on 

Russia. At the same time, they want to buy F-35s. 

Your department makes the decision on whether or not they will 

be allowed to purchase F-35s. Have you made that decision yet? 

Secretary POMPEO. I have not, and we continue to work to keep 

the Turks in a place where they don’t actually acquire the S-400. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t believe they have it yet and we are 

hopeful they’ll never take possession. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Ted Lieu of California. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary of 

State Pompeo for your civilian service as well and your military 

service. I also appreciate you being here today and agreeing to testify. 

I would like to ask you about the conflict in Yemen, but before 

that, I just need to ask you a few questions about official statements the President of the United States made this morning on his 

Twitter account. 

He said there is a criminal deep state and, as you know, Representative Nunes has said he’s also going to investigate the State 

Department. 

Do you believe there is a criminal deep state at the State Department? 

68

Secretary POMPEO. I haven’t seen the comments from the President. I don’t believe there’s a deep state at the State Department. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

You formally served as CIA Director. Do you believe your colleagues at the CIA are part of the criminal deep state? 

Secretary POMPEO. You know, this term deep state has been 

thrown around. I will say this. The employees that worked for me 

at the CIA nearly uniformly were aimed at achieving the President’s objectives and America’s objectives. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. And that’s your experience also when you 

interact with colleagues at the FBI and Department of Justice as 

well? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. There are always exceptions to every 

rule. I’ve never led and organization that didn’t have bad actors. 

I don’t think any government organization is exempt from having 

malfeasance as well. 

Mr. LIEU. But, in general, you are confident that the members 

of the various agencies are honoring their oath to the United States 

Constitution? 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, in general. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. I would like to ask you now about Yemen. 

As you know, the war in Yemen is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. 

Over 22 million people are now at risk of starvation. Eight million don’t know where their next meal will be and every 10 minutes 

a child dies of preventable causes. 

So the U.S. is involved in Yemen in two ways. One is we are 

striking terrorists. I don’t have a problem with that. 

But the other way we are involved is we are assisting the Saudiled military coalition and, again, I don’t have a problem with assisting our allies. 

But I have a problem when that coalition is killing large number 

of civilians through air strikes that are nowhere near military targets and as of last September more than 5,000 civilians have been 

killed, the majority from these air strikes. 

In 2016, the State Department—its lawyers—wrote a memo saying that because we are refuelling these planes—these Saudi jets, 

and also providing them other assistance—that U.S. could be considered a co-belligerent and liable for war crimes. 

I know you just came on as Secretary of State. I wonder if you 

had a chance yet to read that memo. 

Secretary POMPEO. I have not. 

Mr. LIEU. At your convenience, if you——

Secretary POMPEO. But I will. I will review the memo. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

And if you could also make a request to your State Department 

to see if Members of Congress could also review that memo in a 

classified setting as well, that would be appreciated. 

Secretary POMPEO. I take it you have not had a chance to see it? 

Mr. LIEU. We have not. So if you could make that request that 

would be great. 

Secretary POMPEO. I will review that, absolutely. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

69

So when this conflict first started, we had all these air strikes 

and a Saudi-led coalition, and what it turned out is it’s not that 

they were trying to hit a Houthi vehicle that was moving, they 

missed, and struck a bunch of civilians. 

What ended up happening is they intentionally struck those civilian targets. So they struck hospitals, weddings, schools, markets, 

and last year they struck a funeral that killed hundreds of people, 

twice. 

So they hit this funeral and the jets went around and hit it again 

a second time, very precise. That’s why the Obama administration 

actually stopped shipment of precision-guided because the realized 

these jets are intention to strike their targets and they were civilians. 

It’s my understanding that the Trump administration is now 

going to go forward with that sale. Just wondering why do you 

think anything has changed in Yemen that would authorize this 

sale to go forward? 

Secretary POMPEO. So I am personally familiar with the incident 

you’re describing. There are a very rigid set of rules that are 

thought deeply about in every national security that I’ve been part 

of at the CIA before, now at State Department, with respect to providing munitions to organizations that are intentionally engaging 

in civilian targeting. 

We have a complex set of rules and prohibitions. We would never 

do that. It is this administration’s judgement that providing the 

precision guided munitions actually decreases the risk to civilians, 

and it’s for that reason we think this actually makes sense certainly for our allies and partners but also for citizens that are engaged in ordinary activity inside of Yemen. 

If I might, this administration has also taken serious action to 

do our best to reduce the humanitarian crisis that is Yemen as 

well. We have not resolved it but we have made real progress. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and 

for sticking it out. 

As you know, there is no more urgent or greater threat to my 

constituents in the state of Hawaii and to this country than the 

threat of nuclear weapons coming from North Korea. 

As we meet today, we are literally at a historic moment in time 

where we have a brief window of opportunity to peacefully 

denuclearize North Korea. 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, has remarked numerous times about how pursuing a military option with 

North Korea would be horrific on a scale not seen since World War 

II. 

I commend your travels to meet with Kim Jong-un to lay the 

groundwork for these negotiations with the goal and objective of 

verifiable and complete denuclearization of North Korea. 

This path forward should not be riddled with politics. There’s far 

too much at stake here. It’s unfortunate that some of our colleagues 

and some of the media are against this meeting and trying to undermine this meeting from happening—trying to say that we 

70

should set preconditions that are unrealistic or that the North Korean leader does not deserve to meet with the U.S. President. 

They are, clearly, out of touch with the reality that faces my constituents in Hawaii and the people of this country and the urgency 

and the seriousness of this threat. They believe that somehow we 

should not be meeting with who may be our adversaries or who are 

dictators or leaders of countries that are not our allies even as we 

are trying to further the cause of peace. This attitude is dangerous 

and short sighted and can only lead to more war and suffering. 

There are numerous examples throughout history—JFK, Nixon, 

peace agreements between Israel-Egypt, Israel and Jordan, 

Reagan, Gorbachev—there are many examples of leaders making 

this step to meet with those that may be their adversaries to further the cause of peace. 

So I encourage you and hope that you will continue your efforts 

and that the meeting between Kim and President Trump moves 

forward as planned so that we can achieve this historic moment of 

denuclearization with North Korea. 

I’ve introduced a resolution that’s before this committee, H. Res. 

861, that has bipartisan support and co-sponsorship that states 

this sense of Congress in support of the efforts that this administration is taking to achieve this goal of denuclearizing North Korea. 

In the time remaining, I am wondering if you can share more insights and details on your meetings and the administration’s desired framework. 

You talked about earlier security assurances for North Korea. It 

is something that they have set as a requirement in order to 

achieve denuclearization. What does that mean and what does that 

look like? 

Secretary POMPEO. So, first of all, thank you. I am hopeful to 

that the meeting will progress. You identified a number of situations throughout history where conversations with adversaries 

worked. 

In each of those cases, if I read the history—at least the way I 

read the history—it was the timing that was right and the leaders 

that were right. 

I am convinced that we have both the timing and, in this case, 

the leaders right for this meeting to have an opportunity to be historically successful and I hope that we can achieve that. 

With respect to the framework, I don’t—I would prefer not to 

provide a whole lot of detail about what the scope of those assurances is. 

But it goes without that Chairman Kim’s view—frankly, his father and grandfather’s view—was that the nuclear weapons that 

protected the regime. That was the security blanket. 

And so they have worked diligently over years and years to develop this weapons system to the point where in fact it does threaten the United States today, your home state in particular. 

We now have this chance to stand that on its head, to convince 

them that it’s in fact those nuclear weapons that present the greatest risk to the regime and to the North Korean people and that we 

are prepared to do the things that provide—the comfort and security that he knows that he can take away this thing that he’s depended on and, frankly, he had told his people for a long time that 

71

this provided their security to convince that, frankly, joining the 

list of civilization—the nations that participate in that is actually 

going to provide security for their people. 

So we need to provide him a whole list of—it’s not just us—the 

South Koreans will have to do the same. China will play a very important role here, so will Japan and, frankly, the Russians will 

have a role in this along the way as well, ensuring Chairman Kim 

that we want good things for the North Korean people. 

If we can do that—if we can build the trust and confidence there 

along the way, we have a real opportunity to get the 

denuclearization that your state and America and, frankly, the 

world so desperately need. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Adriano Espaillat of New York. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Engel. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking all this time. I am usually, 

like, the last—I am the Mariano Rivera of this committee. 

Secretary POMPEO. I was a junior member when I left, too. I 

know exactly how you feel. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. I am the closer, and very often the questions that 

I already have been asked by somebody. But I do want to turn to 

the Western Hemisphere, because I sit on that subcommittee. 

Very often people across America are under the impression that 

we are giving away the store when in fact it’s only, like, a percent 

of the budget. And so this erroneous belief out there that we are 

spending money all over the world and sort of not taking care of 

people back home. 

But I am concerned that in the Western Hemisphere, we sort of 

turn our heads and we’ve been a little bit too complacent and 

maybe even abdicated our leadership role in Latin American and 

as a result all these bad things have happened. 

China is now very much present. Panama, Costa Rica, and most 

recently the Dominican Republic have stabilized relationship with 

a country that still engages in currency manipulation, in the stealing of our intellectual property rights, fraud. They don’t even allow 

their population to have access to applications such as Wikipedia, 

What’s App, even Facebook. 

And so what can we do to re-establish our presence in that area? 

I met recently with one of the Latin American leaders and he said 

to me, name me one major project, one major infrastructure project 

that America is involved in investing. 

As proposed to do in many of these countries—frankly, Mr. Secretary, as they say in the schoolyard, they’re eating our candy. 

There is something that we have to do to establish ourselves back 

and it’s going to entail, potentially, a fiscal commitment to the region as well as reestablishing our strong presence there. 

What do you propose we can do to reestablish our leadership role 

on Latin America and engage vigorously in projects that will improve the quality of life for many of these countries? 

Secretary POMPEO. I think there’s at least two questions in there. 

Let me try and tackle each of them. 

72

The first is China and China’s involvement there. It’s not only 

true in South America. It’s true in other parts of the world as well 

but particularly in South America, I would agree with you. 

I am convinced that the candy that they’re eating will cause bad 

things to happen and that the people of South American will come 

regret taking these investments. 

And so we have a role to explain to them what it is the Chinese 

are really engaged in there. They’re not doing this because they 

care about the people of Peru or Colombia or anyplace else. 

They’re doing it to expand Chinese influence and they are making loans that will one day be required to be repaid and the Chinese influence in those countries will be devastating for those people. 

So we have a responsibility to talk about this openly about what 

the Chinese actual aims are, why it is they’re using their capital 

to buy influence around the world. 

Second, how can America be more involved? So there are certain 

places where there will be resources required. I think that’s likely 

true. But it’s often the case that when America has demonstrated 

leadership in other places in the world it hasn’t been our money 

that we’ve led with. It’s been our presence, our leadership, helping 

democracies stand up, things like the rule of law. 

I was always reminded when I was Director of CIA I had one of 

my counterparts in a very difficult part of the world tell me that 

America’s spent a lot of money here—they’ve done a lot of things—

the most important thing America did was they worked alongside 

our officers to show us what it means to work in a democracy—how 

to do the right thing—how to get up every day and go to work, and 

the intrinsic core of who the American people truly are. 

And so I do think it’s important that my team that are working 

out of Embassies and consulates around the world is out there 

every day interacting, engaged, proudly talking about the things 

that America does and how we do it. 

If we do that, I think we can have an enormously good impact 

around the world but, certainly, in real opportunity countries in 

the Western Hemisphere as well. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. One quick last question. If the threats against 

Israel continue to mount, will the administration consider examining whether to increase current funding at an adequate level? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am confident that the administration will do 

what it needs to allow Israel to have the capability to defend itself. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 

Secretary. 

I was just reflecting that I’ve, on and off, been working here on 

the Hill for 20 years. You’re my 10th Secretary of State. So welcome and good luck in your new assignment. 

Secretary POMPEO. That puts the mean at, roughly, 2 years. I am 

going to try and beat it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, Mr. Secretary, you remember this body and 

certainly a part of and subjected to the sort of partisan rancour 

that all too often accompanies the work we do up here. 

73

Now you’re in a new role, and I want to give you a quick opportunity to comment on how you see that new role in terms of working with Democrats. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Who also love their country and want to see a 

successful U.S. foreign policy. 

Secretary POMPEO. I would more than concede that point, that 

everyone on this committee and, frankly, every Member of Congress comes here with a noble and patriotic objective. 

I will equally concede the point that as a Member of Congress, 

I could do partisan with the best of them, and I understand that 

we all had constituents that had different views and we did our 

best to represent. 

I hope that during my time I did that for the people of south central Kansas. They might well have had different views than the 

people of your district or other members’ districts. 

I hope—and there were exceptions to this but I tried every day 

to do that with dignity and respect. I didn’t always quite achieve 

it, but I tried. In this role I will do the same. 

You have my word. I will work with members from both sides of 

the aisle to achieve America’s foreign objectives. We’ll disagree 

often about how to get there. 

But I will be surprised if it’s frequently the case that we disagree 

about what we are trying to accomplish. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I very much appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, given the unprecedented and troubling Russian 

interference in our 2016 elections, which have been certified by all 

of our intelligence agencies including the one you headed when you 

were there, Congress passed and the President signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which includes at least seven mandatory sanction provisions against Russia—mandatory sanctions—Russian undermining cybersecurity, 

Russian crude oil products, Russian financial institutions, dealing 

with Russian corruption, sanctions evaders, human rights abusers, 

on and on. 

There were seven major mandatory sanctions with respect to 

Russia. How many of those mandatory sanction provisions has the 

President imposed? 

Secretary POMPEO. I don’t know how many of those different authorities have been used. I know that there have been significant 

sanctions imposed under CAATSA and I know that there are many 

more in the queue. 

But I couldn’t tell you which—how many of those seven have 

been used. I will bet you can tell me. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, Mr. Secretary. The answer is one. 

And I think, on a bipartisan basis, that bill passed overwhelmingly, as you know, here in the Congress and I think it absolutely 

expressed a certain point of view with respect to that subject—not 

just that subject but certainly that subject—and I think we do expect full compliance with the law by the administration and I 

would give you the opportunity to pelage your commitment to that 

implementation of what is now statute. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, sir. You can count on—may I give you 

one caveat to that? 

74

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course. 

Secretary POMPEO. It is the case that Secretary Mattis and I are 

both working to find places where we think that legislation did not 

give us enough to make sure that we don’t do something that was 

unintended with respect to some of our allies who have historic relationships with, in particular, Russian equipment. 

And so we—I think Secretary Mattis will take the lead but I will 

be part of it alongside him to see if we can get Congress to consider 

giving us waiver capacity so that we can ameliorate are not the intended objectives of the CAATSA legislation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

I have a quick last question, because I am going to run out of 

time—gosh, I wish we had more time—earlier this month in a story 

by Ronan Farrow, I think in the New Yorker, it was reported that 

a company called Black Cube involving Israeli official—not officials, 

operatives—investigate former Obama administration officials who 

were involved in the Iran nuclear negotiations. Are you aware of 

that story and were you familiar with any aspects of that allege investigation? 

Secretary POMPEO. I am familiar with the story but I read it as 

new information in the same way that it sounds like you did as 

well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And to your knowledge, the administration had 

no involvement in said activity? 

Secretary POMPEO. To the best of my knowledge, that is absolutely correct, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Look forward to 

working with you. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Secretary, the administration has taken 

strong action, including recently sanctioning seven oligarchs with 

close ties to Putin along with 12 companies that they own or control under CAATSA. 

We’ll continue to push for full implementation of CAATSA. Not 

only that, but in addition to CAATSA we are also calling for the 

Senate to pass the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which the 

House now passed into the Senate and which would impose significant sanctions on Russia for its support for the monstrous Assad 

regime’s actions. 

I do want to thank you for engaging with the committee, Mr. 

Secretary. You have said you want today to be the start of a close 

collaboration with us—and I know you well enough to know that 

you’re very sincere about this and I deeply appreciate the time you 

have spent with us here—the capability for every one of our members to engage. 

I look forward also the dialogue we’ve had about continued discussions for the members here. 

Mr. Secretary, the challenges facing our Nation are daunting. 

We’ve heard about many of them today. But we didn’t hear so 

much about the opportunity for Americans worldwide. 

Americans are doing great things as private citizens. They’re 

doing great things as—in terms of the charities that they run 

throughout this worlds—the business that engage across the planet. 

75

And the State Department often helps them in this regard. 

Americans shouldn’t be afraid of the world. We can do a great deal 

to improve it, and I know that you understand that, Mr. Secretary. 

So, Mike Pompeo, thank you very much and we look forward to 

our—I have just been reminded by the ranking member that there 

may be one other member coming through the doors as we speak, 

and that would be Karen Bass of California. 

Secretary POMPEO. Of course. 

Chairman ROYCE. So we will give her her 5 minutes. 

Thank you for the 3-plus hours that you have spent with us here 

this morning. 

Ms. BASS. And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

As always, Mr. Pompeo—Secretary Pompeo—I am sure you know 

we have a very bipartisan committee here with wonderful leadership, and I know you were hoping to get out the door. I am not 

going to hold you long. 

Secretary POMPEO. Ma’am, I’ve got all 5 minutes. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Well, and I know you know because you have 

been on the other side. 

Secretary POMPEO. I have. 

Ms. BASS. And so we are definitely proud of your success and are 

excited about you beginning your tenure at the State Department. 

Secretary POMPEO. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. So I really would like to ask you about the DRC and 

the worsening situation there. I have met—we had a Africa policy 

breakfast about this. We’ve had hearings, et cetera, and what I am 

really worried about is that the President has said he’s going to 

have elections in December. 

He has not said he’s not going to run. There is no faith that he’s 

actually going to have those elections since they were originally 

supposed to be in December 2016. 

And so I just wanted to know what our policy is going to be, moving forward, and what type of benchmarks are we going to hold 

him to? 

Secretary POMPEO. So there are many challenges in the DRC, as 

you well know. We are worried about global health issues there——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. Certainly, which adds a half 

twist to the triple somersault, and just makes it more complicated. 

With respect to the DRC’s election process, we’ve got teams 

working diligently to push forward to try and find that democratic 

solution that, frankly—I think you said December 16—the problem 

has been longer than that. 

There’s a great deal of work. What I would love to do is get back 

to you and provide you with a detailed list of our activities. Know 

that I think we share the same policy outcome objective that you 

have just described. 

Ms. BASS. So I would appreciate that, because there are a few 

of us that plan to go soon and to have the ahead of time, because 

right now I am just worried that we might have sent a mixed signal—that my big concern is that it actually adds to the confusion, 

especially because we have not secure anything from him saying 

that won’t run a third term. 

76

Now moving on to another crisis, South Sudan, and the idea that 

we need to have a weapons embargo for sure, but just wondering 

where you see things going there and what our policy is there and, 

in addition to that, Sudan, in terms of moving forward with relaxation of sanctions. But we also are concerned about a young woman 

who’s on trial there for her life and a lot of questionable circumstances around that. 

And so I wanted to know about those two areas—South Sudan 

and Sudan. 

Secretary POMPEO. Let me try the region for you and——

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. See how they fit into that picture. 

I was—I think it was my second to last trip as the CIA Director 

was in and around that region. So I got a chance to see it for myself just a little bit at least. 

So there are lots of countries that try and help what’s going on 

in both of those places—Sudan and South Sudan—who share 

America’s objectives. 

I don’t think America is going to have the capacity to deal with 

that on our own. I think we need to find partners in the region that 

are prepared—those that share our view to move forward together. 

I did advocate in my previous role for the relaxation of sanctions 

against them. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. 

Secretary POMPEO. They had made marked improvement. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO. But relapse is always a risk and we need to 

continue to provide them assistance but ensure that they don’t turn 

back to the place that they were before. 

I think the direction there is good. 

Ms. BASS. I do, too. 

Secretary POMPEO. But we need to be mindful and we need to 

provide support to further good works. 

If we do that, I think we can get a really good outcome. Something 5 or 10 years ago——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Secretary POMPEO [continuing]. We would have all thought not 

possible. South Sudan is trickier and much more difficult. I’ve got 

just a few seconds so I will leave you with this thought. 

It is incredibly important that we get that piece right for all the 

reasons you describe plus the risk that extends from terrorism in 

the region that threatens not only global terror and the efforts from 

their hiding spaces but the uncertainty it provides to the people of 

the region. 

We have a real responsibility to try and get that right. It is a 

devil of a problem. 

Ms. BASS. Exactly. And one of concerns too in going to Sudan is 

the state sponsor of terrorism designation and what that does. It 

actually complicates things on both sides. 

And so, you know, as moving forward and, of course, hoping that 

they continue to move forward it obviously is contingent on that, 

but that we do have to take a look at that category. 

Secretary POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I completely agree. 

77

If we can continue to see progress I would love to see us be able 

to rescind that. 

Ms. BASS. Great. Thank you very much, and appreciate you allowing me the time, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. 

And with that, Mr. Secretary, we stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(79)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

80

f


30175n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 205I5-6128 

Edward R Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

May23, 2018 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the 

Committee website at http i/w"]i\•w.For~AI:Th!L'ch2illl.LQ£'JC): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESS: 

Wednesday, May 23, 2018 

9:00a.m. 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's 

Budget, Operations, and Policy Priorities 

The Honorable Mike Pompeo 

Secretary of State 

U S. Department of State 

By Direction of the Chairman 
81


30175m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 'V!TNUTES OF FPLL COMMITTEE HEARTNG 

Day Wednesday Date __ OS/23/20.18 ___ Room 2172 

Starting Time 9:00 A.1tL Ending Time 12:31 P.1W. 

Re-cesses L_to __ ) (_to __ ) (_to __ )( __ to __ ) ( __ to __ ) c_._to __ ) 

Presiding Mcmber(s) 

Chairman Edward R. Royce 

Check all of the following that app(v: 

Open Session 0 Executive ~sed) Session 0 Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electronically Recorded (taped) 0 

Stenographic Record 0 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget. Operations, and Policy 

Priorities 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

NIA 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes 0 NoD 

(lf "no", please list below and include title, agency, department, or organization) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submittedfor the record) 

QFR- Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and Representatives Smith, Sires, Cook, Connolly, 

Cicilline, Bera, Franke!, Kelly, 11tus, Schneider, and Lieu 

SFR -Representative Connolly 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECOl'<vENE -------c,,.;' 

or 

TilliE ADJOURNED !3_~'!!.__f>_:'f!!:__ ___ _ 
82

f


30175m-2.eps

PRESEc'vT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu COMMIITHF H~_AJIING 

]\,[EMBER PRESENT MEMBER 

Edward R. Royce, CA X EliotL EngeL NY 

Christopher H. Smith. NJ X Brad Sherman. CA 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohmbacher. CA X Albia Sires. NJ 

Steve Chabot. OH X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson. SC X Theodore E. Deutch. FL 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicillinc. RJ 

Tom Marino, PA X Ami Bem.CA 

Mo Brooks. AL X Lois F rankcL FL 

Paul Cook. CA X T ulsi Gabbard, HI 

Scott Perry. PA X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Ron DeSantis. FL X Robin Kelly. TL 

Mark Meadows, NC X Brendan Boyle. P A 

Ted Yoho. FL X Dina Titus. NV 

Adan1 Kinzinger,TL X Nonna Torres, CA 

Lee Zeldin. NY X Brad Schneider, IL 

Dan Donovan, NY X Tom Suozzi. NY 

James F. Sensenbrem1er. Jr., WI X Adriano Espaillat. NY 

Ann Wagner, MO X Ted Lieu, CA 

Brian J. Mast. FL 

Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A. Garrett. Jr.. VA 

John Curtis. UT 
83


30175b-1.eps

Statement for the Record from Representative Gerry Connolly 

Strengthening /vnerican Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23, 2018 

President Trump's FY 2019 international a±Iairs budget continues the Trump Administration's 

unilateral retreat from U.S. global leadership and doubles down on the reckless disinvestment in U.S. 

diplomacy and development in favor of American military might. As threats to U.S. national security 

grow around the world, the Trump Administration's response is to retreat from our commitments, cut 

our tlnancial and human resources, and sacritlce strategy for headlines. U.S. global leadership has 

never been more essential or more at risk. 

The Trump Administration has spent its first sixteen months in office systematically dismantling the 

hard won diplomatic commitments that bolster American security and prosperity. On his third day in 

office, President Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would have 

deepened U.S. alliances in the Asia-Pacitic and unlocked access to 40 percent of global GDP. In June 

2017, Trump announced that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate accord, an agreement that 

has now been signed by every other nation on Earth. And earlier this month, the President abandoned 

the Iran nuclear deal, which will be recorded as one of the most sordid and reckless acts by a chief 

executive of this country. In doing so, he has ejected us from the deal without a parachute. 

This week, Secretary Pompeo announced a so-called "Plan B" for Iran, conceived as an afterthought 

and predicated on America's shattered credibility to reconvene the parties for a "better deal." Just like 

there is no better TPP, or better Paris climate accord, there will be no better Iran deal. The probability 

of a nuclear Iran has now risen exponentially just when we had it under control. And if that happens, 

the Saudis have indicated they will pursue a nuclear weapon too And now we're off to an arms race 

in the most volatile part of the world. 

Trump's rejection of the Iran deal, despite Iranian compliance, has now set the standard of success 

for his high-risk gambit with North Korea- absolute denuclearization, absolutely verifiable. Anything 

short of that is a failure, by his own new standard. The President's impulsive agreement to a summit 

with Kim Jong-un instantly strengthened the regime in Pyongyang and gained no concessions in 

return. Last week, the North Korean regime's reaction to joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises 

exposed the precarious footing of these negotiations. The failure of this presidential summit would 

cause lasting damage to the prestige of the Office of the President and could be used by the Trump 

Administration to justify kinetic action on the Korean Peninsula. 

Meanwhile, Trump still refuses to hold Russia accountable for its unprecedented and ongoing 

interference in American democracy, despite near unanimous agreement for such action among 

Congress, the American people, and his own Administration officials. That is why I, along with a 

majority of Democrats on this Committee, recently introduced a resolution calling upon President 

Trump to exercise mandatory sanctions authorities in response to Russia's continued aggression in 
84

f


30175b-2.eps

Ukraine, forcible and illegal annexation of Crimea, and assault on democratic institutions around the 

world. This resolution builds on the SECURE Our Democracy Act (H.R. 530), introduced by Ranking 

Member Engel and myself, which would sanction any foreign entity who unlawfully interferes with 

a federal election. 

Underlying each of these points of retreat is a failure to invest in the financial and human resources 

that are needed to effectively implement U.S. diplomatic and development efforts. The President's 

FY 2019 budget proposes to slash the State Department and USATD's budget by 30 percent This 

request blatantly ignores that Congress, civilian and military leadership, and the American people 

summarily rejected similar draconian cuts in the Administration's FY 2018 budget 

Secretary Pompeo has taken the helm of a hollowed out diplomatic corps at the State Department. 

Recruitment is down, retirements are up, and vacancies are rampant. The number of Americans 

applying to take the Foreign Service exam in October 2017 dropped 33 percent from a year earlier. 

In recent months, State has lost nearly 50 percent of its most senior career leadership - Career 

Ambassadors and Career Ministers- our nation's civilian equivalent of three and four-star generals. 

And 30 ambassadorships have not been named or confirmed, including in critical places like South 

Korea, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and the European Union. This dearth of diplomatic personnel leaves 

critical gaps to American interests right now, but it is also a problem down the road. As Ambassador 

Ronald Neumann said, "The Foreign Service is like the military -if you don't bring in lieutenants 

now, you don't have the majors you need in 10 years and don't have the colonels you need in 20." 

The Trump Doctrine has emerged as one of unilateral retreat and empty promises that hann America. 

President Trump's bombastic foreign policy has oscillated between "tire and fury" and a Nobel Peace 

Prize moonshot, leaving much to be desired with regard to substantive strategy to protect U.S. 

interests. Given the decimation of resources at State and increasing global flashpoints in the Trump 

era, Secretary Pompeo has his work cut out for him. 
85

f


30175c.eps

Questions for the Record from Chairman Edward R. Royce 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

Now that the hiring freeze has been lifted, what will the stafling levels will be for the 

Department's Oflice to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking, which Congress has been 

pushing to increase in recent years? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 FTE ceiling allocation for the Trafficking in Persons otlice will be 49 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) positions. 

Question: 

How many full-time equivalent positions will that Oftice have in the coming year, and how does 

that number compare to the prior three years? 

The FY 2018 FTE ceiling allocation for the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Office is 49 FTE 

positions (42 Civil Service and seven Foreign Service). J/TIP's FTE ceiling as of January 2017 

was 63, and was 47 in 2016. 
86


30175d-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Eliot Engel 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the Stale Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Was the State Department Redesign contract a sole-source contract? 

The Redesign work was carried out in lwo separate contr-acting actions. The initial employee 

survey and resulting Listening Tour report was awarded to Insigniam on April25, 2017 as a sole 

source contract. The follow-on work to assist in developing and implementing a Redesign ploo 

was awarded to Deloitte on June 19. Redesign effurts with Deloitte were acquired under a task 

order against GSA Alliant Government Wide Acquisition Contract #GSOOQ09BGD0018. This 

GSA contract vehicle is recognized by OMB as a preferred goverrm1ent-wide solution for agency 

procurement needs. 

Ifthe contract was sole-source, what was U1e justification for it being sole source? Please provide 

me with a copy of the justification. 

The justification and approval for the listening tour report by Insigniam was posted on FedBizOps 

on May 19, 2017 and is publicly available at the web address below. A copy is also attached. 
87


30175d-2.eps

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL 

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION 

FAR Part 6.302-2 

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity: 

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (I' AR) 6.302-2 in accordance with 41 

the authority of 41 U.S. C. 253(c)(2), the Office of Acquisition Management proposes to 

award a Sole Source Contract to iN SIGN lAM LLC to assist the Department in 

complying with the requirements of The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

issued a memorandum on April 12, 2017, en tilled "Comprehensive Plao for Reforming 

the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce," (M-17-22 

The period of Perfonnance for this effort is less than one year and the estimated value 

will not exceed $850,000 plus certain international travel expenses for the post visit. 

2. This acquisition is restricted to the following source: 

lNSlUNlAM LLC 

301 WOODBINE AVE 

NARBERTH, PA 19072-1912 

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency's needs: 

The Department of State, the first Cabinet level agency, has a presence in over 160 

countries around the globe, staffed by political appointees and members of the Foreign 

Service, Civil Service, and Locally Engaged Staff serving domestically and abroad at 

over 200 Embassies and consulates. Together with the C.S. Agency for International 

Development (T JSATD), the Department seeks to fult!ll its mission in an efficient and 

e±Iective manner. With a combination of over 85,000 employees and locally engaged 

staff, the organizations are large and complex. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum onAprill2, 2017, 

entitled "Comprehensive Plan for Rcfonning the federal Government and Reducing the 

Federal Civilian Workforce," (M-17-22), which requires all agencies to, among other 

things, begin taking immediate actions to develop an agency reform plan. This plan, the 

first draft of which is due to OMB on June 30, requires proposals to identify how to 

improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the agency, focusing on 

fundamental seeping questions and on improvements to existing business processes. 

Defore determining what improvements to make or what activities to eliminate, as 

required by OMR, data must he collected to understand the range of activities and 

functions currently performed throughout the Department. The Department aims to have 

this data collected from a wide swath of the Department community so that all groups of 

community members are represented. The collection and presentation of the data will 

inform the new Department leadership of the current structme, culture, and workflow. 
88


30175d-3.eps

The contractor shall provide the U.S. Departrmmt of State with a summary report of tl1e 

poignant themes, patterns, and sentiments of the people of the Department of State and 

USAID regarding both organizations, State's and USAID's ability to fulfill its mission, 

and proposals and suggestions for how to improve the organizations and how each does 

their work. The contractor sha U use listening sessions in the forms of verbal interviews 

and online surveys to gather data on aspects of the Department and US AID such as 

workforce culture, technologies used, and where the work gets done. The study shall be 

expedited, and shall proceed without preconceived notions of the optimal end state for a 

high perfonning agency, or its associated staffing level. 

4. Check and fill in all that are applicable: 

D The material or service must be compatible in all aspects (form, fit, and function) with 

existing systems presently installed. 

D A patent, copyright, propriety data or licensing agreement limits competition. The 

proprietary data are described as follows: 

D These are "direct replacement" parts/components for existing equipment. 

IZI Urgency 

0 Exclusive Licensing Agreement 

D Brand-Nan1e 

llSl Other information to support a sole-source buy: 

OMB has mandated the first draft of which is due to OMB on June 30, requires 

proposals to identifY how to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of 

the agency, focusing on fundamental scoping questions and on improvements to existing 

business processes. The complexity involved with required infonnation gathering as well 

as the development and coordination of the report does not allow for sufficient time to 

solicit for the necessary services. 

A synopsis ofthe proposed contract actions will not be posted as authorized by the 

exception stated in FAR 5.202(b ), in that after consultation with the AdministratorFederal Procurement Policy aml the Administrator-SEA, advance notice is detemtined to 

be inappropriate and unreasonable 
89


30175d-4.eps

What experience did Insigniam have with the State Department or in terms of working for the 

federal government prior to being hired for the Redesign? 

Insigniam had not worked with the Department before but had significant experience in 

organizational transfmmation and culture change. This background waq seen as key to help 

modernize the way the Department of State and USAJD are organized, collaborate, and operate. 

Insigniam' s work has traditionally focused on private sector transformation. This was their first 

federal contract 

Question: 

What are the responsibilities and deliverables for Insigniam? Please provide me with a copy of 

the solicitation(s). 

for the listening tour, Insigniam' s deliverable was a written report summarizing workforce culture 

and employee views on specific workplace issues. This report was received June 2017 and is 

posted on the Department's employee website. As this was a sole source procurement, no public 

solicitation was made. The FcdBizOps entry is available at this web address: 

For the follow-on Redesign work, Insigniam was a SlJb-contractor to Deloitte in supporting a 

culture of transformation as the Department began to reinvent its business processes and execute 

project plans. There is no separate solicitation for lnsigniam in phase 3. Doth consultant teams 

worked together closely with Insigniam delivering the leadership ard change management advice 

and Deloitte delivering the modernization project plans, subject matter expertise, and analytics 

support. 

Please provide me with a copy ofinsigniam's raw data from the listening tour (not the summary). 

Answer: 

The raw data from the Listening Tour has not been released for any purpose beyond the 

development of the report itself. Employees who responded to the survey were assured of 

complete confidentiality and that all identifiers (gender, grade, office symbol, employment 

category) and comments would remain private. The Department respects that privacy and does 

not plan to release the data. 
90


30175d-5.eps

How did the State Department monitor Insigniam's performance? 

As we do for all contracts at the Department of State, pursuant to procurement regulations in the 

foreign Affairs Manual and Department of State Regulations (DOSAR), qualified personnel have 

been designated by the Contracting Officer to monitor technical progress and performance, 

approve invoices for payment, and oversee contract modifications and tenninations. 

The govennmmi's ac<.:eplance of the final Listening Tour Reporl in June 2017 marked the 

completion of Insigniam's contract. This contract had a 30-day Period of Performance and the 

govennnentparticipated fully in the development of the questions, arranging employee interviews, 

and distribution of the survey to employees. :0-lo further oversight was required as the contracted 

product was delivered timely and complete. 

During Redesign activities, the perfo1111ance of the consultants was monitored through weekly 

meetings with Redesign leadership, and monthly contracting meetings with the contracting officer 

and contracting officer's representative. 

How many consultants were working on the Redesign process? How many State Department 

employees were working on the Redesign process? Of these, how many are currently working on 

Redesign nul-time? 

Because the Redesign activities were phased, the number of consultants and employees was highly 

variable. Prom the outset, a plan was in place to use contractors in the early phases and 

significantly reduce consultant usage as projects developed until the initiatives were entirely 

employee-led. During the Redesign (July through November 2017), 19 full-time Deloitte 

consultants and 55 part-time consultants supported the joint Statc/USAID teams. In that same 

period, 95 Department of Stale employees worked on lhe Redesign full-lime. 

For the Impact Initiative effort (January through April 2018), project teams and consultants 

focused on specific outcomes and included broader engagement from Department of State subject 

matter experts and bureaus with direct responsibility for implementation. This phase included a 

consultant support team of 42 full-time Dcloitte consultants and 30 part-time consultants (Deloitte 

& Insignian1). In this phase, nearly 50 Department of State employees worked on Redesign and 

Tmpact Initiative full time and many more were involved part-time. 

When do you expect the contracts to be completed? 
91


30175d-6.eps

The listening tour contract was completed in May 2017. The contract tor the Redesign and its 

successor Impact Initiative activities was suspended in May 2018 with only a small team of data 

scientists remaining to ret1ne analytical tools. 

What do you expect as the total final cost? What was the planned budget'? 

The cost of the listening tour rep01t was $883,514. The cost of consultant support to Redesign as 

of May 2018 is $11.19 million. The combined cost is $12.07 million. The Redesign phase of 

intensive assessment and planning has concluded and the Department's investment for continued 

modernization will be supported by the implementing bureaus. The plan from the outset was to 

significantly reduce the use of contractors overtime as projects developed. The Department's FY 

2018 Operating Plan for D&CP will note where such work may continue within implementing 

bureaus. 

What Bureau of Infonnation Resource Management (IRM) contract did you amend and why did 

you choose this as opposed to a fixed contrad? Please provide the Corrnnitlee with a copy of the 

solicitation for the original and amendment to the IRM contract. 

Redesign efforts with Deloitte were acquired under a task order against GSA Alliant Govemment 

Wide Acquisition Contract #GSOOQ09BGD0018. This GSA contract vehicle is recognized by 

O?vrB as a preferred government-wide solution for agency procurement needs. The TRM task order 

used for Redesign was #SAQMMA16Fll55. 

The Redesign plan is a long-term effort requiring OMB and Congressional notification, approval, 

and funding. Given the consultations required, the Department could not pre-detem1ine an 

outcome and scope ·- necessary conditions for a firm fixed-price contract. This GSA contract is 

Time & Materials based. Use oflabor hours gives the Department maximum flexibility to adapt 

the consultant support role as needed. 

What is the percentage of those belonging to traditionally underrepresented groups in the Senior 

Foreign Service and at what ranks (Career Ambassador, Career Minister etc)? 
92


30175d-7.eps

As of April 30, the minority rate of the full-time permanent Senior Foreign Service (SFS), 

including both generalists and specialists, was 13.2 percent. Minority is defined as anyone selt~ 

rep01iing Hispanic etlmicity and or a race other than white. 

Career Ambassador* 

Career Minister 

Minister Counselor 

Counselor 

TotalSFS 

*Note: There arc currently two 

87.6% 

!\fi.4% 

86.8% 

How many Assistant Secretaries or Deputy Assistant Secretaries belong to underrepresented 

groups? Please provide details of the bureaus in which they work. 

As of April 30 and out of 138 full-time permanent employees serving in Assistant Secretary, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, or equivalent positions in the Dcparuncnt, 16 were minorities working 

in our AF (African Affairs), BP (Budget and Planning), CGFS (Comptroller and Global Financial 

Services), DS (Diplomatic Security), EAP (East Asia Pacific), EB (Economic and Business 

Affairs), ISN (International Security and Nonproliferation), OIG, Pi\ (Public Affairs), S 

(Secretariat), and WHA (Western Hemisphere Affairs) bureaus. Minority is defined as anyone 

self-reporting Hispanic ethnicity and or a race other than white and hence may not reflect all 

minority employees in these positions if they did not self-report their status. 

Full-time Permanent Staffing r:ounts for Agsistant Secretary, Deputy Assistant 

_ §_~l:l'_et_a_I]J,_!'!___J;;_~ui_vale111__!()_s_ifions [js_rJ,{_:_4p_ri_U 0' ~2()}__8___~~-------------­ Minority Non-Minority Total 

Assistant Secretary or Equivalent 4 18 22 

What concrete steps is lhe Slate Department laking lo addnoss the significant gap of people 

belonging to traditional undelTepresented groups in the mid-career and senior ranks of the Foreign 

and Civil Service? 
93


30175d-8.eps

Answer: 

The Department provides career support and development to prepare employees for positions of 

increasing responsibility to strengthen and diversifY its leadership pipeline. The Civil Service 

Career Development (CD) Division administers the Civil Service Mentoring Program, develops 

Career Guides to infonn career strategies, and provides one-on-one guidance through the Career 

Development Resource Center. In addition, the Department's Senior Executive Service Candidate 

Development Program (SES CDP) grooms successful participants for non-competitive 

appointment into executive positions. Of 14 current participants, nine are female and six identify 

as minorities. 

Foreign Service inilialives include redesigned mentoring services for mid-level FS employees 

serving their first domestic tours. Htm1an Resources also provides long-tenn career rnentoring 

services that begin in the first year of employment. Situational mentoring is available to all CS 

and FS employees. The Department supports CS and FS employee development through the 

Intemational Career Advancement Program, whose mission is to bring greater diversity to seniorlevel foreign affairs practitioners. There is mandatory training tor supervisors on managing for 

diversity and also mandatory equal employment opportunity training for every member of the 

Foreign Service with an emphasis on inclusiveness. 

Please provide the detailed findings of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research diversity report. 

INR does not produce a diversity report. INR data is, however, included in broader State and 

Intelligence Commtmity reports. 

Please provide the following data on the deployment of your workforce in an electronic, searchable 

format, such as an excel spreadsheet: 

o Diplomatic density overseas by region, count1y, and post: 

o Core diplomatic positions overseas by region, country, and post; 

o Core diplomatic positions in the Washington, D.C., area by region and country; 

o Core development positions overseas by region, country, and post; 

o Core development positions in the Washington, D.C., area hy region and country; 

o Diplomatic security positions overseas by region, country, and post; and 

o Direct hire positions at United States Government agencies, as appropriate, disaggrcgatcd 

hy agency, region, country, and post (These are direct hires paid by other govemmeul 

agencies and serving at U.S. embassies). 
94


30175d-9.eps

Enclosed is a spreadsheet of the Department's Full Time Permanent workforce as of September 

30,2017. Additionally, I would be happy to have the Department's human resources team come 

brief your office on our latest workforce data and better understand your data requirements and 

their context. 

(the infonnationfollows) 
95


30175d-10.eps

Q.l'ARBJ FOR PUSUCFE..EAS: 

~partment of Sate- Full-time Rlrmanent Workforce as of 9/3012017 

BUFB'.U DO'v1ES!1CCS I DO'v1ES!1CFS I Cl\l'ffi:'£AS lDTAL 

A 5 974 

AF 1,151 1,333 

AVC 86 8 15 109 

BP 61 4 0 65 

0'\ 2,436 197 0 2,633 

cx:fS 373 22 13 408 

(3) 61 24 1 86 

cr 81 18 0 99 

DR. 97 33 0 130 

OS 843 1,162 303 2,308 

EN' 47 151 1.518 1,716 

EB 93 85 0 178 

8:)\ 322 46 20 388 

ENR 37 32 0 69 

EUR 135 230 1.984 2,349 

FSSTAFF 524 104 2 630 

FSSTUOENT 0 291 53 344 

H 42 9 0 51 

HR 432 178 0 610 

HR01Hffi 26 389 34 449 

IOC 8 0 0 8 

liP 155 31 19 205 

I.C 10 2 8 20 

INL 212 30 97 339 

INR 252 66 0 318 

10 160 82 80 322 

IPM 467 153 5 625 

lEN 183 18 1 202 

JllP l 43 6 0 49 

L 265 0 0 265 

M 101 28 0 129 

MED 91 35 4 130 

NE'A 144 153 1,123 1,420 

080 495 68 300 863 

083 145 45 0 190 

OIG 237 17 16 270 

PA 181 33 8 222 

PM 152 73 29 254 

FH\!1 95 28 31 154 

s 360 188 6 554 

SCfR 52 0 0 52 

&A 52 55 907 1,014 

WHA 84 149 1,753 1,986 

Total 10,636 4,398 9,486 24,520 

HR.OTHER.indudesdetalls. interns, rotational officers, entry level in traming and reasstgnments. 
96


30175d-11.eps

Do the State Department and US AID have a standard procedure when responding to sexual assault 

allegations? If so, what arc they? What is the standard procedure to report a sexual assault at the 

State Dep~rtmen1 and USAID? 

Per the sexual assault policy in 3 FAM 1700, the Department fiJlly investigates any allegation of 

sexual assault in a manner that primitizes the safety and dignity of the victim, including providing 

a victim advocate. State and USAID employees serving domestically are encouraged to report 

sexual assault to law enforcement authorities. F:mployees and family memhers ahroad who suffer 

or are aware of an assault are encouraged to report it to the Regional Security Otlicer, the Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security, the Office of Civil Rights or the Chief of Mission. Victims may receive 

confidential medical treatment, including administration of a sexual assault evidence collection 

kit, from post's Health Unit or from the Bureau of Medical Services. 

Who at the State Department has the lead on issues related to detainees who remain at the detention 

facility at Guantanamo Bay or who were previously transferred from the detention facility? 

Senior leadership at the Department of State remains actively engaged while the Department 

reviews the assignment of responsibilities for Guantanamo detainees. Responsibility for the 

Department's role in the Periodic Review Board (PRB) process is cmTcntly shared by its 

Counterterrorism Coordinator and Legal Adviser, both of whom are Senate <.:onfrrmeJ officials. 

Responsibility for arranging the transfer of detainees who have been recommended hy the PRB 

for potential transfer is now under discnssion. Responsibility for detainees who have been 

previously transferred from Guantanamo falls, in the first instance, to the Chiefs of Mission at our 

embassies abroad. 

Why were all the staff who worked in the office on the closure of Guantanamo Bay transfen·ed to 

work on FOIA, leaving the office completely unstaffed? 

Answer: 

The Office of the Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure (S/GC) is not m1staffed nor were staff 

transferred to the FOIA office. Some staff were temporarily detailed to the FOIA office. S/GC 

and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs continue to appropriately address issues related to 

Guantanamo closure, and we cooperate closely with our foreign partners to ensure that former 

Gnantanamo detainees do not pose a threat to the T Jnited States. 
97


30175d-12.eps

Last fall, then Secretary Tillerson asked for employees from every prut of the Dcprutmcnt to 

temporarily assist in an effort to clear onr backlog of FOTA requests with the belief ilml FOIA 

compliance is the responsibility of every bnreau and employee and that FOIA helps promote 

transparency and accountability throughout government. 

The Department's now updated FOIA process has sh01t and long-term objectives. At its start, we 

sought to ex-pediently reduce the backlog of outstanding requests. The Department is now phasing 

into implementation longer-term improvements lo our FOIA management practices. Many 

Department employees who were temporarily assigned to assist with addressing the Department's 

FOIA backlog have now returned to regular duties. 

Foreign Cormpt Practices Act. U.S. businesses lead the world in operating according to the law. 

Our companies follow environmental standards, comply with health regulations, and don't bribe 

foreign governments. In fact, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, they can't bribe foreign 

officials- it's against the law. But, in 2012, President Trump said, "Every other cmmtry goes into 

these places, and they do what they have to do. It's a horrible law and it should be changed. I 

mean, we're like the policeman for the world. It's ridiculous." I haven't heard that President Trump 

has changed his position. Docs he support the FCPA? Or is he trying to change the law'? Does 

he still believe he should be able to bribe foreign govermnent officials? 

As in other areas, the United States has been the leader in enforcement of anti-bribery laws. We 

continue to press other countries to take the actions needed to create a level playing field for 

American and other companies. following our lead, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom 

and, more recently, Brazil have actively joined the light against brlbeJY of foreign officials. 

Numerous other countries, including Australia and Israel, have recently secured convictions. Rut 

we need more countries to aggressively investigate and effectively prosecute cases. The United 

States will continue to use its diplomatic strength to improve enforcement effmis abroad. 

Given the budget's suggestion that resources will he shifted to prioritize high HIV/AIDS burden 

countries, how will HIV positive pregnant women be taken into account in the lower priority 

countries? Will PEPFAR still be offering the full range of prevention of mother-to-child 

transmission (PMTCT) services rrom diagnosis through breaslfeeding in these countries? If yes, 

can you please elaborate as to how PMTCT success will be maintained in lower priority countries 

where you are planning to reduce financial resources and how PMTCT services could potentially 

be compromised? 

HIV positive pregnant women remain a key beneficiary group for PEPF AR services as evidenced 

by the nearly 9 million pregnant women tested last year. Prevention of mother-to-child 
98


30175d-13.eps

transmission (PMTCT) services remains a key priority in PEPF AR and will continue in lowerburden countries as PEPF AR uses data to target testing antl treatment resources to maximize the 

impact of U.S. funding against the HIV I AIDS epidemic. PEPF AR 's targeting model has allowed 

us to identifY a constant nmnber of pregnant women with fewer tests. The U.S. government 

continues to target testing and treatment resources and works with host-country governments, the 

Global Ftmd to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and other fimders to ensure resources are 

targeted to meet the highest areas of need. For example, in areas with a lower yield of testing 

among pregnant women, testing is often maintained by the host govermnent with limited support 

from PEPF A R. 

l<'inding HIV positive children to initiate them on treatment remains a barrier to the scale up of 

pediatric trcatrocnt of HIV. Will pediatric treatroent scale up also slow in these lower priority 

countries? If not, can you please elaborate as to how pediatric treatment scale up will continue in 

lower priority countries where you are planning to reduce financial resources and pediatric 

treatroent services could potentially be compromised? 

The most important and efficient strategies for identifying children with HIV infection arc (1) 

through follow-up testing of infants born to women with known HIV infection and (2) through 

testing children of adults diagnosed vvith HIV infection (so-called family-index testing). PEPFAR 

supports both activities in lower-burden countries, which should enable continued progress in 

identifying children with HIV infection and linking them immediately to treatment 

Please provide all stakeholder comments submitted for the Mexico City Policy review. 

In conducting the six-month review, we welcomed comments from all sides of the issue. We do 

not plan to release stakeholder conuncnts, as we did not inform stakeholders that their comments 

would be disseminated when they submilled them. 

Question: 

It is my tmderstandiug that the Department plans to conduct another review of the expanded 

Mexico City Policy this year. Will you commit to ensuring that this review is comprehensive, and 

fully details the effects that the Policy is having on access to health care? Where there are service 

disruptions, will yon commit to review any requests for exemptions and what criteria will you use 

to determine potential exemptions? Will you also commit to making all stakeholder comments 

public- not just those that support the Policy? 
99


30175d-14.eps

Answer: 

My intention is that the review examine the implementation of the policy. We are in the process 

of determining the specific scope and gathering some preliminary information. From the outset of 

the policy, it was contemplated lhal there may need to be exemptions in certain cin.:umslances. In 

consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I ¥~ill review any exemption 

requests received. Criteria that may be considered for exemptions include but nre not limited to 

the existence of a public health emergency that impacts global health assistance; the possibility of 

extreme and irreversible service disruption if the exemption were not granted; whether there are 

other partners qualified to execute the program; or other extenuating circumstances that warrant 

granting an exception. 

In conducting the six-month review, we welcomed comments from all sides of the issue. We do 

not plan to release stakeholder comments, as we did not inform stakeholders that their connncnts 

would be mad~ public when they submitted them. Stakeholders, however, are free lo make their 

own comments public.. 

Question: 

How much funding is impacted by the four prime recipients who refilse to comply with the Mexico 

City Policy? 

Two organizations publicly indicated they will decline U.S. government global health assistance 

because of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy: the International Planned 

Parenthood Federation and Mnrie Stopes International. In FY 2016, the International Planned 

Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International received global health assistance under 

central awards in the amounts of $9.37 million and $15.44 million, respectively. The third 

organization that declined to agree to the PLGHA policy was obligated $100,000 in US AID global 

health assistance in FY 2016. 

The fourth declining organization was a Department of Defense prime partner that declined to sign 

in one country, though it signed in others. This organization's unsigned grant totaled S 151,000. 

Federal departments and agencies reprogram to other organizations any U.S. govermnent global 

health assistance funding they would have awarded to NGOs that do not agree to the conditions 

set on the acceptance of U.S. funding under the PLGHA policy. 

How many people did the fom prime recipients who refuse to comply with the Mexico City Policy 

previously serve and what measmes are you taking to ensme the same number of women and girls 

receive life-saving health services? 
100


30175d-15.eps

Most of the primes with which we work have multiple funding streams, so the number of people 

they served previously is not solely reflective of U.S. funding. The United States remains 

committed to helping women and children thrive, particularly in countries where the need is 

greatest. When an NGO has declined to agree to the policy, affected departments and agencies 

work to transition the activities that that would have been undertaken by the organization with our 

funding to other partners. This policy does not affect the total amount of U.S. government funding 

for global health programs. When departments and agencies reprogram funds to other 

organizations, the an1ount of funding directed to respective recipient cotmtries remains the same 

rnrd we remain focused on our goals. The Department will conduct a subsequent review of the 

policy to gauge impacts of the policy and is committed to ensuring illlY transition of activities 

minimizes disruptions of health service delivery. 

Can you assure us that U.S.-funded programs will continue to support and supply a full range of 

modem contraceptive methods in order to ensure that women have access to the information, 

counseling, and methods best -suited to their needs? 

I support the Administration's efforts to support the matemal health and voluntary family planning 

needs of women around the world. Enabling couples to determine whether, when, and how often 

to have children is vital to safe motherhood and healthy Hunilies. The U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) finances progrrnns that help individuals make a free and 

informed choice about having children by providing access to and information about a variety of 

voluntary family plamting options. The United States remains the largest donor to women's health 

around the world, and the President"s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019 includes $302 million 

for voluntary fill1lily-plilllliing programs. 

With respect to the defunding of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), cm1 you share where 

appropriated funding has been reallocated and what programs it is supporting? Crn1 you assure us 

that mry transferred funds will be going to our existing international fmnily planning and 

reproductive health programs that support access to contraceptives and work to combat child 

marriage, gender-based violence, and female genital mutilation? 

As a requirement by Section 7082(b) of the Fiscal Y eaT (FY) 2017 Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Progrmns Appropriations Act (SFOAA), tbe Department of State 

transfurred the funding from the S32.5 million directive for UNFPA in the FY 2017 International 

Organizations and Prngrrnns account affected by the March 2017 Kemp-Kaslen determination to 

the Global Health Progrrnns account at U.S. Agency for Intemational Development (USAID). As 
101


30175d-16.eps

required by the 2017 SFOAA, USAID will make the FY 2017 funds available for family planning, 

maternal, and women's health activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

The FY 19 budget request includes significant cuts to funding for the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, 

and Malaria and PEPFAR. The President's budget states that you will still maintain enough 

ftmding for current treatment levels, but does not mention critical prevention programming, which 

is essential to decrease new infections, including among adolescent girls and young women 

through the DREAMS initiative. Do you believe this funding is adequate, and how do you plan to 

provide HlV/AIDS comprehensive prevention programs with these proposed cuts? 

The President's FY 2019 request seeks resources to advance PEPFAR's Strategy for Accelerating 

HIV/AIDS Epidemic Control (2017-2020). Funding in the request enables PEPFAR to continue 

investing in over 50 countries and maintain life-saving antiretroviral treatment (ART) for all of the 

patients we support. Funds will provide essential services for orphan and vulnerable children as 

well as vulnerable key populations, including adolescent girls and young women. We have a 

unique oppottunity to accelerate progress toward reaching epidemic control by 2020 through the 

UNATDS 90/90/90 ftamework and PEPFAR will expand HIV prevention in 13 high-burden 

countries while sustaining support to all countries and populations where PEP FAR works. 

PEPFAR will continue to expand boih HIV prevention and treatment services where possible 

through increased performance, efficiency gains, and shared responsibility of all partners. 

Question: 

Can you commit to us that PEPFAR will continue working to identify and treat all people living 

>vith HIV in every country served by the program? 

In the 13 high impact epidemic control countries, PEPF AR will accelerate efforts to reduce HIV 

infections and AIDS-related deaths toward achieving epidemic control. We will expand the most 

impactful HIV prevention, treatment, and care services among the highcst-HIV-burdcn locations 

<md populations. This eiTorl will be supported by using data to drive accountability, find 

effic.iencies, leverage partnerships, and increase transparency. Outside of these 13 high impact 

epidemic control countries, PEPFAR will maintain its current level of antiretroviral treatment 

through direct service delivery and expand both HIV prevention and treatment services, where 

possible, thrm1gh increased perfom1ance and efficiency gains. The U.S. government, through 

PEPFAR, will also work with partner governments, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis 

and Malaria, and others to determine how IIIV prevention and treatment services can be expanded 

in cases where PEPFAR is not the primary funder and/or service delivery provider. The United 

States will continue to lead international efforts that advance controlling the HIV I AIDS epidemic, 
102


30175d-17.eps

but these health challenges should not just be met by contributions from the United States. 

PEPFAR will continue leverage om dollars to ensure that other donor countries and local partners 

are contributing their fair share. 

Question: 

I am concerned that this year's State Department Human Rights Report failed to offer a complete 

pil:ture of lhe abuses tlml women face by censoring descriptions of reproductive rights violations. 

Do you believe that denying women access to contraception- which could help them to plan their 

fnmilies nnd reduce maternal and infant deaths is a violation of their rights? 

In the 2017 Human Rights Report, the "Reproductive Rights" subsection was renamed to 

"Coercion in Population Control" in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law that we report 

on "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, including coerced 

abortion a11d involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal mortality, contraception, 

etc. is available via hyperlink in each country chapter and in an appendix lo the Reports. 

Question; 

Do you believe that denying safe abmiion care to rape survivors is a violation of their rights? 

As noted previously, revisions to this year's Human Rights Report aligned it with the requirement 

in U.S. law that we report on "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population 

controL. .. " Additional material on maternal mortality, contraception, and similar issues is 

available via hyperlink in the text of each comrtry chapter and in nn appendix to the Reports. 

In the midst of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's ninth outbreak of Ebola, the Trump 

Administration has proposed rescinding more than $250 million dollars in remaining Ebola 

supplemental f\mds that could be used to address this outbreak. Why is the Admi11istration 

disposing ofEbola supplemental funds that could and should be used for maintaining global health 

security work? 

With respect to ilH;; proposed $252 million resdssion for Ebola, !hese fw1Js were targeted for the 

West Africa Ebola crisis, which the WHO declared to be over in 2016. Congress has generously 

provided other funds, including the Emergency Reserve Fund, which enable us to respond 

appropriately to emergency needs like the current DRC outbreak, separate from the funds being 

proposed for rescission. The Administration has taken swift action in response to the current Fbola 

outbreak in the DRC and on May 22 armounced that USAlD is contributing up to $S million 
103


30175d-18.eps

towards interventions to help prevent the spread of this deadly disease, including $5 million that I 

approved fi·om the Emergency Reserve Fund. We commend the efforts of the Congolese and our 

international partners to confront this outbreak and help prevent a global health crisis and welcome 

future contributions from international partners and other countries toward this effort as well as 

long-te1m global health security efforts aimed at preventing future crises. 

Question: 

\\<no is currently in charge of global health security? 

Answer: 

Achieving a world safe ±rom infectious disease threats is a State Depat1:ment priority advanced by 

staff domestically and at U.S. foreign missions. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Judith G. 

Garber, currenLly the senior ranking offidal in the Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, leads the Department of State's global health security 

activities, including implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). In 

accordance with E.O. 13747, these activities include health security diplomatic outreach, 

coordination of U.S. programmatic activities, and engagement with non-governmental 

stakeholders. The National Security Council coordinates government-wide policy on global health 

security and serves as Chair of the GHSA Interagency Review Council. 

Security Assistance. In the President's FY 2019 blldget, lhe State D~;;partmeni's secmily assistance 

account has once again been slashed dran1atic.ally, leaving the door open for China and Russia to 

cultivate relationships with countries in Asia and other parts of the world while the United States 

sits on the sidelines. Of course, this lack of investment has implications for om national secilrity 

and U.S. jobs, as well. How do you address concerns about countries becoming dependent on 

Chinese or Russian systems instead of ours? 

Our security relationships worldwide are based on far more than just equipment purchased via 

military grant assistance. The United States also strengt.hens partnerships !hal preserve and extend 

our global influence through the purchase - via partner nation funds of U.S.-origin defense 

articles and services, in addition to onr best-in-the-world professional military education programs 

and support for and encouragement of multilateral conferences and symposia to exchange best 

practices and promote multilateral cooperation against transnational threats. Conventional arms 

transfers too are instrumental in developing capable allies and partners, maintaining a strong 

defense industrial base that employs more than 1. 7 million people, and deterring strategic 

competitors such as China and Russia. 

The Department's 2019 security assistance request will support prioritized programs for partners 

who share our security interests. We also continue to improve coordination with like-minded 

donor partners, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, such that om programs are 
104


30175d-19.eps

Gomplementary. Finally, our Title 22 programs are better integrated with the DoD's Title 10 

programs to fulfill partner security requirements that meet our national secnrity objectives. Our 

partners do have other options but we continue to be the ttusted security partner of choice. 

Qne~tion: 

How much coordination and policy direction do you exercise over the considerable funds 

expended by the PentagDn each year? 

Answer: 

The level of coordination and policy direction exercised by the Department of State over the 

Department of Defense's security assistance funding varies based on the authority. The 

requirement for Secretary of State concunence with, and joint planning of, DoD assistance, 

including pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 333, helps emnre State and DoD assistance policy and programs 

are synchronized. Absent such legislated concurrence requirements, as is the case with the DoD's 

Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTI:F), State concunence must rely on interagency policy 

arrangements for coordination efforts which vary greatly depending on the authority. Separately, 

State and DoD initiated a process in 20 17 to maximize the impact ofU .S. security sector assistance 

(SSA) and in March the Department submitted to Congress the Quadrennial SSA Review report 

that identifies areas for improvement on Stale-DoD ~oonlination on DoD's security assistance 

funding. 

Question: 

Please explain how that process works with the various Title l 0 authorities over which the State 

Department has some policy role, as well as with Leahy Law vetting, 

The Department of State works with the Department of Defense to develop and institutionalize the 

necessary structures and processes to efficiently and effectively meet coordination and 

conclllTenee requirements under DoD's security assisttmce authorities, as well as any other 

additional requirements mandated by the relevant legislation. For DoD's authority under I 0 

U.S.C. 333, the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs (PM) is designated as State's lead 

coordinator for the joint planning, development, and implementation of such programs. Secretary 

of State concunence with section333 programs is delegated to the Director of the Office of U.S. 

Foreign Assistance Resources, who is best-positioned to maintain a fitll picture and analysis of 

how DoD's programming aligns with State/USAID foreign assistance resources, 

In fi!lfilling its lead coordination role under section 333, PM manages a consultative and inclusive 

planning and approval pmcess to ensure that State's priorities and policy concerns are reflected in 

DoD's plfl11s and programs. Because DoD's section 333 programs are subject to the same 

restrictions or requirements !hal would be applicable to similar State programming, PM also works 

with State regional and functional bureau stakeholders, including the Office of the Legal Adviser, 

to detennine applicable legal restrictions on DoD's proposed section 333 programming. State and 
105


30175d-20.eps

DoD then work to address State's conditions on concurrence, which include Leshy vetting and 

may also include satisfying specific legal requirements or adhering lo ct'rtain legal restrictions, 

prior to DoD's execution of the program 

Have these cuts [to Secm1ty Assistance} helped to drive countries into a violation of Section 231 

of CAATSA, which imposes sanctions on those which buy major Russian military systems? 

We are not aware that the cuts have driven any countries to violate Section231 ofCAATSA. State 

Department's implementation of CAATSA Section 231 sanctions has borne fruit, directly leading 

several countries to forgo billions of dollars in purchases of Russian arms and defense technology, 

imposing real costs for Russia's malign activities. We remain deeply engaged with patiners and 

allies to press for cancellation of planned or negotiated arms purchases from Russia and urge those 

nations that arc historically reliant on old Soviet or Russian defense teclmologies to ramp down 

those programs lo avoid sanctions. 

FY 2019 foreign assistance budget for the lndo-Pacific, encompassing Lhe F--asl Asia-Pacific (EAP) 

and South and Central Asia (SCA) regions, supports U.S. engagement in regional security, 

economic coru1ectivity, good governance and the rules-based order with an aim toward providing 

opportunities for U.S. businesses. It also supports the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN) to "help the organization speak with one voice on China's militarization of the South 

China Sea and North Korea's nuclear provocations. The Indo-Pacific region includes some of 

the most promising markets for U.S. exports as well as some of the most challenging security 

issues: China, Pakistan terr-orism, and the DPRK's m1clear ambitions. Yet, the Trump FY19 

Budget Request proposes a 4 7% cut in funding to this region. Exactly where - to what initiatives 

aml in what accounts - will you be reducing funding? How do you square these cuts with the 

priorities in the President's National Security Strategy which defines these cmmlries as priori tie:>? 

The Depruiment's FY 2019 budget request supports the Administration's Indo-Pacific strategy 

that is based on respect for sovereignty, democratic values, the rule oflaw, open markets, fair and 

reciprocal trading frameworks, freedom of navigation, and private sector-led economic growth. 

The request also fi.mds the strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific by supporting TJ.S. treaty allies, 

emerging strategic partners, and regional institutions to promote shared security interests, 

including strengthening maritime capacities; defending against cybcrattacks; countering violent 

extremism; and tackling transnational crime, and by promoting trade and investment that lusters 

economic opportunities for the American people. The FY 2019 request ret1ects a 10 percent 

increase over our fiscal year 2018 request to support the Administration's Indo-Pacific strategy. 
106


30175d-21.eps

Question: 

Earlier this year, the Administration backtracked on their identified nominee for U.S. Ambassador 

to South Korea reportedly because the would-be nominee expressed concern about the 

Administration's "bloody nose" threats. Still, almost a year and a half into the Administration, we 

have no nominee for this critical post, and our alliance with South Korea suffers because of that 

lack of leadership in these tense times. Why was Mr. Cha not nominated? When will you stop 

this almost endless vacancy from continuing to damage our efforts on the Korean peninsula? 

Answer: 

Admiral Harry Harris is the nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea and I am 

contldent in his ability to execute the duties of that ot11ce. The State Department has a roster of 

capable and experienced diplomats working on Korea policy. As I made clear in my confirmation 

testimony, one of my priorities is filling vacancies in irnporlanl A.mbassadorships and other senior 

positions. 

Does the Administration have or has it ever had a so-called "bloody nose" option under 

consideration- one in which the U.S. would engage in a limited conventional attack on North 

Korean targets? 

Answer: 

My focus when it comes to North Korea is the same as the President's focus: to achieve tlrrough 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. While all options remain on the table, I will not comment on 

hypothetical situations. 

Question: 

If the President chooses to carry out a preventative strike, how do you predict Kim will respond, 

and would we be able to prevent the military escalation of such an action? 

My focus when il comes lo North Korea is the same as the President's focus: lo achieve through 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. While all options remain on the table, I will not comment on 

hypothetical situations. 

What about a preemptive strike? 
107


30175d-22.eps

1 do not want to engage in discussion of hypothetical scenarios. My focus when it comes to North 

Korea is the same as the President's focus: to achieve through peaceful means the complete, 

verifiable, and in·evcrsible denuclea:rization of the Korean Peninsula, including delivery systems. 

In either case, would you advise the President to cmrie to Congress for authorization prior to taking 

such action? 

My focus when it comes to \forth Korea is the same as the President's focus: to achieve through 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. 

I respect Congress's role in authorizing the use of military force and in providing oversight on 

these issues. I also agree with the longstanding view of administrations of both parties that the 

President has the constitutional authority to use military force to support important national 

interests in certain circumstances. The parameters of that authority have been discussed by the 

Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in advising Presidents on the scope of their 

constitutional authorities over time. I will always provide my best advice to the President on the 

appropriate circumstances for the use of force and would consult with legal authorities in doing 

so. 

Do you think that Kim can be deterTed from using the nuclear weapons in his possession? If he 

can be deterred from using these weapons, why would risking a devastating preventative war be 

necessmy? 

My focus when it comes to North Korea is the ;;ame as the President's focus: to achieve through 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korem1 Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. North Korea knows that m1y use of nuclear weapons would be met 

with a devastating response by the United States. 

Question: 

Are you aware of any military option, limited or not, in which the United States can control the 

escalation ladder and avoid mass casualties on the Peninsula? 
108


30175d-23.eps

My locus when it comes to t\mih Korea is the same as the President's focus: to achieve through 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dcnuclcarization of the Korean Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. While aU uplions remain on the table, I will nut comment on 

hypothetical situations. 

Would you ever support a preventative war with North Korea, and if the answer is yes, do you 

think that congressional autl1orization is required prior to such military action? 

My focus when it comes to :\forth Korea is the same as the President's focus: lo achieve through 

peaceful means the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 

including delivery systems. 

I respect Congress's role in authorizing the use of military force and in providing oversight on 

these issues. I also agree with the longstanding view of administrations of both parties that the 

President has the constitutional authority to use military force to support important national 

interests in certain circumstances. The parameters of that authority have been discussed by the 

Justice Department's Oftice of Legal Counsel in advising Presidents on the scope of their 

constitutional authorities over time. I will always provide my best advice to the President on the 

appropriate circumstances for the use of force and would consult with legal authorities in doing 

so. 

Question: 

By August of this year, will you make a determination as to what, if any, human rights violations 

may have occtmed in Rakhine state in addition to ethnic cleansing? 

The Rakhine State crisis is a devastming human tragedy. Concluding that genocide, crimes against 

humanity, or ethnic cleansing have been committed is one of the most serious matters a Secretary 

of State may undertake, and such a conclusion is made only after a thorough review of the available 

facts and relevant legal analysis. 

Question: 

Will you make such evidence, reports or information as you use to make this determination public? 

Will you provide a copy of such evidence to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs? 
109


30175d-24.eps

Answer: 

The Department relies on a variety of open and confidential sources to ascertain facts· on the 

ground. The Department would need to first review this information and consider the sensitivity 

of sources before deciding what infonnation to make public or share beyond the Department. 

What is the status of the $200 million in stabilization assistance to areas of Syria liberated from 

ISIS? 

In line with the President's request to review all bilateral foreign assistance for Syria, we 

conti~ually reevaluate stabilization assistance levels and how they might best be used. This review 

includes the $200 million in stabilization assistance announced at the Defeat-ISIS Coalition 

Ministerial in Kuwait in February 2018. We do this review on an ongoing basis, as we do 

elsewhere around lhe world. Our objedive in lhese reviews is lo emure lhat our assistance is 

targeted, effective, and set at the appropriate level. 

In your response to Mr. Boyle, you indicated that the funds are under review and that you were 

looking for others to step in, yet these projects are the definition ofburden sharing. for some 

projects held under review, the United States isn't even the biggest donor. But, our funds do make 

a ditference. Our allies have begged the United States to liil the hold on this funding, since the 

lack of stabilization can lead to chaos for Syria's neighbors, like Jordan, Lcbauon and Israel. 

Which exact projects are tUrder review? What is the limeline lo condude the review? 

In line with the President's request to review all bilateral foreign assistance for Syria, we 

continually reevaluate stabilization assistance levels and how they might best be used. The 

President has also made clear that, as we move forward, the Administration will continue to ask 

the international community and our partners in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to take a 

greater role in stabilizing liberated areas of Syria. 

Question: 

Why did the State Department cut the assistance progrmn to Northern Syria? 

Answer: 

In line with the President's request to review all bilateral foreign assistance for Syria, we 

continually reevaluate stabilization assistance levels and how best they might be utilized. We have 

decided to transition certain C. S. assistauce efforts in northwest Syria over the coming months to 
110


30175d-25.eps

enhance our focus on efforts to the defeat ISIS campaign in the no1iheast and to stabilize areas 

liberated from ISIS. 

Y omen is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. Yemen was not a stable place 

betore the civil war, and there is clearly no military solution to this conflict. How do you plrn1 to 

help bring about a political solution to the crisis in Yemen? 

The Administration strongly supports and is working closely with UN Special Envoy to Yemen 

Martin Griffiths to revive political negotiations on an accelerated timeline. Our support is not 

passive. I, along with Secretary Mattis and senior \\'hite House officials, have met with the Special 

Envoy. I offered him our full support and will continue to engage with key regional partners, 

including the Saudis and Emiratis, to reinforce the Envoy's work. All sides, including the Houthis, 

will have to make compromises in order to reach a political solution. 

For the last several months, U.S. assistance for the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza has been 

on hold and under review. What is the goal of this review, and when do you expect to conclude 

it? What issues is the review working to address? 

Answer: 

The Administration routinely conducts a review of our foreign assistance in order to ensure it is 

meeting our national security interests, achieving our policy objectives, and providing value to 

U.S. taxpayers. The Department of State looks forward to briefing Congress on the conclusions 

of the review. 

Humanitarian assistance, democracy assistance and people-to-people exchanges in the West Bank 

and Gaza have been on hold because of this review. The World Food Program is expected lo run 

out of money to feed people in the West Rank at the end of the month and in Gaza at the end of 

next month. What U.S. interests are served by holding up humanitarian assistance, democracy 

assistance and people-to-people assistance? 

Answer: 

No decision has yet been reached on U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, which is under review. 

will ensure that Congress is briefed on the conclusions of that review when it is complete. 
111


30175d-26.eps

Question: 

Recently, the Israeli government announced that an agreement had been reached between Israel 

and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to resettle, over the course of five years, 

at least half of the African asylum seekers in Israel, deporting them to Western conntries. However, 

within a few hours the agreement was suspended, then cancelled, and now these asylum seekers 

are in limbo. What is the status of the agreement? 

There is not currently an agreement between UNHCR and the Israeli government related to African 

migrants in Israel. 

Does the United States have a position on how the Government of Israel should treat African 

asylum seekers'' Does the United States have a position on the agreement between UNHCR and 

the Israeli government? 

The United States has long been a world leader in advocating for humanitarian assistance and 

protection for refugees and displaced popnlations. The Department of State seeks to promote 

protection, ease snfi:ering, and resolve the plight of refugees and displaced populations around the 

world. 

There is not currently an agreement between UNHCR and the Israeli government related to African 

migrants in Israel 

Will the United States commit to assisting Israel in resettling Afi·ica:n asylum seekers? 

Answer: 

The Department of State seeks to promote protection, ease suffering, and resolve the plight of 

refugees and displaced populations around the world. The United States resettled 175 refugees 

coming from Israel in FY 2017, primarily Eritreans. In FY 2018, the United States has resettled 

89 individuals coming from Israel as of.'vfay 23. We continue to accept referrals from L-:NHCR 

and anticipate doing so in the fhture. 

U.S. civilian personnel are operating in Iraq with no legal, security or economic protections. U.S. 

civilians working in Iraq, even those supporting the COUllter-ISIS mission, are vulnerable under 

the ~um:nt diplomatic note and exposed io the whims of the host government. C.S. contractors 

have experienced harassment to pay arbitrary taxes on l\.merican-based contracts and challenges 
112


30175d-27.eps

to obtaining visas and movement authorities for mission-critical staff, equipment and supplies. 

\V1mt is the State Department doing to address these concerns? 

The 2014 diplomatic note exchange with the Iraqi government provides civilian employees of DoD 

supporting the Defeat-ISIS mission privileges and immunities eqtlivalent to those enjoyed by 

members of the administrative and technical staff of the U.S. diplomatic mission. Just as in any 

other country, U.S. govermnent contractors in Iraq are subject to local laws. including taxes. 

Embassy Baghdad engages Iraqi government officials to ensure fair and equal treatment of U.S. 

companies under applicable laws and regulations, and has successfully negotiated faster 

processing of contractor residency visas and deliveries of food, fuel, and other essential supplies. 

In December, your predecessor stated that the health incidents that our personnel have Jealt with 

in Cuba were "targeted attacks." Yet, according to press rep01ts, no one- including the FBI- has 

been able to prove what happened and who, if anyone, is culpable. What specific evidence can 

you point to that shows that these health incidents were "targeted attacks?" Have there been any 

additional verified health incidents for U.S. personnel in Havana since August 2017? 

There is still much we do not know about the health attacks in Cuba. No cause or culprit behind 

these attacks has been identified to date. Despite the inability to identify a specific attacker or 

mechanism of injury, the fact pattern of these reports indicated lhal the attacks appeared to be 

targeted at the U.S. diplomatic community. The investigation into various aspects of this matter 

is ongoing. 

What will it take for the State Department's travel warning on Cuba to be reversed? 

The Level 3 Travel Advisory (reconsider travel), updated on March 2, 2018, is based on om 

assessment of the risk to travelers to Cuba - risks that were of such serious concern that we 

withdrew all but non-emergency personnel and family members from Cuba. As a result, we have 

limited ability to assist U.S. citizens with emergencies, particularly outside of Havana. We 

continue to investigate the cause of the injuries to U.S. personnel in Cuba. When we are confident 

it is safe ±or U.S. citizens to travel to Cnba and that we have the resources to assist U.S. citizens 

with emergencies, we will update the Travel Advisory, as appropriate. 

As a result of the staff reduction at the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, the Trump Administration is 

extremely unlikely to meet our commitment under a 1994 immigration agreement with Cuba to 
113


30175d-28.eps

issue a minimum of 20,000 travel documents. 'Ibis impacts average Cubans who seek to come to 

the United States. At llw same time, in a recent ProPublica article, prominent Cuban dissident 

Marta Beatriz Roque said that the U.S. withdrawal had already had a "dramatic" impact on human 

rights advocates on the island, all but eliminating their access to American diplomats and making 

il much more difficult for dissidents to travel to the U.S. She said, "Basically, I would say the 

interaction with the U.S. Embassy right now for us is at a level of zero. The embassy is not getting 

the information it needs aboutthe human rights situation in Cuba. Our contact before was frequent. 

Now there is no contact." What impact has the U.S. diplomatic downsizing had on our human 

rights work in Cuba and our ability to process visas? 

Despite Embassy Havana's limited staffing, we continue to monitor and advance lnunan rights 

developments in Cuba, consistent with the June 2017 National Security Presidential.Memorandum 

on Strengthening the Policy ofthe United States Toward Cuba. We raise our concerns with the 

Cuban government and in international fora, and, along with the U.S. Agency for Inlemalional 

Development, administer the annual Congressional appropriation of economic support funds 

supp01ting democracy programs in Cuba. The Department also continues to call out the Cuban 

regime's enduring repression of its citizens aml its recent w!democratic leadership transition. Due 

to the drawdom1, only diplomatic nonimmigrant visa applications and nonimmigrant cases for 

applicants with life-threatening illness may be processed at U.S. Embassy Havana. We anticipate 

scheduling immigrant visa interviews for Cuban nationals at TJ.S. Embassy Georgetown, Guyana, 

beginning in June. We support efforts by Cuban h11man rights defenders to obtain non-immigrant 

visas outside of Cuba 

Question: 

Have Y9U established criteria to detenninc when you will re-staff the embassy? When exactly will 

you re-staff the U.S. Embassy in Cuba? 

Answer: 

The Department is reviewing the threat situation presented by the health attacks against our 

diplomats in Havana. Once this review is complete, we can assess the staffing situation at Embassy 

Havana. A government-wide effort to find the cause behind the health attacks continues, as does 

the FBI criminal investigation. We continue to seek assurances from the Cuban governrnent to 

resolve the threat to U.S. persons in Cuba- assurances which the Cuban government has declined 

to provide to date. 

In the meantime, how are you maintaining critical monitoring of human rights? 

Despite Embassy Havana's limited staffing, we have continued to support human rights defenders 

on the island, consistent with the Jnne 2017 National Security Presidential Memorandum on 
114


30175d-29.eps

Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (NSPM). We monitor human rights 

developments in Cuba, continue to raise our serious concems directly with the Cuban government 

and in international fora, and along with the U.S. Agency for International Development, 

administer the annual congressional appropriation of economic support funds supporting critical 

democracy programs in Cuba. 

According to press reports, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research was forced to cancel an 

analytic panel on Cuba and the leadership of its n.ew president, because its participants held 

analytical views that leaned too far towards engagement. Is this true? How can the INR Bureau 

effectively do its job if it is not given the freedom to listen to all points of view? 

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) is working to reschedule the event at a later date 

with a broad cross section of outside views on the issue at hand. 

The event is one of roughly a hundred <malylic exchanges !hal INR facilitates for 

U.S. policymakers every year on a wide variety oftoreign policy and national security challenges. 

These analytic exchanges are fully consistent with IC Directive 205: Analytic Outreach, which 

mandates all Intelligence Community elements to conduct analytic outreach by engaging with 

individuals or organizations outside the Intelligence Community to explore ideas and alternative 

perspectives, gain insights, or generate new knowledge. 

Last year, Mexico faced its most violent year on record, with more than 29,000 homicides 

documented nationwide. On top of this, with only 2 percent of crimes ending in convidion, 

Mexico ranked fourth on the 2017 Global Impunity Index, and first out of Latin American 

countries. Such widespread violence and impm1ity is exacerbated and, in many cases, can only be 

made posoible by l'OHuption. At least 14 former or current governors are currently under 

investigation for com1ption, some of them tor colluding with the organized crime groups that are 

largely responsible for rising violence. How should the United States engage with Mexico on 

these issues? What are your priorities for C.S. cooperation with Mexico? 

Answer: 

Tluough the Merida Initiative, we maintain strong cooperation with Mexico to disrupt 

transnational criminal organizations, combat the heroin-fentanyl epidemic, enhance border 

security to address iuegular migration and trafficking in illicit goods, and build Mexico's capacity 

to investigate and prosecute crime. Our Merida funding is directed to these key priorities, 

identified jointly by our governments, and complements Mexico's invesunent in its own security. 

We emphasize disrupting the business models of transnational criminal organizations, which 

includes disrupting illicit revenue flows. Our cooperation strengthens Mexican institutions and 

the rule of law, increases transparency, and promotes strong communities to deter recruitment by 

transnational criminal organizations. 
115


30175d-30.eps

Corruption has had an enormous impact on democratic institutions and the rule of law in Central 

America. The United Nations International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIO) 

and the Organization of American States Support 'v!ission against Corruption and Impunity in 

Honduras (MACCIH) are playing a critical role in stemming conuption and impunity in these 

countries. Will you commit to maintaining continued U.S. political support for CICIO and 

MACCTH? 

I am committed to providing support for efforts to combat cmruption in Central America. The 

mission of organizations such as the UN International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala 

(CICIO) and the OAS Mission Against Con-uption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH) is 

important to countering corruption and impunity in Guatemala and Honduras. The Department, 

USAID, and the C.S. Mission to the United Nations (USUN) have met to discuss retorm options 

to ensure appropriate oversight, accountability and transparency, which I look forward to 

reviewing. I am committed to working with Members of Congress to ensure appropriate oversight 

and reform of CICIG and MACClH to ensure they can accomplish their mission to combat 

corruption and impunity in Guatemala and Honduras. 

How would you support and strengthen the efforts of these hybrid mechanisms and how would 

you help ensme the full cooperation of the Guatemalan and Honduran governments? 

I will encourage the Guatemalan and Honduran govemments to support the important missions of 

the UN International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIO) and OAS Mission 

Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH), respectively. These govenunents have 

an opportunity to dismantle the con·uptionnetworks that hinder their countries' ability to increase 

economic opportunities for all sectors of society and improve trnst in public institutions to provide 

government services. As we work closely on the challenges of conuption and impunity, it is 

critical that there are appropriate accountability and refonn structures in place to ensure 

organizations, such as ClClG and MACCIH, operate within their specific mandate and according 

to the rule oflaw. 

Question: 

ProPublica has reported on two specific incidents in Mexico involving State Department-funded 

and DEA-trained Sensitive Investigative Units (SICs). First, in March 2011, gtmmen from Los 

Zetas invaded the 'vfexican town of Allende, forty minutes from tha U.S. Mexico border, 

murdering between 60 and 300 civilians. This attack was sparked by a Mexican Federal Police 

sn; investigation aimed at taking down leaders from Los Zetas. A member of rhe STIJ reportedly 

leaked information on these etlorts, and the Zetas leaders ordered the attack on Allende as revenge 
116


30175d-31.eps

on the individuals who had given information to the SIU in the first place. Despite the :tact that the 

unit had a poor record ofkeepiug intelligence out of the hands of criminals, DEA agents in Mexico 

City allegedly passed information to the SIU which led to this tragic chain of events. Separately, 

in April2010, individuals from Los Zetas stormed a Holiday Inn in Monterrey and took hostage 

five individuals who have not been seen since. At the time, the DEA and the SilT were carrying 

out an operation from the hotel but switched to a different hotel the night before the attack. Four 

hotel guests and a hotel manager were reportedly mistaken as SlU members and kidnapped. 

According to ProPublica, SIC members "used personal credit cards to secure their rental cars and 

hotel rooms," making it easy for the individuals from Los Zetas to track them dmvn. What was the 

role ofthe State Department and the DEA in the Allende and MonteiTey incidents? Was there any 

reporting by the State Department or DEA to headquarters and/or senior officials at the 

Departments of State and Justice following each of these incidents? 

I understand that these questions were submitted to the DIG and they are currently reviewing the 

request. The Department will fully cooperate with any inquiry by the DIG on this matter. 

\Vhat practices, if any, were changed by INL or the DEA in Mexico or globally as a result of the 

SID's aclivilies? 

I understand that these questions were submitted to the DIG and they are currently reviewing the 

request. The Department will fully cooperate with any inquiry by the OIG on this matter. 

What was the chain of custody of the information that was passed to the SilT in each of these 

inddenls? Who approved passing this information to the SIU? 

I understand that these questions were submitted to the OIG and they are currently reviewing the 

request. The Department will fully cooperate with any inquiry by the OIG on this matter. 

The Allende tragedy was precipitated by the leak of sensitive information provided to the DEA by 

a local source. Tlris infonnation was then shared by DEA with an SIU whose conunander was 

rumored to have connections to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. T understand that the 

Mexican goverrunent refuses to allow U.S. vetting of co111!11anders of these SIUs. Should the U.S. 

government share information vl'ith SIUs if we are unable to vet their leadership? 
117


30175d-32.eps

Answer: 

I 1mderstand that these questions were submitted to the OIG and they are currently reviewing the 

request. The Department vvill fully cooperate with any inquiry by the OIG on this matter. 

Question: 

Did the State Dcpmtmcnt, DEA or any other U.S. government agency provide compensation or at 

least an explanation to any of the families of the victims of these incidents? "IN1Jat steps could the 

Departments of State and Justice take to ensure greater accountability for the DEA when im10cent 

civilians are harmed as a result of its operations? 

I understaJJd that these questions were submitted to the OIG and they are currently reviewing the 

request. The Department will fully cooperate with any inquiry by the OTG on this matter. 

During your confirmation hearing, you committed to enforce our treaties with Russia. What are 

you doing to curtail Russia's cheating on its international conunitments a11d encourage it to return 

to compliance? 

The Administration takes its arms control obligations seriously &'1d expects the same from all 

ofuers. This includes taking active measures to enforce compliance when other parties are in 

violation of their arms control obligations. The Administration is pursuing diplomatic engagement 

with Russia to pressure it to return to compliance with its Treaty obligations, closely coordinating 

and sharing information with regional allies and partners. For example, the Administration is 

implementing its Integrated Strategy in response to Russia's violation of the TNF Treaty. In concert 

\vith diplomatic eff01ts, the Administration is also pursuing economic and military response 

measures to impose costs on Russia for its ongoing violation and place the United States in a 

stronger position to defend itself and its allies aJJd partner& should Russia iail to retmn to 

compliance. This includes a review of military concepts and options, including options for 

conventional, ground-launched, intem1ediate-range missile systems, which would enable the 

United States to defend itself and our allies, should the Russian Federation not return to 

compliance. 

The 1\ord Strea:m2 pipeline is a bad deal for the Europem1 Union, Ukraine, m1d the future of the 

NATO Alliance. During your confinnation hearing, you indicated that you would use every tool 

in your disposal to ensure that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not built. Cm1 you please provide a 

status update of these discussions? 
118


30175d-33.eps

We continue to work with allies and partners, both thrm1gh diplomatic engagement and public 

diplomacy efforts, to oppose "lord Stream 2. The President has raised the issue publicly and 

privately with European heads of state and I have raised U.S. government concerns about the 

project with several European interlocutors. The State Department continues to encourage likeminded partners and allies to use the legal and regulatory tools at their disposal - both EU 

legislation and regulations and the legislation and regulations of individual states- to scrutinize 

the project. Due to our engagement, representatives of allied governments in increasing numbers, 

including recently the United Kingdom and Canada, have raised their nations' concerns about the 

project publicly. 

The Slate Department fully supports the proposed amendment to the EU's Gas Directive which 

would apply EU law tully to the Nord Stt·eam 2 project and other gas transit pipelines entering 

Europe. The passage of legislation by Denmark's parliament that requires the Danish government 

to screen energy investments, including offshore pipelines, according to ihe foreign, security, and 

defense interests of Denmark is also an important development. 

Please provide the Committee a detailed update on where we stand on additiDnal security 

assistance and anns transfer plans for both countries. How are you coordinating this effort with 

the Defense Department and ensuring that adequate training as well as maintenance and spare pmis 

are available to Ukrainim1 and Georgim1 soldiers? 

The United States will continue to assist Ukraine and Georgia in defending their sovereignty and 

territorial integrity by building the capacity of their respective armed forces to deter Russian 

aggression and to enhance overall border aud internal security. US. assistance will continue to 

support defense reform, force modernization, institutional training capacity, military 

professionalization, and equipment upgrades and sustaimhent. In late 2017, the President 

authorized the provision and sale of the Javelin anti-tan.k missile system to Ukraine and Georgia, 

respectively. Regarding future assistance, we continue to evaluate the specific capability needs of 

the Ukrainian and Georgian armed forces, to include training, maintenance, and spare pmis, in 

collaboration with the partner governments. We regularly collaborate with the Department of 

Defense and tl1e U.S. European Conm1and to ensure that U.S. assistance and arms sales are 

appropriate and effective. The Department of State will provide additional details regarding 

security assistance and arms sales to Ukraine and Georgia to the appropriate Congressional 

committees as part of the Congressional Notit1cation process and my staff will he happy to provide 

additional briefings if desired. 

Georgia's leaders have consistently driven the com1try down a path to bring it closer to the EU and 

NATO. They need America's hdp now lo keep the momentum going in the fa<.:e of :,iguificant 

regional challenges, including Russia's aggression and continued illegal occupation of Georgia's 
119


30175d-34.eps

territory. What is the State Department doing to increase efforts to support Georgia's integration 

with the West? Whttt steps ttre being taken lo demonstrate U.S. political ami security commitments 

to Georgia? 

I strongly support Georgia's EU and NATO integration, the country's democratic and 

economic development, and its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its intcmationally 

recognized borders. On May 21, the Georgian Prime Minister and I convened the seventh Strategic 

Partnership Commission plenary, where we discussed our already strong cooperation and ways we 

can best support Georgia's Western integration through strengthened trade and investment ties and 

strategic messaging to combat Russian malign influence. The United States c<Jnsistently advocates 

for Georgia's integration into '\JATO and we look forward to a NATO Summit in July that 

recognizes Georgia's progress toward membership. The Department utilizes all of the tools at its 

disposal to help Georgia build further resilience to Russian aggression and propaganda and to 

promote effective, democratic governance and economic prosperity. This requires a focus on rule 

of Jaw, an independent judiciary, political and media pluralism, accountable governance, and a 

level playing field for U.S. investors. It also requires support to a free media and a strong civil 

society. Through the recently-announced Georgia Defense Readiness Program, U.S. assistance b 

helping to strengthen Georgia's self-defense capabilities through training and institutional 

development. 

Question: 

The President, after nearly 1.5 years in office, has yet to name an Ambassador to the European 

Union. Why not? \\'hen will the Ambassador be nominated? 

On May 10, the 1\'hite House nominated Gordon D. Sondland to be the U.S. Ambassador to the 

European Union. W c believe Mr. Sondland will be an outstanding representative to the European 

Union for the United States and look iorward to his swift confirmation so he can connuence the 

important work of our mission there. 

Is the Administration expressing concern to Belgrade about its statements and actions tilting to 

Moscow? 

The United States strongly supports Serbia's European integration path and to helping Serbia make 

progress towards its stated goal of membership in the European Union. We would like to see that 

progress accelerate going forward. We recognize that Serbia has sought to "balance"' its 

relationships vvith the West and with Russia. We have not hesitated to call out actions and issues 

that concern us and that, frankly, should also concern Serbia. In particular, we have noted that 

Russia may use the Russia11-Serbian Humanitarian Center inNis for purposes beyond those that 
120

f


30175d-35.eps

could be deemed humanitarian. EU accession is the best framework for Serbia to develop as a 

stable, inclusive democracy and reliable partner for Western priorities. We believe Serbia is 

collllllitted to this path, and we will work with those who share this goal to get there. 

Are we demanding that President Vucic make good on his promises to the most senior US officials 

to bring to justice the murderers of the US citizen Bytyci brothers at the end of the Kosovo War? 

I share your disappointment with Serbia's lack of progress toward securing justice for the Bytyqi 

family. Administration officials in Washington and in Serbia have raised this case repeatedly with 

Serbian officials at the highest levels of govenunent, including Serbian President Aleksandar 

Vucic. The State Department also maintains regular contact with the Bytyqi family. In March, 

Embassy Belgrade facilitated meetings between the Bytyqi family and government officials, 

including Serbia's Minister of Justice, Serbia's War Crimes Prosecutor, and the Chief of Serbia's 

War Crimes Investigation Police. We will continue to press for progress on the case as well as 

raise Serbia's obligations lo resolve remaining cases related to !he conflicts in the Balkans in 

cooperation l'<ith neighboring countries and the UN Mechanism for International Criminal 

Tribunals. 

Does the Deparh11ent of State intend to continue funding critical humanitarian demining and UXO 

removal programs in Kosovo at levels consistent with, or greater than FY17 funding given the 

budget authority by Congress in FY 19? .If not, does the Department intend to close demining and 

UXO removal programs in Kosovo and how does the Depattment justifY closing any of these 

pmgran1s which represent key diplomatic tools, promote security, stability and economic growth, 

decrease the risk oftenmism, atld counter Chinese and Russian influence in these regions? 

Answer: 

The L'nited States remains committed to assisting the government of Kosovo with demining and 

unexploded ordinance (UXO) removal. UXO remediation efforts in Kosovo are funded through 

the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs subaccount tor 

Conventional Weapons Destruction (NADR-CWD). This assistance tocuses on further stabilizing 

Kosovo, recovering land for productive usc, solidifying Kosovo's territorial integrity, and 

supporting the resettlement of populations, \\'hile the Department does not presently have a 

dedicated NADR-CWD bilateral operating unit for Kosovo, there is an ongoing program which 

has benefitted in recent years from centrally managed and reprogrammed funds. We will continue 

to examine all options to extend current L'XO clearance efforts into CY 2019, including by 

reviewing the availability of global, regional, and prior-year NADR-CWD funding levels. 
121


30175e-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Christopher Smith 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

Last October, the Vice President announced the Administration would direct assistance to 

Christians, Y azidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities ISIS targeted for genocide and other 

atrocity crimes. The foundation of this policy was to be tunding indigenous Iraqi entities aiding 

these communities on-the-ground- a shift from the previous Administration's policy of ignoring 

these communities and the indigenous groups helping them. What is the State Department doing 

to ensure groups already working on the ground with strong ties to the genocide-relief community 

are receiving funds from the State Department and USAID? 

Answer: 

The United States is committed to assisting the world's vulnerable minorities, including religious 

and ethnic minorities. Since FY 2014, the U.S. government has provided more than $1.7 billion 

to address the humanitarian needs in Iraq resulting from the conflict against ISIS, and a significant 

amount has gone to contlict-atiected members of minority communities. With FY 2017 tunds, 

more than $100 million was committed to benefit these communities, including programs that 

promote respect for human rights, stabilization, and conflict mitigation. In FY 2017, the U.S. 

government has obligated over $60 million to help clear the unprecedented level of explosive 

hazards left by ISIS in Iraq, including in the Ninewa Plains. We are fulfilling Vice President 

Pence's promise to fund new initiatives with outside parties to assist persecuted minorities in Iraq. 

Question: 

Congress, since 2012, has regularly requested a State Department report detailing the true number 

ofPalestinian refugees displaced between 1946 and 1948 in order to properly distine,>uish between 

the authentic base population of refugees and their descendants. In contrast to the United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 

Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) explicitly confers retugee status on the descendants 

of refugees. This UNRWA policy inflates the numbers of individuals dependent on UN services 

and perpetuates an unrealistic hope of returning to Israeli territory. The Obama Administration in 

2015 finally complied with the Congressionally mandated report, but submitted it in classified 

form, precluding an open debate about the merits of UNRWA's approach. Will the State 

Department, under your leadership, declassify this report? If not, please provide an explanation 

for the continued classification. 

Answer: 

I understand that the Department of State provided to Congress in 2015 the report requested in 

Senate Report 113-195. Public infonnation was not sufilcient to address all of the elements of the 

report; therefore, the State Department utilized non-public information to compile the 2015 report. 
122


30175e-2.eps

We are in the process of reviewing that classification determination and will be sure to keep 

Congress informed on our determination. 

Question: 

In response to a Congressional inquiry, the Government Accountability Otl!ce, last month, 

released a report on lJNRW A's use of textbooks containing extremist messaging. Regrettably, the 

GAO report titled "West Bank and Gaza State Monitors Textbook Content but Should Improve 

Its Reporting'' (GA0-18-227C) was classified, hampering a public debate about its findings. GAO 

has stated that State Department required classification of the report. What role, if any, did the 

State Department play in this classification decision? 

Answer: 

The US. Government Accountability Oflice (GAO) notified the State Department in February 

2017 that a report had been requested relating to US.-funded education assistance in the West 

Bank and Gaza and requested information from the Department. The Department cooperated tully 

with the GAO and provided relevant information; some of the information provided to the GAO 

was classified. The GAO issued its report, "West Bank and Gaza: State Monitors Textbook 

Content but Should Improve its Reporting to Congress" on April 26, 2018, which contains some 

of the classified information and, therefore, certain portions of the report are classified. The State 

Department has accepted all of the recommendations issued by the GAO. 

Question: 

In response to a Congressional inquiry, the Government Accountability Office, last month, 

released a report on UNRWA's use of textbooks containing extremist messaging. Regrettably, the 

GAO report titled "West Bank and Gaza State Monitors Textbook Content but Should Improve 

Its Reporting" (GA0-18-227C) was classified, hampering a public debate about its tindings. GAO 

has stated that State Department required classification of the report. Will the State Department, 

under your leadership, reconsider its request to declassify the GAO report? If not, please provide 

an explanation for the continued classification. 

Answer: 

The GAO issued its report, ''West Bank and Gaza: State Monitors Textbook Content but Should 

Improve its Reporting to Congress" on April26, 2018, which contains some classified information 

provided by the State Department in response to the GAO's requests for information, and, 

therefore, certain portions of the report are classified. The Department would be happy to otTer a 

classified brieting for Members of Congress or their statl' on the classified elements of the report. 

Question: 

There is currently a congressional hold on $6 million of funds which were supposed to have been 

dispensed from the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account to the 

International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). I strongly support such a hold, 
123


30175e-3.eps

which grew out of a hearing I chaired at the Helsinki Commission last month that uncovered bad 

acts by CICIG under the extremely questionable leadership of CICIG's Commissioner, Ivan 

Velazquez. Among other things, Velazquez allowed CICIG to be used as an instrument ofRussia' s 

Kremlin-controlled VTB Bank to persecute a Russian family, the Bitkovs. Velazquez is 

compromised and can no longer serve in his position. USUN as well as I believe the International 

Organizations Bureau at State also supports this hold, as it provides leverage to help enact 

meaningful oversight and accountability reforms at CICIG; career bureaucrats, principally at 

Western Hemisphere Affairs are nonetheless seeking to thwart Congressional oversight. Will you 

support Congress and the political leadership at State who have been tasked with upholding the 

Administration's policy objectives- in this case, reform of a wayward UN-created supranational 

entity- by maintaining the hold in the face of pressure from career bureaucrats at State? 

Answer: 

I am committed to working with Congress to ensure appropriate oversight and reform of CICIG 

so as to ensure it can accomplish its mission to combat corruption and impunity in Guatemala. 

Question: 

It has been a very bad year for human rights in Vietnam. President Trump reportedly did not raise 

human rights concerns during his visit to Vietnam and there is unwarranted enthusiasm from some 

in other agencies because of the Vietnamese government's stated concerns about China's 

encroachments in the South China Sea. Given the historic relationship between Hanoi and Beijing 

and geographic proximity, it is strategically risky for the U.S. to assume that the Communist 

government of Vietnam can ever be a reliable partner in a free and open Indo-Pacific region, 

however. Vietnam has one of Asia's worst human rights records, with some of world's highest 

restrictions on expression, Internet, religion, and labor advocacy. Given the growing scope of 

U.S.-Vietnam relations, siloing human rights discussions to an annual Human Rights Dialogue is 

insutlicient and counterproductive, particularly given that the Vietnamese government has made 

some improvements on U.S. concerns when they are linked to economic and security cooperation. 

How will the State Department link human rights and rule of law advances to U.S strategic and 

economic interests with Vietnam, particularly given that the government has made tangible 

changes in the past when pressed (religious freedom & CPC/labor agreement & TPP)? 

Answer: 

Human rights are an important pillar of our multi-faceted Comprehensive Partnership with 

Vietnam, which is a key element of the President's free and open Indo-Pacific stratet\Y During his 

November 2017 trip to Vietnam, the President and Vietnamese leaders "recognized the importance 

of protecting and promoting human rights." I am deeply troubled by the trend of increased arrests, 

convictions, and harsh sentences of peaceful activists in Vietnam, and will ensure that we continue 

to raise our concerns at all levels, including--but not limited to--our annual human rights dialot,>ue. 

Only sustained progress on human rights, including religious freedom and labor rights, will allow 

the U.S.-Vietnam relationship to reach its full potential. 
124


30175e-4.eps

Question: 

Further, how will human rights be integrated into the Administration's free and open Indo-Pacific 

region policy-there seem to be more detailed and tangible trade and security policies in placewill there be detailed and tangible human rights policies and goals put in place? 

Answer: 

Supporting democracy, good governance, and human rights is a top priority for the Administration 

and a core component of the Indo-Pacific strategy. In engagement across the region, including at 

the highest levels, we constantly stress the importance of an active civil society, protection of 

human rights and fundamental freedoms, and respect for the rule of law. We are also continuing 

to work with likeminded governments and NGO partners to sustain and expand programs to 

support embattled civil society organizations and provide them with the resources they need to 

continue their vital work. 

Question: 

Would you agree that countries that abuse of the rights and freedoms of their own citizens are 

those most like to oppose U.S. interests and are unlikely to be a trust partner with the U.S.? 

Answer: 

Absolutely. It is no accident that the worst human rights violators and abusers are generally also 

America's rivals and competitors. Promoting human rights is clearly in the best interests of the 

United States. Societies that respect human rights and the rule of law are more stable, and make 

better allies. As laid out in the President's speech at the UN General Assembly last September 

and in the National Security Strategy, this administration is strongly committed to human rights 

Question: 

Would you agree that research and experience has shown that where there is more religious 

freedom, there is more economic freedom, more women's empowerment, more political stability, 

more freedom of speech, and less terrorism? Thus, it would seem like a robust religious freedom 

policy would require a "whole of government" approach. What is the State Department doing now 

to create a robust religious treedom diplomacy that is integrated into US interests in stability, 

peace, and economic development? 

Answer: 

I agree that research has shown that more respect for religious treedom correlates strongly to a 

host of social benetits, including economic prosperity, women's empowerment, political stability, 

increased respect for treedom of expression, and less terrorism. A growing body of research 

reveals that when people are tree to live their lives according to their conscience, they are less 

likely to resort to violent forms of redress and are more likely to be socially productive. It is for 

this reason that I have empowered the Department's Otlice of International Religious Freedom to 
125


30175e-5.eps

work closely with other government agencies to better inform all aspects of our foreign policy. 

Our upcoming Ministerial on Advancing Religious Freedom in July will also serve to rally world 

leaders and civil society around this important priority so like-minded countries can work together 

and speak as one to promote this universal freedom worldwide. 

Qnestion: 

How is the State Department working to integrate religious freedom issues within our economic 

and security interests? 

Answer: 

As I said when I submitted the recent International Religious Freedom report, "The United States 

will not stand by as a spectator. We will get in the ring and stand in solidarity with every individual 

who seeks to enjoy the most fundamental of human rights." This Administration has made 

promoting religious freedom a priority, and we cannot make it so without integrating these 

concerns into our economic and security efiorts. I can report that Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback has already met with counterparts at the 

Department of Defense and US AID to explore how to integrate religious freedom concerns into 

our defense and development strategies. We are determining how best to bring religious freedom 

to the forefront in these other foreign policy arenas and we will seek out partnerships from across 

the government on this key administration goal. 

Question: 

The Administration should be given credit for the maximum pressure policy on North Korea, 

which brought about the safe release of three American hostages. With regard to any future US.-

North Korea summit: 

Is it appropriate to also discuss the permanent closure of North Korea's infamous prison labor 

camps and the release of an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 political and religious prisoners? 

Answer: 

Our commitment to achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the 

Korean Peninsula does not negate our resolve to press the North Korean government to respect the 

fundamental freedoms and human rights of all individuals within its borders. Our strategy to 

promote human rights in North Korea focuses on three core objectives, including increasing 

international awareness; expanding access to information, voices of freedom and democracy, and 

visibility into the world outside; and promoting accountability for those responsible for human 

rights violations and abuses in North Korea. As such, we will continue to press the North Korean 

government to respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all individuals within its 

borders, including the dismantlement of the political prison camp system and unconditional release 

of all political prisoners. 
126


30175e-6.eps

Question: 

Have you raised these issues in your discussion with Kim Jong-un? 

Answer: 

As I mentioned in my testimony, the issues surrounding human rights concerns in North Korea 

have been raised directly between me and Chairman Kim. These concerns will continue to be part 

of the discussions as we move forward. The North Korean government's human rights violations 

and abuses are among the worst in the world. Our commitment to achieving the complete, 

verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula does not negate our resolve 

to press the North Korean government to respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of 

all individuals within its borders. We will continue to press the DPRK regarding its abysmal 

human rights record. 

Question: 

Will the U.S. condition any assistance or diplomatic recognition or the lifting of individual 

sanctions on North Korean otlicials on whether Kim Jong-un closes what are often described as 

"concentration camps" in North Korea? 

Answer: 

The United States and North Korea have been holding direct talks in preparation for a summit A 

comprehensive, whole-of-government effort in support of the President is underway. We are not 

interested in granting concessions for every North Korean action and we will maintain the pressure 

campaign until North Korea denuclearizes. 

The North Korean government's human rights violations and abuses are among the worst in the 

world. Our commitment to achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization 

of the Korean Peninsula does not negate our resolve to press the North Korean government to 

respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all individuals within its borders. 

Question: 

What will be the Administration's policy on dealing with human rights, retugee, and humanitarian 

issues moving forward? 

Answer: 

The United States remains deeply concerned about the well-being of the North Korean people. 

Governments that respect the rights of their citizens remain the best vehicle for prosperity, security, 

and peace. Our strategy to promote human rights in North Korea focuses on three core objectives, 

including increasing international awareness; expanding access to information, voices of treedom 

and democracy, and visibility into the world outside; and promoting accountability for those 

responsible for human rights violations and abuses in North Korea. We also continue to press all 

governments in the region to respect the principle ofnon-refoulement and to provide protection to 
127


30175e-7.eps

North Korean asylum seekers. In doing so, we work closely with and continue to support the 

North Korean defector community. 

Question: 

Earlier this month, the Foreign Atl'airs Committee marked-up Rep. Ted Yoho's BUILD Act, or HR 

5105. The BUILD Act would create a new standalone development finance institution (DFI) that 

would modernize development finance and counter rot,>ue nations, such as China, and their 

problematic activities in the developing world. Does the State Department have a position on the 

BUILD Act and specifically the provision which allows the DFI to issue non-dollar denominated 

loans? 

Answer: 

The State Department supports the BUILD Act, including the provision which would allow the DFI 

to issue non-dollar denominated loans. I understand that the draft legislation is broadly consistent 

with the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget, which proposed the creation of an institution to 

enhance America's global competitiveness and help drive economic growth in the developing world. 

We believe that the DFI should have the tlexibility, under certain conditions, to extend foreign 

currency loans in order to avoid adding to the foreign currency debt burden of developing countries 

in which we have a strategic interest USAID's Development Credit Agency (DCA), which would 

be subsumed by the DFI, currently has the ability to lend in foreign currency. We note that DFI 

foreign currency loans would be extended to developing countries in which the local currencies are 

not realistic alternatives to the USD as a reserve currency. This tool should be used sparingly, 

employing all prudent means to manage and mitigate foreign currency risk, and under the 

supervision of the DFI's Board of Directors. We believe that the BUILD Act should stipulate that 

the Secretary of State chair the board to ensure that foreign currency loans and other DFI tools are 

extended in a manner consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests including national security, 

commercial and development policy goals. 

Question: 

Does the State Department have a clear policy on the importance of retaining the dollar as the 

world's reserve currency? If not, why not? 

Answer: 

The United States benefits ±rom the dollar's role as the world's primary reserve currency. This 

status stems ±rom the depth of our financial markets and also ±rom the strength of the United States 

economy. The State Department promotes a strong American economy by ensuring a levelplaying field for American companies doing business around the world and attracting foreign 

investors to create jobs in America. In pursuing these objectives, we coordinate closely with the 

Treasury Department, which is the lead agency on issues pertaining to the dollar. 
128


30175e-8.eps

Question: 

What steps will you take with the new DFI to ensure that U.S policy reflects the importance and 

overall strategic interest of retaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency? 

Answer: 

The State Department will use its position on the DFI board to ensure that its development finance 

strategy is wholly consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives. The majority of DFI lending 

would be transacted in U.S. dollars and would also help to advance US. commercial interests in 

developing markets. In terms of scale, DFI transactions would not have a material effect on the 

strent,>th of the USD or on the decision-making process of the international community with regard 

to reserve currencies. 

Question: 

It is the long-term strategic objective of China to exercise hegemonic influence over and chip away 

at the independence of its much smaller neighbors in the South China Sea, which it etl'ectively 

claims as its own territory. This strategy, known as "Finlandization," clearly violates international 

nonns and acts in direct contradiction to the interests of the United States. Just recently, China has 

set up missile sites on some of its outposts and landed bombers on one of its artificial islands. The 

growing militarization of the region, in which trillions of dollars in world trade flow each year, 

should undoubtedly be of great concern to the United States. What is the State Department doing 

to counter China's activities at the diplomatic level? 

Answer: 

We continue to call out, publicly and privately, Chinese policies and actions that run counter to 

US national interests. Specit!cally, we make clear that China's militarization activities should be 

reversed, in keeping with President Xi's 2015 commitment not to militarize the Spratly Islands. 

We continue to urge all parties, including China, to clarify all maritime claims in accordance with 

international law, as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. We also are calling attention in 

ASEAN-related meetings and elsewhere to efforts by China to promote huge maritime claims that 

are contrary to international law. These include China's claims to maritime zones based on a 

collective grouping of South China Sea islands and Beijing's assertion, made for the first time after 

the July 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal decision (in response to the case that the 

Philippines brought against China in 2013), that China has "historic rights" in the South China 

Sea. The Department of State's actions are part of a whole of government etl'ort and we will work 

across the US. government in order to counter China's excessive maritime claims. 

Question: 

It is the long-tenn strategic objective of China to exercise hegemonic influence over and chip away 

at the independence of its much smaller neighbors in the South China Sea, which it etl'ectively 

claims as its own territory. This strategy, known as "Finlandization," clearly violates international 

norms and acts in direct contradiction to the interests of the United States. Just recently, China has 
129


30175e-9.eps

set up missile sites on some of its outposts and landed bombers on one of its artificial islands. The 

growing militarization of the region, in which trillions of dollars in world trade flow each year, 

should undoubtedly be of great concern to the United States. With which countries is the US. 

working most closely to counter these destabilizing activities? 

Answer: 

The United States works with our treaty allies and partners in the region, as well as with interested 

nations around the world, to uphold freedom of navigation and overflight, and other lawful uses 

of the sea in the South China Sea. This includes both diplomatic engagement and flying, sailing, 

and operating wherever international law allows. Together with our allies and partners, including 

many ASEAN Member States, we have made increasingly clear our shared concerns over China's 

militarization of the region. We have conveyed to China and others that such destabilizing 

behavior will have short and long term consequences. 

Question: 

What can you say about the etTectiveness of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 

as a partner? Has it been infiltrated too much by Chinese influence? 

Answer: 

As the primary multilateral institution in Southeast Asia, ASEAN has political weight greater than 

the sum of its parts, especially on contentious issues like the South China Sea. The Administration 

is committed to ASEAN centrality, as ASEAN-centered institutions like the East Asia Summit, 

ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus, and the ASEAN Regional Forum constitute the 

centerpieces of the Indo-Pacific's regional architecture. ASEAN's continued call for enhanced 

US. engagement is clear, in part because of China's influence in the region, but also because 

A SEAN sees the United States as a partner of choice in promoting regional stability and prosperity. 

Question: 

What about countries such as the Philippines? 

Answer: 

The United States and the Philippines are longstanding friends and allies with extensive economic, 

defense and security ties. The US.-Philippines alliance remains strong after 67 years and we 

continue to deepen relations in areas such as counterterrorism. The United States seeks a free and 

open Indo-Pacific region where nations are free tram coercion and able to protect their sovereignty. 

The United States supports improvements in Philippines-China relations that maintain regional 

stability and serve to uphold the rules-based order. 

Question: 

Will the US. continue to conduct freedom of navigation exercises in defiance of China's claims? 
130


30175e-10.eps

Answer: 

The United States will continue to conduct Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the 

South China Sea and will continue to operate in the Indo-Pacific region on a daily basis. All 

FONOPs are designed in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States 

will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows. That is true in the South China Sea 

and in other places around the globe. The FONOP program supports the longstanding US. 

national interest in the freedom of the seas by allowing us to challenge excessive maritime claims 

in order to uphold the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace b'llaranteed to all nations 

under international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. 

Question: 

Do you see a role for Japan, India, and Australia (together with the US.-the so-called "Quad") 

in countering China in the South China Sea? 

Answer: 

Countries throughout the Indo-Pacific, and more broadly, share an interest in ensuring freedom of 

navigation and overt1ight, protecting the free flow of commerce, and upholding a free and open 

rules-based order. The United States consults frequently with countries across the region, 

including Australia, Japan, and India, as well as with regional institutions such as ASEAN, and we 

work together to strengthen respect for the tree and open rules-based order, including in the South 

China Sea. 

Question: 

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson prioritized a Redesign reform initiative for the State 

Department and the US Agency for International Development (US AID) during his tenure, which 

was not a bad concept in theory, though the devil is always in the details. What are your plans for 

Redesign now that you are Secretary of State~ 

Answer: 

I want to ensure that State Department and USAID employees have the training, tools and 

experience needed to carry out our mission and advance US. national security. I also want to 

ensure that we are managing our resources as effectively and et1iciently as possible, consistent 

with the President's Management Agenda. The Redesign and Impact Initiative developed a 

number of proposals designed to improve et1iciency and strenb>then the tools available to our stat1~ 

including IT modernization and operational efficiencies. The projects are being transferred to 

relevant bureaus and offices for next steps. 
131

f


30175e-11.eps

Question: 

How do you intend to partner with USAID Administrator Mark Green going forward to ensure 

that both U.S. foreign policy objectives and longer-term development objectives are achieved? 

Answer: 

I will work closely with Administrator Mark Green and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) to achieve mutually reinforcing foreign policy and long-term development 

objectives, articulated in the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Department ofState-USAID 

Joint Strategic Plan (JSP), including increasing American influence and prosperity. Long-term, 

sustainable development progress expands global partnerships; boosts the U.S. economy, and 

creates more trading partners; and supports peace, stability, and prosperity. The NSS and JSP 

provide frameworks for our institutions' shared goals, and Administrator Green and I will 

etiectively coordinate and use all the tools at our disposal to achieve both U.S foreign policy and 

longer-term development objectives. 
132


30175f-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Albio Sires 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

During the US.-China Summits held last April in Florida and 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 US 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. Would you publicly call on the Chinese President to address the grievances of the Tibetan 

people through dialogue with the Dalai Lama? 

Answer: 

I share your concerns about the lack of respect for human rights and rule of law in Tibet 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 longstanding ditTerences. 

Question: 

The Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act is bipartisan legislation that aims at implementing the principle 

of reciprocity in US.-China relations when it comes to access to Tibet for US. citizens including 

diplomats, NGO workers, and journalists. Will you commit to ensuring that the Chinese authorities 

provide access to Tibet for American officials and citizens, just as Chinese citizens get access to 

the United States? 

Answer: 

I am committed to pushing for reciprocity regarding the open access China and many other 

countries enjoy in the United States and to raising concerns about the lack of regular access to the 

Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) for US. journalists, diplomats, academics, and others. I am 

working to ensure that US. journalists, legislators, scholars, and members of civil society have 

unimpeded access to all areas China, including the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas. 

Question: 

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 reb'lllations that deny fundamental and basic human rights. What will your 

Administration do for the release of the Tibetan political prisoners? 
133


30175f-2.eps

Answer: 

I am urging China to cease restrictions on the human rights of Tibetans as well as on their religious, 

lin6'llistic, and cultural traditions and practices. I am committed to pressing for respect for human 

rights, including freedom of religion and belief, in my conversations with Chinese officials, and to 

advocating for the release of Tibetan political prisoners. 

Question: 

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: 

President Trump has regularly stated his desire for reciprocity in the US.-China relationship. 

am committed to pushing for reciprocity regarding the open access China and many other countries 

enjoy in the United States, including for US. journalists seeking to visit the Tibet Autonomous 

Region and Tibetan areas of China. 

Question: 

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: 

I am fully committed to implementing 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 

Question: 

Daniel Ortega is following the path of Nicolas Madura by enriching his family and his cronies at 

the expense of the people. We have seen how these brave young students are protesting to have 

their democracy restored as well. What is your assessment of the situation on the ground? 

Answer: 

I am very concerned with the ongoing violence against peaceful protesters, including students. 

The Government of Nicarah'lla must stop using government-controlled thugs to attack peaceful 

protesters. Those responsible for killings and other human rights abuses and violations must be 

brought to justice. The international community and the citizens of Nicarah'lla have repeatedly 

urged the Nicaraguan government to order its police and thugs to stop the violence, respect human 
134


30175f-3.eps

rights, and create conditions for a peaceful path forward. I support peaceful and inclusive 

negotiations that address broader demands for democracy to resolve the crisis. 

Question: 

How do you think countries in the region can help support the Nicarat,>uan people in the face of 

violent oppression from Ortega and his associates? 

Answer: 

The Department has worked closely with partners in the region and around the world to coordinate 

our response and increase international pressure. The Organization of American States' (OAS) 

independent Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has played a leading role in 

drawing attention to the human rights violations and abuses and subsequent recommendations to 

resolve Nicaragua's ongoing crisis. We call on the government ofNicaragua to immediately fulfill 

all of the IACHR's recommendations. The European Union and other regional allies, including 

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru, have also put out timely 

statements condemning the violence urging the Nicaraguan people and government to resolve their 

differences peacefully. This coordinated pressure continues to show the Nicarat,'l!an people that 

we will not stand idly by and emphasizes our support for a peaceful resolution. 

Question: 

What is the US. doing in response? 

Answer: 

Through public statements and coordination with international partners, I have been pushing a 

targeted message strongly condemning the violence and emphasizing that the Nicarat,'l!an 

government should immediately implement the May 21 recommendations of the independent 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) preliminary report, pursue justice for 

victims of the violence, and engage in good faith negotiations to provide a democratic future for 

all Nicarat,'l!ans. The Department and USAID are providing assistance to human rights defenders 

and working with civil society organizations to protect freedom of speech and access to 

information. 

Question: 

The Trump Administration proposed a 31% cut to US. assistance to Colombia, where over 90% 

of cocaine consumed in the United States originates. The Administration has repeatedly said 

combatting drug trafficking is a high priority and used that as the rationale to end protections for 

DREAMers, build a wall, and alienate immigrants in the hemisphere. If combating drug tratlicking 

is a top priority for the Administration, then why did you propose eliminating one-third of the 

security assistance to Colombia intended to interdict narcotics and capture drug tratlickers? 
135


30175f-4.eps

Answer: 

We are deeply concerned about the dramatic increase in coca cultivation and cocaine production 

in Colombia since 2013. We are working with the Colombian government to reduce coca 

cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia to 50 percent of current levels by 2023. Foreign 

assistance to Colombia will be particularly important to achieving this goal as the US. government 

will seek to help the incoming Colombian government increase the full range of its 

counternarcotics efforts, especially forced eradication. Our FY 2019 budget request for Colombia 

reflects the Administration's focused approach to foreign assistance but contains important 

resources to advance shared counternarcotics priorities. 

Question: 

The US. Strategy for Central America has had broad, bipartisan support in Congress, and I am 

pleased that it is finally up and running. Unfortunately, the President's immigration policies run 

counter to everything that the State Department and USAID are doing in the region. On one hand, 

you are addressing the root causes of child migration in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

On the other hand, the President is planning to send TPS holders back to El Salvador and Honduras 

and DREAMers back to all three countries. 

a. If the President is able to move forward with his deportation policies, how would that 

impact your work in Central America? How, if at all, are you planning forthis possibility? 

b. Additionally, how would deporting young adults back to Central America impact 

transnational criminal organizations' recruitment etl'orts? Are these young people 

vulnerable to being recruited by gangs and other criminal groups? 

Answer: 

The United States' support for Central America remains unchanged. A secure and stable Central 

America contributes to a safer and more prosperous United States by helping to secure our borders, 

protect US. citizens, and increase opportunities for US. and other businesses. The multi-year 

Central America strategy addresses the underlying economic development, security, and 

governance challenges that contribute to illegal immigration We will continue to work with 

Central American governments to help them dismantle transnational criminal organizations, 

combat drug trafficking, halt illegal immigration, and promote sustainable economic growth. We 

will also continue to work with the governments to strengthen their ability to reintegrate migrants. 

Through our Central America strategy, the Department of State implements programs to empower 

youth by supporting educational, social, and employment opportunities for at-risk and 

disadvantaged youth and violence prevention activities. The US. government is committed to 

helping Central American governments reduce gangs and violence through law enforcement and 

community policing etiorts such as the Model Police Precinct program, and through prevention 

programs such as the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.AT.) and Police Athletic 

Leat,>ue (PAL) programs. G.R.E.AT. is a core prevention program with an established record and 

broad acceptance in the United States. G.R.E.AT. is a school-based, life-skills competency 

program taught by uniformed law enforcement otiicers and helps youths foster positive attitudes 
136

f


30175f-5.eps

toward law enforcement, avoid conflict, resist peer pressure, and develop a strong sense of personal 

responsibility. The U.S. government also supports Police Athletic Leat,>ues (PAL) in the region 

that offer at-risk youth sports and other after school activities. By organizing police-led after 

school programs, G.R.E.A. I. and PAL keep youth otl'the streets and in secure environments where 

police are role models and trustworthy figures. I will work with our in-country partners to continue 

these and other similar programs to address gang recruitment of youth. 
137


30175g-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Paul Cook 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

The US. has long ignored the Western Hemisphere and countries in our own neighborhood in 

favor of crises around the world. This is to our detriment, as our friends in the region are looking 

to others to fill the vacuum of leadership that we have left. Mr. Secretary, how do you envision 

increasing US. engagement with our partners in the Western Hemisphere to underscore that we 

are their preeminent partner? 

Answer: 

I will continue engaging with partners across the Americas and the Caribbean and reinforce our 

commitment to being the partner of choice as we work together to promote prosperity, strengthen 

democracy, and improve the security of our citizens. I will take advantage of the momentum 

created by the Summit of the Americas, as well as our longer-term regional initiatives such as the 

Strategy for Central America, the Merida Initiative, Caribbean 2020, the Caribbean Basin Security 

Initiative, and our engagement in Colombia. The United States remains committed to continuing 

our robust and constructive dialogues in the region, conducted on the basis of reciprocity and 

mutual respect. 

Question: 

The US. has long ignored the Western Hemisphere and countries in our own neighborhood in 

favor of crises around the world. This is to our detriment, as our friends in the region are looking 

to others to fill the vacuum of leadership that we have left What are the Department's priorities 

for the Western Hemisphere to strengthen cooperation with our regional partners to combat 

transnational threats and corruption and promote prosperity and democracy? What is the US. 

doing in response? 

Answer: 

I am committed to advancing democratic governance, security, and economic prosperity and to 

strengthening our work with partners in the region. Corruption and poor governance erode 

prosperity and undermine security in this region and around the world. 

The Department of State and US AID provide assistance to catalyze economic development, bolster 

the rule oflaw, dismantle transnational criminal organizations that send narcotics and illicit goods 

across our borders, and strengthen democratic institutions. We are working with civil society 

organizations to protect freedom of speech and access to infonnation. The multi-year Central 

America strategy addresses the underlying economic development, security, and governance 

challenges that contribute to illegal immigration and illicit trat1icking. 
138


30175g-2.eps

Question: 

The Venezuelan crisis has devolved into a serious humanitarian crisis for the Venemelan people 

and for countries in the region. What efl'orts is the Department taking to work with regional 

partners to acknowledge and address Cuba's role in sustaining the illegitimate Madura regime? 

Answer: 

The Department is coordinating with like-minded democracies and regional organizations, 

including the Lima Group, to intensify pressure on the Madura government to peacefully restore 

Venezuela's democracy and quickly resolve Venezuela's political, economic, social, and 

humanitarian crises. We continue to monitor Cuba's longstanding role in supporting Madura's 

authoritarian government. Furthermore, we will continue to highlight in appropriate venues 

Cuba's support for the Madura regime. 

Question: 

Under the Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request, Colombia would be the only country 

in the Western Hemisphere to receive foreign military financing. I believe foreign military 

tlnancing is a critical tool that the United States can use to build partner capacity, increase mil-tomil cooperation, and work to make ourselves the defense partner of choice amidst the competing 

interests of Russia and China. There are many countries in the region like Peru that are interested 

in purchasing U.S. military equipment. What can the Department do to increase its Foreign 

Military Financing for countries in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer: 

The Department is focused on how to best address national security priorities using limited Foreign 

Military Financing (FMF) The investments the Department is making in Colombia are critical to 

securing our southern borders from illegal narcotics traftlcking. Beyond security assistance, the 

Department encourages partner nations to purchase U.S.-origin equipment through ret,>ular 

outreach in country; standing political-military dialogues with Brazil, Peru, and Chile; and a 

variety of informal meetings throughout the region. The Department will continue working closely 

with our embassy teams and interagency partners to address the priority needs in the Western 

Hemisphere that can be met through global FMF provided in the FY 2019 budget. 

Question: 

Under the Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request, Colombia would be the only country 

in the Western Hemisphere to receive foreign military financing. I believe foreign military 

tlnancing is a critical tool that the United States can use to build partner capacity, increase mil-tomil cooperation, and work to make ourselves the defense partner of choice amidst the competing 

interests of Russia and China. There are many countries in the region like Peru that are interested 

in purchasing U.S military equipment To what extent might the decline in the Department's 

Foreign Military Financing be offset by increased support from the Department of Defense? 
139


30175g-3.eps

Answer: 

In the current constricted budget environment, the State Department must make hard choices when 

it comes to providing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to our partners around the world. The 

State Department will certainly coordinate on any partnership capacity building efforts undertaken 

by the Department of Defense in the region to ensure they are in line with our overall foreign 

policy objectives 

Question: 

Nicaragua: Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo have established a one-party state 

built on widespread corruption and the undermining of democratic institutions. The 

Nicaraguan people have finally stood up to the Ortegas and are in the midst of a critical 

turning point in Nicaragua's democratic history. What is the U.S. approach to the situation in 

Nicaragua and how can the U.S. and Congress best demonstrate our support for the Nicaraguan 

people and the reestablishment of democracy? 

Answer: 

I am deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in Nicaragua and condemn the recent violence 

perpetrated by government-controlled thugs. Those responsible for killings and other human rights 

abuses and violations must be brought to justice. The Nicaraguan government must create the 

conditions for a peaceful solution to the crisis, starting with the cessation of all violence. I urge 

Nicaragua's government to negotiate a democratic future for all Nicaraguans in good faith to 

resolve the current conflict and restore respect for human rights. My steadfast support remains 

with the Nicaraguan people. 

Question: 

Nicaragua: What is the Administration's current stance on the NICA Act, currently sitting in the 

Senate, that would cut off multilateral tunding to Nicara6'lla? 

Answer: 

The Department of State supports the goals of this bill. To address these important concerns, we 

are caretully reviewing international tinancial institutions' proposed loans to Nicaragua on a caseby-case basis. Such reviews are intended to ensure these loans are not benefiting the central 

government of Nicara6'lla, while ensuring that etiorts to address the basic human needs of the 

Nicaraguan people are not negatively a±Iected. 

Question: 

Nicaragua: How is the U.S. addressing the increasing presence of Russia in Nicaragua? 
140


30175g-4.eps

Answer: 

Russia has provided security sector assistance to Nicaragua and Russian state news services such 

as RT broadcast in Spanish on Nicara~;uan cable. I will remain vigilant regarding Russian 

involvement in the security sector and intent to expand Russian-sponsored disinformation 

campaigns, including in Nicarab'lla. 

Question: 

Is there more that we could be doing to strengthen Haiti's border security, and should the State 

Department continue and expand its support to programs that address revenue collection~ 

Answer: 

I believe it is vital the Haitian government be able to control its borders. USAID has an ongoing 

Customs Support project- a $4 million initiative helping to modernize Haiti's customs service 

processes for revenue collection, traveler processing, and contraband interdiction. This program 

is assisting the Haitian government to meet many of its objectives to increase revenue collection. 

Additionally, the Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE), the Food Conservation and 

Energy Act of 2008 (HOPE II), and the Haiti Economic Lift Program of 20 I 0 (HELP) legislation 

explicitly call for US Customs and Border Protection to provide technical assistance to Haitian 

customs. 

Question: 

What will the Administration do going forward to encourage and support enhanced border control 

measures and a crackdown on contraband trade? 

Answer: 

I will continue to encourage the Haitian government to do everything it can to strengthen border 

control measures to limit contraband trade and ensure transnational criminal organizations are not 

able to operate freely along Haiti's border. I will support continued US. cooperation with Haiti's 

customs, immigration, and national police authorities and will promote training with appropriate 

US. agencies to strengthen Haiti's capacities. 

Question: 

What will the Administration do to encourage the Government of Haiti to invest in the necessary 

border infrastructure and train additional security personnel? 

Answer: 

The United States will continue to work with Haiti's customs, immigration, and police agencies to 

improve border security. I will continue to stress to the government of Haiti that, in addition to 

our assistance programs, it is critical Haiti make its own long-term investment in its border security 
141


30175g-5.eps

agencies. We will continue support to the Haitian National Police, which includes border police 

and counternarcotics units, to strent,>then Haiti's readiness to address border security issues. 

Question: 

How will the Administration ensure the Haitian government actually places adequate security 

personnel on the border and builds the technology and infrastructure essential for effective border 

control? 

Answer: 

The United States will continue to work with all entities working on the border to improve border 

control measures. USAID's Customs Support project is helping to strengthen revenue collection, 

traveler processing, contraband interdiction, and targeting; increasing the government of Haiti's 

ability to boost economic development through the collection of revenues on importations; 

increasing commercial activity at the Port of Cap-Haitien; and leaving behind a knowledge 

infrastructure that allows Haiti's customs administration, the Administration Genereal des 

Douanes, to sustain these processes and maintain its self-sufficiency. 

Question: 

Haiti's uncontrolled border with the Dominican Republic raises several international security 

concerns. There are reports of drug, arms, and human smuggling over the border. There are also 

concerns that international terrorists can use the uncontrolled border to gain access to third 

countries. What do you see as key security concerns with respect to the Haitian-Dominican 

Border? 

Answer: 

Smuggling and trafficking in persons, illicit narcotics, and illegal contraband pose significant 

security concerns along the Haitian-Dominican Border, threatening the security of the United 

States and our partners in the region. The Department of State's Bureau ofinternational Narcotics 

and Law Enforcement Atl'airs (INL) is building the capacity of the Haitian National Police, 

including promoting cross-training between Dominican and Haitian units, to combat these and 

other transnational crime threats. In the Dominican Republic, INL's assistance strengthens the 

capacity of Dominican law enforcement at border crossings through training and technical 

assistance. INL's etl'orts in both countries complement those of USAID and are essential to 

assisting Dominican and Haitian partners to secure their shared border. The Department of State 

also facilitates negotiations between both governments to establish a tramework for strengthened 

cross-border collaboration. 

Question: 

Haiti's uncontrolled border with the Dominican Republic raises several international security 

concerns. There are reports of drug, arms, and human smuggling over the border. There are also 

concerns that international terrorists can use the uncontrolled border to gain access to third 
142

f


30175g-6.eps

countries. How can we expect programs like the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative to 

successfully combat security threats in the Caribbean that could impact the safety of American 

citizens at home and abroad if the Haiti-Dominican border is uncontrolled and lawless? 

Answer: 

Through support provided under both the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) and bilateral 

programming in Haiti, we are prioritizing efforts to combat transnational organized crime, 

including crime and insecurity along the Haitian-Dominican border. The Department of State's 

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) supports training and 

coordination between the Dominican Republic and Haiti on border-related issues. Through the 

International Organization for Migration, INL supports stronger border controls by providing 

logistical assets to the Haitian National Police's Border Police (POLIFRONT), which provides 

training and essential equipment to ensure the POLIFRONT base in Marne Casse is tully 

operational. 
143


30175h-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Gerry Connolly 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

What efforts are planned or underway to resume the repatriation from North Korea of members of 

the U.S. armed forces missing or unaccounted for during the Korean War? Does the 

Administration consider the repatriation of remains a humanitarian issue? 

Answer: 

The United States considers accounting for our missing to be an important humanitarian etl'ort and 

one of our highest enduring priorities. This includes the approximately 5,300 unaccounted for 

remaining in North Korea. The Departments of Defense and State closely coordinate actions 

related to Korean War remains recovery operations. In particular, we work closely with our 

Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) colleagues on this issue. We do not link this 

important humanitarian etl'ort to any political or security issues and have consistently urged North 

Korean otlicials to be responsible stewards of U.S. remmns. 

Question: 

Why has the Administration failed to impose sanctions under Sec. 224 of the Countering 

America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA, P.L 115-44) to punish Russia and deter 

it from future interference in American elections? When does the President plan to impose 

sanctions under this section? Has the Administration been unable to identify persons or entities 

subject to the sanctions under these sections? 

Answer: 

Together with the Department of the Treasury, the State Department is implementing CAATSA 

to impose costs on Russia for the totality of its malign behavior. We remain committed to the 

comprehensive implementation of CAATSA to achieve this end. Since January 2017, the U.S 

government has sanctioned 205 individuals and entities for their involvement in Russian malign 

activities; 136 of these designations were made under sanctions authorities coditied in CAATSA 

222. 

On March 15, Treasury designated tive entities and 19 individuals under relevant authorities, 

including CAATSA Section 224 as well as E.O. 13694, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons 

Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," for interference in the 2016 U.S. 

election and other malicious cyber-enabled activities. 

In coordination with the interagency, we continue to review potentially sanctionable activity and 

make appropriate determinations under mandatory provisions ofCAATSA and related authorities. 
144


30175h-2.eps

Question: 

Why has the Administration failed to impose sanctions under [Sec. 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, and 

234] of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA, P.L 115-44) to 

punish Russia and deter it from future interference in American elections? When does the 

President plan to impose sanctions under this section? Has the Administration been unable to 

identify persons or entities subject to the sanctions under these sections? 

Answer: 

Together with the Department of the Treasury, the State Department is implementing CAATSA 

to impose costs on Russia for the totality of its malign behavior. We remain committed to the 

comprehensive implementation of CAATSA to achieve this end. Since January 2017, the US 

government has sanctioned 205 individuals and entities for their involvement in Russian malign 

activities; 136 of these designations were under sanctions authorities coditied in CAATSA 222. 

This number includes the most recent action on April 6, in which Treasury designated seven 

Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control, along with 17 senior Russian government 

officials. In addition, on March 15, Treasury designated five entities and 19 individuals under 

relevant authorities, including CAATSA Section 224 and E.O. 13694, "Blocking the Property of 

Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," for interference in 

the 2016 US. election and other malicious cyber-enabled activities. 

In coordination with the interagency, we continue to review potentially sanctionable activity and 

make appropriate determinations under mandatory provisions of CAATSA and related authorities. 

Question: 

How will the ongoing diplomatic negotiations with North Korea address the threats posed to US. 

national security by the DPRK's biological, chemical, and conventional weapons programs? Does 

the State Department, or specialized international organizations of which the United States is a 

member, have the capacity to assess the complete, veritiable, and irreversible dismantling of such 

weapons of mass destruction programs? If so, who is responsible for such activities? 

Answer: 

As the President has said, North Korea's weapons of mass destruction programs must be 

addressed. Removing DPRK chemical and biological weapons would be a whole-of-government 

etiort and will draw on the expertise of all relevant organizations within the US. government and 

the appropriate international partners. 

Question: 

Who is responsible for global health security at the Department of State? Is that individual 

responsible for coordinating government-wide policy on global health security? If not, who is 

responsible for coordinating government-wide policy on global health security? 
145


30175h-3.eps

Answer: 

Achieving a world safe from infectious disease threats is a State Department priority advanced by 

staff domestically and at US foreign missions. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Judith G. 

Garber, currently the senior ranking official in the Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific A±Iairs, leads the Department's global health security activities, 

including implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). In accordance with 

E.O. 13747, these activities include health security diplomatic outreach, coordination of US. 

programmatic activities, and engagement with non-governmental stakeholders. The NSC 

coordinates government-wide policy on global health security and serves as Chair of the GHSA 

Interagency Review Council. 

Question: 

How much has the State Department spent on the "redesign" e±Iort, which entities received 

payments, and how much did much each entity receive? What, if anything, has the redesign 

achieved? 

Answer: 

As of May 30, 2018, the State Department has spent $12.07 million on contract support to the 

Listening Survey and Redesign work. This includes $883,514 to the consulting firm Insigniam in 

FY 17 for the Listening Survey and Report, and $11,195,084 to consulting firm Deloitte in FY 17 

and FY 18. Insigniam was a sub-contractor to Deloitte in the second contract. The Redesign and 

Impact Initiative developed a number of proposals designed to improve efficiency and strenb>then 

the tools available to our staff, including IT modernization and operational efficiencies. The 

projects are being transferred to relevant bureaus and o±Iices for next steps. 

Question: 

Please describe the nature of the dialogue between the US and Turkey regarding rule of law, 

freedom of the press, and detention of American citizens and American embassy employees in 

Turkey. 

Answer: 

We support Turkey's efforts to bring those responsible for the attempted coup to justice, but in so 

doing it must ensure rule of law, freedom of the press, treed om of speech, human rights, and 

fundamental ±reedoms for the entire population. These tenets are essential to democratic societies 

and represent the same principles the Turkish people so courageously defended during the coup 

attempt. The prolonged state of emergency threatens these very principles and causes rifts with 

key allies and partners. Both in private and in public, we urge the government of Turkey to end 

the state of emergency and rely on its democratic institutions, which are sufficiently strong to 

address the threats and challenges Turkey faces. 
146

f


30175h-4.eps

The detention of human rights officials, journalists, academics, prosecutors, judges, opposition 

politicians, and US. citizens is very concerning. The State Department has no higher priority than 

the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens and is deeply concerned about the continued detention of 

US. citizens and local staff on scant evidence under the state of emergency. We frequently remind 

the Turkish government of the importance of respect for transparent and fair proceedings and 

individual rights, as enshrined in the Turkish Constitution and consistent with Turkey's 

international obligations and commitments. Non-governmental organizations, dissenting voices, 

and a robust civil society are essential elements of a strong democracy. 
147


30175i-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative David Cicilline 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

What specific steps are you and others at the State Department taking to translate the wish list set 

out in your speech on Iran on May 21 into achievable policy goals? Aside from sanctions, what 

immediate steps are you taking to combat Iran's malign activity throughout the Middle East 

region? 

Answer: 

We will bring financial pressure on the Iranian regime through robust sanctions to bring Iran back 

to negotiations We will ask international partners to join us in this political and economic pressure 

campaign. We are working to shore up Iraq's unity and blunt Iran's intluence in Iraqi politics. 

We also are continuing to pursue sustainable and genuine political solutions in Syria and Yemen. 

We are working extensively with our Gulf partners and Israel to deter and disrupt Iranian threats. 

Examples of such cooperation include military and diplomatic etl'orts to prevent Iranian weapons 

shipments into Yemen. We also have numerous domestic authorities to counter Iran's support for 

terrorism and its destabilizing activities in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. 

Question: 

Will you, as Secretary of State, do what so many other secretaries have not and recognize the 

genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against its Armenian citizens during World War I? 

If not, why not? 

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 horritic 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 remains 

a great source of pain for all of us who value human rights. President Trump honored the victims 

and expressed solidarity with the Armenian people when he issued his Remembrance Day 

statement on April24, 2018. 

Question: 

Palestinian Assistance: For the last several months, U.S. assistance for the Palestinians in West 

Bank and Gaza has been on hold and under review. What is the goal of this review and when do 

you expect to conclude it? What issues is the review working to address? Has the Administration 

conveyed any specitic requests to UNRWA about reforms necessary to restart funding? 
148


30175i-2.eps

Humanitarian assistance, democracy assistance and people-to-people exchanges have been on hold 

because of this review. The World Food Program is expected to run out of money to feed people 

in the West Bank at the end of the month and in Gaza at the end of next month What US. interests 

are served by holding up humanitarian assistance, democracy assistance and people-to-people 

assistance? 

Answer: 

US. assistance to the Palestinians, including UNRWA, remains under review; no decision has 

been made. The Administration routinely conducts reviews of foreign assistance to ensure it is 

meeting our national security interests, achieving our policy objectives, and providing value to US 

taxpayers. The Department of State will brief Congress on the conclusions of this review. We 

have long voiced the need for UNRWA to seek out new voluntary funding streams and increase 

burden-sharing among its donors. We have repeatedly asked UNRWA to undertake more 

fundamental reforms that will put it on a more sustainable financial footing. It is essential that we 

create a fairer, more equitable, and more predictable funding mechanism for UNRWA 

Question: 

North Korea: What steps are you taking in light of the cancellation of the June Summit to prevent 

North Korea from developing a nuclear weapon? 

Answer: 

The June 12 US.-DPRK Summit is currently scheduled to occur. North Korea has confirmed to 

us its willingness to talk about denuclearization. I support the President's decision to create the 

conditions so that the President and Kim Jong Un can sit together to begin to resolve this incredibly 

complex and difficult challenge. This will set us down the course of achieving a diplomatic 

outcome that America and the world are seeking. The President has also stated that current 

pressure will be maintained on North Korea until denuclearization. 

Question: 

Human Rights: As you know, ti.mdamental human rights have been the guiding principles behind 

our national and international policy for generations, under multiple administrations of both 

parties. Are you committed to promoting the protection of human rights as a key pillar in US. 

foreign policy? 

Absolutely. Promoting human rights is clearly in the best interests of the United States. Societies 

that respect human rights and the rule oflaw are more stable and make better allies. As laid out in 

the President's speech at the UN General Assembly last September and in the National Security 

Strategy, this Administration is strongly committed to human rights. 
149

f


30175i-3.eps

Question: 

China: Can you explain President Trump's sudden reversal on ZTE and his eagerness to help 

President Xi retain jobs? Will you encourage the President to divest himself of his business 

interests? If he does not, how can you possible know if the policy positions you are being directed 

to take are intended to help the President's own financial interests rather than those of the American 

people? 

Answer: 

The new agreement with ZTE addresses concerns about the company's previous behavior and 

protects U.S. national security interests. For further information about the Administration's 

response to ZTE, I refer you to the Department of Commerce. For information on the President's 

tlnancial interests, I refer you to the White House. 

Question: 

Do you support lifting the Arms Embargo on the Island of Cyprus? Would you support a 

reevaluation of this decades-old policy? 

Answer: 

The United States and the Republic of Cyprus have a shared interest in combating terrorism, 

enhancing maritime and border security, and promoting regional stability. I support exploring 

options for expanding security cooperation with the Republic of Cyprus. 

Question: 

Do you believe it is still in the US interest to sell F -3 5s to Turkey? If Turkey purchases the S400 

system from Russia would that cause you to re-evaluate whether the F-35 sales are still 

appropriate? 

Answer: 

Turkey is a key NATO Ally and critical partner in the Coalition to Defeat ISIS. It is in the interest 

of the United States to maintain Turkey's Western orientation. Continuing Turkey's status as a 

partner in the F-35 program is part of that etTort. However, we have made clear to Turkey the 

negative consequences of acquiring the S-400 system, including the potential impact on its 

procurement of the F-35. We have also pointed Turkey to an alternative and better package of 

NATO-compatible systems. 
150


30175j-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Ami Bera 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

Who is the lead person at the State Department coordinating our diplomatic etiorts to respond to 

the Ebola outbreak? 

Answer: 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Judith G. Garber, currently the senior ranking official in the 

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Atl'airs (OES), and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for African Atiairs (AF) Donald Yamamoto lead diplomatic etl'orts to respond 

to the current Ebola outbreak. OES convenes the State Department's Public Health Working 

Group (PHWG) weekly to ensure a coordinated Department-wide response. Following the 2014-

2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak and the 2016 Zika outbreak, the Department established the 

PHWG (co-chaired by OES and the Bureau of Medical Services) to facilitate a fast, effective 

Department response to public health emergencies. 

Question: 

Who is the senior-level otlicial responsible at the State Department for implementing the Global 

Health Security Agenda (GHSA)? 

Answer: 

Achieving a world safe and secure from infectious disease threats is a State Department priority 

advanced by staff domestically and at U.S. foreign missions. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Judith G. Garber, currently the senior ranking otlicial in the Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, leads the Department of State's implementation of the 

Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). U.S. Chiefs of Mission oversee implementation of 

GHSA activities abroad. 

Question: 

How often is the State Department meeting with USAID and the CDC to coordinate our response? 

Answer: 

My statl'in Washington and Kinshasa communicate daily with USAID and the CDC to provide a 

coordinated response to this outbreak. In addition to surge deployments, USAID and CDC have 

permanent statl'in country under the authority of the Chief of Mission, who coordinates the overall 

U.S. response on the ground. Both Washington and Kinshasa-based staff participate in weekly 

NSC-led interagency coordination calls and contribute to ret,>ular situational updates. 
151


30175j-2.eps

Question: 

Also, under what conditions would the administration reconsider the proposed rescission of the 

Ebola response funds? 

Answer: 

The Administration has taken swift action in response to the current Ebola outbreak in the DRC, 

and on May 22, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II announced up to 

$8 million towards interventions to help prevent the spread of this deadly disease, including $3 

million from Global Health Security Agenda funds at USAlD and $5 million that I authorized to 

be made available from the Emergency Reserve Fund to respond to the severe threat to human 

health posed by this outbreak. We commend the etTorts of the Congolese and our international 

partners to confront this outbreak to prevent a global health emergency, and welcome immediate 

contributions from other donors, as well as long-term investments under the Global Health 

Security Agenda aimed at preventing tuture crises. With respect to the proposed $252 million 

rescission of prior year supplemental funds to combat Ebola, Congress originally provided these 

funds in response to the West Africa Ebola crisis, which the World Health Organization declared 

over in 2016. Congress has generously provided other resources, including the Emergency 

Reserve Fund, that enable us to respond quickly to emergency needs like the current outbreak in 

the DRC, if needed, separate from the tunds proposed for rescission. 

Question: 

How is the United States working with other donors and NGOs to advance the global health 

security agenda? 

Answer: 

The United States continues to encourage other countries to make sustained commitments to build 

health security capacity through the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). The United States 

engages donor countries such as Australia and the Republic of Korea to build capacity in countries 

of mutual interest. Additionally, the United States works with non-governmental organizations 

through the GHSA Consortium to accelerate progress in achieving GHSA objectives. Raising 

public awareness ofGHSA priorities through etTective messaging is a key component of this etiort. 

Question: 

Finally, what is the status of the annual GHSA nongovernmental outreach status that State 

Department is supposed to be coordinating, based on the 2016 Executive Order on the Global 

Health Security Agenda? 

Answer: 
152


30175j-3.eps

The Department regularly engages Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) non-governmental 

stakeholders, including the Private Sector Roundtable, GHSA Consortium, and the GHSA Next 

Generation network. Statl'in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs are planning an annual meeting with non-governmental stakeholders later in 2018. Staff 

from the National Security Council and the GHSA Interagency Review Council closely collaborate 

with State Department staff on non-governmental engagements. 

Question: 

Family Planning I am very disappointed to see that international family planning and reproductive 

health has been cut by over 50% and that the only type of family planning method that is mentioned 

in the budget proposal is "fertility awareness." This is not only one of the least effective methods, 

but in order to ensure that our programs are based in voluntarism and informed consent the U.S. 

has a responsibility to promote and provide a full range of methods of family planning. Can you 

assure us that U.S. funded programs will continue to support and supply a full range of (modern) 

contraceptive methods in order to ensure that women have access to the information, counseling, 

and methods best suited to their needs? 

Answer: 

I support the Administration's efforts to support the health and voluntary family-planning needs 

of women around the world. Enabling couples to determine whether, when, and how· often to have 

children is vital to safe motherhood and healthy families. The U.S. Agency lor International 

Development thnds programs that help individuals make a free and informed choice about having 

children by providing access to and information about a variety of voluntary family-planning 

options. 

Question: 

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment ofUSAID- our lead development agency- as part of this administration's 

reorganization etlorts. It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully capable of achieving 

our aid objectives abroad. Do you believe that USAID should remain an independent agency 

separate and distinct from the State Department? 

Answer: 

As noted by Deputy Secretary John Sullivan before this Committee and affinned by USAID 

Administrator Mark Green, there is no intention or plan to told USAID into the State Department. 

We will continue to work together in close coordination to achieve the Administration's foreign 

policy-objectives and implement the President's National Security Stratexy. 

Question: 
153


30175j-4.eps

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment ofUSAID- our lead development agency- as part of this administration's 

reorganization efforts It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully capable of achieving 

our aid objectives abroad. How will you engage in administration's FY 2020 budget request to 

ensure that USAID's programs and mission are supported? 

Answer: 

The State Department and USAID are committed to critical and life-saving development programs 

that further the national security and development objectives of the United States. The President's 

FY 2020 budget request will reflect months of conversations between the State Department and 

USAID, including embassies and missions overseas, and other members of the interagency. As in 

prior years, the USAID budget is considered an important component of the Administration's 

foreign assistance budget request, and will be in line with the President's priorities. 

Question: 

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment ofUSAID- our lead development agency- as part of this administration's 

reorganization efforts. It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully capable of achieving 

our aid objectives abroad. What plans, if any, are there to combine USAID and State Department 

missions, roles and responsibilities? Please describe any current or planned efforts in each of those 

three categories. 

Answer: 

As noted by Deputy Secretary John Sullivan before this Committee and atlirmed by USAID 

Administrator Mark Green, there are no plans to combine the existing missions, roles, or 

responsibilities of the USAID and State Department I want to ensure the employees of both 

organizations have the training, tools, and experience needed to advance the Administration's 

foreign policy objectives and US national security. 

Question: 

I am disturbed by the proposed budget cuts to critical, life-saving development programs and the 

potential diminishment ofUSAID- our lead development agency- as part of this administration's 

reorganization etl'orts. It is vital that USAID remain independent and fully capable of achieving 

our aid objectives abroad. Related, Secretary Tillerson was determined to "reform and redesign 

the State Department" in order to more etl'ectively and efficiently run it. The FY19 budget even 

puts forth proposals for how to reform and modernize processes and policies at the State 

Department and USAID. What is your position on this etl'ort and will you continue or undertake 

similar efforts? 

Answer: 
154

f


30175j-5.eps

I will continue the effort to reform and modernize processes and policies at the State Department, 

and I will work to ensure employees at the State Department and USAID have the training, tools, 

and experience needed to carry out our mission and advance US. national security. I also want to 

ensure we are managing our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible, consistent with 

the President's Management Agenda. 
155


30175k-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Lois Frankel 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

Mexico City Policy Impact: As long as the Mexico City Policy is in place, will you commit to 

conducting comprehensive and annual reviews that study impacts on people's health, such as 

maternal well-being, incidence ofHIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases, instead of merely looking 

at implementation~ 

Answer: 

The United States is a leader in assistance for global health, including in its monitoring, evaluation, 

and use of data for learning. I will continue to support robust etl'orts to review and evaluate 

programming. 

Question: 

Where there are service disruptions due to the Mexico City Policy, will you commit to review any 

requests for exemptions and what criteria will you use to determine potential exemptions? 

Answer: 

I will review any requests received. Criteria that may be considered for exemptions include, but 

are not limited to, the existence of a public health emergency that impacts global health assistance; 

the possibility of extreme and irreversible service disruption if the exemption were not granted; 

whether there are other partners qualified to execute the program; or other extenuating 

circumstances that warrant granting an exemption. 

Question: 

Will you also commit to making all stakeholder comments public- not just those that support the 

Mexico City Policy? 

Answer: 

In conducting the six-month review, we welcomed comments from all sides of the issue. We do 

not plan to release stakeholder comments, as we did not inform stakeholders that their comments 

would be made public when they submitted them. Stakeholders, however, are free to make their 

own comments public. 
156


30175k-2.eps

Question: 

How much funding is impacted by the 4 prime recipients who refuse to comply with the Mexico 

City Policy? 

Answer: 

Two organizations publicly indicated they will decline US. government global health assistance 

because of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy the International Planned 

Parenthood Federation and Marie Stapes InternationaL In FY 2016, the International Planned 

Parenthood Federation and Marie Stapes International received global health assistance under 

central awards in the amounts of $9.37 million and $15.44 million, respectively. The third 

organization that declined to agree to the PLGHA policy was obligated $100,000 in US AID global 

health assistance in FY 2016. 

The fourth declining organization was a Department of Defense prime partner that declined to sign 

in one country, though it signed in others. This organization's unsigned grant totaled $151,000. 

Federal departments and agencies reprogram to other organizations any US. government global 

health assistance funding they would have awarded to NGOs that do not agree to tbe conditions 

set on the acceptance of US fi.mding under the PLGHA policy. 

Question: 

How many people did the 4 prime recipients who refuse to comply witb the Mexico City Policy 

previously serve, and what measures are you taking to ensure the same number of women and girls 

receive life-saving health services? 

Answer: 

Most of the primes with which we work have multiple funding streams, so the number of people 

they served previously is not solely reflective of US. funding. The United States remains 

committed to helping women and children thrive, particularly in countries where the need is 

greatest. When an NGO has declined to agree to the policy, affected departments and agencies 

work to transition to other partners the activities tbat that would have been undertaken by the 

organization with our funding. This policy does not afiect the total amount of US. government 

funding for global health programs. When departments and agencies reprogram funds to other 

organizations, the amount of funding directed to respective recipient countries remains the same 

and we remain focused on our goals. The Department will conduct a subsequent review of the 

policy to gauge its impacts and is committed to ensuring any transition of activities minimizes 

disruptions of health service delivery. 

Question: 

Human Rights Report: Why did the State Department remove information and data on barriers to 

maternal health, contraception and reproductive rights from the Human Rights Report this year? 
157


30175k-3.eps

In the 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the "Reproductive Rights" subsection 

was renamed "Coercion in Population Control'' in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law 

that we report on, "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, 

including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal 

mortality, contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country 

chapter and in an appendix to the Reports. 

Question: 

Do you believe that denying women lifesaving services, like contraception and maternal care, are 

human rights violations? 

In the 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the "Reproductive Rights" subsection 

was renamed "Coercion in Population Control'' in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law 

that we report on, "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, 

including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal 

mortality, contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country 

chapter and in an appendix to the Reports. 

I support the Administration's efforts to promote the maternal health and voluntary familyplanning needs of women around the world. The United States remains the largest donor to 

women's health around the world, and the President's Budget Request for FY 2019 includes $302 

million for voluntary family-planning programs. 

Question: 

Do you believe that denying abortion care for rape survivors is a human rights violation? 

In the 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the ''Reproductive Rights" subsection 

was renamed "Coercion in Population Control" in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law 

that we report on, "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, 

including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal 

mortality, contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country 

chapter and in an appendix to the Reports. 
158


30175k-4.eps

Question: 

If we are no longer monitoring the full range of reproductive rights in this report, how will we 

address actors that curtail women's rights and commit acts of violence against them? 

In the 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the ''Reproductive Rights" subsection 

was renamed "Coercion in Population Control'' in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law 

that we report on, "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, 

including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal 

mortality, contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country 

chapter and in an appendix to the Reports. 

We advocate that governments have an obligation to protect, respect, and uphold the dignity and 

fundamental freedoms of all people. 

Question: 

It is my understanding that Foreign Service Officers around the world worked hard to compile and 

analyze data regarding access to contraception and maternal health for the most recent report, but 

it was not included in the Human Rights Report. Can you publicly release this infonnation? 

In the 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the "Reproductive Rights" subsection 

was renamed "Coercion in Population Control'' in accordance with the requirement of U.S. law 

that we report on, "wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, 

including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization." Additional material on maternal 

mortality, contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country 

chapter and in an appendix to the Reports. 

Question: 

Where are U.S. contributions to UNFPA fiscal years 2017 and 2018 being reallocated to, and 

which programs are these funds supporting? Will all transferred tunds go to our existing 

international family planning and reproductive health programs? 

Answer: 

As required by section 7082(b) of the FY 2017 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 

Related Programs Appropriations Act (SFOAA), the Department of State transferred the $32.5 

million earmarked for UNFPA in the FY 2017 International Organizations and Programs account 

atiected by the March 2017 Kemp-Kasten determination to USAID's Global Health Programs 

account. As required by the 2017 SFOAA, US AID will make the FY 2017 funds available for 

family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities, subject to the reb'lllar notification 
159


30175k-5.eps

procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. The Secretary of State also submitted a report 

to the Committees on Appropriations in March 2018 informing them that the Kemp-Kasten 

Amendment was invoked pursuant to the FY 2018 SFOAA; however, those funds have not yet 

been transferred to the Global Health Programs account. 

Question: 

Has there been a lapse in reallocating UNFPA tunding to other family planning programs? If so, 

what is the health impact? 

Answer: 

There has not been a lapse in reallocating UNFPA funding to other family planning programs. As 

required by the FY 2017 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act (SFOAA), USAID will make the FY 2017 funds available for family planning, 

maternal, and reproductive health activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Question: 

Do you believe that candidates for this post should be committed to gender equality and advancing 

the rights and opportunities of women and girls? 

Answer: 

The Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) leads the Department's work to 

empower women and girls socially, politically, and economically in the communities and societies 

in which they live. I am committed to working with the President to ensure that a qualified person 

who is committed to the advancement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and 

girls is nominated to serve as the next Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues and hope, 

once nominated, the candidate will be confirmed as quickly as possible. 

Question: 

Do you believe that candidates for this post should have a track record of advancing women's 

empowerment? 

Answer: 

The Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) leads the Department's work to 

advance the status of women and girls across the globe. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I 

remain committed to tinding a qualified person to serve as the Ambassador-at-Large for Global 

Women's Issues and getting him or her con±inned as quickly as possible. 
160


30175k-6.eps

Question: 

Do you believe that candidates for this post should have experience working in international affairs 

and a solid understanding of US foreign policy? 

Answer: 

The Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) leads the Department's work to 

empower women and girls socially, politically, and economically in the communities and societies 

in which they live. I am committed to finding a qualified person to serve as the Ambassador-atLarge for Global Women's Issues and getting him or her confirmed as quickly as possible. 

Question: 

Do you believe that candidates for this post should be committed to supporting women's decision 

making over their bodies and their lives? 

Answer: 

I believe that countries are more stable, prosperous, and secure when women and girls are atiorded 

equal opportunity to fully and freely participate in all spheres of society. Through the Office of 

Global Women's Issues, the Department works to empower women and girls as leaders, peacebuilders, and formal wage-earners in the communities and societies in which they live. Once 

nominated and confirmed, the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues will work to 

advance these goals among others. 

Question: 

Last year, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson communicated a plan to downgrade the Office 

of Global Women's Issues from the Secretary's Office to one that instead reports to the 

Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. Do you plan to keep the 

Office of Global Women's Issues within your office? 

Answer: 

The State Department remains committed to improving gender equality globally and recognizes 

the direct impact these etl'orts have on our national security and foreign policy objectives of 

stability, prosperity and security. The Oftice of Global Women's Issues will continue to work 

within the Department and interagency to empower women and girls socially, politically and 

economically in the communities and societies in which they live. The empowerment of 

adolescent girls, women's political and economic empowennent, women's participation in peace 

and security processes, and the prevention of and response to gender-based violence continue to 

be areas offocus where we will remain steadfast in our etiorts. 
161

f


30175k-7.eps

Question: 

In November 2017, more than 200 national security professionals signed an open letter about 

sexual harassment and assault in the industry. State Department employees have reported limited 

transparency around policies and procedures, insufficient training, and a lack of accountability for 

perpetrators. Has the State Department been conferring with former and current employees about 

their concerns? What changes need to be made to the State Department's policies for preventing 

and addressing sexual harassment and assault? 

Answer: 

In January, the Deputy Secretary spoke to employees in a panel discussion and engaged leaders of 

Executive Women@ State, one of the Department's employee affinity groups, on the issue as part 

of a larger discussion on diversity. All Department employees are subject to 

3 FAM 1525 and 1526, which prohibit sexual and discriminatory harassment. These policies also 

make it mandatory for all supervisors and responsible management officials to report potential 

incidents of harassment to the Department's Office of Civil Rights for disposition and further 

action. These policies are strong, but as a matter of course they are continually reviewed to identify 

how they can be further strengthened. The Office of the Inspector General is currently assessing 

these policies and procedures, and I look forward to receiving their input. 
162


30175l-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Robin Kelly 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

Were you briefed on statistics at the State Department regarding sexual harassment? Are you 

willing to share those numbers with Congress? 

Answer: 

In FY 2017, 483 reports of sexual or discriminatory harassment were submitted, leading to 112 

inquiries. The other 371 reports did not meet the threshold for further action. Not all reports 

alleged sexual harassment; the second most common protected basis raised was national origin. 

Sixty-four completed inquiries were forwarded for possible disciplinary action, and 48 remained 

ongoing at the end of the fiscal year. So far in FY 2018, 520 reports have been received. The 

increase may be partially attributable to the Department's preventative efforts to inform about the 

Department's anti -harassment reporting requirements and to employees feeling more comfortable 

about reporting harassment 

Question: 

Secretary Tillerson wanted all State employees to undergo sexual harassment training by June 1. 

What percentage of employees have received the training? Will ambassadors have to undergo 

training? 

Answer: 

Assistant Secretaries, chiefs of mission, directors of passport offices, and principal officers have 

certified that their employees received the training. The previous Secretary as well as many of his 

Assistant Secretaries and Under Secretaries received the training in person. Equal Employment 

Opportunity and harassment awareness training are also embedded in over 25 National Foreign 

Affairs Training Center courses, including the ambassadorial and deputy chief of mission/principal 

officer seminars and training for supervisors and human resources professionals. In addition, every 

year several overseas posts or domestic offices receive in-person training. The Department will 

also develop online harassment awareness training that will be mandatory for all employees. 

Question: 

What changes are you looking to make to the State Department's sexual harassment policy? 

Answer: 

All Department employees are subject to Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 1525 and 1526, which 

prohibit sexual and discriminatory harassment These policies also make it mandatory for all 

supervisors and responsible management otlicials to report potential incidents of harassment to 

the Department's Otlice of Civil Rights for disposition and further action. These policies are 
163

f


30175l-2.eps

strong, but as a matter of course they are continually reviewed to identify how they can be further 

strent,>thened. The Ofiice of the Inspector General is currently assessing these policies and 

procedures. I will not tolerate discrimination or harassment in any form, and those who participate 

in such behaviors will be held accountable. 

Question: 

The Administration has made a negative Kemp-Kasten determination against the United Nations 

Population Fund, known as UNFPA, without a single visit to UNFPA programs or face-to-face 

meeting with UNFP A stati prior to this decision. As a result, $32.5 million appropriated for 

lJNFPA will be transferred from the International Organizations Bureau to USAID. Our 

investments in UNFPA have helped support the health and lives of millions of women, children, 

and families and while I think it is clear that no one can replace the vital work ofUNFPA in some 

of the world's most challenging settings, I want to make sure we are going to continue to support 

programs like these with these additional funds at USAID. • While we know we won't be able to 

reach as many women as UNFPA is able to because UNFPA works in three times as many 

countries around the world as USAID, and in places that the U.S. cannot operate, can you share 

where this funding has been reallocated and what programs it is supporting? 

Answer: 

The U.S. government continues to prioritize healthcare in emergencies and has worked to identify 

other humanitarian partners and donors to continue supporting the type of previous ti.mding 

through the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). In terms of FY 2017 humanitarian funding, US AID 

and the Department of State worked with other UN agencies and NGOs to expand their 

programming to provide maternal and neonatal healthcare, including emergency obstetric care, 

and services for survivors of gender-based violence in emergency settings previously performed 

by UNFPA with U.S government funds USAID was able to reprogram all funding intended for 

UNFPA in Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan; however, the ongoing conflict 

inside Syria has created access constraints that made it difiicult for NGO partners to implement all 

of the programs previously supported by UNFPA in that country. 

Question: 

Can you assure us that any transferred funds will be going to our existing international family 

planning and reproductive health programs that support access to contraceptives and work to 

combat child marriage, gender-based violence, and female genital mutilation? 

Answer: 

As required by Section 7082(b) of the FY 2017 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 

Related Programs Appropriations Act (SFOAA), the Department of State transferred the $32.5 

million eannarked for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in the FY 2017 International 

Organizations and Programs account afiected by the March 2017 Kemp-Kasten determination to 

the Global Health Programs account at USAID. As required by the 2017 SFOAA, USAID will 

make the FY 2017 funds available for voluntary family planning, maternal, and women's health 

activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. 
164


30175o-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Dina Titus 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

The State Department's International Disability Rights Policy recognizes that discrimination 

against the 15% of the world's population that has a disability hinders economic development, 

limits democracy, and erodes societies. However, American leadership in international disability 

rights is declining .. There is also no longer a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights 

at the State Department to lead the International Disability Rights team, elevate their work on the 

global stage, and signal a strong US commitment to the human rights of persons with 

disabilities. This otlice also has fewer employees than it did under the previous administration 

when led by the Special Advisor, overburdening their workload and making it difficult, perhaps 

intentionally, to continue to focus efforts on international disability rights and engage with 

multilateral agencies. 

Do you intend to appoint a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights? 

Answer: 

I am deeply committed to maintaining disability rights as an integral part of US. foreign policy 

and foreign assistance, increasing knowledge of disability rights among State Department and 

USAID personnel, and ensuring that issues or concerns related to persons with disabilities are 

reflected into all aspects of our work. I am still considering whether the portfolio requires a 

titled appointed position. Our comprehensive strategy to promote and protect the rights of 

persons with disabilities internationally aligns staff positions and support costs to the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, where policy experts and bureau leadership continue to 

advance disability rights as committed by the Administration. The Department will continue to 

meet its mandate to identify and address challenges and barriers persons with disabilities face, 

encourage foreign governments to do the same, and mainstream these issues across the State 

Department. 

Question: 

Is America's diminishing leadership on global disability rights a strategic choice, or the result of 

unfilled positions and staffing restrictions? 

Answer: 

The United States is the global leader in promoting, protecting, and advancing human rights -

including the rights of persons with disabilities. As President Trump called for in his 2017 

statement for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, we continue to set the global 

standard, working with other nations to ensure people with disabilities receive the respect all 

people deserve. 
165

f


30175o-2.eps

Under my leadership, the Department continues to advocate that governments have an obligation 

to uphold the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities. 

Around the world, we encourage and assist governments to learn about the development and 

effective implementation of laws to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. We do this by 

linking US. expertise and technical assistance developed through our implementation of laws 

like the Americans with Disabilities Act. We also continue to support civil society in other 

countries, including disabled persons' organizations that work tirelessly to protect human rights 

and fundamental freedoms. 

Question: 

How, as Secretary of State, will you give a voice to people with disabilities, particularly through 

global democracy and governance programs? 

USAID shares the Committee's commitment to giving voice to people with disabilities, and the 

President's FY 2019 budget request included ti.mding for activities directed at supporting them. 

US AID is committed to maximizing our resources to further inclusive development practices and 

ensure people with disabilities are not neglected. We are also striving to be more etlicient and 

etiective with our resources, and continuing to work to leverage funding from other sources. 

USAID works to ensure our programming across all sectors - not just in democracy, human 

rights, and governance programs - is inclusive. Approaches to achieve this include disabilityrelated provisions required for contracts and grants, disability-inclusive sector strategies and 

programming, the development and dissemination of training materials, and designated expert 

staff who serve as a resource to the whole agency on these important issues. US AID will review 

and update its longstanding Disability Policy during 2018 
166


30175p-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Brad Schneider 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

What specifically is the Administration doing to counter Iran's int1uence in Syria and prevent Iran 

from expanding its presence there~ 

Answer: 

The support the Assad regime has received and continues to receive from Iran has enabled it to 

avoid seeking a constructive, negotiated end to the contlict. We are working to counter Iran's 

destabilizing activities in the region. The United States has imposed sanctions on Iran's Islamic 

Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for their 

support to the Assad regime. Lasting regional stability will also require the withdrawal of Iranian 

military forces and proxy militias from Syria, and we call on Moscow to use its int1uence over 

Tehran to encourage this withdrawaL 

Question: 

What is the Administration doing to thwart Iran's etl'ort to establish permanent bases in Syria? 

Answer: 

Since taking otlice, the Trump Administration has moved forward with several rounds of new 

sanctions designations targeting Iran's support for terrorism, ballistic missile activity, and human 

rights abuses. The Administration has demonstrated that it will hold the Iranian government 

accountable for its actions. We will continue to apply sanctions on Iran's malign behavior in the 

region, including in Syria, and continue to work with likeminded partners to ensure a genuine 

political resolution of the cont1ict. We will continue to consult with Congress as we move forward. 

Question: 

What is the Administration doing to thwart Iran's development of an indigenous missile making 

capability in Syria and Lebanon~ 

Answer: 

We have used our sanctions authorities to target Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a key 

supporter of Lebanese Hizballah and the Assad regime. We will continue to exercise these 

authorities to the fullest extent possible and encourage our partners around the world to enhance 

their own efforts. We will continue to engage with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

and encourage closer cooperation between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces, with the 

intention that both will be able to take concrete steps to curtail such Iranian activities. We 
167


30175p-2.eps

consistently press the government of Lebanon to reaffirm Lebanon's commitment to its regional 

disassociation policy and to UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701. 

Question: 

Specifically, how is the Administration supporting Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, and 

pushing back on Iran's activities on Israel's northern border? 

Answer: 

We recognize the serious security concerns Iran's current force posture in Syria poses for our 

interests as well as Israel's security. We are pressing for a strict schedule for the withdrawal of all 

Iranian forces, including Lebanese Hizballah and foreign militias under Iranian command. A 

settlement to the Syria conflict is a necessary step to deny Iran and its proxies a justification for 

their continued presence in Syria. Consistent with the President's strategy for Iran, we will use all 

authorities, including economic and financial sanctions, to disrupt Iran's funding for the Assad 

regime and Lebanese Hizballah and deter Iran's use of Syrian territory to threaten Israel. 

Question: 

How is this Administration cracking down on Iran's support for Hizballah? 

Answer: 

To curb Iranian support to Lebanese Hizballah, the Department of State and the Department of the 

Treasury have used their respective sanctions authorities to target Iran's Islamic Revolutionary 

Guard Corps, a key supporter of Lebanese Hizballah. We support the Government of Lebanon to 

provide more effective services to increase public support for the state and its institutions and to 

degrade the influence of Lebanese Hizballah. We will continue to support exercising these 

authorities to the fullest extent possible and encourage our partners around the world to enhance 

their own etl'orts to degrade Lebanese Hizballah's capabilities and dismantle its global financial 

network 

Question: 

What is the Administration doing to stop the t1ow of Iranian arms to Hizballah and disrupt the 

missile production supply chain? 

Answer: 

We have used our sanctions authorities to target Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a key 

supporter ofLebanese Hizballah. We will continue to exercise these authorities to the ti.Iilest extent 

possible and encourage our partners around the world to enhance their own etl'orts to degrade 

Lebanese Hizballah's capabilities and dismantle its global financial network In Syria, we are 

working with key partners to prevent the establishment of a "land-bridge" to supply Lebanese 

Hizballah and other Iranian proxies in the Levant Additionally, we continue to support the Iraqi 
168


30175p-3.eps

government in implementing its plan to right-size, integrate, and professionalize the Popular 

Mobilization Forces and in restoring a capable border security presence. 

Question: 

Given tbe Administration's new Iran strategy you announced earlier this week, how will the 

Administration address Iran's malign behavior, missile proliferation, and nuclear program? 

Answer: 

Iran remains subject to a comprehensive U.S. trade embargo, and we have numerous authorities to 

target Iran's support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, human rights abuses, and 

destabilizing activities in the region. This Administration has already announced dozens of such 

sanctions designations. We are also working extensively with likeminded countries, including 

members of the multilateral export control regimes, our Gulf partners, and Israel to deter and 

disrupt Iranian threats. Examples of such cooperation include military and diplomatic etl'orts to 

prevent Iranian weapons shipments into Yemen and etiorts to interdict ballistic missile technology 

destined for Iran. 

Question: 

How is this ditl'erent from actions by previous Administrations? 

Answer: 

The Trump Administration's policy towards Iran incorporates the use of diplomatic, political, and 

economic pressure to a greater degree than the previous administration, focusing comprehensively 

on Iran's malign conduct. Since the start of this Administration, we have designated nearly 200 

individuals and entities that support the Iranian regime's malign activities, proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, and human rights abuses. We will assemble 

an international coalition to bring unprecedented economic and political pressure to bear against 

the Iranian regime. The President also intends to seek a new deal that permanently ensures the 

Iranian regime can never develop or obtain a nuclear weapon. 

Question: 

How does this Administration's goals differ? 

Answer: 

The Obama Administration believed the Iran nuclear deal would spur Iran to stop its destabilizing 

regional actions and conform to international norms. The Trump Administration is now pursuing 

a more comprehensive security plan that will counter not only Iran's nuclear and proliferation 

threats, but also its other destabilizing activities- including Iran's ballistic missile development 

etl'orts, support for terrorism and regional proxies, and grievous human rigbts abuses. I described 

the 12 goals for our Iran policy. Broadly, Iran must stop its proliferation-sensitive nuclear and 
169


30175p-4.eps

missile activities, end its unjust detention of American and foreign citizens, and stop its threatening 

behavior against its neighbors and support for terrorism. 

Question: 

How will this Administration measure things di±Ierently- i.e. compliance and achieving the goal 

that Iran never achieves a nuclear weapon? 

Answer: 

The President has been very clear that Iran will face severe consequences if it expands its 

proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities beyond their current levels. We also continue to support 

the IAEA and insist that it be able to conduct robust inspections and monitoring oflran's nuclear 

program to ensure that Iran meets all of its international obligations and commitments. We are 

confident the IAEA will continue to exercise its authorities to the fullest extent possible, including 

at any appropriate safeguards-relevant locations newly identified using information recently 

presented by Israel. 

Question: 

What is the Administration's plan iflran rejects the demands you laid out during your speech on 

Monday, May 21? 

Answer: 

We believe it is in Iran's interests to tind a new framework with us that addresses our concerns 

about its nuclear program and its destabilizing behavior in the region. We know that re-imposed 

U.S. sanctions will be powerful tools that can incentivize Iran to change its behavior. We and our 

allies share a common assessment that the Iranian regime poses a threat to our collective security 

that must be jointly addressed. Our allies are committed to never letting Iran acquire a nuclear 

weapon. They share our concerns about Iran's expanding missile development activities, 

destabilizing actions in the region, and human rights abuses. We will continue to work with our 

current partners to address these issues and with new partners who share our concerns. 

Question: 

What is the Administration doing to make sure Russia cannot interfere once again in our elections? 

Answer: 

The Department of State works closely with other departments and agencies to protect our nation 

against potential interference in our election processes. As the lead foreign policy agency, we have 

the unique role of communicating to the Russian government when its behavior is unacceptable, 

working with our interagency partners to impose costs in response, and building international 

coalitions to actively deter malign Russian activities-including those carried out through 

cyberspace-and to share best practices. While the Department's mandate is to lead on foreign 
170


30175p-5.eps

policy, we will continue to support the efforts of the Departments ofHomeland Security and Justice 

and, as appropriate, state and local officials to secure our elections, leveraging all necessary and 

available Department resources to counter Russian efforts to interfere. 

Question: 

What actions has the Administration taken since the 2016 election? 

Answer: 

The Department of State works closely with other departments and agencies to protect our nation 

against potential interference in our election processes. As the lead foreign policy agency, we have 

the unique role of communicating to the Russian government when its behavior is unacceptable, 

working with our interagency partners to impose costs in response, and sharing best practices with 

partners and allies. The Department has used exchanges with partners and allies who are also 

building their own resiliency to share approaches and best practices, again working on an 

interagency basis. We have also taken actions against the Russian diplomatic presence in the 

United States in response to Russian interference in the 2016 elections and have worked with the 

Treasury Department to impose significant sanctions against Russians that undertake destabilizing 

activity. 

Question: 

What actions still need to be taken~ 

Answer: 

As the lead foreign policy agency, the Department of State will continue to support the 

etiorts of the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice and, as appropriate, state and local 

officials to secure our elections, leveraging all necessary and available Department resources to 

counter Russian etiorts to interfere. The Department of State has made it clear to the Russian 

government at the highest levels that any efforts to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections will not 

be tolerated and will be met with severe consequences. We will continue to send this strong 

message to the Russians in order to deter any attempts to interfere and, in coordination with other 

agencies, take additional, restrictive actions against Russia as appropriate. 

Question: 

The Global Engagement Center (GEC) has not used the $120 million available since 2016 because 

the Department failed to act on it transfer authority. How are you going to tix these problems so 

the GEC will have sufficient funding and staff to stand up to and counter malicious efforts by 

Russia to interfere in our democracy? 
171


30175p-6.eps

Answer: 

I agree that the Global Engagement Center (GEC) needs sufficient funding and personnel to 

counter foreign state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation, including that emanating from 

Russia. I assure you that supporting the GEC's mission is a priority. 

On May 15, I lifted the Department hiring freeze. GEC has been granted authority to hire critical 

new sta±Iers and is in the process of doing so. That is an initial step in the right direction. 

I understand that DoD recently began providing the congressional reprogramming notifications 

required to transfer the $40 million, and we are prepared to utilize those funds upon their receipt. 

However, the timing of these congressional notifications and any required approvals will impact 

how quickly the funds can be transferred and applied to project and personnel. The Department 

stands ready to use the transferred funds e±Iectively once received. 

Question: 

How will you ensure the GEC can effectively lead the inter-agency process with DOD and the 

intelligence community to counter propaganda ±rom foreign states? 

Answer: 

The Global Engagement Center (GEC)'s mandate is to counter foreign propaganda and 

disinfonnation that undermines US. national security interests by leading and coordinating 

interagency e±Iorts, which it does by convening interagency stakeholders through a series of 

regular fora. The GEC needs sufficient funding and personnel to counter foreign state-sponsored 

propaganda and disinformation, including that emanating ±rom Russia. Additional tunding and 

personnel will allow the GEC to undertake additional programming and coordinate the interagency 

to conduct its mission as mandated by Congress. 

Question: 

I previously submitted a question for the record to Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan 

regarding my concern that Secretary Tillerson violated US. law, specifically the Child Soldiers 

Prevention Act (CSPA), when he did not list Mghanistan, Burma, and Iraq as countries who used 

or supported the use of child soldiers in 2016. The Child Soldiers Prevention Act requires the State 

Department to list any country -even if it believed the countries were making progress- that used 

child soldiers during the year without exception. I understand the State Department's Office of the 

Legal Adviser and every relevant regional and functional office and bureau cleared the 

recommendation that the Secretary include these three countries in the 2017 CSPA list. Was it 

appropriate for Secretary Tillerson to not list Afghanistan, Bunna, and Iraq, given the input of 

experts in the department, as part of the CSPA process? 
172


30175p-7.eps

Answer: 

I understand the value of using the annual Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) list to focus 

international attention on the unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers. I hope to work closely 

with Congress as we continue our efforts to combat the recruitment and use of child soldiers. 

Question: 

Recently, we have seen across the globe LGBTQ people targeted, tortured, and killed for just being 

who they are. On May 17, 2018, the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and 

Biphobia you stated that "Around the world, far too many governments continue to arrest and 

abuse their citizens simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI)." 

And, "The United States firmly opposes criminalization, violence and serious acts of 

discrimination ... directed against LGBTI persons." Given your statement, what specifically will 

this Administration do to help ensure the safety ofLGBTQ people around the globe? 

As I atlirmed in my statement on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and 

Biphobia, "the United States stands with people around the world in af1irming the dignity and 

equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex 

characteristics. Human rights are universal, and LGBTI people are entitled to the same respect, 

freedoms, and protections as everyone else." Under my leadership, the State Department will 

continue to use a range of public and private actions to counter violence and severe discrimination 

against LGBTI persons, including through bilateral and multilateral channels, by otl'ering 

emergency assistance to LGBTI persons and organizations at risk, and by imposing visa 

restrictions and economic sanctions, as appropriate, against those who violate their human rights. 

Question: 

What will you do to ensure those who have committed crimes against LGBTQ people are held 

accountable for their actions? 

As I atlirmed in my statement on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and 

Biphobia, "the United States stands with people around the world in af1irming the dignity and 

equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex 

characteristics. Human rights are universal, and LGBTI people are entitled to the same respect, 

freedoms, and protections as everyone else." Under my leadership, the Department will continue 

to use a range of public and private actions to counter violence and severe discrimination against 

LGBTI persons, including through bilateral and multilateral channels, by ofl'ering emergency 

assistance to LGBTI persons and organizations at risk, and by imposing visa restrictions and 

economic sanctions, as appropriate, against those who violate their human rights. 
173


30175p-8.eps

Question: 

There have been reports that the Administration is still considering eliminating all or part of the 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and shifting its responsibilities to the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or USAID. Is this change to PRM still being 

considered? 

Answer: 

The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which manages US refugee policy, 

assistance, and resettlement, is an integral part of State's foreign policy efforts to prevent and 

respond to crises and cont1ict and promote regional stability. As part of E.O. 13781, the 

Administration is in the process of reviewing agencies throughout the executive branch in pursuit 

of increased et1iciency, effectiveness, and accountability. In response E. 0. 13 781, the Department 

of State is working with USAID to optimize our overall humanitarian assistance efforts. 

Question: 

If so, what is the justification for such a change? 

Answer: 

E.O. 13781 calls on agencies throughout the executive branch to conduct reviews in pursuit of 

increased efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. In response to E.O. 13781, the Department 

of State is working with USAID to optimize our overall humanitarian assistance efforts. 

Question: 

How would such a change account for the role PRM plays in ensuring that refugee resettlement 

and humanitarian assistance jointly leverages US foreign policy interests? 

Answer: 

The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) fulfills a critical role in providing 

humanitarian aid and working toward durable solutions for refugees, cont1ict victims, and stateless 

people around the world and is an integral part of State's foreign policy efforts to prevent and 

respond to crises and cont1ict and promote regional stability. PRM's work strengthens our 

worldwide diplomatic int1uence and gives the United States great leverage in shaping global 

humanitarian responses to cont1ict. In response to E.O. 13781, the Department of State is working 

with USAID to optimize our overall humanitarian assistance efforts. 

Question: 

How many refugees does the President plan to admit this next fiscal year? 
174

f


30175p-9.eps

Answer: 

The President is expected to make the determination on the FY 2019 refugee admissions ceiling 

in September 2018. The President authorized the admission of up to 45,000 refugees in FY 2018. 

Over the last year and a half, US. government agencies have worked to strengthen the US. 

Refugee Admissions Program's security measures. While necessary to improve national security 

and public safety, these reviews and enhancements have lengthened processing times for some 

cases, initially slowing the rate of admissions. In addition, the United States is focusing resources 

on the domestic asylum backlog, which is more than 300,000 cases and growing. 

Question: 

How does the current admissions ceiling compare to the historical average since the 1980 Refugee 

Act? 

Answer: 

The FY 2018 refugee admissions ceiling is 45,000. The historical average ceiling during the period 

from 1980 to 2018 is 79,250, ranging from a low of 45,000 this year to a high of 217,000 in 1980. 

During the period 1980-2017, actual arrivals averaged 80,212, ranging tram a low of27, 110 in FY 

2002 to 207,116 in 1980. Over the last year and a half, US. government agencies have worked to 

strengthen the US. Refugee Admissions Program's security measures. While necessary to 

improve national security and public safety, these reviews and enhancements have lengthened 

processing times for some cases and thus initially slowing the rate of admissions. In addition, the 

United States is focusing resources on the domestic asylum backlog, which is over 300,000 cases 

and growing. 
175


30175q-1.eps

Questions for the Record from Representative Ted Lieu 

Strengthening American Diplomacy: Reviewing the State Department's Budget, Operations, and 

Policy Priorities 

May 23,2018 

Question: 

What specific steps has the Department taken to prepare for the U.S.-North Korea Summit between 

President Trump and Chairman Kim? Please describe how the preparation has been tasked out, 

which bureaus and otlices have been involved, and all Department engagements with otlicials 

from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the People's 

Republic of China 

Answer: 

North Korea has confirmed to us its willingness to talk about denuclearization. I support the 

President's decision 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 us down the course of 

achieving a diplomatic outcome that the United States and the world are seeking. 

In addition to the President's recent meeting with Vice Chairman Kim Y ong Chol and my meetings 

with Chairman Kim Jong Un, I have teams in Panmunjom and Singapore working on the details 

of summit preparation. We are engaged in a whole of government planning effort. 

Question: 

Have State Department lawyers raised concerns, internally or through oftlcial channels, regarding 

U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen since 2015? Please describe those concerns and 

how they were communicated. 

Answer: 

We take all credible reports of civilian casualties resulting from the operations of the Saudi-led 

Coalition seriously and are proactively engaging with the Coalition to reduce the likelihood of 

harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure. Through diplomatic and military-to-military 

engagements, we regularly emphasize to Saudi Arabia the strategic importance and legal 

obligation to comply with the law of armed conflict, including the obligation to take feasible 

precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians. 

Question: 

In recent weeks, multiple media outlets have reported that the administration has informally 

notified congressional leadership of a massive PGMs transfer to Saudi Arabia, numbering as many 

as 60,000 munitions. For context, the previous PGM transfer released by the administration to 

Saudi Arabia last June was for roughly 16,000 munitions. Because Saudi Arabia is primarily using 

these munitions in Yemen, the size of this transfer suggests that the Saudi-led coalition is preparing 
176


30175q-2.eps

to continue the war indefinitely. The conflict's extension, however, goes against stated US. 

policy, per the State Department, the Defense Department, and the White House, that the United 

States supports a negotiated settlement to the conflict, that the war cannot be won militarily, and 

that military pressure is unlikely to bring the Houthis to the negotiating table. How does the 

transfer of tens of thousands of new PGMs support the U.S. strategy in Yemen to resolve the 

conflict politically, which [Acting Assistant] Secretary Satterfield laid out for the committee last 

month? 

Answer: 

While the Department does not generally publicly discuss potential arms transfers prior to 

formal Congressional notification, I can say that our military support to the Saudi-led Coalition 

supports important US. national security and diplomatic objectives. The Houthis have repeatedly 

used Iranian ballistic missile technology to target Riyadh's international airport and Aramco 

facilities We have open and ongoing dialogue with Saudi Arabia and other regional partners on 

etiorts to achieve a political solution to the conflict. 

Question: 

Won't this sudden influx of air-to-ground munitions incenti vize the Saudi-led coalition to continue 

its air war, rather than make good faith etiorts to negotiate for peace? 

Answer: 

The Administration firmly believes that the only possible solution to the conflict in Yemen is a 

negotiated political settlement under UN auspices. To this end, the Administration strongly 

supports and is working closely with UN Special Envoy for Yemen Martin GritJiths to revive 

political negotiations on an accelerated timeline. He has our full support, and we will continue to 

engage with key regional partners, including the Saudis and Emiratis, to reinforce the Envoy's 

work. Saudi and Emirati leadership have met with the Special Envoy and have consistently 

atJirmed their support for his etiorts. 

Question: 

Mr. Secretary, in your recent address to the Heritage Foundation, you stated that "Iran's support 

for the Houthi militia fuels a contlict that continues to starve the Yemeni people and hold them 

under the threat of terror," while stating that Iran must "end its military support for the Houthi 

militia and work towards a peacetul political settlement in Yemen'' The administration's new 

strategy for confronting Iran is based on the notion that overwhelming economic sanctions will 

force Iran to withdraw support for militia forces across the region--to this end, the Treasury just 

announced sanctions on five Iranian individuals with links to the Houthis. Yet in Yemen, Iran is 

spending very little to support the Houthis; former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel has reported that Iran 

is spending maybe "a few million dollars a year" in support of the Houthis, while Saudi Arabia has 

spent tens of billions on its intervention. 
177


30175q-3.eps

How will sanctions deter the Iranian government from spending a relative pittance to support 

Houthi militia activity in Yemen, particularly when the cost-ditierential between the two sides is 

so substantial? 

Answer: 

The President's Iran strategy will address the totality of Iran's malign behavior, using a whole-ofgovernment approach. It will bring unprecedented economic pressure on Iran through the vigorous 

application of our various sanctions authorities. We also will work closely with our international 

and regional partners to place enormous diplomatic and political pressure on Iran and expose its 

malign activity in Yemen and throughout the region. We continue to work extensively with our 

Gulf partners and Israel to deter and disrupt Iranian threats, including military and diplomatic 

efforts to prevent Iranian weapons shipments from going into Yemen. We remain committed to 

pursuing a sustainable and genuine political solution in Yemen. 

Question: 

The Yemeni port of Hodeidah is a critical lifeline for humanitarian and commercial shipments of 

food, tuel, and medicine for over 22 million Yemeni civilians. Despite warnings by the UN and 

humanitarian groups that an attack on Hodeidah would make the humanitarian situation - which 

the UN already calls the worst humanitarian crisis in the world - significantly worse, there are 

growing indications that forces aligned with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are 

preparing to attack Hodeidah, perhaps as soon as next month. The new UN Special Envoy, Martin 

Gritliths, has said that an attack on Hodeidah also would "in a single stroke, take peace otT the 

table" in Yemen. David Satterfield, your Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Atiairs, told 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that the Trump Administration did not support 

an attack on Hodeidah by our Saudi and Emirati allies, and said that US. position had been 

conveyed to the Saudis and Emiratis. Does the United States oppose an attack by the Saudi- and 

Emirati-led coalition on Hodeidah? 

Answer: 

The United States supports the etl'orts of UN Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Gritliths to end 

hostilities and opposes any actions that would impede his efforts. Hudaydah port is an essential 

point of entry for both humanitarian and commercial goods into Yemen. More than 70 percent of 

Yemen's population lives in areas served by Hudaydah port. We continue to call on all parties to 

the cont1ict to allow unimpeded access through all Yemen's points of entry and throughout the 

country for humanitarian relief and commercial goods to reach the people of Yemen. We continue 

to oppose a military operation at this time to take Hudaydah port and have conveyed this to our 

Coalition partners. 

Question: 

What is the Department's assessment of the impact of such an attack on Yemen's supply of food, 

medicine and fuel? 
178

Æ


30175q-4.eps

Answer: 

We have expressed to the highest levels of the Saudi-led Coalition our deep concern about the 

humanitarian crisis in Yemen. More than 70 percent of Yemen's population lives in areas served 

by Hudaydah port. Historically, as much as 80 percent of humanitarian aid and 70 percent of 

commercial tratl!c reached Yemen through Hudaydah port. These imports are critical to avert 

famine and help the 22 million people in Yemen who are in need of humanitarian assistance. For 

this reason, we will continue to call on all parties to the conflict to allow unimpeded access through 

all Yemen's points of entry and throughout the country for humanitarian relief and commercial 

goods to reach the people of Yemen. 

Question: 

What diplomatic pressure is being used with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to ensure 

they do not undertake or support an attack on Hodeidah? 

Answer: 

We continue to oppose and consistently tell the Saudis and Emiratis at the highest levels that they 

should refrain from military operations that could exacerbate Yemen's humanitarian crisis. The 

Administration continues to assert that all parties must prioritize the UN Special Envoy's etJorts 

to revive political negotiations on an accelerated timeline. A negotiated political settlement is 

Yemen's only viable option for long-term stability.