That because we know Energy Security is essential to National Security. Nord stream 2 threatens european Energy Security, increases russian monopoly over the region. To me this pipeline is a russian trap. Strongly support your recent announcement aimed at stopping this dangerous pipeline. Congress is quickly working to provide the administration with additional tools to prevent nord stream 2 from ever being completed. Both the senate and house passed their own versions of the Defense Authorization act. Could you talk about the administrations commitment to opposing the nord stream 2 pipeline and applying sanctions against those companies aiding in the completion of this russian trap . The ironny is this administration is accused of not being tough on russia. This pipeline created enormous leverage for russia not only against germany and broader europe but ukraine as well. And so we set about in good sport on capitol hill and we got legislation that was appropriate to and now have delayed this project significantly. We need further tools. Were prepared to use those tools provided to us and weve also used our diplomatic capabilities to make clear to countries we want europe to have a secure, stable, diverse set of energy opportunities. And our department of energy has worked along side of us to do that, and our enr department are working to make sure europe has real secure, stable, safe Energy Sources that cannot be turned off in the event that russia decides they want to do so. We think nord stream 2 is dangerous in that effect. Well do everything we can to make sure that pipeline doesnt threaten europe. Id like to move now to the iranian arms embargo. The International Arms embargo is stet to expire this year. Were having to persuade the International Committee of the importance of having iran the leading state national of terror from purchasing weapons. Itll arm terrorists and proxy groups across the region. Weve seen more weapons will likely flow. Despite the terrible consequences many experts believe that any extension of the iranian arms embargo would be vetoed by russia, by china. What would they want it to expire, and is the Chinese Communist party really willing to betray Global Security in order to be irans arms dealer . I hope not but i suspect so. Were working with our e3 counter parts as well. We will submit the u. N. Security Council Resolution in the near future where we will offer to extend this. This was one of the central failings of the jcpoa was to have only a fiveyear ban on the iranian capacity to purchase Weapons Systems to build out air Defense Systems to protect a Nuclear Program should they continue down that path but also to sell weapons around the world and become again as they were before one of the Worlds Largest arms dealers. Were going to do everything we can. We believe we have the capacity to do this at the United Nations. We hope the u. N. Counsel will conclude extending this arms embargo is the right thing. In the event they dont were going to use every tool we have on our fingerprints. We think it decreases stability in the middle east. We think that would threaten israel. Onto religious freedom Sam Brownback for religious freedom recently wrote humanity is why religious freedom will always win out against government and nonstate actors seeking to suppress and control it. We have authoritarian regimes continuing to restrict religious freedoms and the rights of individuals. Can you discuss efforts of the administration youve taken to promote International Religious freed freedoms . We have raised the priority of International Religious freedom inside the state department. I think thats happened under President Trump and Vice President pence. Thats happened all across the administration. Weve used our diplomatic tools to encourage it, we work with religious leaders in many countries to provide them with security. The work were doing in Northern Iraq today is an example, but theres still lots of challenges. Whats happening in nigeria to christians today, muslims in western china. Your point people of all faiths is under attack in too many places. The state department has an Important Role to increase the capacity for people to exercise their rights of religious freedom, and we werent able to do it this year because of the virus but we brought people from all across the world. The Worlds Largest human rights gatherings in all of history were held at the state department twice around the central idea people need to be able to exercise this important right just to have their own faith. And earlier today, going to move onto china, i think you called Chinese Communist party the central threat of our times. We had your deputy here a couple of weeks ago, had a chance to talk about the issues related to china. To me theyre working to expand their military capabilities to advance their global ambitions. They want to dominate globally. In the last few months weve seen them increase military aggression whether its near taiwan, the south china sea, japan. What theyve been doing in hong kong, what theyve been doing at home. Can you talk about the recent confrontations by china and what that taught us about chinas military ambitions as well as their capabilities . Because when we go to secure briefings we ask lots about their capabilities. Not just what they might do but what they can do. I think these actions and when you say recent the last 24, 36 months i think the actions are entirely consistent with what they have been signaling to the world for decades. You might even argue since 1989. But certainly since general secretary xi came to power. Its a desire to expand their power, their reach. They talk about this. They talk about bringing socialism with chinese characteristics to the world and whether you identify some but claimed theyve now made for real estate the incursion that took place in india. These are indicative of chinese intentions and theyre probing the world to see if were going to stand up to their threats and their bullying, and im more confident than i was even a year ago that the world is prepared to do that. Theres a lot more work to do and we need to be serious about it. Senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning, mr. Secretary. Let me say at the outset im very grateful for your proposal to double the budget of the Engagement Center. This is center to counteract propaganda outside the United States established through legislation written by myself and senator portman. And im glad youve recognized the importance and good work of that center. Though we have spent a lot of time in this hearing talking about many of our concern regarding our adversaries desire to use propaganda not outside of the United States but in fact inside of the United States to influence the 2020 election. And so i want to begin by asking you a question about that. Russia in particular has sought to weave together stories about u. S. Persons and ukrainian persons over the course of the past year in order to both try to sow chaos and dissent in the United States but also to try to screw with ukrainian politics as well. Its kind of a double whammy for the russians. And you can see those efforts ramping up as we head into the 2020 election. Probably the most active foreign individual pushing narratives about the United States in ukraine is a ukrainian legislator by the name of andre derkoch who magically came into secret possession of audio recordings. Hes maintained a Government Relations council here and i would expect hes going to be a pretty active presence in u. S. Politics from here to the election. So just a simple question on behalf of my constituents and many of my colleagues as well. Should we view him as a credible source of information . Ill answer your question but let me just say real quick because i think thats important. Thank you for the compliment. The other thing im worried about with asking for a doubling of the money is to make sure we can deploy it in a way weve been pretty successful as its grown but when you expand something 100 year on year i have a team making sure we dont misuse those resources. I will say this, were taking seriously the threats that russia will try to engage in disinformation campaigns, that there may be oligarchs who try to engage in this, foreign actors not just russian. We were pretty successful with this in the 2018 election. I say we, not the state department alone. But all the United States government. Im confident we will be in this one as well. Why wouldnt you be willing to opine on a specific individual if you had information to suggest that the source was not credible . It seems if that is in fact the function of the u. S. Government. If it has information to that would suggest maligned influence to let congress and the American People know. Yeah. So when its appropriate i will. When theres still work ongoing and theres still unsettled intelligence around these things im going to try to be just a little bit more careful, senator. Let be turn to china for a moment. China is clearly seeking to use the United States failure to control covid as a means to leapfrog us in our traditional leadership position when it comes to Global Health. Senator romney referred to this earlier. I think weve given two big gifts to the chinese since the beginning of this outbreak. The first was the president s just remarkable fawning over chinas earlier response to the virus 47 different times. He commended china for their response and their transparency. But i think china also is pretty happy with our withdrawal from the w. H. O. And i understand that you believe as i understand it that our withdrawal from w. H. O. Is a lever to try to seek internal change, and i would disagree. But it also seems to allow for china to step in and occupy that vacuum. So as you step back and try to articulate this sort of broad strategy to counteract chinas growing influence on the world how does withdrawal from the w. H. O. Counteract the growing influence of china . Thats a good question. These are close calls sometimes. We left the human rights council, the same argument was made better to fight from within than try to reform from outside. I think there are reasonable arguments that could be made on either side. The decision the president made, and i conquer with this decision went through multiple rounds of reforms at the World Health Organization and our team in geneva fought for years. And there was no capacity to make that a science based organization and not a political one. And there comes a point where youre spending half a billion dollars on u. S. Taxpayer money year on year that goes to benefit the political actors in the Health Organization and we made the decision we were more likely to achieve the Global HealthSecurity Issues that the United States cares about deeply if we did not participate any further in the World Health Organization. Im not at all convinced it will be china that benefits from that. Im convinced the world will benefit. Weve seen it other places. Whether the United States leads, and we will absolutely lead good things can happen in the International Health realm. I would dispute your characterization of the w. H. O. It is an international body. Theres no way there wont be some level of politics affecting the decision of a body made up of adversaries will go through, but it is a science based organization and one indispensable to our continuation of our efforts to prevent the next disease. And i shudder our ability to stop the next covid if were not backing w. H. O. Again back to senator romney emphasis line of questions about the capabilities we should be developing with our allies to counteract china. I dont think its sustainable for this administration or any other administration to try to go around the world bullying and shaming our friends and sort of have friends into not doing business with china. Well, youve got to have an answer for the things that china is offering. And on the Technology Front we dont have a great answer for 5g. And we may not have a great answer for whatever china is going to put out there on ai or battery technology. Isnt this essential, not just to same other countries into forsaking technology but actually to work with our allies to develop our own alternatives . 1,000 . Absolutely, senator murphy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator portman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate your having the opportunity to let us talk to the secretary of state today. This has been very helpful, very informative. I would say with regard to china and developing technologies with our allies we have a lot to do right here in the United States to get our own house in order. Were pretty good at pointing fingers at china and its usually appropriate but we also arent doing much here to protect ourselves. And i want to thank you because you have provided some great help from your career professionals with regard to our efforts to push back against china taking our technology. And in particular china has these programs. You mentioned youve been doing it for a while. Youve been doing it for two decades where they come over here and find Promising Research and researchers and systematically target them and take that research up in china. And it is economic, health care, its everything. And over the last couple of years weve worked hard on this with an investigation, a report and now legislation called the securing American Innovation act. But with regard to the state department piece of this your career people have come and testified before us, said they need more tools in order to stop folks who they know are coming here to deal with export control technology, coming over here to actually steal our stuff and take it back to china. But they are unable to stop those people from coming in despite affiliations with the peoples army, affiliations with the Chinese Communist party and in many cases a history of taking research. So we worked with one of your pearson fellows. You told me about the pearson fellowship and i took advantage of it. For the last year mark has been working with us, done a terrific job and weve put together legislation thats wellbalanced that says hey, we we want research. We dont want to have this u. S. Taxpayer funded research being stolen. So i thank you for that. I would ask you do you agree these new visa authorities are helpful to protect Taxpayer Research and intellectual property from our adversaries in china . They absolutely are. And we need an expanded tool set to make sure we get this right. Were making progress. Our teams are working alongside fbi are working hard on this set of issues. We all need to be candid when we go back to our home states. We need to be candid whats taking place in some of these higher institutions of learning all across america and be thoughtful how we respond to this influence and theft operation thats being conducted. Thats absolutely right. There are five different provisions in the legislation. One relates directly to our universities and research institutions. To their credit a number of them worked with us and we work with them. Senator and i have taken this but there are universities and associations pushing back hard. And frankly, i think theyre naive and arent willing to faceup to the threat thats out there. And its a National Security threat. Im glad over the last couple of weeks that we have had opportunity to confirm some good nominees from the department of state and im concerned about the backlog where you really had a tough time building up the department. And theres more to go. One i want to ask you about, though, in particular is ukraine. Back in 2014 we went over to ukraine right over the revolution and in those six years intervening a lot has happened in ukraine. A lot of bad has happened, too. And we see right now once again were at a tipping point. The ceasefire is not holding. I understand theres been about a hundred violations of it recently. Ukraine made a decision six years ago to turn to us in the west and yet we still have a situation where theyre not getting the support they need. Two questions for you. How important is it to get Lieutenant General dayton confirmed as the ambassador in ukraine, number one. I think hes highly qualified. Im really pleased with that nomination. And number two, do you agree with what we just did in the national Defense Authorization bill which was to have a record amount of lethal aid going to ukraine. Weve gone from roughly 50 million to 120 million in that legislation. Do you support that legislation . I do. The administration does support the increase in lethal aid. Its important to get a confirmed ambassador in that position. If i might just add this, too, were still thinking it was a real loss when ambassador volcker departed. The work he was doing was important to the state departments overall effort in the region and were hoping to get that position so we have a full on effort there to help the ukrainian people maintain their democracy. Well have a chance to talk to lieutenant dayton at least remotely when he comes, hes done a good job thereof the military and knows the ukrainian issues inside and out, and hes the right person at the right time and im pleased he was willing to step up and do it. It was the right choice. With regard to germany from my point of view, but i think moving troops out of germany is a good idea if they stay in europe. And in particular poland has been asking for years now, you know, to allow u. S. Troops to come to poland, even offered us a base. I was there several years ago where they agreed to, you know, pay for the base. I dont know if thats still an offer. But the baltics, Eastern Europe in particular it seems to me thats the appropriate place to move those troops. And i agree germany is not the right place for the number of troops we have. Rather it should be closer to where the action is in frankly the countries at most risk right now. So i dont know if you have any comment on that but i would hope theyd be able to stay in europe. Senator, ill we dont yet have our defense Cooperation Agreement quite done, so the state department is working diligently with our dod colleagues to get that done so in the event the department of state makes that decision and the president concludes its the right thing to do we can put those forces in there in a way that protects them as well. Thanks to senator murphy for raising those issues. He asked the same kind of questions i would have asked. Trying to reorder and take the dod money thats now going to go directly to you and used more effectively. Theres a timely example on this. The United States under your leadership has provided 2. 3 billion congressionally appropriated money to help other countries combat covid19. I think weve gotten very little credit for it, and i think we can do more in terms of talking about what were doing thaetts helpful. Russia and china are spreading disinformation. Global Engagement Center is the Perfect Place to push back on that and i hope were doing that. No, sir, we are working on that. Its important. I actually think with respect to covid, i think the world gets it. I think they know who the bad actor was. The efforts not only the United States has made but other countries too have been to push back against this misinformation has been powerful and effective. Thank you. Senator kaine. Thank you, mr. Chair, and mr. Secretary welcome. The context in which we have this hearing is very, very complicated. And its almost its just almost too much to talk about. In the last 24 hours we passed 150,000 deaths in this country to coronavirus in my view and i think in the view of many a sizable percentage of those were preventable had the United States handled the pandemic better. This morning the department of commerce indicated that the economy because of covid shrunk at the greatest rate ervin recorded history in the Second Quarter of the year. And then this morning the president is suggesting that the president ial election should be delayed. And i sort of want to start there. This is not something either you or i were prepared to talk about today because i think it happened in the middle of the hearing. The president sent out a tweet that said, quote, delay the election until people can properly and securely go, question mark. Not saying it will happen but raising a question. Can a president delay the november president ial election, mr. Secretary . Senator, im not going enter a legal judgment on that on the fly this morning. Mr. Secretary, you are an honors graduate of west point. You are a graduate of the Harvard Law School. You were on the harvard law review. I was a Harvard Law School and i went to a lot of harvard red sox games. Very kind of you. You were one of the most highly trained and accomplished lawyers who are part of this administration. Can a president delay a president ial election . Senator, in the end the department of justice and others will make that legal determination. We all should want i know you do too, senator kaine, want an election everyone is confident in. Are you indifferent to the date of the election . It should happen lawfully. It should happen lawfully. So for the record because you may not want to comment ton it buts i do think its important, a president cannot delay an election. The day of the election was established by congress. It was established in 1845. Theres no ability for a president to delay an election, and i dont think its that hard or a question or one that should lead to any equivocation by someone life in fourth of succession to be president of the United States. Let me ask another question. Was Marie Yovanovitch a talented Public Servant . Im not going to comment on that personnel matter. Was she a valuable part of the state Department Family . Again, the president made the very clear decision that he preferred she not be our ambassador. Its fully within his right. Everyone one of us that takes on these jobs knows at any minute we could be gone. Im not asking that. This is not a question about the president s power. Im asking about your opinion of her as a Public Servant. I didnt interact with ambassador yovanovitch. You did not . No, not significantly. So you dont consider that you have im not going to talk about this. There will be a place and a time for me to talk about this and i am looking forward to that. Its not the case i talk about Personnel Matters in public. You were very willing to tell us about what you didnt like about the Inspector General i was. Very different situation. Very, very different situation. There have been accusations about misconduct and malfeasance and assertions i fired someone because theyre investigating me. It demands a response. Theres going to be a public report. This is different. And ive been steadfast in this. So youve asked me about other ambassadors before, too. I havent talked about them who are great and doing wonderful things. Ive trying to determine whether youve been steadfast or not since i have so Many State Department employees who live in the commonwealth of virginia who are very concerned about whether or not a secretary of state might have the back of a career professional who is a valued person. You were on a phone call with President Trump and president zelenskiy of ukraine when the president said about ambassador yovanovitch shes going to go through some things. You know what the president meant when he said that . I dont. But you were on that call. Yes, i was. When he said that about marie did you follow up with the president and ask what he meant . Im confident every step we took was appropriate. Im not going to talk about internal discussions at the state department. You wouldnt want me too neither would your constituents, senator kaine. You know that. Thats not appropriate. Can you just listen to my question. You were on the phone call. You heard the president say that about Marie Yovanovitch, and my question to you is did you ask what the president meant about that . Yes or no . The answer is im going to talk about either. I goes youre asking did i ask the president what he meant. Yeah. You told me you dont know what he meant, but i just asked if you asked i appreciate your question, and you can appreciate why i dont talk about conversations with the president. Here was some testimony we heard in this room the other day from your i believe its executive secretary lisa kennen who was here about her nomination to be ambassador of peru. She said in her work with you, the work that her office does they get correspondence for you. Some they open and sort of categorize and classify before they deliver it to you, and then she said theres a second category of correspondence they dont open if its personal to you, if its for your eyes only, if its something from another cabinet member. They would not open that, but they would just deliver it to you. But she said theres a third category of documents that was documents delivered by Rudy Giuliani to you, which didnt go through the process of being opened. And it also didnt go through the process of coming to her and having it delivered to you. It came directly to you. What was your response to Rudy Giulianis effort to sack ambassador yovanovitch . Did you say, hey, its not your job, its my job . The president of the United States has the absolute right to stipulated for the record. I appreciate this. Dont go into great magical effects with respect to how a package came. Thats all silliness. You should know for the record that package was delivered to capitol hill by the former Inspector General who ran franticly to capitol hill and made big news my time is up. Im just going to say you might think this is silly. You might think these questions are silly, but when somebody works for their entire career for the state department and they are slandered with lies and sacked for no good reason that sends a message that could not be clearer to other state department officials, and it may be just a big joke. I mean, hey, look at you smiling and laughing and calling it silly. I dont think its silly to Marie Yovanovitch or the people who work for you. I dont think its silly to understand that every ambassador, every political appointee knows when the president of the United States finds they lack confidence in you the president of the United States you should note i didnt slander anyone. This was handled appropriately and properly, senator. History demonstrates that wars are easier to start than they are to end. I think thats fair. We have agreement. We have agreement. I think the afghan war is a great example of that. You know, after nearly 20 years of war many are questioning the mission. In fact, many have been questioning what the mission is in afghanistan for a decade or more. Including President Trump. I traveled with him to the sad duty at dover receiving two of our soldiers home, and i know it affects him personally. I know hes been very public and consistent and i think very sincere in wanting to end the war in afghanistan. Army Lieutenant General dan mcneal put it this way when asked about the mission. He said i tried to get someone to define for me what winning meant even before i went over and nobody could. Nobody could give me a good definition of what it meant. Some people are thinking in terms of jeffersonian democracy, but thats just not going to happen in afghanistan. This statement was 13 years ago. When asked about our mission general douglas said we were devoid of a fundamental understanding of afghanistan. We didnt know what we were doing. What are we trying to do there . We didnt have the foggiest notion of what we were doing. This is from five years ago. How long is it going to take . You know, what is our Current Mission . Why are we in afghanistan . Do we have a cogent military reason to be in afghanistan right now . Two missions, one is to reduce the risk to our men and women fighting there, and second to ensure theres not a terror attack that emanates from that space. We set about conducting a peace and reconciliation process. Weve now reduced forces there by about half since their most recent peak. Were on our way to reduce even further. Hopeful well get the afghans to begin their negotiations because President Trump has made clear his expectations. Weve entered an agreement well go to zero, well get our forces out of there. I think its may of next year. Would you agree that afghanistan is just one of probably hundreds of places that we potentially have terror threats or radical islamist threats and may not even be no longer the primary hundreds if youll give me dozens and dozens, yes, sir, absolutely. And do thank you that maybe saying we talked about in europe that we had hundreds of thousands of troops in germany because there was a soviet union and they had i dont know 2 million, 3 Million People in their army and we had this sort of cold war standoff. But circumstances have changed and maybe even your opinion has changed whether or not we need so many troops in germany and i applaud that. I think the same is in afghanistan, its certainly changed over 20 years. The war on terror is now and always certainly has been a global one, but i think it may be a 20th century idea we have to occupy territory so much that we have to have acres and large bases particularly in countries that are in prolonged civil war. But the other question is really is our is our goal in these locations around the world our National Security . Or is our goal sometimes muddied by the idea basically, you know, were in afghanistan for the equal rights amendment or for womens rights, or were there for, you know, democracy or making a country out of afghanistan. Are we there for building roads . You know, we build a 45 million natural gas gas station in afghanistan. They have no cars that run on natural gas, so we bought them cars that ran on flacheral gas. They have no money so we gave them a credit card. The gas station cost 45 million and is no longer functioning. So is our goal National Security or is nation building part of what we should be doing as a country . I think President Trump has made it unambiguous our mission is that there is National Security plain and simple. Id add only this. There are times in the world where we are better off if there are democratic nations the state department is designed to build resilience to do this kind of thing. But i do think our Foreign Policy sometimes has been overly ambitious what it is we can accomplish through the use of military force to get other nations i think tencouraging demerac and being supportive doesnt mean we have to institute our image in some other country because it doesnt frankly work. When we look at trying to end the afghan war i think in some ways we are stuck in the sense that people have decided we can only leave with some sort of treaty with the taliban, some sort of agreement with the taliban. Im sort of the opinion that in some ways it might make it worse because i think that the taliban arent necessarily trustworthy, and if we leave under the agreement they have to meet certain parameters which is what were looking towards and then they broke those parameters were right back in with the threat to stay in. I think its almost the threat has to be and maybe the threat should have been this 20 or 30 years ago. The threat should be if you harbor terrorists that are organizing International Terrorism there will be military repercussions, but those dont have to be landing 50,000 troops. It might be landing 50,000 bombs. Absolutely right. I think we need to thing about our were still stuck in this idea weve occupied this acreage and we have to do something with it, you know, and we cant leave until its perfect. Its never going to be perfect there. And the only thing i would exhort you is that dont base it completely on we have to have a perfect deal to leave. I think theres always the threat we can come back. And people say theres ten alqaeda left in afghanistan. They might be plotting right now, and, you know, the president has admitted, you said theyre a shadow of themselves. The president has admitted there have been reports now we are talking dozens not hundreds, were talking dozens not thousands. Same with the Islamic State. General luke came and spoke to our committee and he said he couldnt name any group there he thought had the capability to attack the United States. He said theres no evidence the Islamic State presents a threat to afghanistan. So i do think we have to be mindful of that but we do have to work towards finishing it and i dont want to finish this without mentioning it that it takes friends of the president. People have to try to fulfill his policy and i think for a long time for several years john bolton was trying to thwart that and he was an enemy of the president s policy. So i hope the people remaining will try to fulfill the president s policypermission. You point, senator paul, about the global speble al spectrum om and the fact there are dozens of al qaeda left in afghanistan, thats the central thing the American People need to understand. Where we were 15 or 20 years ago is not where we are today. And our resources, whether its in germany or asia or africa or in afghanistan or syria or anyplace else, we need to make sure its updated for the actual threats presented to the United States of america. Thats what President Trump is driving us to do. Thank you. Senator merkley. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Secretary. Im going to start with the events that have occurred in hong kong and what i really see as a violation of the agreement made with britain between china and britain. And now that these events, this new chinese law that really exerts enormous violations of civil rights in hong kong has occurred, should we extend asylum and visa opportunities to those who are being persecuted by the chinese in hong kong . Senator, were reviewing that. Were considering it. The british have made a good decision, the australians have made a decision. Theyre going to accept up to hundreds of thousands of people. Were looking at how best we might accomplish this, and consistent with making sure t t that we always want to encourage people to try to work from within to the extent they can, as well, so its important that we get this right. And the president is actively considering how we ought to treat those who seek asylum coming to us from hong kong or to grant visa program that surrounds that. It sounds like youre open to the opportunity and are reviewing it, and i do feel like there are folks who will be highly targeted and they are concerned about being locked up for the rest of their lives. Young folks, 18, 20 years old, in china, chinese prisons. Do the events in hong kong change our perspectives on taiwan or make us think about ways to be more supportive of taiwan . We obviously do a lot of arms sales and so forth, but should we be more active in supporting taiwanese participation in International Institutions . Senator, they are different situations. There was an agreement with hong kong, taiwan, they are different. But i think its fair to say that the Chinese Communist party views them as the same. If you ask the Chinese Communist party, they would both view them as part of their territory. And so that requires diligence, and your question about International Organizations not only the team i have assigned to that but the regional bureaus as well, are working on multiple fronts. We took a run at this in the world health assembly, now a couple months back, and we have taken this on at the United Nations to make sure taiwan is represented in every place its appropriate they by represented as part of formal and informal international gatherings. Theres a long standing convention that the president of the United States should not meet with the president of taiwan because it would offend china. Do you agree with that longstanding convention . Senator, if i may defer that. Im happy to have a conversation with you about it. Heres what ill say with respect to taiwan. There are a series of understandings that have been held multiple administrations, multiple parties. We understand taiwan, the relations act and the obligations the United States government has with respect to that. Were working to recognize the changes that general secretary xi has made with respect to this, and we want to make sure we get this right. Saudi arabia has been abetting the flight of saudi nationals who have done horrific crimes in america. And so really two questions. Do you agree that this effort to sweep people out of our country who have done or are charged with doing horrific things before they can be tried is unacceptable . And do you agree if it continues to occur, the u. S. Should use significant diplomatic consequences for saudi arabia . Yes to both questions. Thank you. So there is the report that well, we have done several things in regard to the situation in shin jong and the chinese incarceration basically, slave camps of a million uighurs. And we have done some recent things. I applaud those recent steps to impose sanctions, to block exports that were done with forced labor in china. But i also feel like theres another narrative that has undermined kind of the effectiveness of this. And as we have heard about the president s comments in november 2017 trip to china where he indicated that president xi should go ahead with building concentration camps and then again in june 2019, a year and a half later, the president our president , President Trumps conversation with president xi saying again, basically, go ahead building the camps, its the right thing to do. I think its absolutely the wrong thing to do. And we have done some, as i noted, some steps that suggest that, but should we be more robust at every level in condemning the chinese enslavement of the uighurs . Senator, im actually i think the answer is yes. Im proud of what we have done, the way the United States has responded. Not only the responses we have taken directly but the work we have done around the world to convince the whole world of whats taking place there. I have been disappointed to see muslim countries not respond when theyre often significant muslim populations being impacted there in western china. Were urging them to take this on. In a serious way. And then i guess the last thing i would say is, i think with the objective of changing the behaviors that are taking place there, this is an important economic region. And so the things that were endeavoring to do, its important we get the human rights piece of this right, its important to get the individual sanctions piece right, but its really important and im really happy with the work were doing to convince businesses, not just american businesses because its an international place, a business that they should really look hard at their supply chains, not their just direct employees but their supply chains and whats taking place there. If we get that right, we have the opportunity to change whats taking place there. A quick point and a final question, because im running out of time. The u. N. Factfinding mission on the rohingya, the holocaust museum, the state Department Investigating atrocities have found strong evidence of genocide by burma. I really hope the United States will declare it to be genocide because it is. And it would strengthen our representation and advocacy for human rights in the world, but i want to turn to honduras in my final question. The state Department Human rights report talks about extra judicialal ki akillings, tortur violence against indigenous hondurans, violence against lgbt communities, and in addition, we had in october, a u. S. Federal court find that the president was indicated as a coconspirator in widespread Drug Trafficking and money laundering, and theres huge reports of systemic corruption and human rights abuses. In a context of all of this, is it time to reevaluate our relationship, which has been quite cozy, with the president of honduras . Senator, were constantly demanding that the leadership in honduras take these set of facts onboard. Were well aware of whats taking place, and like in too many countries around the world, we have not had the effect that we desire. Were working on it. I yield. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Good to have you here. In response to Media Coverage over the last few days and the washington post, nbc news, the daily beast, and my hometown newspaper, the indianapolis star, i would like to bring up the situation of peter kasich, and three other americans who lost their lives at the hands of isis. Mr. Chairman, i would like to request the following columns from the washington post, indy star, nbc news be added to the record. Theyll be included. Mr. Secretary, you may recall meeting with the kasich family last year, but as brief refresher, in october 2013, indiana native and former army ranger peter kasich was on a mission in mercy. He was delivering humanitarian aid to suffering people in syria. He was taken hostage by isis and sadly, after months of torture and incredible hardship at the hands of these isis terrorists, and in spite of his embrace of islam, he was brutally beheaded. Sadly, three other americans, james foley, steven sotloff, and Kayla Mueller also lost their lives at the hands of isis murderers. I know each of their stories are familiar to other members of this committee. Since that time, some of the murderers known as the beatles have been killed in u. S. Led drone strikes, but others remain at large, and i know you agree they must be brought to justice. I believe that the United States government should work tirelessly independently, and with the cooperation of allies, to hunt down the killers of these americans and bring them to justice here in the United States of america. Mr. Secretary, do you agree with me . I do. And you should know that the president of the United States agrees as well. What efforts can the state department and our missions overseas take to bring this about . Its a broad effort. I think were making progress. The department of defense, their intelligence assets, the broader set of u. S. Intelligence assets all aimed at making sure we understand and then working with important partners too who who want justice but have a different set of rules about how to think about that, so working to convince them that proceeding to bring them to justice is the right approach. I am very hopeful that we will in the coming weeks have a good outcome here. You alluded to different perspectives that exist out there. What precise obstacles stand in the way, and what can you do to overcome them . So, an example. And ill stay away from this, but in example, when we make a decision from time to time to bring someone back from someplace else, either direct extradition or through another legal process, the country will say because we have a Death Penalty or because of a certain set of rules we have here, they wont either permit that to happen or share the information we might need to complete a successful prosecution, and one of our roles is to make sure that those countries will permit us to do that. I do want to interject, and its important to note here, though youre just using an example, its my understanding that the four families are no longer pursuing the Death Penalty for these terrorists. Their hope is that this shift will alleviate any challenges whatsoever that we have encountered with the British Government and their Justice System in allowing the prosecution to move forward in the United States. I appreciate that, senator. And thats important. Ill leave it at that. I am committed to working with you, and i suspect there are other members of this committee who will join me in that effort to insure that justice is delivered and delivered here in the United States. Will you commit to working with me and this committee to insure that we pursue this matter accordingly . Of course, yes, sir. Thank you. I would like to move to the United Nations and how over the past several years, mr. Secretary, the u. S. Has lost ground in its engagement with a number of u. N. Bodies and programs. Most recently, the administration formally submitted paperwork to withdraw from the World Health Organization. At the same time, the role and influence of other countries, particularly the communist government in china, has been growing at the u. N. Its expanded its role in a range of u. N. Agencies, with chinese nationals currently holding the top job in four of the organizations 15 specialized agencies. The International Civil aviation organization, the food and agricultural organization, the International Telecom union and u. N. Industrial development organization. For comparison, a French National leads two specialized agencies, the imf and unesco. The uk leads one, the ilo, and the u. S. Leads just one, the world bank. Although u. S. National does lead the u. N. Childrens fund and the world food program, which are large and prominent u. N. Organizations. So building on senator murphys earlier line of questioning, why dont we look beyond the World Health Organization, and i ask you, mr. Secretary, what implications does this, this losing of ground within u. N. Bodies and agencies have on advancing u. S. National security interests and other Foreign Policy priorities that we might have in the u. N. System. Its very significant, and it is at least a 15yearlong slide that has taken place and growth of the Chinese Communist partys influence on these organizations. We have done a couple things to turn this around. We had real success at the World International property organization. The chinese thought they had the fast track to that. It wasnt an american candidate, but a candidate we believe has an understanding of intellectual property in the same way freedom loving democracies do, and we crushed them. And it was an amazing diplomatic effort. We built coalitions with the indians, the brits, the australians, and build it across the world. We were asking for about 20 million in this budget to take the team we built there and make it a Permanent Team focused on these major elections for these 15 institutions and then theres another set that are slightly different but still very important. And then we have a second set of operations which is its not just the leaders that matter at the u. N. Organizations. They have big bureaucracies underneath them, and we are sadly inadequately represented at every level inside of these international bodies, and it matters. It matters theres someone there. It matters that theyre american, but it matters if theyre not american, that they come from a nation that understands the rule of law and how the world ought to be conducted in a way that we do. So i have actually worked closely with about seven other countries to build out an effort that is very focused on exactly this. Sometimes, frankly, we had opportunities but we just didnt put we were offered a place and didnt put anybody forward. Thats not the right way to go. We need to make sure we get it right. Im confident that in a year, two years, well be in a better place than we are today and i hope well have the resources to do that. Its a resource issue, but a lot of the focus issue. I think i have cleaned that up materially. Senator perdue. I want to correct the record on a couple things here that have been said this morning. First of all, i believe that secretary tillersons two predecessors oversaw probably one of the most major withdrawals in Foreign Policy from the global stage that america has ever seen. It created a power vacuum that allowed iran, north korea, russia, china, to step into that vacuum and actually during that period of time, created a physical caliphate that allowed the rise of isis in syria. Since january of 2017, mr. Secretary, i believe the world was more dangerous than any time in my lifetime. We faced five threats across five domains. Iran, north korea, russia, china, and terrorism across air, land, and sea, and we woke up and realized that our wouldbe adversaries had been developing capabilities in cyber and space that the priorstration hadnt oned us about. We woke up, and i think we have all now figured out in the United States, theres a consensus on both sides, for the last 50 years with all good intentions, we got china wrong. I think theres a general awakening to that. You have had three other cabinet members along with yourself make tremendous policy speeches here just in the last month, and i would like to quote some of that, that you wrote about. But you had secretary obrien, our National Security adviser obrien talk about ideology, fbi director wray talk about espionage. Attorney general barr talk about economics. And you talked about the warning here. Im going to quote. This is your quote. We had a very clear purpose in those four speeches. A real mission. It was to explain the different facets of americas relationship with china, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist partys design for hegemony. Its interesting you chose that word because the chinese love to quote confucius, and they quote one of his famous sayings as just as and they do this recently. Just as there cant be two suns in the sky, there cant be two emperors on the world. Its not benign deckitatoictato hegemony. You said further, our goal is to make sure the threats to americans that China Addresses are clear in our strategy for securing those freedoms are established. You went on to say in closing this out, securing, and i think this is the most important sentence in the speech, in my opinion. Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist party is the mission of our time, and america is perfectly positioned to lead it because of our founding principles give us that opportunity. Tremendous statement. That will go down in history. The fact that only 6 of chinas population belong to the communist party, mr. Secretary, i would argue our fight is not with the chinese people. Its with the communist party. Theres a statement from the administration here dated may 26th, 2020. It says we do not seek to contain chinas development, nor do we wish to disengage from the chinese people. Can you articulate what threats the Chinese Party represents to our democracy and our freedoms here, and what are we doing to the chinese strategy as we try to manage during your administration here as we try to manage this turn in our relationship with china, to confront them, to stand up to them, but also to protect our freedoms here at home . Senator, there are multiple fronts to this. And these arent created by the department of state. Theyre created by what the Chinese Communist party says, to your point. President trump recognized that. He talked about it in his campaign, as far back as 2015. We have to get this imbalance corrected. And when we do, there will be costs associated with that. We have got the largest increase in our military buildup that President Trump has led. Were very focused on an arms control, Strategic Dialogue were having today, was in vienna on the 27th and 28th of this month. A few days back. We need china to be a part of that too. Theyre now a significant nuclear power. We have seen whats happened on the economic front, the belt and road initiative. Theyre competing. Senator rubio talked about their technology spheres. It will take not only the United States government but the United States citizens to understand this challenge and then we have to build out the global alliance. The last thing ill say here is i have seen the United States is asking nations to pig sides between china and the United States. Its fundamentally false. Were asking every sovereign country to pick between freedom and tyranny. And thats the choice every leader has to make, and thats when i go around the world and thats what i talk to them about, and they all know. They all know that the United States is the country they want to be alongside. They all know that freedom and our value system and the rule of law and Property Rights and the protection of these rights is essential to their country and why i think the tide is turning around the world and people are seeing the Chinese Communist party as what it is, a threat to the freedom of their people. I characterize it a little different. Theres state control and self determination. The world is turning into a binary equation. Russia, china, venezuela, cuba. If you add up all the gdps of those state controlled country, its probably less than 23 billion. If you add up the gdp of the rest, its over 70 billion. I want to relate that back to the last question that goes to your comments earlier about the number one thing, and i think you agreed with it 100 with senator murphy, about allies being the answer here with china. And this is a huge effort thats going to take years to develop, but right now, we have an opportunity with the quad, the quadrilateral security dialogue. United states, india, japan, and india is strongly considering inviting australia to that exercise. Would you comment on how important this particular group is in relation to the bigger conversation you just mentioned, the fact that the gdp of the quad is more than twice that of china today is not to be lost on the conversation. Will you make one last comment on that . Its more populous than china as well. These are nations that all have elected leaders. All have democracies, all understand in different cultures and different settings, all have a central understanding about how commercial enterprise should be conducted and how military should engage and how security is achieved. The good news is i think this grouping is stronger than its ever been. Maybe we were gifted by general secretary xi. He took actions that caused each of the leaders of those countries to recognize the value of this group. I meet with them with some frequency, either by phone or in person, and were working on economic efforts together. Were working on covid responses together. Theres lots of places where were finding common touch points where we can develop real strength in unity that can in fact provide the bulwark we can build out from all across the world. Thank you. Senator graham. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I appreciate the good job you do for our country, and leaning in to hard issues forcefully, and we need more of that, not less. When it comes to u. N. Envoy for libya, do you support that we need a new one . Yes. Good. And im going to try to get a letter from everybody in the committee to the u. N. Secretarygeneral saying please appoint a special envoy, and mr. Secretary, anything we can do to up our game would be great. I know you work with the berlin folks. And we need the ranks. I know you agree with that, not just a new one, but the right person as well. The seizers act, i thank you for using it quickly and holding assads son accountable is a great first step in what i think will be a long journey to punish his regime. Is more coming . Yes, senator. Thank you. Great job. I talked to a general yesterday with sdf. Apparently, they signed a deal with an American Oil Company to modernize the oil fields in northeastern syria. Are you supportive of that . We are. That would be a great way to help everybody in northeastern syria. The deal took longer than we hoped and were now in implementation. You have been terrific in that regard. When it comes to afghanistan, is my understanding correct that any withdrawal from afghanistan would be conditioned space . That correct. And the innerafghanistan dialogue will start fairly soon . Yes. Hopefully. Yes. I dont mean to make light of that. Were very hopeful in the next week. I have heard i may have said that once before, but we see the conditions that have now completed enough that we think theres a real chance we can. In case the taliban are following the hearing, i doubt they are, im a pretty hawkish guy on afghanistan. You have been great on Foreign Policy from my point of view. I would like to end the war too and get everyone to have a say in the democratic pros, and the taliban are part of the afghan culture. Theyre a minority, by no means a dominant voice in afghanistan, but if we could help pakistan and afghanistan achieve a working relationship they have never had before on terrorism, we could get an inner Afghan Dialogue started, im willing to invest in an afghanistan that has a place for the taliban, but not to the exclusion of women or religious minorities, so count me in for your efforts, and i very much appreciate what theyre doing. When it comes to china, is it fair to say that in 2020, Chinese Communist party is running concentration camps to that house religious minorities . Let me be careful about the language. I have described it this way, senator. Something like it . Its the worst human rights violation we have seen this century. Okay, fair enough. Thats a good description. You closed the houston conflict down because they were using the diplomatic platform to cheat, steal, and lie when it comes to intellectual property. Intellectual property and other items as well, yes. The special status of hong kong has been virtually destroyed. Is that fair to say . Yes. I appreciate you speaking about it and taking action. When it comes to the rule of law, the Chinese Communist party sees its more of a nuisance than anything else. I think the litter of promises broken across multiple forums demonstrates that they take those agreements for having very little value. If you got a property, you generally dont build a military base on the contested property. You go to some kind of court and work it out. We just passed in the Judiciary Committee legislation modeled on chasta, allowing americans who have been victims of the coronavirus to sue the Chinese Communist party. Have you do you support that . I havent had a chance to take a look at it. Well get it to you. Please get back to us if you could. Bottom line, syria is never going to end until we get the entire fabric of Syrian Society in a room, working together. The northeastern footprint we have where were working with the sdf, who helped us destroy the isis caliphate, they did most of the heavy fighting. That gives us leverage. I appreciate you being an advocate for the sdf. I appreciate that youve tried to work with a new leadership in iraq. Its important that isis never come back. Its important that we have a say about that part of the world. Finally, as to iran, where do you see the Iranian Regime in terms of their potency . Are the sanctions working . And what would you advise this committee to do Going Forward with iran . So senator, the sanctions have clearly had an impact. It has diminished their capacity to underwrite hezbollah, shia militias in iraq. But clearly hasnt achieved the ultimate objective, which is to change the behavior of the Iranian Regime, so our view is this were happy to see them change, but until such time as they do, we see the best tools to starve the regime of the capacity to inflict terror around the world, so your support in doing that is very important, and i talked a little earlier, i think you hadnt arrived just yet, about the u. N. Arms embargo were working so diligently to make sure doesnt expire in a couple months. Thank you, i think you have done a very good job from my point of view for our country leaning into difficult issues forcefully and with reason. Developmental aid, the house 3 trillion bill didnt have money for vaccines going to the developing world. The republican bill has about 4 billion. I would urge you to work with us to try to find a way, if we can get a vaccine developed, to get it to the developing world sort of like what we did with pepfar, because it will do no good to eradicate here if we dont eradicate it everywhere. Would you work with us in that regard . Yes, we are working on something that is modeled on pepfar, that can be very successful. Well be happy to work with you on it. Thank you very much, senator. Thank you, senator graham. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Senator. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your service as well. Lets cover a number of topics. Lets start with nordstream two, and stopping the completion of that pipeline. As you know, over a year ago, i joined with senator shaheen in passing Bipartisan Legislation, went through both houses of congress. With overwhelming bicameral, bipartisan support, imposing significant sanctions on companies that participated in laying the pipeline of nordstream ii. The president signed that legislation around 7 00 p. M. , if i remember correctly, on a thursday, and 15 minutes before his signature was on the page, the Swiss Company that was laying the pipeline announced they were immediately ceasing all pipeline construction activities. Those sanctions worked. Russia has not stopped. They have a pipeline that is 90 to 95 complete. Now the good thing about a pipeline is a pipeline that is 95 complete is a pipeline that is zero Percent Complete because it aint transmitting anything until they connect the two ends. Its my intention they never complete this pipeline. Both russia and germany continue to press forward aggressively to try to find ways to complete this pipeline. As you know, senator shaheen and i, again, introduced Even Stronger sanctions to any Companies Involved in any way whatsoever with the construction of the pipeline. Those stronger sanctions were included in the ndaa that passed this body with overwhelming bipartisan support just last week. And so im hopeful as the ndaa moves forward that we will have those stronger sanctions in effect. At the same time, you made an important decision within the state department. Under katsa, the administration has the authority, i believe, to sanction Companies Working to build this pipeline. Your predecessor, secretary tillerson, had issued, as i understand it, a guidance that was widely interpreted as essentially exempting nordstream ii, and you made the right decision to rescind that guidance. Can you explain to the committee the importance of that guidance and what authority the administration has right now today with no additional legislation, to sanction any company, any german company, any other company that participates in any way with completing this pipeline . Yeah, thanks, senator cruz. The president made that decision to change that language. It was my recommendation, so im not walking away from it, but i want everyone to know the president was fully onboard with that change. That language is important, and to your point, its a little too simple, but it was essentially a get out of jail free card for those conducting activity surrounding nordstream ii. Thats no longer true. We can see theyre responding as are their insurers, their board of directors, lawyers, all understand the express threat that is posed to them for continuing to complete work on completion of the pipeline. And we we remain hopeful those who have the capacity to finish this pipeline quickly will not do that, and we have the task of those harder to reach by sanctions making sure we do everything we can to stop them. The president has been so clear about the Security Threat this pipeline posed to europe. Not able to convince the germans of that, so were taking action ourselves to try to accomplish that, to preserve security for the european people. I know you care about this issue. I spent about six hours with the president yesterday on air force one, and nordstream ii came up in considerable depth as did the president s frustrations with the leadership of germany. Let me point out that the state department has a long tradition of sometimes obscure speech, perhaps rivaled only by the federal reserve. This is an issue in which ambiguity is not beneficial, and as you know, the russians are actively pushing disinformation that theyre not going to be sanctions for anyone involved in this pipeline. The russians actively push disinformation that the Bipartisan Legislation i had introduced previously was not going to pass. That was wrong. I remember that. We had overwhelming bipartisan support that passed it into law. And so i would encourage i believe under katsa, you have full Legal Authority right now to make clear and explicitly clear to anyone involved with constructing this pipeline that the consequences of doing so are catastrophic and not worth doing, so i would encourage the state department, and i recognize you work within an administration and there may be other agencies that have different views, but if there are those other agencies arent right in this matter. And so i urge you to speak with absolute clarity because it is only that clarity, i think, that has any prayer of actually stopping the completion of this pipeline, and if the pipeline is completed, it will do serious damages to the economic interests and the National Security interests of europe. It will do serious damage to the economic and National Security interests of the United States. And it will benefit putin and put billions of dollars in his pockets. Theres no need for ambiguity. The president hasnt been ambiguous about this at all. There was a reason we made the change in that language, essentially the waiver language, if you will. Were fully intent on sanctioning those who violate the provisions contained there, both in katsa and otherwise. Thank you. Thats helpful. Lets shift to another area. I hope thats clear enough. That last statement had substantially greater clarity, so i am grateful and look forward to amplifying it loudly. Thank you, senator. Lets shift to another topic that you and i have also discussed at length. Which is irans snapback. Mmhmm. I believe maximum pressure should be maximum pressure. That the Iranian Regime, the ayatollah when he says death to america, that he means it. When he says death to israel, that he means it. Under the terms of the Obama Iran Nuclear deal and the u. N. Security Council Resolution implementing it, the United States has the authority to invoke snapback sanctions if and when iran is in violation of the deal. We have that authority, even though we have withdrawn from that deal. Iran is now nakedly, openly, fragrantly flouting the deal. Theyre not pretending to comply with it. It is obvious theyre defying it, and theyre telling us theyre defying it. Will the United States invoke the snapback sanctions, which would result in reimposing not just american sanctions but far broader sanctions on iran for their violations of the deal . I think the president has been very clear. We believe we have this authority. I have spoken to this a couple times. We believe that under the u. N. Security council 2231, we clearly have the authority to do this, and were not going to prevent this arms embargo to expire on october 18th. Well introduce the resolution, we hope will be met with approval from the other members of the p5, in the event its not, well take the action necessary to insure that this arms embargo doesnt expire. We have the capacity to execute snapback, and well use it in a way that protects and defends america. Thank you. Thank you, senator cruz. Mr. Secretary, we promised you a hard stop at 11 30. We like to keep our commitments, and we have by about 30 seconds, according to my clock. Thank you so much for your service to the United States of america. Thank you for working with this committee, as you have. We sin slecerely appreciate it. Record will remain open until the close of business on friday, and any responses given will be made part of the record. With that, thank you, mr. Secretary, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, ranking members. Announcer washington journal. Everyday we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of escape, to discuss policy issues that impact you. Author New York Times writer Robert Draper will discuss his new book the starting war how the Bush Administration took america into war. And Stephon Clark will discuss the return of the nasa Spacex Dragon spacecraft. Also Connie Sanford of the commercial Spaceflight Federation will talk about the world of private industry in human spaceflight and space tourism. Watch washington journal live at be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. American history tv, on cspan three. Exploring the people and events that tell the american stories every weekend. Coming up this weekend on the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, today, on oral history. Army general talks about his assignment to the manhattan project, and working on the nagasaki bomb at 6 p. M. Eastern on american artifacts. Exhibit marking the anniversary of the bombings. Exploring the american story. Watch American History tv today on cspan 3. Announcer the spacex crew dragon capsule with astronauts Douglas Hurley and robert bacon is scheduled to splash down this afternoon in the gulf of mexico. Yesterday, the crew held a farewell ceremony before undoc king from the International Space station. Heres the short ceremony courtesy ofas