he's thinking about the sustainment of his regime. what are the tools, what are the assurances that can be put in place that aren't reversible? he's going to be looking at something more than a piece of paper. he's going to be looking for a set of conditions to be put in place so that he can undertake a task. denuclearizing his country that for decades nobody believed could occur. >> turning to africa for a minute, senator coons traveled to four countries in africa, including zimbabwe. zimbabwe is going through a transition. they have a new leader. elections are set for july and august and we don't have an ambassador there. will you commit to ensure that we have an ambassador on the ground? a lot of that depends on us, but we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committee, but an ambassador on the ground in zimbabwe when that transition occurs, the elections are held? >> yes. it will actually in the first instance depend on me and the president to get a nomination to

you, and i confirm to doing that post-haste. >> i'll go off line and have additional questions on cuba. i'm concerned in a similar vein that we have just a skeletal staff there. the embassy, given the issues that occurred there. i think it's an important time there. we're going to have a non-castro head of state for the first time later this month. if we could beef that staff up, it would be great as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator udall. >> thank you, senator, for your service and thank you, general pompeo. we appreciate having your family here and look forward to asking you questions. i want to follow up. i've worked with senator flake quite a bit on cuba and follow up on the cuba issue. cuba is about to choose its first leader who is not a castro, yet the u.s. presence in

the country has been reduced significantly. and as a result, other countries are filling this vacuum. will you work to help improve ties with cuba, a relationship that benefits many states hoping to increase trade with the island? as you know, when i visited with you in my office, i talked about how many governors have gone to cuba and said, with their agricultural folks, and said, cuba has 11 million people. we want to sell food products to them, agricultural products to them. so will you work to improve ties with cuba? >> senator, i recall joking with you about kansas wheat. the answer to your question is yes. senator flake had asked about the amambassador, the diplomati presence there. i think everyone is aware of some of the concerns, and i assure you and i'll assure senator flake as well.

we will be consistent in ensuring we can keep these folks safe. we will build out a team there that will deliver american diplomacy to cuba in a way that represents the finest of america. >> now, as you know, u.s. internet companies, cuba has very, very little internet capacity. and this is one of the things, i think, really could open cuba up to the world. do you believe the united states company should lead the effort to help bring the internet to cuba? >> sir, that question sounds like there may be something buried there that i'm not aware of. >> there is. >> if i might -- >> now, come on. >> so at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, i would prefer to have the chance to talk to my experts at the state department and work my way through it. >> okay. and there is nothing really tricked there. i've worked with a number of the

members of this committee and others outside the committee to try to push the effort to have the internet be a big part of what our first push in cuba. as you know very well, and we talked about this in my office, too, the state department and defense department work hand in glove on these crucial issues, and the job of the state department is to try to make sure we don't get into unnecessary wars. your work, i think, is to work hard at diplomacy, search for peace, do what we can and make sure that we don't get into another war. are you committed to robust diplomacy as our ranking member senator menendez talked about and commit to doing everything you can to prevent future wars? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. i'm going to follow up also on several members on the iran deal.

director pompeo, the iran deal has effectively cut off all pathways to an iranian nuclear weapons program. compliance has been certified repeatedly by the international atomic energy agency and both israeli and u.s. intelligence agencies, one of which you oversee. yet you have said that, and i quote here, iran will have the freedom to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons at the end of the commitment, end quote. however, even when the joint comprehensive plan of action sunsets under the current deal, iran will still remain a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and a party to the iaea's additional protocol. iaea inspectors are not going anywhere, and if they did, the united states and the global community would have ample time to react to any breakout. in fact, the international community, through the secretary general, spoke out as to the

importance of the jcpoa very recently. in view of this position in light of your apparent support of u.s. policy of regime change in iran, really the contrast there really upsets me. in 2014, you said you would have preferred military strikes to the jcpoa. and i quote here, this is your quote, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iranian nuclear capacity. this is not an easy task, end quote. are you for a strike? >> i don't think that's what i said. with respect to the quote you provided, i know a little bit more about what it would take today, but in terms of what i described as the capacity to achieve what i was speaking to that day, i think i'm still

pretty close. but there is no doubt that this administration's policy and my view is that the solution to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, to finding ourselves in the same place we are in north korea in iran is through diplomacy. >> do you have any evidence to dispute the iaea assessment that iran is in full compliance with the jcpoa? >> senator, with the information i've been provided, i have no -- i've seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today. i think your question is, do you have any? the answer is no. >> i would just hope -- i'm very near to the end of my time here, but i would just hope that you understand that the international community and the united states working together is what got us to the point where we are, and so i think it would be very unfortunate if we're the one that pulls back and sets the stage for a very chaotic future.

thank you very much. >> on that note, do you have any sense that chancellor merkel and macron's visit here, that subject will be discussed? they will be here before may 12. >> i have not seen the agenda, but i would be shocked if it did not come up. >> so there is still the possibility of the three that matter coming together on a framework, and as we get closer to that time, maybe people will be a little more focused on that occurring. >> senator, having had some interactions with my european counterparts, i am confident that issue will be discussed at some length. it's important to them, and i know they'll raise their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the united states in the coming days. >> senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director pompeo, congratulations to the nomination to your family and thank you for your services. this is a major task you're about to take part of and i

appreciate your willingness to serve our country again. thank you. director pompeo and i had the opportunity to work together for a number of years. >> for senator markey. >> we're going to take another very, very quick break. we'll resume our special coverage of this confirmation hearing in two minutes.

internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today. almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey!

oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. we're continuing our special coverage on the secretary of state nominee mike pompeo answering questions from corey gardner on asia. >> would you share with me some of the priorities you think should be in a comprehensive aid policy? >> so step one obviously is diplomacy, making sure there aren't mistakes. we don't talk past each other. you talked about the trap. it depends on the two countries

being able to talk on importance. i think diplomacy leads that effort. as i think we all would agree, absent a strong america, the rest of the things pale in comparison. we have to make sure we have robust growth. the capacity of the leverage to achieve diplomatic outcomes depend on that. we need to make sure america does the things it needs to do, so we have not just 2018, '19 and '20 but a long-term horizon of economic prosperity. >> i think you would agree as well a generational policy, so to speak, on asia in the pacific strategy is what we need, not just a four-year professional term policy? >> that's why what you describe is important, because when questions get asked about china, we can never forget they live in a complicated region with a

widely bearing interest and a country that is intent to expand their capacity to have not only economic influence in those countries but using their pull in those economic countries. >> we'll get into china more later or in the next round of questions, but it's important to note even today china has announced military exercises in the taiwan straits. these are just a few challenges we have that have been lingering in the last couple years, but increasing in their importance today. do you agree with secretary mattis that north korea is the most urgent security threat the united states faces? >> i do. >> this committee has led the efforts the past several years to increase maximum pressure on north korea and the kim jong-un regime with passage of legislation policy, enhancement act and also working together to ensure maximum pressure is applied. senator markey and i have

introduced legislature known as the lead act to enhance diplomacy, which puts a trade embargo on pyongyang and its neighbors. would an engagement policy mean a continued pursuit of third party entities and institutions who engage in significant trade with pyongyang? >> yes. >> will you commit to advance this lead act and others like it that make sanctions against these entities? >> i'm not up on the details. the president has made clear the continuation of the pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to ensure a successful diplomatic outcome in north korea. >> we have about a minute left here. can you share with me the exact goals of the presidential senate between the united states and north korea? >> yes, i believe i can. it is to develop an agreement with the north korean leadership

such that the north korean leadership will step away from its efforts to hold america at risk with nuclear weapons. completely and verifiably. >> to be clear, again, the only goal the united states has as it relates to north korea is the complete, verifiable, irreversible, denuclearization of north korea? >> i want to be careful about the word complete. north korea has one of the largest military weapon system of the world. we want to make sure we secure for the japanese as well. >> the goal remains, the complete, verifiable denuclearization? >> that's correct. >> senator kane. >> thank you, mr. chair. general pompeo, congratulations on this nomination. in the nuclear deal of 2014, you

opposed the deal and you stated, quote, it's up to 2,000 sorties to destroy the nuclear capacity. this is not an incomprehensible fact for the co lialition force. a number of people opposed the deal, but you thought proliferation might be easier than some folks were suggesting. where did you get the notion that destroying iran's nuclear capacity could be accomplished with 2,000 air sorties? >> it was based upon a number of things i had learned as a member of congress. >> your military career and as a member of the house intel committee? >> senator, yes, i think that's right. i'm trying to remember the timing of the statement. i think i would have been serving on the intelligence committee at that point in time. >> at that time did you have any reluctance to share that assessment publicly? that seems like a pretty specific sort of an assessment, to say i'm confident of our capacity is one thing.

to publicly discuss it would be 2,000 sorties to knock out the capacity is another thing. did you have any other information at that time? >> no classified information was contained in that simple statement. >> wouldn't that sort of specificity probably rely on a lot of classified information? >> senator, 2,000 is a pretty big, round number. there was no effort here to make any specifics. it might have been a thousand, it might have been 3,000. there was no aim here to communicate it. >> you weren't trying to be inaccurate in your statement? >> absolutely not. i never try to do that. but if i might, and we may disagree about this, senator. i do think it's important -- i absolutely think it's important to provide diplomats with the opportunity to be successful. countries that are adverse to us don't often exceed to our desires without a rationale to do so.

diplomats without any strength or capacity are just sitting there talking. >> i believe, i think we have a lot of capacity. i was just struck by this specificity. would it be your norm to share that kind of information publicly and in such specific details? >> i'm confident if i had done it multiple times, you would raise it with me here today. >> did you assume iran might respond to an attack by the united states, or were you just assuming they would do nothing? >> senator, i don't know in the context of that statement i was thinking about -- >> but you would agree with me the extent of force that the u.s. would need to use to destroy iran's nuclear capacity would depend pretty significantly on whether iran would fight to protect against its own soil? >> absolutely. >> and you don't think it would be an inseizuurmountable task f our forces. most of our forces in 2014 were sitting around a table trying to come up with a peaceful negotiation to end nuclear

capacity. it sounds like you said the u.s. would not propose a deal and the coalition partners would make a deal. i'm curious what coalition partners you're thinking about in that statement. >> i wasn't thinking of any certain coalition partners in that statement. >> vice president cheney said we would be liberators of an invasion. it would last, quote, five weeks or five months. it certainly wouldn't last any longer. we know the cost to the united states was 4400 soldiers dead, 500,000 iraqis dead, a price tag now topping $3 million, unprecedented turmoil in the region, and most of those specs were known at the time you made that statement in 2014. let me say this. i'm one of two senators who served on foreign relations

armed services committees. i represent a state that's deeply committed. i have a son in the military. i honor your military service, your entire public service. i think my mission on these two committees is sort of two things. dramatically reduce the risk of unnecessary war, raise the probability that we decisively win any war we need to be in. i also firmly believe we shouldn't be in war without a vote of congress. your actions as a house member suggested we probably see this somewhat as the same way. in 2011, i criticized president obama for putting us into military action with libya without a vote. you voted twice to oppose military action unless it was authorized by congress. in 2014, president obama came to this committee to ask for the military authority to strike syria. you supported that in the house. i supported it here in the senate. the committee supported it. now, president trump has ordered missile strikes fired at syria

last year. he didn't seek congressional approval. the u.s. conducted airstrikes against the syrian military in february without congressional approval. the president is tweeting that he might do additional military strikes in syria now, and he's also aiming words directly at russia. as far as i know, syria has not declared war against the united states. has congress given the president specific authority to wage war against syria? >> senator, i think you and i actually do share similar bias for the executive and legislative branches both to be involved when such momentous decisions about war are undertaken. now that i'm in the executive branch, my views on that have not changed. >> and you would agree with me that waging war requires both an objective and international legal proposal? >> yes, i would. i don't want to dodge your very specific question. you asked about syria. for a long time, multiple

administrations have found that the president has authority to act and take certain actions without first coming to congress to seek approval. whether it was kosovo -- the list from democrats and republicans is long. just to close, i share your view. in each case where we can, america and our soldiers and sailors, airmen, marines are better off if we have the entirety of the government working together and have activity. >> for months i've been trying to make legal justification for last april's strikes on the military base in syria. the administration has not fully provided it. and there is reportedly a memo that is laying out a description of what the president or the administration feels are the appropriate executive powers. would you support the release of the nonclassified portion of that memo to congress so that we

can see what the president thinks his powers are and engage in a productive dialogue about that? >> i learned about this memo. i think you shared it with me. i was unaware of that. i promise i'll work alongside you to get that information. if it's a classified version of it, you have a right as a member of the legislative branch to see that i get you that, and if it's an unclassified version, we'll work to get that as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> specifically, a surgical strike against -- let's just use the last one that occurred with 59 tomahawk missiles -- do you believe that does require an authorization from congress? >> senator, multiple administrations have taken those kinds of activities under the president's authority. >> i was ranking member when our chairman and i and the committee wrote an authorization with the use of force against syria that

unfortunately was not used and it's changed the course of history, unfortunately, and displaced millions of people and hundreds of thousands of people are dead. and not to say that that would have necessarily prevented all of that, but certainly would have changed the trajectory significantly. i agree with you, and i've shared that with the president just in the last very short period of time, that i do not believe that should he choose to take a surgical strike against syria that an authorization from us is necessary just based on a body of evidence that we have and the things that have occurred in the past. i, like you, oppose strongly to what we did in libya. i think that's complicating our efforts in north korea because of obvious reasons. so with that, senator young. >> welcome, mr. director. congratulations on your nomination. my point as i start here won't be on trying to identify --

>> we're going to continue our special coverage, but we have to take a quick break. we'll resume the senate foreign relations confirmation hearing for mike pompeo to become the secretary of state in two minutes. your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

republican senator todd young of indiana continuing the questioning of mike pompeo. >> -- property and forced technology transfer and associated activities. you also mentioned just moments ago that china is using mostly economic tools against us to achieve broader geopolitical, geostrategic ends. do you believe these policies by beijing have already undermined and if they continue unabated, they will continue to undermine our ability as a country, to realize our potential for economic growth, to incentivize investment in key technologies and key sectors of our economy

and to sustain the financial wi wherewithall to defend our country and advance ourselves worldwide? >> yes, i think we're in the midst of that. i think we have to confront it today. most directly on point is the enormous amount of intellectual property that has left the hands. sometimes taken, sometimes coerced out of the hands of u.s. companies. the imagination and creativity of the american work force has delivered it and the chinese have taken it away from us. we have to develop a robust set of tools, a bunch of tools that we need and to do that well so we can prevent that from happening in the future. >> earlier you spoke of the need for my words, a china strategy. so my sense is you believe we need a whole of government, well coordinated, informed, strategic response to china's coercive,

elicit trade practices, is that correct? >> yes, i do. >> i door, too, and that's why intend to introduce legislation on this topic. i'm going to ask for the periodic production of an economic strategy. i welcome the opportunity to work with the administration, you in particular, and any colleague who share these goals. i think we'll get it across the line. it's needed now more than ever. do you believe that a u.s. response, mr. director, to china will be more effective if we had assembled a multilateral coalition who also suffered due to beijing's economic policies and trade practices to create a unified, international front to apply maximum pressure on beijing to achieve our objectives as opposed to a

merely bilateral dynamic which i perceive we have now. >> i agree with that. conceptually, if we can get the countries of southeast asia more broadly in asia and others to jointly set up a framework that achieves what it is that you've described as our objective, we are march ffar more likely to a most or all of it. >> mr. director, given the challenges we face with russia, iran, north korea, china and beyond, do you believe our nation's need for effective diplomacy will decrease in the coming year or two? >> senator, it seems unimaginable, but if i'm good enough, right, i am hopeful we can begin to take some of these challenges away. i had all the former cia directors, nearly all of them attended, and some of them have

been there 20 to 25 years ago. they said, mike, this stack has grown longer. we need to start to solve some of these. >> so your response, though humorous, actually is something i'd like to shine a light on. because the previous occupant of the secretary of state position once indicated that part of the rationale behind his funding request for the department of state was that there would be less of a need on account of highly effective near-term diplomacy for as much funding. any large organization here in washington or beyond can be made more efficient and we can identify funding decreases that might be made. but i would regard it as a risky strategy to assume that your highly affected diplomacy is

going to be a strong rationale for funding cuts. are you operating under the premise that highly effective diplomacy will lead to lower funding requests in the international account? >> no. when i said i am optimistic, i'm hopeful that this is the task with which we're enengaged, but can't see anything in the 6, 12 or 24-month time frame that would be confirmed. >> thank you along with senator gardner and others. welcome, sir. i want to talk about the threat of nuclear war. in north korea i'm glad to hear that you believe we should exhaust all options before resorting to military conflict. i agree with you. but i do not believe that we

have yet exhausted all options. you have spoken about setting conditions for success in advance of president trump's meeting with kim jong-un, and i am, right now, very concerned that the lack of a coherent policy in north korea could lead to a very poor meeting. and if that meeting goes poorly, some might reach the conclusion that both economic pressure and diplomatic engagement have failed. national security adviser john bolton has recently outlined the case for preventative military strikes on north korea. are there any conditions in which you would support preventat preventative strikes against north korea? >> that phrase preventative

military strikes, i want to be careful. there is a legal view. i want to stay away from the legal view. let me give you my diplomatic and national security definition on that. while i don't want to speculate or hypothesize how the negotiation might go, it's my full anticipation that however that meeting goes, there will be enormous diplomatic work yet remaining. to your point we have not yet exhausted our capacity there. i think there is an awful long way to go. the president has made clear, and i agree with him, that there may come that day. there may come the day when we see an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of striking the united states of america. the president has made clear his intention to prevent that from happening. to the extent that diplomatic tools and other tools that america has as its foreign policy power are unsuccessful, i know secretary mattis has been directed to present to the president a set of options that will achieve the president's objective. >> secretary mattis has said

we're never out of diplomatic options. and let me get your response to this, because there are going to be some who make that recommendation that we try diplomatic options, and kim was absolutely unresponsive in this meeting with the president. let me remind you the pentagon has stated, quote, the only way to look at and destroy with complete certainty north korea's weapons programs would be through a ground invasion. as you know, projections for a conventional war, an estimate of 3,000 to 30,000 soldiers could die in a military conflict. you're a military man. you understand this. is there any circumstance under which you would concur with john bolton that with the exhaustion

of economic sanctions from his perspective that a ground invasion of north korea would be necessary in order to rid that country of its nuclear weapons program? >> senator, i suppose i could hypothesize such a situation, so i will answer his question. kai imagine o could i imagine one, senator? yes, i could. i suppose we could get to the condition that there would be wide consensus on this panel where kim jong-un was directly threatening it. we had information about his activities. yes, i can imagine times when america would need to take a response that moved past diplomacy. >> i would say to you that the consequences of the united states initiating an attack against north korea would be catastrophic. >> i agree with that. >> if we had not been attacked, if we had not been attacked, and that's what concerns me about john bolton. i think the american people will want reassurances from you that

you would not consider such inaction because, ultimately, he already has nuclear weapons, and it would be catastrophic almost immediately if we decided to make a first strike against him. so i don't feel comfortable with you not taking that off the table, but i would like to move on to saudi arabia and the 1-2-3 agreement that's being negotiated with them. again, i'm going to quote mr. bolton that civil nuclear cooperation on 1-2-3 agreements between the u.s. and other countries must include the gold standard, a commitment to forgo any uranium enrichment or processing to technologies critical to the development of nuclear weapons. do you believe that any agreement that we negotiate with saudi arabia should, in fact, have a gold standard? >> senator, yes.

one of my critiques of the arrangement we reached with iran was it was insufficiently close to such a standard. >> so you support the gold standard? >> i do. and while i've not been part of the negotiations, senator, i know that the state department and the department of energy are working towards achieving that. >> so would you oppose any agreement that was less than the gold standard? that is, that ultimately permitted for uranium enrichment or plutonium processing technology on the soil of saudi arabia? >> senator, i can't answer that for you. i can imagine we got close but not quite to the full definition. the answer, i guess, is yes, i can imagine such a scenario. >> how do you think iran would respond if we pulled out of the agreement with iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where saudi arabia could

receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment equipment? how do you think they would respond? >> senator, this is precisely my concern with the iranian agreement. >> right. that's the question i'm asking you, what would be the response if we were providing nuclear weapons material to the saudi arabians? >> senator, i think they would take it into account. remember, when we're talking about nuclear weapons, we're most often talking about components. we're talking about missile material, the capacity to authorize delivery of a mechanism often through missiles. today iran has that capacity to do that. and saudi arabia has the ability to offer a movement with iran. >> this is going to be a dangerous concoction if we pull out of the iran deal and permit

them to provide nuclear weapon-making materials in their country. the juxtaposition of abandoning the iran deal while simultaneously giving saudi arabia a sweetheart deal is going to lead to a highly combustible position in the middle east that is avoidable if we reinforce the iran deal, ensure it's being complied with while also maintaining a gold standard. otherwise what saudi arabia wants is to be put on third base for the lead, and i think this administration will be making a terrible mistake if it ng negotiates a deal that allows the saudi arabians to do that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator markey. >> we had talked with senator perry and i couldn't agree more that we need to stress a gold standard. at the same time, i understand that when you have given iran the right to enrich, everybody

in the region is going to want the right to enrich. so you've got your work cut out for you over the next period of time, and it is quite -- it's very difficult to tell an arab nation that they cannot, when we said that the shia can. senator isaacs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your nomination. >> we'll have another break and resume or senate coverage after this.

let's get back to our special coverage. senator johnny isaacson of georgia is asking questions of mike pompeo, the secretary of state nominee. >> -- on big issues we need in the united nations. i hope you'll focus on africa when you have the chance and realize what the state government has done. lastly, this is kind of an

editorial statement. my experience of the state department is that it has been in a blue funk for about a year and a half. and one of the things i told you when you came to my office, i thought there was a real need for a perk, for an adjustment and for an attitude improvement with the state department. i think you're all for the opportunity to be that catalyst of the department. to your credit, your critics and your complimentors, or whatever that term should be, at the cia give you high marks for bringing that agency back in an enthusiastic motivational mission. i think your words to mike in your opening statement were exactly the seed because all of a sudden the employees had a chance to speak out to you, tell you what they thought needed to be done, and you had the chance in that environment tell them what they could be as a partner to you to make that happen. as i understand it, the attitudes of the state

department are the best that they have probably ever been, the unity there is strong, and the understanding of the mission of the rank and file employees is great. so i want to challenge you to replicate where possible in the state department that same energy and fire that you have with the cia. because the state department needs it desperately, and the state department is our hope for peaceful settlements of difficult problems and putting our best foot forward early so we don't have to put our biggest foot forward later. if you can do that and challenge what you did at the cia at the state department, that will be a big issue. and please feel free to brag about yourself. >> senator, i will. i'll actually do just the opposite of that. what you described took place because of the talented officers, the expertise, the professionals at the central intelligence agency. that is, i had enormous human

capital with which to build a team. i know the state department is the same way. i know the local employees, the civil service, the foreign service officers should have that same desire for admission and to be relevant, to be important. if you decide to devote your life to that, you have a special commitment. and my task if i'm confirmed will be to free them up to go do the great work they signed up to do when they came on board at the state department. i'll work at that every day. >> you just demonstrated by giving the credit to the employees at the cia why you were such a popular director there and i'm sure it will continue at the state department. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. pompeo. i do want to say again i appreciate you coming by and showing me the respect and deference to give me some time yesterday so we could talk in private. >> you're most welcome. >> i want to pick up on one of the things we talked at length about, and that contains one of

your past statements concerning multi-americans. in your statement you talked about folks who worshipped other gods and called it multiresu multiculturalism. you warned that we are in a country where that happens. do you have any views of the muslim faith or people who worship, quote, unquote, other gods? is that something negative in our country? >> no, senator. you can look at my record. you don't have to take my word for it here today. my record is exquisite with respect to treating people of each and every faith with the dignity they deserve, to protect their right to practice their religion or no religion, for that matter, in the way they want to. i did that when i ran their aerospace -- >> my time is almost up. >> but it's important because i've heard these critiques and you raised it yesterday. i have worked closely with muslim leaders, with muslim

countries. the cia has seen countless, thousands of mu -- saved countless muslim lives. this is huge for me, and i promise i will treat each person of faith, of muslim faith and others with the utmost respect. >> where we see a world of bigotry and hatred, your words do matter. i will stipulate to the actions you just said, but i really want to get to the bottom of people who will be reading your past statements and give you a chance to further explain them. i would like to go back to what we talked about, you and i, about this idea, and i'm quoting you, that a special obligation falls on muslims in regards to terrorist attacks in our country. you said something very dramatic. i know you know this. you said people who are silent

are complicit in those terrorist attacks. do you think that muslim americans in this country who serve in our military, who serve in the state department, their failure to speak up, is that -- are they complicit in terrorist attacks? >> senator, each and every human -- not just americans -- each and every human being has the ability to push back against the extremist use of violence. >> so you don't create a special class of people in this country based on their religion that have a special obligation, as you said, to condemn terrorist attacks? >> no, senator. having said that, and you and i had a chance to talk about this yesterday. i'm not sure we ended up completely agreeing, but perhaps we did. i also do believe this firmly, that for certain places, for certain forms of violence, people who are more trustworthy have a more shared experience. so when it comes to making sure

we don't have terrorists brewing in places where muslims congregate, there is a special place, right? it's more than a duty, it's an opportunity, right, to be treated -- when someone from another faith says it, it can get characterized -- >> i need to move on because i have some more questions. so you think muslims in america who are in positions of leadership have a different category of obligation because of their religion. that's what i'm hearing you saying. >> it's not an obligation, it's an opportunity, senator. >> it's interesting, because i would agree with you that silence in the face of injustice -- we've seen this in the holocaust, weaver se've see in the civil rights movement -- i would agree that silence in the face of injustice leads to that justice. but certain americans, i don't care if it's kareem abdul-jabar or muslims that serve on my staff and are in positions of

leadership, that they suddenly have an obligation. i do believe that all of us, when it comes to violent actions or even violent words have an obligation. so i'm wondering, sir, do you know frank gaffney? >> yes, i do. >> and you've been on his show dozens of times. >> i was on his show some, yes, senator. >> i have here over 20 times. and he has talked about muslims should be -- who abide by the adhe adherence of faith should be tried for acts of extradition and should be prosecuted. did you remain silent on his show? i have a lot of statements here. did you remain silent? from my notes, at least, you're a friend of his. were you silent in your position of authority against these words that are viola trtiviolative?

>> what about bridget, do you know her? >> i do. >> someone who has considered and made remarks that are hateful and bigoted. have you called her out? >> senator, i've worked with people who -- >> did you ever call her out? >> i don't know. i can't recall statements i've made over 54 years. >> i believe anything that attacks our constitution and our ideals would require an obligation to call out. >> i have called out. we had a terrible fellow in kansas named ted phelps. i called him out. >> i do want to hear you talk about your comments on gay and see -- lesbians.

you said anyone who calls it a perversion lifestyle. is it considered a perversion? >> i do not believe that. >> you do not believe two gay people should marry? >> same reaction. >> so you do not believe that should be allowed? >> i believe it's the case we have married gay couples at the cia. you should know i treated them with the exact same set of rights -- >> you believe gay sex is a perversion? yes or no? do you believe that gay sex is a perversi perversion? it's what you said here in one of your speeches. yes or no, do you believe gay sex is a perversion? >> i'm going to gifr you the same answer i gave previously. my respect for every individual

regardless of the sexual orientation is the same. >> i will conclude by saying, sir, you're going to be secretary of the united states in a time where we have hate speech, hate action against jewish, muslim americans. you'll be representing this country in a nation where gay individuals or untold persecution, untold violence. i do not necessarily concur that you are putting forth the values of our nation when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse and where you think that you create different categories of americans and their obligations when it comes to condemning violence. so i'll have another round, but thank you. >> thank you. >> senator portman. senator paul, thank you, sir. >> thank you.

thanks for your testimony and thank you for going through this grueling enterprise and your willingness to serve the country. you discovered with senator kaine a little bit about whether you cou the president has the authority to bomb al-assad's forces or installations? >> those systems are waiting. every chance we have we should work alongside so we can do that. >> it's disputed mostly by our founding fathers. uniformly it goes to the executive brarchl having that power.

in fact, madison wrote very specifically, the branch most prone to war. therefore, we have with studied care, so the fact we have in the past on this doesn't make it constitutional and i would say i take objection to the idea that the president can go to war when he wants, where he wants. with regard to afghanistan, some are saying it's time to get out of afghanistan. what do you think? >> senator, i think the course of action. it is humble in its mission. it understands that we've been there an awful long time and has an objective of leaving but is not prepared to leave until such time where we can put america in a position where we can greatly diminish our homeland from terrorism and it can em natuanad we would like to achieve that

situation to have more stability in washington. >> the president has said it's time to get out of afghanistan. we're building roads and bridges and schools that do not support us. the president is saying it's time to get out. some of your statements about the president, he says, let's declare victory and come home, but it sounds to me like you're sayin saying. the president also said in the summer at fort mire that it's what secretary mattis has been

trying to do, by supporting the country. i share the president's view, that we have a continued role there. i want to get out in the same way you do. i have friends who i know have been injured. >> here's the problem, though. are we ever going to be that the. there's not a military solution. so weefr we're sending our gi. we're hoping we get to a little position. let's bomb the crap out of them. in the end it was no better in vietnam. it was still a disaster of military. it's hard for me to square with yo

your. but when? we've been there 18 years. i think we should declare victory and come home. there is nobody left. tell me the names of those left alive in afghanistan, in pakistan, anywhere in the world. we're now ending. the democrats come together and say, oh, it's just fine. we're going to continue fighting these wars, and it has something to do with 9/11. no, it has nothing to do with 9/11. we're at war because we got permission to go at 9/11. but when you're in congress, your position with libya was we should get authorization. your position in 2013 was also -- you wrote an op-ed with

tom cot on, but you wantwe want good with syria. we need to understand that the commission doesn't just give carte blanche to requests. do you believe the iraq war was justified? >> my opinion now is we have bad intelligence. i've been one of the few cia directors who have been willing to say we get it wrong. >> we did geopolitically the wrong thing. we got rid of an enemy of iran. we are still suffering the ramifications