[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will come to order. without objection, all members will have five days to submit statements extraneous material and questions for the record subject to length limitation in the rules. we will begin, mr. secretary. thank you for meeting with us this morning. weeks ago we invited you to testify about american policy towards iran, iraq and the use of force. no one doubts that case and solomon was a dangerous terrorist but it's important that we look at foreign policy in terms of whether it makes american safer and advances our interest. weeks later we seen attacks,

injured more than 100 servicemembers, then then need to move thousands personal back to the region and remnant of our relationship with iraq and the setback in the fight against isis. i ran again pushing headlong towards a nuclear weapon. you promised the american people they would be safer, and iran would be deterred. so far your own metrics this policy has been a failure. esther secretary, you shouldn't have been so difficult to get you here, and your adventure today is far too short. and while we've had to wait for you, the world doesn't wait for anyone and now we're facing another potential crisis, coronavirus. and i imagine you will hear some questions about that this morning as well. there are dozens of other issues we would like to ask you about, including the lawful subpoena that this committee issued in september that you have ignored. so we expect to see you here again soon for our annual budget hearing, and i appreciate if you would renew your commitment to appear for that hearing when i recognize you for an opening statement. i'm going to forgo any

additional opening in hopes of getting to as many members as possible this morning, and i would yield to mr. mccaul, our ranking member for any remarks he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. thank you for your service to talk about iran and iraq as we agree to as a committee more importantly thank you and the president for taking decisive action to protect americans overseas. the president trump did not make the bold decision to strike qasem soleimani, iran's mastermind of terror, we might be having a different hearing on why he didn't stop the deaths of more americans. striking salomé and he was the right decision, and the world is safer for it. he organized an escalating series of attacks against our forces and iraq which killed an american picky also directed an attack on the embassy in baghdad. baghdad. further, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general milley

said the administration would have an culpably negligent have not acted to take out soleimani. who heads up blood of hundreds of americans and american soldiers on his hands here i fully agree with you and the general that the strike was necessary and well within the president's authorities under article two. the president acted with tremendous restraint over the past year as we saw in the white house, continually making the choice to de-escalate even as arendt launched attacks on international commerce, saudi oil assets, and the united states drone. but some people can't grasp that this strike was justified, legal, and our troops are indeed safer because of it. and now the senate passed a preemptive war powers resolution that the house will vote on in the coming weeks to direct the united states to cease hostilities against iran.

i believe this is based on a false premise. so, mr. secretary, my questions will be to ask you this, are we engaged in active hostilities against iran? and second, as you know better than anyone, we need to show unity, not division in the congress, and as americans. overseas and especially in the middle is. so what can congress to to support your efforts to curb iran's destabilizing activities? i look forward to your answers and your testimony. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. thank you, mr. mccaul. secretary of state mike pompeo, who served in this body for many years. mr. secretary, without objection your complete testimony will be included in the record. i'll ask you to please summarize your statement in five minutes and because were so tight on time, i'm going to have to be very quick with the gavel. so i now recognize you for five

minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member mccaul. i'll do this in less than five minutes. i do have a statement that i will submit for the record. i'm just back from a trip right travel to saudi arabia and oman, the central topic of each of those discussions was what we're talking about here today, the threat posed by the islamic republic of iran. some basic facts, iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and the world's largest state sponsor of anti-semitism, wanting to wipe israel off the face of the earth. you just have to listen to the to iran and its proxies response for the death of hundreds of americans in iraq including an american contractor who was killed on december 27, 2019. its forces, iran's forces and the militias it supports prop up assad. speaking argument that ran back to these have launched hundreds of missiles and armed drones at

seven targets were 80,000 americans live. since the start of the conflict. hours after visit our troops, i ran back to the forces launched an attack at the port city. iran is responsible for the downing of a civilian airliner in january, 176 people killed, the regime lied about the tragedy. the regime has still not turn over the black box. there any regime slaughtered at least several hundred of its own people with reports of as many as 1500 during the protests last november. many millions more have suffered since the revolution began more than 40 years ago. iranians and those impacted by the regime are thankful that the united states is finally holding their oppressors accountable. the trump administration will neither peace nor tolerate the enormous national security threat that iran poses to the

trent, our friends and our allies. our pressure campaign is aimed at reducing producing these thd convince here to change its behavior. i will spend one minute specific addressing the strike on the quds force commander qasem soleimani. he was the regimes top terrorist and the mastermind of the killing of innocent americans, serious, iraqis, and others. removing him from the battlefield was a de-escalatory measure his death reduced the risk to our personnel overseas. both my diplomats and our military, and make clear where willing and able to impose costs on our adversaries if they threatened or attacked us. i know that sadly some american troops were injured during iran's retaliatory missile attack at the to limited naturf iran's counterattack indicates iran's leadership is not eager to escalate a military confrontation. they know if we fight they will lose. that is the deterrence. it's our policy. it's not just military

deterrence. the jcpoa has bankrolled the regimes murderous campaigns of terror and destabilization, we reversed that and the post was aggressive economic sections campaign in history to deprive the regime of at least $50 billion in revenue. and diplomatically we have rallied allies and partners to ban of weaponry and personal around the middle east and in part due to our efforts alone become hunters, kosovo, paraguay and the united kingdom have declared hezbollah a terrorist organization in all aspects. that's real american leadership to confront iran here we will sustain our pressure will continue to protect the american people and american interests by any means necessary and continue to impose costs on the regime for its campaigns of carnage. we will work with our allies and partners for more stable and secure middle east. thank you. i look forward to your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes and i yield to mr. sicily. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

pompeo, i'm concerned the so-called maximum pressure campaign against iran has not achieved what you promised it would. after all since january 2 there again for my coming attacks on american personnel. we've added a .6000 additional troops to the region and iran is once again on the path toward a nuclear weapon. the mecca people ever conflicting information from you and of the memos of the administration about the reason for the soleimani strike in the detail of its impact. because of dishonesty from the sequestration of this and many other issues the americans have lost trust in the government. now we're facing serious global health crisis in form of the coronavirus and trust is more important than ever. unfortunately we have heard conflict information will come to the ministrations response on this as well. we know if this is a threat that doesn't respect borders, but it packs its victims indiscriminately and start to show up in our own communities. we have now heard different expiration of who in the administration is responsible for managing the american response to the potential spread of this virus.

successfully managing the global aspect of this crisis will require american leadership. so can you tell us exactly what your role is in this response? >> is that the question? >> yes. what precisely falls under your set of responsibility as secretary of state? >> sure. so, mr. chairman, just so you know we agreed outcome today to talk about iran and first question today is not about iran. >> make it about iran. let me make it speeded know i'm happy to speak we've heard of an outbreak in a rented to a 45 cases is the latest number. have you or any other senior level american official been in touch with anyone inside the arena and government to coordinate on this response to the virus and mitigate the further spread of the virus? >> we've made offers to the islamic republic of original and we make clear to others around the world and the region that assistance, humid trent assistance to push back against

the coronavirus in iran is something that the traded fully supports. we will continue to support. that's true, for every nation that will bring to bear our diplomatic power and our capacity to deliver technical and medical assistance wherever we can. >> i'm worried because of this administrations three year history of blatant disregard for facts that the mecca people don't know who to trust because of the policy you champion. when you isolate ourselves within the global community. we've ignored or defunded key government offices or international entities that do with global health and pandemics and the aggressive military focus foreign policy this a position hasn't achieved any articulated goals or made the american people safer. american . american leadership around the world is paramount in keeping americans safe, and i'm concerned today about this administrations ability to do so. with that i yield back. >> i now yield to mr. bera. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i'm a doctor and

on wednesday we found out that my former colleague at universe of california davis are treating the first possible case of community transmission of coronavirus in the united states. states. my home county of sacramento has been reminded that disease has no borders. so following my colleague, i'm deeply alarmed by our approach to iran in terms of impacting and the fight against coronavirus. mr. secretary, do you believe that sharing data about new diseases like coronavirus makes america and the world safer? >> yes. >> and mr. secretary, do you believe that iran is up to the fight against coronavirus? >> their healthcare infrastructure is not robust, and to date their willingness to share information about what's really going on inside of the islamic republic of iran has not been robust, and i'm very concerned that it is that i read

astonishing information -- >> reclaiming my time. i agree with some of that assessment that they don't have that information and i'm worried about that. as a doctor i don't when you're fighting a new disease time is of the essence. that means people and medical supplies at the epicenter. because that will help limit the spread before it reaches of the countries. it took over a week at the disease was first diagnosed for the administration just to clarify that sending humanitarian assistance would not trigger sanctions. will the administration be issuing new licenses for iran sanctions that address issues connected to coronavirus? >> the predicate of your question is not accurate. there has been a continuously an avenue for the movement of medical and humidity in goods inside the islamic republic of iran. they have not been sanctioned at any time, before the advent of the coronavirus and concurrently. >> reclaiming my time. let's just make sure we do everything we can to stop and

assist iran. iran's isolation has made less open and less transparent, and as a result coronavirus is flourishing in that country. it is not making americans safer, and with that i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. mccaul. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, the senate smh and passed a preemptive war powers resolution with the house will vote on the coming weeks directing the united states deceased husted was against iran here again i believe this is based on the false premise. so my question is very simple. let me ask you this. are we engaged in active hostilities against iran? >> we are not. our posture to push back against the behaviors of the islamic republic of iran is designed to deter and to defend america's interests. >> like you. what signals does is a division in the course into the largest state sponsor of terror, iran? >> so as a former member i always have a high tolerance for

people to busing their views, the use of the constituents and so members of cards have a responsibility to do that. having said that, it is the case that, around the world, leaders observe when there is not a consistent view across all of the united states government. at america's policy our best effectuate when there's consensus that emerges around american foreign policy. and i would encourage anyone to take on board what the administration is doing and urges them to come to the consensus and assist us in delivering the change in the regimes behave at that the thik everyone in this room today understands is both necessary and in america's best interests. >> on all four article one constitutional authorities. i do believe the president had authorities under article ii in self-defense. in addition he is designated foreign terrorist under the obama administration. ask you this. the "washington post" recently reported the quds force has been significantly deterred from

retaliating against further against the united states since the death of soleimani. can you tell us how iran's activities have changed since the united states took out mr. soleimani? >> so that, that is probably best for a classified setting, but i can say in an unclassified setting, they recognize the seriousness with which america acted to take the strike against qasem soleimani. and i think they appreciate the seriousness with which president trump and administration are taking, our obligation to defend america and our partners. and it clearly demonstrated our preparedness to continue to deter iran's behavior, and he thinks they have taken that seriously. >> and last question. do you believe in terms of a threat in the future, depending, not saying on what timescale,

that mr. soleimani was planning to kill more americans, possibly in iraq? >> 100%. >> of and that would be based -- >> on a very short timeframe. >> okay. >> he was in the region actively plotting to kill americans in the region. >> so we are in a way if the president had done nothing and more americans have been killed, were we in a 1979 hostage situation? the present would be blamed for that, wouldn't he, if he did nothing? >> it was my judgment at this reduced risk to america to take this strike. i think the team all presented that to the president. he made a final decision that was right, that we would reduce risk both in the short-term, medium-term and in the long-term to american interests. >> and so the american people but most importantly our diplomats and soldiers in the region are certainly safer because of that decision,

wouldn't you agree? >> undoubtedly. >> i would just like to close with, i have been in the white house for some of these discussions. the president was very clear. i do not want to go to war with iran. he said that repeatedly, and i still think he believes that. i saw tremendous restraint when we look at how to respond to the drone that was shot down by the iranians, a u.s. military asset, when 50% of saturday's refinery capability were taken out, you know. and finally when they attacked our american embassy, it was not some brushfire it was bombed out. out. i had the picture on the house floor. a serious attack on our american embassy, and that cannot go without a response. i think the president was very restrained, the time of the gentleman has expired again, but i think they crossed the red line when they attacked our embassy, , killed a contractor d wounded three soldiers, in addition to the hundreds of

american soldiers that saw many killed and made him one of whom is right in front of me, does not have slaves anymore, mr. mast, because of soleimani, the biggest terrorist in the middle east since bin laden. i think the world, mr. secretary, is much safer without him. with that i yield back. >> thank you mr. mccaul. mr. meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. every time you testify, i can't help but think of those days when you on this side of the dais. i can remember vividly you thundering away at secretary clinton during the benghazi hearing. know what? she showed up voluntarily, sat there for 11 hours. but with you, sir, we had to move heaven and earth to get you here today for just two hours. to me that shows disregard for the oversight responsibilities of the united states congress. it is clear that the trump

administration systems and iran are reckless and impulsive. even after iran emerged as a hotspot as the coronavirus operators on the verge of being a pandemic, you can only commit today to two hours. after the soleimani strike, the iraqi council of representatives passed a resolution calling for u.s. troops to be kicked out of iraq. which is exactly what soleimani wanted to do for 20 years. pushing the u.s.-iraq relationship to the brink and punting the middle east into chaos and uncertainty does not benefit the united states of america. the list of actions that are questionable continue to pile up in this administration, yet the administration refuses to provide clear and honest answers. these include pulling out of the

jcpoa, no strategy. abandoning the kurds, no strategy. strategic benefit of assassinating soleimani, no strategy. suggesting the u.s. destroyed cultural sites and iran, no strategy. deny iran's foreign minister a visa to go to the u.n., no strategy. suggesting that we will punish iraq if it follows through on expelling our military, no strategy. sir, nobody here mourns the death of soleimani, but it backfired and complete foreseeable ways. killing him undermines all of the objectives and didn't do anything to make america safer. i had many of the things i would've loved to ask but i have to give up some of my time because you are only here for two hours. i can't use my whole five minutes because my colleagues would like to something to say so i now yield to mr. sherman.

>> mr. secretary, it's taken you to and a half months to come before this committee to explain the actions of january 3. third. today, the world faces a worldwide pandemic, the coronavirus. will you come here next week and explain our international efforts to do with the coronavirus, or will it take us to an half months to have you back here? >> we have briefed congress over 70 times on iran. 70 times. >> my question is about the coronavirus and whether you come here next week or whether you think we should focus on the coronavirus. >> i'm happy to work with you to find a time to work with you once scheduled to talk about this. >> let's hope -- reclining by time. reclining my time. sir, you limit us to two hours. secretary clinton spent 11 hours.

we must adhere to the rules of this committee, just as you and force them when you are sitting -- i am reclaiming my time. >> order. let him speak. >> mr. chairman, my time has been interrupted. i would like order in the committee. >> gentleman from california will continue. >> now, 110 of our service members suffered traumatic brain injuries. the pentagon had thought it would be even worse. but the day after 110 of our service members were hurt, the president said, no americans were harmed in last night attack by the iranian regime. 19 days after that, those injuries, the president said i heard they had headaches. i can report it's not very serious. 30 of them are still in hospital. all of them will be suffering their whole lives or be studied

their whole lives for their traumatic brain injury. mr. secretary, do you want to take the opportunity, this is a yes or no question, do want to take the opportunity here today to apologize to the servicemembers for trivializing their injuries? >> mr. congressman, i have never trivialize -- >> you want to apologize on behalf of the administration for trivializing their injuries? >> sir, i've never trivialize any injury. >> you're part of an administration and you speak for the administration. they want to apologize for the administrations trivializing those interests? >> are you looking for me to answer the question. >> was yes. >> i'm happy to answer the question. just give me a second. we take seriously every american service members like. it's why we have taken the very policies an event. okay, the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. smith. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very deeply disappointed in several of my colleagues in their disrespect today they're

showing you, the secretary of state, who i think has done an extraordinary job. the world is a culture giving everywhere leading this nation and leading the world. of course with the present at the helm. i want to thank you for that service and know that i and my colleagues, so many and most americans deeper deep respect r integrity, honesty, and again i think some of this is a dirty gotten very much out of hand and a deeply disappointed in my colleagues. .. . >> guest:. they would have returned home, something contemplated by vice-presidents of the directate of 2018. now it had become apparent that

the iranian-backed just like you spoke in yemen, the iranian-backed shia forces do not plan to leave the area given the acquiescence of the government to tehran. i wonder if you could give us the assessment of this permanently violent organization and organizations and is it our policy to try to change that, what steps are we taking? would you support if they do not lead a modified aid director to displace? i chaired 10 congressional when barack obama would not help those who made their way fleeing isis genocide. i went there and there was an itp camp 10 minutes away from our consulate and when they --

we said enough is enough and we did a bill that would direct, and you have delivered and usaid has delivered mightily and i want to thank the vice-president for that and the president and would you speak to these groups? >> so, theres' three questions there. the last one would we work on a modified policy, yes. the continued problem and presence of tin the nineveh reg, and now the ambassadors have worked diligently on. we have had repeated promises from the iraqi governments that would move them back and allow to get to the christians and u

ye yazidis in that region and in that iraq, in that nineveh region. we need an iraqi government that's prepared to defend its own sovereignty and pull back the shia militias that are controlling that region. >> i just want to say again, mr. secretary of state, please don't take from this meeting -- some of those comments i think were almost to the point where there word should have been taken down. you have been honest, straightforward and as my good friend, michael mccall said, taking out soleimani who was not in iran when he was killed. he was a combatant if ever there was one and directing what we all know 600 plus americans have died and thousands through his use of the ied's and other methods of destruction were wounded,

including our dear colleague. yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. secretary. fair to say that you talk a lot with the president? that's not a tough one. yes. >> that was the best question you had this morning, right? >> it's true. [laughter] >> ever hear-- >> i welcome that. >> ever hear him say the phrase, we'll see what happens? you ever hear him say that? >> yes, i think i've said that many times myself as well. >> really? okay. we know you're on the team. >> i've said it to my son all the time. >> and you've said it with consistency in your opening statement and going to tell you time and time again is what we're getting back when we hit people is this attitude that people have of america, our allies, we'll see what happens. i mean, just last night, you know, after the president pulled out and took us away from the syrian issue, just

last night we found out that it's escalating now, turkey's looking for nato article 4, maybe article 5 and pulling us in with our allies again. and the president said we'll see what happens. i remember with this discussions in north korea, when he was having his discussions, oh, we'll have the discussions, we'll have talks and love letters, we'll see what happens. we know what's happened. this new escalation of their missile system, nuclear system. we're seen by pulling out of the nuclear agreement with iran, jcpoa, we've seen, well, we'll pull out, well, we'll see, we'll see what happens. we'll see what they do and now they're enriching to a greater extent and moving forward in their program. so, this idea of consistency, i just came back, you were there at the munich security discussions with our closest

allies, they're telling we're not as sure about your commitment as a country. if i have to think of a watch word for the policy right now, it's well, we're going to do something and we'll see how it happens. well, i'm concerned about the lack of consistency and you know, with the coronavirus, when that issue came forward, the president said it again. he said, well, it's going to get warm and we've got a vaccine in the corner, it's pretty good, we'll see what happens. we'll see what happens isn't being consistent and now, after last night's activities, we're going to be moving forward again because of what's happening in syria. we're going to be calling on the united nations, we're going to be calling on nato again. we're going to be calling on our allies again and you know, we left them on the ground in syria when the president made that decision. even your own administration told us that was a mistake, not notifying our allies. so, i'm just going to say, the policy has to change because

we'll see what happens isn't happening and i yield back. >> mr. deutsche, i'm sorry. >> i thank my friend from massachusetts. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. first, i want to not miss this opportunity to implore you to do everything that you can to bring home my consistent bob levenson to his family. and i don't have a lot of time left so i'd like to just share with you something i think a lot of us are feeling, mr. secretary. the american people are becoming increasingly worried about coronavirus. we get phone calls every minute of every day. people are really concerned and when they hear conflicting messages, they don't know what to make of it. so, mr. pompeo, any misinformation, any misinformation is bad. a pattern of misinformation

undermines our entire system. when the president lied about the size of his inaugural crowd, it was embarrassing. it was hard to believe when he falsified a hurricane weather map. it was disgraceful when he told the american people that iranian bombs injured no one when 110 soldiers were seriously injured and traumatic brain injuries aren't just headaches. but now, now we face coronavirus and the president tells us that a vaccine is almost ready and it isn't. and then, and then he tells us that warm weather will miraculously take care of this, take care of everything and it won't. this doesn't just impact the president's supporters at his rallies, and it doesn't just

impact democrats voting in the presidential primaries, this impacts everyone in america and it's more important than politics, mr. secretary. the administration must do better. i yield back. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. we very much appreciate it. the humanitarian situation in the province in syria is alarming, innocent civilians and women and children have been slaughtered. could you tell us what iran or its proxies, what their involvement has been there relative to this ongoing assault on those civilians? >> so consistently since the previous administration's

decision to allow the russians to come into syria, that combined with the long history of iranian influence in parts of syria has led us to where we are today. you can see with the israeli strikes taking place against syria and you can see that the work that the united states is doing in the north and east, we have enormous iranian problem inside of syria. these attacks that are syrian regime-led, iranian-supported, hezbollah-supported underwritten by iran, along with the russians, are now causing a humanitarian calamity in syria that once again re-ups what we saw several years back. the numbers range from three quarters of a million to 1.1 million people in that upper northwest part of the province, many of whom will be displaced. too many of whom will be

killed, and our mission set has been diplomatic to urge the parties to a cease-fire, both bilaterally with each of the participants, we have a u.n. security resolution that sadly the regime will not adhere to, that the iranians will not adhere to, which was designed find the resolution, 2254. we've not been able to make progress there. so if lign light of that we've what we can with american stablization assistance, throughout the region to try to lend both food and assistance and medical through usaid and to try and build back some of the institutions so they'll be capable of pushing back against what the russians and iranians and syrians are doing in this hellish place. >> thank you, the u.n. arms embargo on iran expires next year. are our european partners committed to extending the embargo?

what can we do to put pressure on china and russia to cooperate as well? >> so, yes. one of the central flaws of the jc pch jcpoa you had short duration for provisions. the first significance provision expires in october of this year, now a handful of months away. where the iranian missiles that rain down on our american forces will be permissibly sold, lawfully sold to iranians come october of this year. that's a big flaw in the deal. and so we're working diplomatically. we're hopeful that the europeans will take seriously this risk that there will be chinese weapons systems, russian weapons systems in iran, i'm confident they're gearing up already to deliver those weapons come october with the full authority, with no u.n. security council resolution to prohibit it. we will work at the u.n. and

try to convince the chinese and russians not to veto that and our colleagues to use the tools at hand to prevent conventional weapons sales from once again being lawfully sold to the world's largest state sponsor of terror. >> thank you. finally, ion rah iran's proxy is lebanon, and how this administration's maximum pressure campaign impacted iran's ability to support hezbollah in lebanon? >> so we've had impact, but not enough. we've had a material change in their capacity to do harm. that is no longer have access to the capital that they had under jcpoa. we've restricted their resources. theres' more work to do there. we've used our diplomatic efforts to build out a coalition, to support the lebanese government to do the reforms that you can see. you can see the protests in the streets in beirut and outside of beirut in lebanon.

the lebanese people are exhausted from iran, exhausted from hezbollah and you see the same thing in iraq. you see protests in terier square. and people who want a nonsectarian, non-iranian dominated government and our mission is to do all we can to assist the governments to make the transition from hezbollah-backed or iranian-controlled in iraq, to what the people desperately need. >> i'm going to call on mr. phillips, before i do, i want to quickly express the fact that what's going on in the province in syria breaks my heart and the world and particularly our country cannot just stand by while putin and erdogan are killing people. it breaks my heart. it's not fair to the syrian

people, it's terrible, terrible i atrocities, i wish we had more time to talk about it, mr. phillips. >> thank you, mr. secretary for your service. and my constituents know that american diplomacy is integral to keeping all of us safe in the united states, but they're afraid, as you can imagine. afraid about the potential for far more significant response from iran, and they're frankly terrified, as my colleague mr. deutsche just referred to, about coronavirus. and sadly, they are increasingly lacking faith in the administration's ability to address it, so can you tell them that you've done everything humanly possible both around the globe and even here, to keep us safe from coronavirus? >>. >> i'm confident that this administration has taken action that there significantly reduce risk and will continue to do so.

there's a far more complex process, the piece of it, the work that your state department did to get americans out of wuhan, not only our diplomates and people that work for the united states government, but civilians who work there as well is in the finest tradition of the diplomatic corps, it was done with excellence and vigor and brought americans home safely. i'm incredibly proud of the work that my team did that there. we have diplomates in china today and we're working to keep them safe, but keep them in place so we can continue to perform all the missions we need to help china deal with this virus where it began. >> okay, i appreciate that, but how do you reconcile what you just said with the budget you just submitted to us which cut state department funding for who by more than 50% and cuts the dcd's global health security budget by more than 40%. how can you reconcile that budget request with your said investment-- >> we'll have plenty of money. >> we'll have plenty of money. >> we'll have plenty.

>> i'm confident. >> and 40% reductions in the budget is enough to address the potential for a global pandemic that seems to be emerging in front of our eyes. >> sir, i commit to you, as we need resources, if we find out there aren't sufficient resources to address the problem where we can create value and reduce risk, we will come to you, we will execute that and we will deliver for the american people. >> you understand why it might be suspect to submit a budget like that in light of what we're facing, 40, 50%. >>-- >> i don't understand either. >> and welcome, mr. secretary. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, let me ask you an organizational question because in addition to the budget-recommended cuts which seem ill-timed at the very least, given what's happening with coronavirus, i'm worried by the fact that we don't have a permanent structure for dealing with pandemics.

you know, we've set up a structure in the previous administration on ebola and then we dismantled it. on may 18th, this administration dismantled the global health security directate at the national security council. in light of what's happened today and in light what could happen year in, year out, we don't know, in retrospect was that perhaps an unwise decision, mr. secretary, to abolish a coordinator in the nsc, a coordinator i think we need today? >> i've watched this process move forward since the very first days that we became aware of the coronavirus, i've watched the part that the state department has responsibility for, the part that secretary azar and his teamworkings i've seen c.d.c. officers when i traveled to ethiopia and kazakhstan and uzbekistan, we ought to focus on activity and not charts.

>> let's stipulate that every decision made by the president and this decision is beyond reproach, including questionable-- . so stipulated. >> so stipulated, okay, so we get that out of the way. so i want to engage you -- as we look at the reality today, it's more than a chart, it's about coordination, it's about having a focal point in the federal government that is specifically mandated with this mission and that person and those persons are networking with who and the international health community. they're at the front lines monitoring situation. we felt we had to do it in the previous pandemic or on the brink of pandemic, ebola. this seems more serious in terms of its spread and i just wonder, whether from your point of view, because after all, you eversee an org chart. wouldn't it be helpful to have somebody at nsc charged

specifically with this mission? >> i've watched the coordination through the task force that secretary azar was leading and the vice-president now has his mission set. we now have a woman named debra burkes who has been running a significant global health program for me for the united states department of state who will begin to work for the vice-president to deliver on this. i'm very confident that we will coordinate among our agencies and importantly, from my perspective, coordinate with our partner agencies around the world to help those countries as well. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mrs. wagner. >> over here, secretary. >> yes, ma'am, good to see you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary pompeo, thank you for your time here this morning. on january 3rd president trump ended qasem soleimani's brutal, brutal reign of terror that killed and maimed countless of americans and coalition forces and threatened many more to come as we've heard today and many times over. for too long tehran has been

permitted to act with impunity against u.s. allies, u.s. interests, and personnel. i was proud when the administration acted decisively to restore deterrents in the middle east, just as i was proud when former president obama succeeded in his decision to kill osama bin laden in pakistan. this was a powerful terrorist who was organizing attacks against americans in iraq in defiance of u.n. security council resolution, 2231. i applaud the president for making our red lines clear to the iranian regime. attacking americans is never acceptable and when american lives hang in the balance, iran will be held to account for its actions. the middle east is a safer

place when the united states is as you said, clear and consistent in its intentions. soleimani's successor, mr. secretary, is head of the force. soleimani's counterpart in countries east of iran, afghanistan, pakistan, and central asian republic. while soleimani's headed operations in the west, mr. secretary, are you concerned that he will seek to expand iran's malign activities in afghanistan and how is the administration mitigating the risk to u.s. interests? >> so, i can say more about iranian activity in afghanistan in a classified setting, but i will say in this forum, they share a long border.

there is a history of iran engaging in activity inside of afghanistan to act as a spoiler. we've seen just these last six days a significant reduction in violence in afghanistan and we are watching closely to see if the islamic republic of iran begins to take even more active measures, active measures that undermine our efforts at peace and reconciliation in afghanistan and just as importantly, put our american soldiers on the ground there, both in the kabul area and the west at risk as well. yes, this guy had this as part of his territory. we are very mindful that's an area that he knows well and might well expand iranian activity through the force and otherwise. >> i'm glad you're on top of it. how did the strike changes the standing in iran and have we been able to take advantage of

loss of prestige through operations in iran? >> soleimani was a strategic target. there was strategic deterrents that resulted from that strike. he was absolutely a terrorist. he absolutely had american blood on his hands. he absolutely intended to kill more americans in the immediate future, but he also occupied a position which was very close to the ayatollah and there is no one that is going to be capable of replacing that strategic input that he was able to provide to the ayatollah and therefore we believe that not only did we achieve the battlefield deterrents that his departure has led to, but we have changed the calculus inside of iran and your understanding of the point of the red line. it is not possible for the islamic republic of iran to have been surprised by the actions president trump took. we had communicated clearly that the loss of american lives

would result in a strike of significance that would impose real costs on iran. so we exercised deterrents by making sure they understood what america was prepared to do and then when they took action inconsistent with the things we told them we executed that. >> and the media reports shows vice-president of iran and top health official have contracted coronavirus. are you able to comment on the potential destablization of iran where their senior political leadership to be deathly ill or even perhaps die, specifically does the state have concerns about a void in leadership as it relates to their nuclear program and the force? >> i don't have very much information about beyond what we've seen in the open press reporting. as i've said earlier we'll do what we can on the humanitarian side to assist the iranian people building inside of their

country. >> i yield back. >> miss spanberger. >> after the strike you were the administration' point person making the case that we had to kill soleimani at that moment on january 3rd. here is what you said. >> i'll read it. you said, we have specific information on imminent threats and those threat streams included attacks on u.s. embassy, period full stop. that was january 10th after you had about a week to get your story straight, except when we're looking at the facts that taking out soleimani was essential to addressing a blow to alliance malign activity. i question the fact that the day after soleimani's death iran's supreme leader khomeini, appointed his long time deputy to replace him and continue operations, they didn't stop and didn't slow down. isn't that true? didn't they shoot rockets at our people just days later, sir? the answer is yes.

>> the strike. >> the same day you gave that statement you gave a classified briefing in congress, i was there and you didn't provide evidence to us about that claim i am -- eminence. >> that's not true. >> and you and i know that the claim of eminence was necessary and-- . point of order-- >> [inaudible] >> i said there was nothing this that briefing. with conflicting-- >> gentle woman has the time. >> with conflicting information it's hard for the american people to know what to believe, but fortunately we have what's called a 1264 report and the president is required by law to send this to congress to explain the legal and policy justifications for killing soleimani. since it's a crime to make false statements to congress i presume we can take the 1264 at face value. we received this on january 31st. so how many times does this report refer to an iminent

attack to kill soleimani. the answer is none. so your report contradicts what you and the president told the american people over and over. you said there were threats to american lives and that's not true and when the administration was constrained by the law to tell the truth, you abandoned the talking points. mr. pompeo, there's another report on iran that is due this sunday. it's required by a piece of law that i authored, it should give more transparency to the american people about why you risked plunging us into war and i expect the president will comply with the law and provide that report this weekend. do you expect that will be the case, sir? >> we always do our best to comply with every legal requirement. i promise you we will continue to-- >> i look forward to reading it and lastly, is this administration has been so inconsistent with the facts as it relates to coronavirus on matters of security and public health, the american people need credible and consistent

information and we are consistently not receiving that from the administration, i yield to representative levin. >> mr. chairman, is it possible i could respond to a couple of things, i wasn't asked a question. >> you did, sir. >> there were material misstatements made. >> i yield to mr. levin. >> mr. levin controls the time. the problem is we don't have enough time. >> and sir. >> sir, to your left you'll see a map of the world. right there. would you please point out for us on this map which of our embassies are under threat of imminent attack that you would have to kill general soleimani for american safety january 3rd, 2020. >> i'm happy to answer your question. >> which four? >> i'm happy to answer your question, i'm not going to get into classified material. >> sir, reclaiming my time. we all know that soleimani was a bad guy, but what i'm talking

about is the decisions made leading up to january 3rd that brought us to the brink of war and you're not willing to tell us which embassies were under attack? >> i-- >> under threat of attack. >> never willing to disclose classified information. i assume you're not either. >> right, sir. well, you can't hide behind classification on this one. you can't classify something that doesn't exist. the administration has given us shifting stories. you, the president, others, about what was going on there. on january 10th, the same day you briefed congress, the president said this to fox news. >> i can reveal that i believe it would have been four embassies. >> so this is again, the same day you were up here briefing us and i was there on soleimani's strikes and we didn't hear a word from you on the threat to four embassies. why not? >> there were multiple embassies which my diplomatic

security team had enormous concern. >> sir, i have such little time. >> are you going to let me answer the question? >> no, because you're not answering the question, sir. i'm not asking you to reveal classified information. >> mr. chairman, would you please let the witness answer the question? >> well. >> have respect. >> i want the witness to answer the question, i hope when we run out of time at the end that the secretary will agree to stay for a few extra minutes. >> i will not agree to stay for a few minutes, but i'm happy to answer whatever questions i can. >> we-- mr. chairman. >> this is the problem, mr. secretary. >> briefed 70 times, mr. chairman. >> all right, mr. levin. >> yes, sir, here is the bottom line, if we have the time i would play the defense secretary's statement that he had no information about embassies. we're facing a possible coronavirus pandemic. this administration had three different stories about the events that brought us to the brink of war. so it's no surprise that americans are scared because this administration keeps proving it can't be trusted to

tell us the truth. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair, and mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i apologize, this hearing has been a joke. you're getting asked a lot of questions that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are choosing either to answer the question for you, if you don't answer in the first split second of them finishing with a question mark or if you attempt to answer they cut you off to reclaim their time. i'd first of all like to give you the opportunity to answer any of the questions posed because what we just witnessed or anyone at home witnessing the last five minutes, it's an embarrassment. mr. secretary, go ahead. >> well, let me just say, what's really an embarrassment is that we couldn't get more than two hours from the secretary of state. that's really an embarrassment to this committee. mr. -- >> mr. secretary. >> the record should reflect

that united states government has briefed congress over 70 times on the issue of iran, so, i think it's-- it's i think difficult to claim that we've not been prepared to share. i've briefed all of you, some of you referred to that briefing on the senate side as well. and entire member of congress was invited to a hearing where we had not only myself, but the secretary of defense, chairman joint chiefs of staff and individual from the department of justice to talk about the legal issues, as well as the intelligence community. we gave a thorough and complete briefing, i'm happy to be here for an additional two hours today. let me just respond to the question that came in previously about the embassies. the embassies that i have responsible for security for in the days that led up to this strike that we took, our embassies all across the region went to heightened security posture. we moved resources around the region, we did that for two purposes, so that we could respond and deliver medivac capabilities in the event we had to do so as well as to deter attacks on our embassies.

we took these threats from qasem soleimani on our embassies seriously. we responded appropriately and we delivered for the american people. and i will tell you that today i still have officers in these places, still have a significant embassy in baghdad, officers in beirut, these are amazing people who are living under a threatened, threatening region. we're doing everything we can to reduce that threat and the strike against qasem soleimani made each of my officers at the state department more safe than they were than when he was walking this planet. >> well, thank you, mr. secretary and for anyone posing questions to you at the hearing today, i think it would be great to give you an opportunity to answer any of the questions that they're posing to you. you're doing a great job. i'm proud of you. i'm honored to have you as our secretary of state. we've seen al baghdadi killed. a caliphate destroyed, and

moving embassy in israel to jerusalem and the golan heights, reversing flawed obama era policies as relates to israeli activity in judea and samara. i've heard regards oil sanctions and taking out soleimani as going after the fuel and then taking out the driver. instead of seeing oil from iran go from 2 to 3 to 5 million barrels a day and 140 million dollars a day in proceeds to the iranian government to fund their bad activities, instead we see it going down to 300,000 barrels a day and take out qasem soleimani. the amount of attacks that you've endured for the decision of the administration to take out qasem soleimani is insane. and i've used-- i've heard the speaker refer to it as disproportionate to take out qasem soleimani and posed the question and still haven't

got an answer, at what point is proportionate. there were 600 u.s. troops got killed at the hands of qasem soleimani. thousands of u.s. troops were injured at the hands of qasem soleimani. in the days leading up to taking out qasem soleimani our embassy was attacked and we saw u.s. civilians end up getting killed and injured. at what point is it proportionate to take out the one person who is responsible for killing 600 u.s. troops and wounding thousands of others? i think the problem is that people are getting antsy at what a good job you have been doing. i saw it posed in the transcripts as now revealed when mr. mckinley was at the closed door deposition and he was asked about the state department under mike pompeo and has it gotten worse, and they were shocked that mckinley's answer was, no, actually the state department, it's gotten better and they thought that this guy who had

just left, just retired from the state department was going to come in and throw you under the bus. even in that situation, that person comes to that situation of the house intel committee, used to be called the house intel committee, the house impeachment committee and posing that question and getting the answer you're doing such a great job. so that's really the problem. i encourage my colleagues to answer the questions going forward, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, ms. wild. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary. we know that iran has a long history of revenge killings, i'm sure that's something that you and i can agree on and it's one of the reasons that iran is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable countries in the world, right? >> all true, yes, ma'am. >> do you think that the iranians revenge strike on bases in iraq that injured more than 100 service members is the last we've seen of the retaliation for the soleimani killing? that's a yes or no. >> yes, the reason i often

pause i've tried to make sure to give answers that are not classified. >> so you believe it is the last we've seen? of-- >> i didn't say that, no, i think the strike on qasem soleimani was necessary, but not sufficient. >> not my question. my question was-- >> i think. >> i'm going to reclaim my time, my question, do you think that the strike by the iranians on bases in iraq after the soleimani killing was the last that we've seen the retaliatory action by iran, that's-- >> oh, no, we've seen the iranians take actions after that already, whether you characterize them as retaliatory or not, this is a 40-year theocratic revolutionary regime. >> i'm with you on that. i'm very, very concerned about the likelihood of tragic and severe retaliation going forward. we know as you've alluded to that iran has a pattern of waiting before retaliating. in 1984 hezbollah bombed the jewish community center in

buenos aires. those attacks came two years after israel killed hezbollah co-founder al salwi. and they waited two years for revenge. retaliation is not immediate, they will be patient. it's foolish for us to think that revenge of the killing for their general is over. and i'm terribly concerned that iran is going to be looking for even more vulnerabilities and opportunities to harm americans as retribution that will play out over the years. are you worried about that, too? >> oh, yes, we're very worried about iran. this is why we have strategic campaign to change the course of their behavior. >> well, let me just say that i think every day of the diplomates and troops spread all over the world, some of whom i visited over christmas with a this committee, they are already doing dangerous work and that's what they sign up

for, but i'm worried that we've increased the chances of harm to these people who serve us. i think it's just led us down a more dangerous and unpredictable path of iran seeking revenge and i fear for the brave public servants who are going to brave, who are going to bear the brunt of that. with that i yield to ms. omar. >> thank you. sir, i just want to follow up to see if enough has been done to protect americans in harm's way. the day of the strike your department issued warning against all u.s. citizens to depart iraq immediately. was there a concern before or after the strike that americans could be targeted for retaliation? >> we've known that americans travelling not only in iraq-- >> sir, yes or no would be sufficient. >> the answer is a little-- >> i know, but we don't have that much time. did you warn. >> i need to be accurate. >> sir, did you--

>> i apologize for my efforts to be accurate. >> did you warn the embassy before or after the attack? >> the embassy was completely in the loop as we were working through, not only ours, but-- >> the people. >> the people at the embassy who are the ones in harm's way, said that they were not warned. i hope you're not saying that they were lying. sir, were you not aware that americans might be targeted by this assassination and be retaliated against? >> 40 years on-- >> i ask this because brian hook, your special representative on iran, received extra security. at a speech in los angeles of at attack, not in baghdad, los angeles. mr. hook got protection from diplomatic security, the l.a.p.d. and counter assault team. look, i think making sure our

public servants have proper security is incredibly important, but i have to ask if we were so much safer after this strike, why did a u.s. diplomate need counter assault team to protect him at a speech in california? >> yes, it's undoubtedly the case we're all safer. there are distributional elments to this. that is there are certain persons who made certain decisions that might be more at risk. let me assure you cumulatively, far more safer. >> sir, if you're claiming americans are safer after this attack, apparently your department disagrees at least as far as-- >> time. >> mr. hook and our embassy in baghdad are concerned. i yield back. >> okay. mr. perry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you, mr. secretary. welcome to masterpiece theater. unfortunately this is serious.

i'll read you a coat. turns out i'm really good at killing people. didn't know that was going to be a strong suit of mine, do you know who said that? >> no, i don't. >> that was the previous president. that was president obama. so, the country of pakistan 2741 killed, not including civilians, and yemen, 975 killed, not including civilians, and somalia, 286 killed. not including civilians during the last administration. do you remember when it occurred in congress? >> i'm sorry, i don't understand the question, what's the question? >> oh, i'm sorry, mr. secretary. when did we declare war on pakistan, yemen and sol somalia, did you miss that? >> it didn't happen during my-- >> do you remember this committee or any committee dragging in the secretary of

state and asking them what the strategy was during that period of time when we killed, that the united states was responsible with killing 4,000 combatants around the world? not on the battlefield declared by the united states of america? do you remember when that happened? >> i'm sure there were over sight hearings where congress asked questions about it, but i can't recall. >> do you remember what the strategy was? >> in which particular theater? >> any one of those places. >> i know what the administration said they were trying to do. >> do you remember any of my and your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, quite honestly, do you remember any colleagues on this side of the aisle complaining about removing terrorists off the face of the earth? >> i don't recall that happening. >> i don't remember it either. when you have, mr. secretary, actionable intelligence regarding impending or imminent attacks on u.s. citizens or u.s. interests, including embassies, what is your duty? >> to ensure to the maximum

extent possible that none of the americans that are in any of those places, civilian, state department officials, or military folks have any harm brought to them. so to reduce that risk with every tool that we have in our arsenal. >> and so you're made aware of security risks prior to the strike on soleimani to u.s. interests and individuals, personnel, and took corrective action to make sure that the risk was mitigated? >> yes, that's the decision that the president made. >> do you remember, we had a consulate in benghazi, libya, when the ambassador had asked repeatedly for increased security at the time for the previous administration. and do you recall what occurred? did he and the embassy receive the increased security or did it not? >> my recollection is that some of the requests for increased security were made available to them and others were not.

>> and what was the result? >> there was a tragic day where four americans were killed. >> four americans were killed and we had hearings up here and the bottom of it was never gotten to as far as many americans are concerned and considered yet we sit here today and second guess your decisions and the administration's decision to keep america and america's interests safe. in the face of a terrorist with the responsibility of hundreds if not thousands of americans' deaths and maimings on his hands. >> mr. secretary, are we or were we at the brink of war as has been claimed in this committee? with iran? >> we were at a heightened sense of risk on both sides, but i never observed that we were at a risk of anything that-- when i hear people talk about, i've heard talk about world war iii, that's not where we were at any time during this, these moments from the 1st of

november through to date. you could -- having said that, i will tell you that the islamic republic of iran considers them at war against the united states of america and against israel. >> it would seem to me listening to some of my colleagues that we should allow iran to kill as many americans as they want to and not respond for the fear that they might kill even more. that -- i don't know how you can't reach that assessment here if you listen to the rhetoric in this committee. let me clear something up here regarding jcpoa in closing. is there any reason to enrich to the level that iran has or have a heavy water reactor constructed for a peaceful nuclear power program? is there any reason at all to do that? >> the current installation set for centrifuges in iran and both magnitude and levels of enrichment taking place there are not consistent with what one would historically find for

medical isotopes and the like. >> i yield. >> the gentleman's time expired. let me before i call on miss hoolahan, say that the strikes that my colleague referenced were authorized by congress under the 2001aumf. congress is not authorized a strike against soleimani. there's no authorization for use of force against iran and that's really the difference. miss hoolahan. >> thank you. sir, thank you for being here. on january 7th iran responded to the soleimani strike by launching missiles at american personnel housed at iraqi bases. we now know it caused permanent brain damage and trauma to our service members and the story the administration tells us about what happened keeps changing. the day after the president told the nation that, quote, the american people should be extremely grateful and happy, no americans were harmed in last night's attack by the iranian regime end quote and like many americans i believed them and i was relieved.

that wasn't in fact true, in fact, many people were harmed. following the attacks and injured service members, the president said i heard they had headaches and a couple of other things and i can report it's not very serious. just briefly, mr. pompeo, with a yes or no, do you believe that traumatic brain injury is serious? >> yes. >> i do, too. i'm a third generation veteran and i have family members currently serving in harm's way, and i'm very familiar with the devastation that these kinds of injuries can cause. but on january 24th, the pentagon told us that 34 service members had suffered traumatic brain injuries as a result of these strikes. and then on january 28th, four days later, we were told that, no, actually that number was 50. and then two days after that, the number was 64. sir, with a simple yes and a number, where-- what the number standing at now in terms of u.s. service members who have sustained traumatic brain injuries which

the president has previously dismissed as simply headaches. >> you'll have to go to the department of defense to get the precise number. >> so i can give you the number, it's 110. and thankfully many of them have been cleared and returned to duty and we've heard that about 30 of them still remain in hospital care. sir, the administration claimed that the strike on soleimani was quote, to deter iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against the united states forces and interests end quote. this wasn't deterrents, it was a decision lacking strategy and endangerment of our national security and of our men and women in uniform. mr. pompeo, the president's decision had clearly very real consequences. 110 service members suffered tbi, with the president has called headaches. and what we know isn't even close to ending is the campaign against us and the allies on behalf of iran. and they are currently enriching uranium again by your own admonition you have told us that we are not in safe, in safety, and we are clearly

still in harm's way. and so i guess my concern to you, sir, is that i'm not sure what we have accomplished other than injuring 110 service members and other than making our nation a less safe place. and with the remainder of my time, i yield. >> let me point out that that quote attributed to president obama is in a book, allegedly overheard and reviewed in the washington times. i don't think anybody hear heard him say that and who knows if true or not. i'd like to ask you, mr. pompeo about something that was said after the soleimani strike. on january 6th, the president told the american people in a tweet in all caps, i think we have it here, iran will never have a nuclear weapon. it will never have a nuclear weapon. now, i agree iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but in that now famous radio ain't view with mary lou louise

kelly, i think you knnknow her, she asked one, two, three times. >> my question again, how do you stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we'll stop. >> how? >> sanctions? >> we'll stop. >> well, since you made that comment, iran has tripled the amount of stock piled uranium it has and i'm going to give you another chance to ask you the question. how are we going to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon? >> we'll stop them. >> that's clearly not a plan and i'll take my time back since you're going to-- you're making fun of my question. >> we'll stop them is like a bumper sticker, that's not plan. >> i'll be happy to give full response. you decide to have some fun, i that i'd have a moment. >> excuse me, mr. pompeo, i've got my time back. to use your words further on in the interview, i guess you think this is funny, she asked

you, told you that iran had admitted that they'd removed all limits on their centrifuge program and you said in effect, well, he's blustering. frankly, mr. pompeo, i agree blustering is dangerous especially when it comes to nuclear weapons development, but today you're just blustering, this is not a plan, this is not an acceptable substitute for a plan and we're just not going to allow that and i yield back. >> the gentle woman's time expired. >> mr. chairman, this is exhausting, this multi-media dog and pony show that's being put on and nobody thinks the secretary of state thinks this is humorous. we can have a moment of levity without trying to get a youtube moment out of it or without, you know, being upset and feigning anger so that you can go get a tv hit tonight on a

cable station and mr. secretary, i've got to-- you were on-- you understand this committee. i fought like hell to get a waiver because i'm on energy and commercial, to get on this committee because the thing i love about this committee, loved was, its bipartisanship. >> the whole time we had the majority we never took a vote that was partisan on this committee. not once. our very first thing that we did on this committee under the new majority is take a partisan vote. i think we took two, one of the first ones was yemen. prevent the u.s. from doing anything in yemen, a campaign issue although most people don't note what's going on. i want to ask you, how much humanitarian aid has iran given to the yemen crisis? >> zero. >> thank you. you've been on this and you understand what's going on here, this show. you know, the soleimani initially, i think a lot of folks in-- did not know who soleimani was and then all of a sudden, find

out he's killed and then they're outraged about it, a point i'd like to make, we operated and i was part of those operations, against iranians in iraq during the iraq war, so by killing soleimani in iraq, protecting u.s. troops, like we did in task force 17, we were operating under the same authority that we had to defend american troops against iran that we did when we killed soleimani in iraq, by the way. so when all of this discussion about not having the authority and you're saying that we didn't have the authority to defend ourselves and operate against iranian ied networks in iraq in '07 and '08, so all those-- an all that positive movement we made to defend our troops was totally illegal because congress didn't authorize it. it is the same authorization that we have today and i would argue that it was quite proportion proportional, because instead of blowing up sites where

there's a hundred soldier working and with a payment in iraq and instead we killed the man responsible for the deaths. mr. secretary, quickly, how many americans have been killed and injured as a result of mr. soleimani? >>. >> hundreds. >> how many people around the region including the crisis of mr. soleimani. >> thousands from every faith, including thousands and thousands of muslims. and on the other side of the aisle, however, x, y, z. whatever the argument is, it's like saying usama bin laden is a bad guy, no, he was a demon. and mr. soleimani, also, was a demon. this is a guy that traveled around in the middle east bragging about the amount of people he killed, bragging

about his ability to expand the iranian empire and the message that comes along with it, half a million dead syrians by the way. by the way assad would not be in power if not for iran. we look at destablization of lebanon, look at innocent, dead people in yemen at the yemen conflict. that's not america and saudi arabia, that's because the iranian regime overthrew the legitimate government of yemen, parts and in the middle of populated territory when they're bombed and threaten airplanes, it kills civilians and they can parade the civilians out. that's the heartlessness of what we're talking about. mr. secretary, i also just want to mention on the airliner. after the iranians shot down the airliner, it was amazing to see the number of people that blamed president trump, nothing would have happened if it wasn't president trump i was

told. and killing soleimani, iran react and fully expecting us to react we turned their surface to air missiles on fully assuming that america would react and we didn't because we showed restraint. and then a trigger happy or whatever the situation was, surface to air missile on the shot down the airliner. that wasn't president trump, i would argue that president trump showed a great deal of pre stra restraint. i'm sorry, some have legitimate questions, but i'm sorry. and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. castro. >> mr. secretary you and i were both on intelligence committee before you left to go to the cia. i'm still on that and i've listened to your answers on classified information and i've seen that classified information, after reviewing it, i don't think you're telling the truth and i would encourage you and the president

to declassify as much as possible. i believe if the american people would see it themselves they wouldn't think you're telling the truth. killing soleimani made america less safe in ways that were entirely predictable, it doesn't seem the administration was prepared for a vote to exspell american forces from iraq and strikes that caused our service members to hide in bunkers or the complete halt in the pullout from syria, the president made no planning of the consequences and this is exactly why the framers of our constitution decided know the to entrust any single person with the power to take america to war. instead of following athe law and seeking authorization, you first said there was a imminent threat which wasn't true and you concocted that they already authorized you to attack iran.

>> mr. secretary, do you believe that the president that authorized to attack iran. >> i'm confident that every action taken by the administration is lawful. >> and the 2000... we conducted this a tactful inside our statutory constitutional responsibility. president acted lawfully. >> do you know it doesn't mention iran? >> every member of this body knows congress never authorized war with iran, and we certainly didn't do it 18 years ago on an authorization for an entirely

different war. >> i yield to mr. espaillat of new york. >> mr. secretary, good morning. we all came here to discuss some very important issues, , issuesf life and death, war and peace. ultimately also about separation of powers in our constitutional rights as a duly elected fragile government to know what's going on and whether or not we will engage in warlike action. but the fact of the matter is that americans across the country as they send their children to school or to work, we are terrified as a nation about the coronavirus. particularly when we read in the papers one of the top official, the vice president of women and family affairs in iraq contracted the disease. we saw yesterday how wall street took an unprecedented dive. americans are terrified. i'm terrified about the coronavirus. my question, i know you want to

answer questions so a direct yes or no answer required. do you feel that we should divert funding to build the wall to stop the spread of this coronavirus, as terrifying american families across our nation? we have a money problem. the president has presented a deep cut to your department. do you feel we should divert money from building the wall to stop this pandemic? yes or no? >> that's -- >> yes or no? >> that's a straw man argument. >> yes or no, guinea gimme an e you want to answer questions. yes or no? >> we can do -- >> i reclaim my time. yes or no d.c. we should divert funding from building the wall to stop this pandemic that is terrifying american families, yes or no? >> america has the resources -- >> you're not answering my

questions. let me ask you another question. your state department personnel on the first point of contact, the first point of contact who oversees from diplomatic engagements to consular service. do you feel your employees are at risk, exposed to the coronavirus? they are in china, they are all over asia. do you feel your employees are in danger, at risk of contracting the coronavirus? >> we've taken a number of actions -- >> are the at risk of contracting the virus, yes or no? >> would you permit me to enter. >> is yes, give me a yes or no answer. >> it's more complicated -- >> no, it's not. you're sitting in a consular office interviewing people in china or japan or in asia. are you at risk of contracting this disease? >> every one of our ambassadors and by which the risk to their offices everyday. our officers all across the world not just from coronavirus -- >> the time of the gentleman has

expired. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. yoho. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i'll answer the last question, yes, and he at risk of it. mr. secretary, you sit at the beginning the trump administration will neither tolerate or appease the iranian terrorist regime. yet the president said he would be open to talking to them. and i think that's great and we're thankful for that but that should be the policy of america beyond this administration and hopefully to the next administration, that we won't tolerate this kind of activity against our country so i i appreciate them standing strong. my colleagues, i should go to point out one of them but many of them have laid out blame there is a strategy wholly out of the jcpoa -- pulling out of the jcpoa, eliminating soleimani. the other things, no response to coronavirus a lot of things we did do pulling out of the jcpoa, the sanctions, those are the strategies at a think you'll see the response down the road. as far as the coronavirus my

colleagues on the other side said this administration has done nothing. we've had two hearings in this committee on the subcommittee, chairman barrow and myself and with that the administration here. in fact, we had to epidemiologist showed up. we've a two hearings on coronavirus with epidemiologist, state department employees, dr. redfield from the cdc and we've offered help iran and china and have not taken it. to date. everybody is what about coronavirus. you know, the last thing we need to do is traumatized it that everybody will get coronavirus. we did that with zika, with ebola and we were blessed because the system we have in this country. to date, there are 57 cases confirmed of coronavirus of americans. 40 were on a cruise ship. i won't mention the name. three were from wuhan, 12 our travel related and two a person to person. so i think any country of 330 some million people, that's

pretty darn good. so i applaud the administration. we talked to dr. redfield yesterday. he says they are staged, ready to go pick we talked to patrick kennedy that received the cruise ship in cambodia. the state department wasn't there. they had six staging areas. they work with the cambodian government which i appreciate. and they got those people home safely. i do have some questions that are pertinent to this, to this hearing. with soleimani being eliminated, can you report in the setting, have you seen a weakening in iran's had source or their proxies in syria, lebanon or yemen or anywhere else? >> i would prefer to add to that by saying that the cumulative effect of the actions we have taken since this administration, and office have reduced the capacity for the islamic republic iran to inflict terror around the world, no doubt about

that. >> do you have sent on replacement of mr. garney -- >> i'll simply say that soleimani was unique leader in that the broader institution in an array of islamic republic of iran, he was a loud voice, a voice that had lots of people were willing to listen to them, and there is not a leader that is likely to be able to replace him completely, adequately and fully. >> i think that is justification enough. if we look at our servicemen and women that were either killed or were wounded in iraq and afghanistan, we know 70% of those came from ieds. 90% of those came from iran. who was in charge of those? >> those were quds force operations that was led by qasem soleimani. >> right. they make it go back to when

bill clinton and president obama or prior to president obama,, bill clinton had the opportunity to remove osama bin laden. he had ten, 12 different times had the opportunity to apprehend him or eliminate him. he chose not to. the question is, what 9/11 happened had we done that? >> i, i don't want to speculate. >> we can't speculate but we can probably look into the future, had soleimani, the would've been more deaths attributed to iran and the ieds, and so i commend this administration were doing what they did. you have a tough job. we need to focus on what's going on in the world. it's not just iran. we got china, north korea, what's going on in venezuela, we've got the economy's being adjusted all over the world. and so we can't just focus on one area. we got to look at the whole picture. i would think congress would

come together to focus on that, and i yield back. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. malinowski. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you and i have what i thought was a very constructive conversation at the munich conference about the board's of defending state department personnel, and i appreciated some of the things you said to us about that. since we got home we have heard the following statement from the white house deputy spokesperson who said, too often we have people in discovery, i mean the federal government, massive with millions of people and there are a lot of people out there taking action against this president. and when we find the real take appropriate action. we have seen reports that the white house personnel office is compiling lists of so-called deep state people, disloyal people to purge. are some 24,000 civil and foreign service officers, mr.

secretary, also listening to you right now. they know that they have a duty to implement this presidents policies, and they do. you called them just a moment ago amazing people. you know they're not working against this president but they also feel they have a responsibility to share with you and the president their best judgment to tell you the truth as they see it whether it's with the leadership wants to hear or not. so my question is, , if they do that, if, for example, a state department official goes to a meeting at the white house and reports that there are more isis fighters today than when isis took over, half of iraq in 2014, that the strike against soleimani may have temporarily hampered our ability to fight the war. as a public health expert working for you tells a public or the president that this virus isn't necessarily going to go away when it gets warm, are you going to back them up when they speak what they believe to be

the truth? are you going to stand by while people in the white house talk about purging your employees? >> actually is is a really easy question. there is not a day goes by that state department officials don't tell me things that i disagree with. not one, can imagine a big organization. i welcome it. all my abbasid industry, chief of mission conference was intemperate i had lots of voices what i always do men from the is the truth as best they know what, their policy judgments as well. they have lots of experience, time on the ground and spirit are you willing to get in a fight with the white house if necessary as all of your predecessors would have in the face of these kinds of comments from micah 29-year-old guy in a white house personnel office? >> it's not about fighting. it's about being right. it's about making sure we deliver rf of the american people. i do that everyday. we were to make the case for delivering american diplomacy and away this institution always has. we built it appeared we have made it better than when my predecessors were there and i

hope that my successor makes it better than -- >> thank you. i hope to see you didn't did puy and i yield to mr. lieu. >> thank you. mr. pompeo, on january 7, -- following the soleimani strike iran was going to get rid of all the missile centrifuges iran uses to enrich uranium. let me put that in some context. as of last november at the iaea said iran's stockpile had grown to over 800 pounds, but then after the soleimani attack a rental the world it stockpile is more than tripled to about 2600 pounds. silly question to you is, does iran have more enriched uranium now than when donald trump took office? >> yes. >> okay. want to switch to coronavirus -- >> i make sure i get that speed- >> yes. >> they have enriched to a higher level than they did when we took office.

the maximum, it's a bit more complicated. i just want to be precise. >> i'm going to switch to the coronavirus that is on top of peoples minds. donald trump chief of staff mick mulvaney told a conference at the coronavirus was the hoax of the day. do you agree with donald trump's chief of staff mulvaney's that the coronavirus is the hoax of the day? >> state department and everything it can to protect american citizens revlon. >> do you believe coronavirus -- >> i'm not going to comment on what others say. >> i'm just asking to believe the -- >> i'm not going speedy delete the coronavirus is a hoax? >> we are working to speedy can you not even answer that question? it's not a gotcha moment. >> it's not useful. >> is the coronavirus a hoax? >> we are taking it seriously. >> at 12:15 p.m. today are you

speaking at the speedy yes, i am. >> you only given two hours to bipartisan group of members of congress and instead of answering russians on life-and-death issues from a bar person group of americans represent you go talk to a special interest group. you represent all americans at a special interest group and it is shameful you get even answer basic questions. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. mast. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the first question i would offer i would offer to you ten seconds, mr. chairman, there was inappropriate for her to offer information from classified setting? >> who? >> was at appropriate dash i did not yield you anytime. >> i think, i think we have -- i don't decide appropriateness of every member of congress has a right to say whatever they feel they need to say. >> of asking at the ethics committee did whether that was appropriate for them to offer information from a classified setting. i want to talk about some important points that were made

in the very beginning of this hearing. the first comment from the other side today was, how can we offer, helping make sure we offer iran aid? to mrs. sizzling. can we ensure that we can offer eight over to iran? that was a first mission to get out of this committee. second, from the other side speedy with the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. second question that came out was in this. offering that you should spend more time here and that secretary clinton spent 11 hours here. wow, we should give her a hand of congratulations. not even one hour for every hour that she allowed our men and women overseas to be killed without dispatching any quick response force. congratulations for that. i want ask a couple of questions. it does make sense to me that many on the other side are upset about killing somebody who was

attacking our embassy. that is consistent with not defending. i would be consistent or i want to ask, are any of my colleagues, i'm going to offer time for this, who had been chastising the president who keep saying over and over and over that we are less safe because of killing soleimani, willing to say right now, i'll offer you time, that you wish soleimani was still alive? i'm willing to yield you time. you said -- i'm willing to you to time if you want to say speedy i'm happy to answer. of course we think speedy i have not yield you time yet. >> you an answer or not? >> would you like to ask me if i would yield a moment? >> yes. we with the principal responsible for the president is to keep the american people safe. we believe this action oldman has made us less safe. >> so do you want soleimani to a love? >> of course not. you know better.

shame on you for asking that question. and shame on you for suggesting were not -- >> i reclaim my time. >> you know better than -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> offer a moment. would you like to offer that you wish soleimani was still alive? i would yield if -- >> i'm congresswoman speier spar from virginia. >> i apologize. >> referencing what you stated earlier, the point of it was there was no evidence given a classified briefing, nine, not imminent, none. as a former cia case officer i am very happy that soleimani is dead. but we need to have strategy speedy i will reclaim my time. >> -- protecting american people and don't be the focus of her question to the secretary today. >> everyone yield. the gentleman reclaims his time. >> again, no less than ten times we are less safe, we are less safe, we are less safe because soleimani was killed. was it over and over. it's a simple question do you wish he was still alive? all still hold on for another moment if anyone wants to offer

their wish -- >> with the gentleman yield? >> no. you've used up enough, thank you. >> will try to get to the gentlewoman -- >> i have another question. at this point would nmi colleagues like to offer this, at what point would you say that iran has gone too far? i'm willing to offer time for that. when can you say iran has crossed a red line? i'll sit here and wait. >> with the gentleman joe. >> was absolutely if you want to offer with iran goes too far. if not i will reclaim at the. >> the question was when iran across a bit on some asking in response i'd like you to first define what a red light is. >> i'm asking what is your redline? win for you does iran go too far that it justifies killing soleimani or taking out some of the some action against -- what is your redline? for any of my call. >> iran what to for decades ago

but the question whether this authorization for this particular strike. >> which will he go out and label so what does it terrorist, when we put that wanted site on the back there is justification for for a strike. just as if -- >> at the sanction designation and is nothing to do with use for. >> reclaiming my time. just as is now replacement, mr. donnie has a wanted poster on his back. ahead, designated terror organization. what anybody like to care to offer that they have redline or actions of reigning aggression? >> who was next. >> in my last couple seconds i will offer this. i heard one response for a redline of our reigning aggression. that leads me to believe there are no red lines any of my colleagues for a rating aggression. that should be concerning.

>> mr. deutch. >> i'll pass, mr. chairman. >> mr. trone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 11 hours of testimony by secretary clinton on benghazi. two hours, two by secretary pompeo on iran. arrogance, arrogance. mr. pompeo, i think the way the administration has held iran policy in recent months explains why so many of us are concerned about the response to the coronavirus. if the administration is going to tell the truth about the alleged imminent threat to our people in our embassies, why should the american people have the confidence in the statements about the threat this disease poses? if the administration hides the

fact that the number of servicemembers who were injured in an attack, how can we know the numbers about diagnosis and quarantines are accurate? when the administration liars or sidelines people like ambassador yovanovitch, lieutenant colonel vindman, dni mcguire, or this week the hhs whistleblower who was being targeted. just because they told the truth. should we believe what you tell us about another looming crisis? the american people are scared, sir. my constituents are scared him and the administrations track record of incompetence in dealing with crises doesn't inspire confidence. and to make it worse the president has tried to slash the personnel and programs that can make us better equipped to grapple with the global health crisis. it's reckless. so we end up with mixed

messages, modeled information, confusion. it's one of the last things we want in this situation. we need to do better. the american people clearly deserve better. i yield to mr. already. >> i think the gentleman -- i think the jump for julie. i'm going to make a statement. i'm not going to ask any questions, mr. one disputes soleimani was a dangerous hardened terrorists know what over here mourns his death. some prefer to take a simple path to call hard-fought negotiations the cap i rest of the program that is now back on as there's been evidenced today, a piece that, a term we know with historic freight. or declare an unauthorized strike to kill one of iran's most senior generals do were te same as take any other terrorist. if they're not geopolitical consequences at stake. but as a member member of this

committee it's our job to ask, and then what? because foreign policy and actions taken on the global stage can be shortsighted. you have to consider what comes next. what happened after the strike and mistress of actions were both predictable and hurt the long-term national security interest of the united states similar to some of the impulsive decisions we've seen from this administration such as turning our backs on the kurds after a phone call, or inviting the taliban to camp david on the wake of 9/11. and now we face the possibility of a historic global pandemic led by a president and and administration that have shown they are incapable of thinking about what happens next. this administration has left the state department key positions vacant, has left the national security council and cdc with key positions vacant and, of course, as my colleagues have

pointed out sought to slash critical funding. governing and leading the world requires stable leadership. the world looks to us for that leadership. they watch us. they fear our military, but more than that the respect our values and how we lead. government by chaos makes us less safe, and the world less safe. i hope and pray for our great country that we'll get our act together as we face this coronavirus. and i will work with this administration to do everything i can to protect my constituents and our great country. i hope that you will in the future give this committee the time it deserves to discuss these issues. the american people want to know why we took the strike, what went into it, with the explanation is. there has been no debate. we need to talk about the

authorization for such actions. that's a role in a democracy and i encourage you to give us the time to the discussion. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. wright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. as you have seen ringling brothers has not let this committee. rarely have i seen adults behave in such a despicable and rude manner as they have today. including bullying tactics, which is reprehensible. i want you to know that i think you do an outstanding job and that the united states of america and the world are safer because you are the secretary of state. i have a real simple question and then i'm going to you because what about out of time for the committee. it has to do with the protesters in iran. and realizing the limitations we have to affect things internall

internally, do you believe we're doing everything we can to support those protesters? isn't anything congress could do to help the protesters in iran? >> we have taken a different approach with respect to the protesters than the previous administration did. we are doing all the things that we have in our toolkit. this is what we do in country where people are demanding freedom and liberty. they want simple basic human rights that have been denied them for so long inside the islamic republic of iran. the fraudulent election did not only let people run but how many people chose not to vote as well. they knew i was a fraud, joe, that it wasn't a real election. -- it was a fraud, a joke. i'm happy in another setting to tell all the things in decision is doing to try -- the arena protesters, at the very least not be harmed and then our effort more broadly even the

just about the middle east is aimed at standing up free and sovereign iraq, lebanon that is not suffering advance of controlled hezbollah. same thing with the islamic republic of iran. as a company as a strategic approach to the region and if we get it right the people of that region will be better off, and american will be more secure. >> thank you. i'm going to yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you, sir. thank you. appreciate that. thank you for being here and i haven't been in close long enough to be better or. [shouting] natural anything to cause any great attention. >> you'll learn quickly. >> nobody has even taken my picture. i'll just keep -- thank you, brother. i appreciate that. but i will put you my christmas card list. since we took out soleimani have iran's actions a change any that you think?

i suspect they walk it everywhere i look up at the sky. >> so the answer is, the answer is yes, but it is much more complicated than that. there is no single act that you can stare at him to do and say this was the one variable that move the entire strategic -- it's more comprehensive, bigger than that. this is just one element of the efforts we've undertaken. so to say the responses are, to draw a correlation like that, i want to be very cautious about. >> more of a long-term thing so thank you for that. how is it ministrations maximum pressure ability affected iran? >> you can see it in a class i said in an effort kill data but our decisions -- hard decisions, difficult decision about whether you should make payroll to hezbollah, have big of a militia and use were inside of iraq, should you work on your assassination campaign in europe, underwrite maligned activity in afghanistan, finite resources that was referenced

earlier that were shipping roughly some 22.7-2.9 barrels a day of crude oil closer to market prices today that number is somewhere between 300,000 euros a day and they're having to ship it to syria in exchange for the work on the ground there. this has put a notice constraint on the regime and its ability to foment terror around the world. america safer. israel is safer as well. >> what can be done to mend the rift between the gulf countries to make the gcc and effective local deterrent against iran? >> we are encouraging all the gulf states to join us in this effort. they all see the threat to an agency can the threat from the islamic republic of iran. disputes amongst to make it more difficult to prosecute effectively and we hope they will get this figured out. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you.

the gentleman yields back. we are just about run out of time. let me say two things. first of all, mr. secretary, we hope you will come back soon. we hope you will give us more time when you come back. i think you can sense the frustration on this site of the aisle that we only had you for two hours. there's a lot more time we could have done. i've been on this committee for over 30 years, and most secretaries give us three or four hours when they come. we hope we can get back to that as well. that's the frustration on the side that we didn't feel that we were able to get into a lot of topics that we think are necessary to discuss with the secretary of state. but i do want to thank you for coming here, and let you know that you are always welcome whenever you want to, to discuss matters with us. we are always happy to have you. let me ask, so thank you and safe travels to wherever you are

going. before i adjourn the committee i would ask everyone to please keep their seats while the secretary departs. so we can do that now. the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> 2020 democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders speaks to supporters at a south carolina get out the vote rally in the capital of columbia. one day before the state democratic primary. watch live today at 2:30 p.m. eastern on on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> the south carolina primary is saturday. joint as to hear the candidates