capable, in the same way we are demanding a permanent denuclearization -- in that same way, we have to provide him assurances that extend beyond the end of the negotiations. we had a discussion in this vein. we have to make commitments that will extend well beyond that. sen. markey: did you agree that using the qaddafi model was a good way to incentivize him to denuclearize? ec. pompeo: i didn't make that decision. sen. markey: i'm asking, do you decision. agree with the decision to use the qaddafi model? sec. pompeo: i don't -- i've tried -- sen. markey: you are our chief diplomat. sec. pompeo: i've given you my approach. you are trying to characterize what ambassador bolton said. sen. markey: and vice president pence.

he made reference to qaddafi as well. does insulting our negotiating partner now pass for american diplomacy? sec. pompeo: we've done everything we can to get us closer than america has been to achieving a really good outcome. sen. markey: do you think moving from fire and fury and then in this letter -- you talked about your nuclear capabilities, but hours are so massive and powerful that i pray to god we will never have to use them -- that is talking to use them -- that is talking about using nuclear weapons again as we were three weeks from sitting down with them, based on a response to our use of qaddafi as a model for denuclearization. we should be negotiating peace, ut you seem to want to negotiate war. you seem willing to miss this opportunity to defend the qaddafi approach before this committee. i think you have missed an opportunity.

you have missed a chance to actually give some confidence to the american people and the world that we are on a pathway to reaching a negotiated settlement with north korea. >> i want to use some of my time here. one of the reasons i opposed so strongly what the obama administration did in libya was exactly the argument you are laying out now. i think you opposed it too. to have someone like qaddafi who gave up nuclear weapons and then to go kill him, to me, since exactly the signal that you are laying out right now. we may be reprocessing his materials. right now he is a dead man. it sent to me a strong signal that secretary pompeo is having to overcome right now, to give assurances that in the event he gives up his weapons, the same won't happen to him. but it was in fact the doctrine f the last administration to

take out a leader that gave up their nuclear weapons. that does make it more difficult down the road. i stated that at the time. i would like to give secretary pompeo the opportunity to talk about what happened in 2003 and 2004, just to edify what libya model could have meant. sec. pompeo: we had a very robust identification of the ystems that were in place.

a much smaller challenge then is faced in north korea. ultimately, weapons left the country and we continue to believe successfully got all the nuclear capability out from ibya at that time. i know the negotiators did hard, painstaking work. there were bumps along the way. but they achieve that outcome. >> senator murphy. sen. murphy: thank you very much. i think you may be providing

more pushback than necessary on the point, which is as much as it matters what you think you mean in the context of diplomacy, it matters more what the actor on the other side thinks you mean. it is relevant, but not dispositive as to what ambassador bolton thought he meant when he said that. we need to think about what the other actor interprets that as. i think it strains credibility to suggest it is outside of the realm of possibility or unwarranted for kim to read that as an advertisement that we are going to repeat the mistakes that we made years ago. i want to come back to the budget for a second.

want to talk to you about the consequences of some of these cuts. consequences of some of these cuts. we regularly read reports of russian money and influence flowing into the balkans at race that we did not see before the trump administration. they see an opportunity to essentially set up a new front, a new hybrid scenario like we've seen in ukraine. they are buying media companies. they are bribing government officials. they are funding biker gangs. all sorts of pseudo-military. it looks a lot like the lead up to what happened in eastern ukraine. but this budget calls for governance funding cuts of 91% in albania, 75% in macedonia, 69% in serbia, 67% in bosnia. these are catastrophic withdrawals of funding and another signal to the russians that we are out and you should fill the void. why are you proposing these big funding cuts to governance programs in the balkans? sec. pompeo: you're talking about the budget numbers for 2019 -- we have a two-year

agreement on what we're going to spend. i'm confident that the russians can see we are not doing what you describe. they are not just state department issues. there are others involved. i agree with you, the threat of the russians continuing to move aggressively is one that we have an obligation to counter. sen. murphy: how can you do hat -- sec. pompeo: we are to have the resources we need. sen. murphy: but why propose it? sec. pompeo: 2020. i wasn't around. i can only speak to what i'm going to endeavor to do. i'm going to try to make sure we have every dollar we need. sen. murphy: i want to bring sen. murphy: but why propose you -- i appreciate your verbal commitment to the region. sec. pompeo: i completely agree. sen. murphy: let me bring you back to yemen.

you've had a couple questions on yemen. so, there is no evidence that we have had any success in changing the trajectory of civilian deaths on the ground. in fact it is the opposite. pril was the worst month for civilian deaths inside yemen since we had the debate on the senate floor. a private residence was bombed killing 20. even kids. a gas station. a commuter bus, killing 20. the civilian death count is getting worse, not better. what evidence can you provide to the committee that we are having success in our efforts to make sure that civilians are not having the casualties that

we can send you to assist the saudi's in? sec. pompeo: i don't know the date of the same way you did. there's a lot of work to do. there's no doubt about hat. we still have risks. we have humanitarian risks that remain. you talked about the civilian deaths. there's still real risks of outbreak of disease. i met with the new envoy. i'm hopeful that some of the things that he's been able to do with all the parties, the saudi's, will yield a political outcome that will stop this, which is the only way that really gets fixed. sen. murphy: with all due respect, there is no political process. we had a hearing with your acting assistant secretary for the region in which we asked

about the planned assault. the coalition has been wanting for a long time to march on. the united states has pressed the coalition to refrain from taking that course because 80% of humanitarian relief supplies ome through there. mr. satterfield said we would not view such an action as onsistent with our policy, suggesting that we might all our support. they are marching as we speak. they are planning to launch an assault. why were we not successful in convincing them to refrain from an assault, and will we contemplate pulling our support if they continue with a military campaign that will turn a nightmare into a catechism from a humanitarian perspective? ec. pompeo: we've made clear

our view on that. ambassador satterfield sounds our view on that. like he adequately communicated that. ur primary objective, we are concerned about what the humanitarian outcomes are, and we articulated that as well. sen. murphy: why continue to be part of this coalition if we have no effect on the most important decisions that are being made by the coalition? sec. pompeo: you assume a status quo absent our involvement that might not be the case. our involvement -- however bad things our today, could be that our involvement has made them less worse than they would be. bad grammar, but the truth. you have to concede that there have been many cases where our involvement has improved the lives, reduced the humanitarian catastrophe -- there are

absolutely places where our involvement has made a difference. it is our judgment today that it is still worth engaging. sen. murphy: i think that is a hard case to be made, that our involvement has made things better for the yemeni people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator corker has asked me to preside while he's voting. i won't ask for unanimous consent to do something i want to do. i will do what he would have done, which is recognized senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in terms of our involvement in refueling the saudi bombers that are dropping bombs in yemen, it makes sense if we are providing this assistance for us to understand what is being hit. could you work with us and provide a report of our best understanding of the impact of those bombs on civilians or civilian installations infrastructure? sec. pompeo: i will certainly

work with you on that. it may be that i will need help from the department of defense. some of that information would probably be only in their possession. i will work with you to see if we can get the information you are looking for. sen. merkley: i appreciate hat. during your nomination hearing, i raised a question about the ork of the unfpa and how mportant it was around the world to the health of women. we have cut off its funding

based on concern that they are involved in providing abortions. every evidence is that that is not the case. i ask if you would consider looking into that. ou responded that you would be willing to look into it. i realize that you've been on this position a short time. in the state department human rights report, there is no mention of the unfpa in the pages that address china's family-planning practices. i may be wrong in assuming you haven't had time to look into this, but would you be able to follow up on that in the weeks ahead? sec. pompeo: i will do so in a timely manner. it seems by the end of june i could have a response to you. sen. merkley: thank you very much. we have ambassador brownback who is working hard in partnership with the bureau of refugees and migrations, and i think they are the lead, to put together a report on the atrocities that occurred on the rohingya people in burma. i would like to get a sense of when that report is going to be completed, if we have a date for that. sec. pompeo: i don't know the nswer to that.

sen. merkley: i have heard it could be very soon, and when we do receive that report, will that be a public report? s there a reason it couldn't sec. pompeo: there is reason that i know of. sen. merkley: i think that may be a moment for us to retake up this discussion, to have that report from the state department. this committee has voted out sanctions against military based on all the reports we had about what occurred. we've also voted out a resolution reloaded -- related to standards for repatriation, so there is not victimization. we are sitting right now with more than 700,000 new refugees from this last conflict in bangladesh. bangladesh needs a lot of

support to help provide services, and the u.s. has been a significant factor. can the u.s. continue to be of assistance? sec. pompeo: yes. i think i answered the question in completely. not only do i see no reason it couldn't be published, but it would be important that it be published. i agree with you. it would be very important that we make that public. sen. merkley: we have a humanitarian conflict of ethnic cleansing that is enormous in its scale. i'm hoping the u.s. will help in their national response. to fail to do so is to fail in our moral leadership in the world. to fail to do so encourages ther countries that may have belittled and denigrated a

minority to proceed to engage in ethnic cleansing. do you anticipate being in this dialogue as we go forward? sec. pompeo: i do. sen. merkley: thank you very much. finally i want to turn to special immigrant visas. last year congress worked to authorize additional visas for qualified afghans who come under threat because of their service to the united states. admissions have plummeted from roughly 1800 afghan wartime partners and their families per month to roughly 500 per month. do you have any reason for this sudden drop-off? sec. pompeo: i do not. sen. merkley: these are the olks who were the key partners

for our ability to function. is there a possibility that the state department could work to accelerate their ability to ome to the u.s.? they are at enormous risk. sec. pompeo: i know who these folks are. i know the service they provided. i'm happy to figure out -- i'm sorry i don't know the answer, but i will come to understand the answer and work towards resolving it. sen. merkley: i appreciate that. there's also a tremendous number of iraqis that are in the same situation. i know the service they they knew that when they signed up, if we didn't partner with them to protect them and their families afterwards, they were in deep trouble. i don't know what sort of support or assurances we have, but there's an implicit understanding from previous conflicts, so i appreciate your attention to this. sec. pompeo: thank you. >> thank you, senator merkley. as i understand it, there are no members who have not had a

first round. we will start the second round. i recognize myself. mr. secretary, let me just say i joined in the expression of sympathy for those who were lost in the airplane in cuba. for the record, that plane was a boeing 737 leased by a mexican company, which could have kept it updated. i think we have to recognize hat reality. one other comment before i eturn to some questions. i've listened to my republican colleagues question you on north korea and i've heard your responses. it seems to me that there's an effort here to create alternative facts in which

north korea walked away. it is rather clear to me that this was president trump's decision. he walked away. my only observation is, likely because he maybe came to the conclusion that the challenges that dawned on him, that his approach was setting us up for failure. as i expressed earlier, this is a direct failure of the administration to have a credible and pragmatic policy nd strategy, and lay out the foundation's before you ever got to that point. i'm afraid that failure and the president's impulsive decisions oundation's before you ever have lost us leverage. i hope we can regain it. i'd like to go to the a umf. let me ask you, mr. secretary, nowing that the administration fully believes it has all the

authorities it needs, but also having heard as my good friend senator kaine has said, that secretary mattis and others have said, that it would be good to have the united states congress in full support of the actions being taken across the globe, by having congress weigh in -- recognizing that, but if congress is going to vote, does the state department support hat? sec. pompeo: we still are seeking some additional changes to it. i will give you might's view, which is it is better than what we've seen before, but we are still hopeful on some of the terms. there are issues surrounding associated forces and a couple others that we would like to work on. maybe it is technical. we would like to work on those before we say we support t.

sen. menendez: under the text as it is, it theoretically is possible that congress could pass a resolution disapproving the use of force against a new associated force after kinetic action by the administration has begun. would the administration comply if this was the law? sec. pompeo: i don't know the answer, senator. we always comply with the law if that is your point, but you are asking me to interpret a piece of legislation -- sen. menendez: i'm not asking for a legal interpretation. sec. pompeo: i try to do that every day. sen. menendez: i appreciate that. we also have the ability to have interpretations, or to invoke other powers to suggest that action is going to take place. worry about that. it is possible that the

congress could pass a resolution disapproving the use of force in a new country. when you said you are not ready to give your unqualified support, and you mentioned associated forces -- sec. pompeo: identically troubling. sen. menendez: let me go back to russia. for my own point, let me be clear that until the president publicly declares that russia interfered in our election and lays out a clear strategy to counter russian aggression, questions will remain about his commitment to promoting the u.s. national security. you say the administration has taken actions against russia, but section 1239 a of the national defense authorization act required the departments of defense and state to produce a

strategy to counter russian influence. i understand the department of defense has finalized its portions of the strategy, but state has yet to complete it. it was due on april 12. will you commit to completing this report and can you give us a sense of the time frame? sec. pompeo: i commit to completing the report. if you give me until next week, i will get you a date. this one is bigger than me. sen. menendez: that is fair. i understand the administration has designated under authorities laid out in the obama era -- still speaking about russia. in my view, the administration has ignored the will of congress and the law by not imposing sanctions under the new mandatory provisions of the law. let me run through the mandatory provisions. section 225, sanctions on crude

oil products. sanctions on russia and other foreign financial institutions. sanctions on significant corruption in the russian federation. sanctions on certain transactions with sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers. sanctions on persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the government of the russian federation. sanctions on the transfer of arms and related materials to syria. this is pretty clear. can you commit to us that you will follow the law -- and impose sanctions under these mandatory provisions? sec. pompeo: as someone who has been the architect of a lot of the sanctions policy on iran and russia and others, i never saw the congress where they made it mandatory without waivers. they did here.

and yet those mandatory provisions are not being followed. will you commit to pursuing them? sec. pompeo: i will. will you make a commitment that you will help secretary mattis get the waivers he need to make sure these sanctions that hit folks that i think were not intended to be harmed? i know it is not my day to ask questions, but it is -- sen. menendez: i'm happy to have you ask questions. the quick response is, i have to see the specifics. i also have to say, if we are going to allow countries that re sanctioned and they want to get off the hook because there's some other benefit, then we begin to erode the sanction policies and other countries will seek the ame.

i'm open to listen to it, but it has to follow what our policy is trying to achieve. sec. pompeo: i hope i answered your first question with respect to my commitment. sen. menendez: thank you. >> senator shaheen. en. shaheen: you announced a tack in china that seems to be consistent with what we've seen from embassy personnel in cuba and also pointed out that you were in charge of that investigation. i assume that you are working with our intelligence agencies in that investigation. are you also working with the department of defense? sec. pompeo: yes. this week, my former agency briefed me on the situation. i had them into brief me. it could be that we end up with other agencies, other nvestigative bodies.

sen. shaheen: it seems to me that this is the kind of situation where it is important to have interagency cooperation. sec. pompeo: we received great help from the department of energy and some of their abs. it is a multi agency process. sen. shaheen: thank you. this week there were reports of fighting in eastern ukraine between separatists and the ukrainian military. how are we working to de-escalate the situation, and how does the current unrest in eastern ukraine factor into the udget rick west? sec. pompeo: i don't know if the budget request preceded that timing. sen. shaheen: this is some renewed fighting in a way we haven't seen for a little while. ec. pompeo: state department

has a part of this. other agencies do as well. trying to work with all sides to get the violence to stop. it has proven intractable for a long time. it has been sporadic violence for an extended period of time. suffice it to say that our diplomatic efforts with all the parties -- there are you and agencies as well -- it is a multilateral effort. i wish we could get more support from our european partners as well. it is going to take a lot of us to resolve the conflict there in southeast ukraine. sen. shaheen: doesn't that also speak to continuing to implement the sanctions as expeditiously as possible? sec. pompeo: it does. sen. shaheen: are you pushing to do that? sec. pompeo: yes ma'am. sen. shaheen: you may be aware

that in the senate we have restarted the senate nato observer group to try and continue to support efforts that nato is undertaking, given the renewed threat from russia and cyber and other threats we are facing. there's an upcoming nato summit in brussels. can you talk about what the u.s. goals are and how you think we might be helpful in the senate? sec. pompeo: sure. 'll leave you to make your own choices, but i can talk to you about what we are hoping to achieve. my first trip was to the foreign ministers meeting in brussels. spent a day and a half on the ground there. maybe half a dozen things, three or four of which are worth recounting. first, let's of discussion about everyone's continued commitment, so a real focus on

making sure that people are honoring the commitments they've made, including getting to the levels of support for nato that they've committed. second, there are other nato missions being contemplated. there was a lot of talk about how we would put that together. i certainly went there to make a statement about my personal commitment, america's commitment, to article five and nato. there are a number of discussions about new potential members and how to successfully continue to keep an open door at nato. there will be discussions around each of those. i think secretary mattis is either there or going there soon for the run up to the leaders meeting. in july, there will be the nato summit itself.

sen. shaheen: thank you. i know that several senators asked you about yemen. i'm not going to reiterate that. i was part of the effort to get something done in this committee. i do hope that if this legislation is signed into law, and even if it is not, that you will try and continue to work with our allies to encourage them to think about how they can help with the humanitarian situation there and bring the various parties to the table in yemen. ultimately there is no military solution. there's only a political solution there. so i will take your nodding as a yes. sec. pompeo: for the record, yes ma'am. sen. shaheen: we saw over the last couple weeks a lot of unrest in the middle east as a

esult of moving our embassy to jerusalem, and i know that president trump has suggested that moving our embassy has brought us closer to peace, but given what we've seen in terms of the unrest, given the administration's effort to stop bilateral assistance to the west bank and gaza, to cut off our contributions to the united nations agency for palestinian refugees, i don't understand how this is helping move us closer to a lasting peace between the israelis and alestinians. can you try and share with us the strategy of how this helps? sec. pompeo: i think the decision that many on this panel voted for to move the embassy was what the president felt was the right thing to do.

he felt like the recognition of jerusalem as the capital was the right thing to do and the vast majority of members of congress have voted that way. i think that is what the aim was. sen. shaheen: but the president has said that has moved us closer to peace. sec. pompeo: i'll walk you through the efforts the administration is engaged in. it is fair to say that for decades the existing policies ad failed. i think that is indisputable. lots of people running around, lots of envoys, each of those had failed. this administration is seeking to take an approach that is different, to try and work quietly to develop an outline of a solution and to find partners -- the israelis and the palestinians will be the decision-makers -- and we talked about this in other regions before -- to conclude

that there's a better way. that these fights over these historic things are perhaps worthy and important, but there's a better solution, that people everywhere can be better off if we achieve an outcome. mr. kushner is still working on the project. this administration is committed to finding a solution that the israelis and palestinians can sign up for. sen. shaheen: i'm out of time, but i would argue that so far we haven't seen an improvement for the peace process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator carter. sen. carter: i just checked with our staff with regards to the iran nuclear agreement. there were regular updates to the committee and staff after

each of the negotiating sessions. there were also classified briefings. there were negotiators who came in for classified briefings. we had many meetings in the white house at the national security council level. sec. pompeo: i do remember them. sen. cardin: we may have different views on that. i voted against the agreement, but i think it is important that we speak as one voice. we are going to need to be on the same page. ave confidence, as you used to be a member of the house, as the appropriate roles between the administration and the legislative branch. in regards to the aumf, authorization for use of military force, the plane reading of the 2001

authorization, it is impossible to understand how that was intended to apply to our military campaign against syria. that is a statement. i do understand that president bush, after he got the authorization for the use of force, came to congress shortly thereafter to seek another authorization for the use of military force in regards to iraq, because president bush understood that the 2001 didn't apply to iraq. yet there's a closer nexus between the 9/11 attack and our military campaign in iraq then there is between the one in syria against isis. we need authorization for the use of military force in regards to isis. three administrations have taken the convenient way out, saying why bother with

congress? i understand that. there's no way we can enforce the interpretation of the 2001 authorization. ongress can't do that. now the administrations are running into problems with court cases. now we are getting your attention. we should pass a new aumf. i think everyone agrees on that. but i'm going to make a plea. i voted for the 2001 authorization and i never thought it would be used 18 years later in a campaign against isis, particularly since al qaeda has disavowed any interest in isis. i'm very concerned about voting for any aumf as to how it would be interpreted three administrations from now in regards to campaigns somewhere else.

i would urge you to consider this offer. that is to give the authority you need without restrictions to conduct your campaign in syria or a campaign against isis, but put a hard sunset on it so that we don't put into place and authorization that could be misinterpreted and will never get off the books. with plenty of lead time so we are not putting you against any deadline, but a way in which we can keep these authorizations currently available. if you want to respond, ine. i just urge us to find a common ground where we can do what is right for the american eople. sec. pompeo: i'd only respond by saying, maybe it is because of my previous role, i have

enormous -- i have a deep understanding of why you feel his way. there is no recourse. it presents a conundrum. i accept that as a fact. i'm happy to work to a place where we get what we think we collectively need. sen. cardin: i thank you for that. there's a lot of us who want to vote for an authorization and ope we can find a commonplace, but currently we are not heading in that direction. i'm afraid we are going to end up doing nothing. we are using a contorted interpretation that in history will show it should not have been done by administrations or ongress. one last question if i might. that deals with president assad being held accountable for his war crimes.

there is legislation that is pending here on bipartisan basis. there's been appropriations made. you were asked about the funds hat were made available in regards to our cooperation with the united nations. we've had hearings in this committee before with administration witnesses and we've always said, you've got to all these people accountable. president assad needs to be held accountable for what he's one. the united states needs to be in the leadership. as we move through this campaign, it becomes more difficult to preserve information. i would like to get your help in regards to making sure we hold those who commit these crimes accountable. sec. pompeo: i agree, there are lots of challenges. yes, we need to find a mechanism or process by which accountability can be chieved.

there are many others around the world as well. sen. cardin: thank you. >> thank you. i have some questions. i have a series of questions that i would have sent in by writing. before i do so, is there anything you wish to clarify about any comments you made? sec. pompeo: no. i didn't get a chance to fully espond to senator menendez's statement that he views the united states as having made the decision to withdraw from the summit. i have a fundamentally different view of how it came to the that we can't have a meeting between our two leaders n june 12. >> i would like to emphasize, it was your sense as we were

moving along that you can tell when something is coming together and the logistics are being worked out. it was your sense that that was diminishing, correct? sec. pompeo: we had a lot of doubts. >> so obviously there wasn't a lot of momentum prior to some of the things that have happened over the last 48 hours. if i could, i know you said to senator menendez or maybe senator cardin that you understood where he was coming from on a sunset. as i understand it, there were hree things the administration had put forth, that a new aumf must not sunset, must not be geographically constrained, and must be enacted before the repeal of the 2001 or 2002 umf. are those still the three major premises that the administration is looking

for? sec. pompeo: what i think senator cardin was driving to and i'm sympathetic to as well is to try to find a mechanism that doesn't let this sit in erpetuity. you can't have a hard stop. you can't run into something where we now have the clock running at the lower right-hand screen of tv's, where there's a hard stop and the authorities go away. we can't tolerate that. if there's a way to drive that these just don't sit out there orever while not risking pulling the rug out, that is what i was trying to get. 3 something -- sen. corker: something where congress weighs in periodically. sec. pompeo: so long as it is the case that the authorities continue until such time as there has been a change in that. that is the sunset risk. we've got an active effort ongoing and we hit a hard stop, that doesn't work. sen. corker: is it your understanding that the aumf

includes language to avoid any legal uncertainty following the repeal of the 2001 aumf, including language that it shall provide uninterrupted authority for ongoing military operations? sec. pompeo: i believe that is correct. sen. corker: have you considered the legal risks of continuing to rely on the 2001 -- i think we preferred to just being able to hold people. sec. pompeo: we are concerned about the shift. sen. corker: there are risks that are starting to build on relying soignificant legal riskh the status qu c overseas. news outlets have reporte think we are currently ill-served by thent democracy. sec. pompeoou so, that would be great. sen. coons: coul1 sen. udall: thank you very ã short-term political gain, the risk of escalation was absolutely unacceptable and ould have dragged the u.s. nto a wider war with great

policy implications.

explicitly authorizing the members of isis would help put to rest these legal uncertainties? >> yes, i think that's true, senator. >> i'll stop here. thank you for that and i'll turn to the senator. >> thank you, chairman corker and pompeo, you've shown great endurance in engaging with this committee today and i look forward to continued rigorous engagement with you. let me on the topic of the aumf, the particular issue i want to talk to you for a moment is guidance around drone strikes. president obama provided an unclassified fact sheet to summarize his policy on drone strikes overseas in support of our counterterrorism outlets. news outlets reported president trump signed off on a revised guidance but hasn't made a version or summary of that public. i'd be interested in whether you think that's wise or unwise and whether you'd commit to publishing an unclassified fact

sheet so the american people and our allies would understand these operations and their constraints. and i intend to offer this as amendment when we debate aumf. >> i'll say this, i know it's not been published and won't be the secretary of state's decision whether or not to do so. i'm happy to talk to you about issues surrounding that. and instead of making a public announcement on what we're doing, when and why and less charitable views of our actions proliferate in ways that aren't helpful to us. i know it's been covered but think it bears repeating. i think we currently as a country are ill served by the absence of ambassadors in zozzens of posts around the world. the country of zimbabwe just

emerged from the strong man rule of robert mugabi for decade and there's a new president there that we went to africa and zimbabwe and would benefit from the presence of an american ambassador, south korea, turkey, saudi arabia, there's a long list. chairman corker has done a great job with the ranking member of moving nominees quickly. i wanted to see if we'll be able to move forward in the way the nominees particularly in countries like zimbabwe where there's an upcoming election and opportunity for the voice of the united states in a country that at times looked to china and at times looked to the west and with we can and should play a role in their transition to restoring a real democracy there. >> careful what you ask for.

i'm working through them and have prioritized to make sure places like south korea and saudi arabia are front and center. >> south africa and zimbabwe. >> there you go. >> we agreed to what we agreed to and i know there's beginning to be a freakout by staff as it relates to time, not by the secretary himself, i'm sure. if there are things i need to ask we agreed to have two rounds and to ask them that we might do by q.f.r. and realize we've been going three hours and i'm not reprimanding anyone could do extent we so would be great. >> a number of questions i wanted to ask them about china and we haven't discussed the u.s.-india relationship and it

has huge significance and i'll make my closing question if you'd like to say anything about how we can work with this most populist democracy, a potential strategic partner to strengthen that relationship. i'll make it my last question. >> needs to be central to what we do. specific issues, southeast asia ssues ought to be one of our closest partners and make sure we achieve that. secretary madison we'll meet with our indian counterparts and in a dialogue the two countries have had and don't know a date has been set but looking to do it this summer. very important. >> i think sustaining the strategic dialogue and closing our partnership with them is something that would enjoy strong support here. et me yield to senator udal.

>> thank you so much for being with us for an extended number of time. i'll stick to the aumf convince we have and get everything else on the record. we have a presidency that's not only pushed back on the oversight responsibilities of congress which many administrations have done but is actively hostile to any sort of congressional oversight including a new authorization for use of military force. congress failed to exert its legitimate constitutional authority even in the face of the most clearly unauthorized use of military force to date. this administration's use of force against the government of syria, congress has not declared war on or authorized the use of military force against this nation's government, the executive's legal analysis of force is being held from the public while lobbying cruise missiles at syrian targets may have a short-term political gain, the risk of escalation was

absolutely unacceptable and could have dragged the u.s. into a wider war with greater -- with great policy implications. now, mr. secretary, you laid down points of contention at the heritage foundation which could lead to a wider war in the middle east against iran. i tend to agree with susan maloney at the brookings institution who said the strategy is, quote, not a strategy at all but rather a grab bag of wishful thinking wrapped in a thinly veiled expectation for a regime change in iran. congress has not approved military action against iran but more importantly the power to wage war was intentionally restrained by the constitution, neither you nor the secretary of defense nor the president have the constitutional power to declare war on iran or any other country. i spoke to the chief of staff of the army, general millie recently, and he had the opportunity to question him

during the defense subcommittee hearings on appropriations. as a threshold, he reminded all of us of the nature and character of war, that the traditional idea is that war at its base is an extension of politics. war forces our will on an opponent or through military means to reach a political objective. and taking an expansive view of what we approved after 9/11, it is to stop terrorism at a broad level. in a restricted view when i voted in favor of the aumf we the o punish and deter attacking of al qaeda and the table. which view do you believe is the appropriate political objective for today or is there something in between congress should consider? he we must be clear of the base

line we are approving so we don't land in the situation of aumf being stretched to the point of breaking. >> i'm sorry. which point of view with respect to iran? >> yeah, the -- yeah, yeah. >> so, they're -- i'm trying to recall precisely -- i don't recall any of the items that i spoke of that day having anything to do with the u.s. strikes in iran. >> ok, well -- >> and i spoke for some half hour. >> let me rephrase it here. in your opinion, do you believe that the 12 points you laid out earlier this week represent political objectives worthy of war? should the united states send its sons and daughters to war to coerce iran to capitulate on these demands if the president's violation of the jcpoa fails to garner worldwide support? >> i spoke at great length as secretary of state talking about how i'm going to

diplomatically achieve each of the 12 things that i laid out. >> and as a matter of sequence, should the president seek the ascent of congress before seeking hostilities inside countries, especially where such actions could lead to a wider conflict, such as in syria or iran? isn't that the role of congress that the constitution calls for? >> well, it's a little more complicated than a yes or no question. >> please, explain it for me. >> there are volumes of articles written on the intersection between the power between these two branches. and yes, it is very clear what the constitution says about the power to declare war, but multiple administrations have taken similar positions, certainly with respect to the actions we've taken in syria, very similar activities undertaken across a broad swath of previous administrations. i think what this administration was wholly lawful and wholly consistent with past practices. >> and is the president going to ask congress if he wants to go to war with syria? as president obama did, as if he's deciding to engage in a

war with syria? is he going to ask congress to declare war? >> i've seen no indication the president has any intention of going to war with syria. what the president did was to respond to the use of chemical weapons, which was in my judgment, certainly lawful, but in my judgment, the right thing to have done. >> since president trump announced the united states withdrawal from the jcpoa, there's been a lot of talk about the possibility of the u.s. using military force against iran, a possibility that is concerning to me and many of my colleagues. in your view, does the 2002 or 2001 aumf provide president trump with a congressional authorization to use military force against iranian militias present in iraq or syria? >> senator, someone would have to -- i'd have to take a look. i don't know the answer to that. >> ok, well, if you could

answer that for the record for me -- >> solve it, yep. >> thank you. >> senator kane. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we covered a little bit of this ground during your hearing a month or so ago, and i -- >> i hope i give the same answers today. >> well, i'm actually not going to make you even try to give the same answers, but basically, if i could sort of ummarize where we are as a committee. we have heard from both administrations, the obama and now the trump administrations, fairly similar things from diplomats and military leaders, and the basic message has been this -- while we think we have the authority to do what we need to do, the idea of an updated authorization for ilitary activities against non-state terrorists would be a good thing, if we could agree upon -- >> yes, sir. >> -- the basic language. and your predecessor, secretary tillerson, secretary mattis delivered a letter to us. i think senator corker talked about it, where they sort of

put out, thou shalt nots, while again supporting the notion, their thou shalt nots, they did not want to have a hard sunset, they did not want to have a hard geographic limitation, and they wanted the 2001-2002 authorizations to be in place until something -- until a replacement was passed. and i gather that senator corker has asked you that question and you said that's your general point of view. >> it is. may i just say -- >> absolutely. >> it's an approach that's moved a considerable way towards that. what's the right word? i applaud that/concede that. >> and i understand from your earlier testimony that you're sharing with staff some thoughts that the state department or administration more generally might have about the draft, and this is a good time to do it. because i'll tell you where we are right now on this committee, and my colleagues will speak for themselves. i think there is near unity, maybe not unanimity, but unity that we should be engaged in military action still against isis, the taliban, and al

qaeda. there is near unity that it would be a good idea to have an updated authorization. some of us believe it's legally mandatory. others believe it may not be, but that it would be a good idea. there's near unity on the proposition that if we're going to do an authorization, it should be bipartisan, rather than just one side supporting military action and one side not. or purposes of the troops -- you served in the military, you understand why that's important. and there's near unity -- and this is the hardest one -- that of course, if we're going to do it, we should try to do as good a job as we can, because we could be living with it for a long time. there are consequences that we can predict. there are consequences we might not predict. and i would suffice to say, based upon my knowledge of your record when you were a house member, in your testimony last month, you sort of share those propositions -- we ought to be engaging in military action, it would be a good idea to update the authorization, it ought to

be bipartisan, and we ought to take the time to get it right. is that fair? >> yes, sir, i'm part of the team unity. >> yep, great. well, then here's where we are right now. we had a hearing last week with sort of constitutional experts, one who sort of liked the proposal but had some uggestions, one who didn't like the proposal but had suggestions. it was a very productive discussion. i think members of this committee have a lot of ideas about things they might want to do to make it better. some might want to move it left or right. some might want to -- or maybe some might want to be more restrictive of the administration, some less, and some want to add in revisions that are not more restrictive, but more comprehensive. the chair has indicated a willingness after we have a hearing and hear from the administration to sort of tackle this. the suggestions that you referenced earlier, are you committing those to the committee sort of in writing?

so, we're going to be on recess next week, but if we come back the following week and we want to start grappling with amendments by members, i don't believe that congress needs to play mother may i with the administration on anything -- but its like to know, yeah. but we want your advice and suggestions. are you communicating those in some kind of a formal way to us? >> if we have not, we will. ok. >> that would be very helpful. again, it's the chair and ranking that might decide when we might take it up, but i think that day may be coming, and we would want to know what your points of view are. >> yes, sir. >> and -- good. if we could get your commitment on that, that's really, again, all we need. and i state the point that i made earlier. our article one job isn't to play mother may i with the article two branch. we needn't ask permission to exercise oversight, but the advice of the diplomats, the advice of our military leadership about ongoing conflict, what would be helpful, what would be harmful, is very important to us, so we will take those under consideration.

last thing i want to say, just switching back to an earlier topic. both senator shaheen and i have now had the experience on the sonic disturbance issue, cuba and china, of sitting in a closed meeting with armed services staff and them not knowing who's in charge of this investigation. there are investigative agencies, at least two. there's the department of defense. there is the state department. and when we asked in that setting -- and i'm not revealing any classified information, but just who's in charge -- they basically said nobody was in charge. both senator shaheen and i are very heartened that at this hearing, you said -- because it's your personnel that have been involved -- >> those security issues are my responsibility, yes. and embassy security of these personnel is paramount, but then also what it might say about activities and technologies and expertise of our adversaries is paramount for us to know. >> yes, sir. >> so, that was a heartening part of the testimony. i appreciate it.

thank you. >> so, i just had a discussion with secretary's staff. i know he's 15 minutes late for a meeting now. he's been here for 3 hours and 15 minutes. i'm glad to let a couple of comments be made, but i'm going to hard stop it in five minutes, ok? >> i don't think -- what is -- who is the meeting with, mr. secretary? you're not going to stay here and answer questions from us? >> i don't know >> can you not push that back 15 minutes? >> senator, i'll go look and see. let's proceed, if we may -- >> well, he's only giving us five minutes -- >> you're burning up your five minutes right now. look, this is getting a little bit -- this type of discourse. i'm sorry. i'm the one doing this. i've been very generous. >> but we agreed to two seven-minute question periods, and it's just being ended here for two members at the end. ok, thank you. mr. secretary, i'd like to go back to our earlier conversation, which i think is a microcosm of this administration's approach to

foreign policy. diplomacy is not simply sharing your position and demanding that the other party accept it. diplomacy is a process of working with others to create real leverage that can meaningfully change the status quo. so, let's be clear, north korea is a significant and pressing threat, and we need to get them to denuclearize. nd we share that goal. in the letter that was sent by the trump administration with your participation, as you testify, in drafting it, the letter says at the end, if you change your mind, having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me all right. well, president trump is the one who pulled out of the summit. so, what does president kim have to change his mind about in order to get back to a summit?

does he have to change his mind about whether or not the gadhafi model in libya is an apt analogy to use for a negotiation on the denuclearization of north korea, mr. secretary? what does he have to change his mind on? >> we are hopeful that we will see behavior that indicates that there's some real opportunity for a successful summit. i think you were here, perhaps you weren't, when i indicated that we had reached out in accordance with what chairman kim and i had agreed to, to conduct the work that would prepare our teams across a broad spectrum of issues for that summit. and we didn't get responses indicating that the opportunity for a successful summit was significantly reduced, and we were hopeful that he will engage in a way and use language in a way that is indicative of there being a

real opportunity, not just to meet, but to achieve a historic outcome that i know -- with the end that i know you share. >> well, the vice foreign minister of north korea said that mr. pence had made unbridled and impunity remarks that north korea might end up ike libya. does he have to change his mind about that? does kim have to accept that analogy? would you recommend that mr. bolton and the president continue to use libya as an analogy that would further our ability to reach and negotiate a settlement with this issue with north korea? would you recommend that? >> we've been very clear about what we're asking chairman kim to do, unambiguous, i believe. >> do you want him to accept this analogy? and do you think you should be continuing to use it as an analogy? that's what i'm asking you. >> and i'm telling you what we've communicated.

>> no, you haven't. answer my question. >> senator, i was in pyongyang. i know precisely what i communicated. >> you communicated. >> yes, sir. >> would you recommend that mr. bolton and president trump not communicate a libyan, a gadhafi analogy as something that is helpful to your efforts to negotiate? >> senator, i think this administration has behaved incredibly well with respect to encouraging and get us closer to a solution, certainly than the last administration did. certainly. it was the previous administration. senator, just for the record, this guy built this out and had the infrastructure to build this out over the last 15 months that occurred over the last eight years. this is just simply factually undisputable, senator. >> right. who's debating that? no one's debating that. we're debating -- >> senator, the diplomacy this administration's engaged in has gotten us this far. i am confident that we will move forward in a way that will continue to give us the opportunity to achieve this. well, where did it get us? >> we're not going to the

table. we're walking away from the table. we're walking away from the table -- >> we didn't walk away from this. >> there has been a adhafi/libya analogy used, a repudiation by the north korean government, and then president trump saying, well, we're walking away because we're not happy with the north korean response to that language, meaning the libyan and gadhafi language. so, i don't understand what you're talking about, the progress that we've made up ntil this point. the whole world was looking forward with great anticipation to this summit, and it's collapsed over a misuse, in my opinion, of an analogy that has the likelihood of precisely zero of getting to the result which we all sincerely hope is he case.

>> time expired. senator merkley. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and mr. chairman. so, during the confirmation hearing, i asked a question about whether the war powers act, which lays out three foundations for the president to take the country to war, represented the spectrum of activity, and that is a declaration of war, a specific authorization for a specific action or a third, emergency powers, that involve an attack directly on u.s. assets, military, so on and so forth. and you said no, that article two exceeded that. can you give us a sense of how broad article two is, in your opinion? >> boy, i sit here today, i hate to give you my legal analysis in two minutes on this scope and breadth of article

two. it's a power that is clearly enumerated. it is broad. but to begin to scope that and define that, i don't think i can do that for you. ok. >> i would love to follow up on that, because essentially, the witness we had on the -- in support of a new drafted aumf, the corker aumf, indicated there were virtually no limits on it, but he liked the idea of us doing a new aumf because it's critical to have the backdrop of congressional sanction of support. >> so, that, in essence, if it's completely broad, then it makes our whole discussion of authorization of war as envisioned under the constitution kind of irrelevant. but i'll just make that point and move on. we have the 2001 aumf that was very specific in terms of attacks on us on 9/11 or those who harbor those who attacked us on 9/11, but it has now been stretched, as people say, to

activities by different accounts in 14 to 18 different countries, in some cases, forces that had no known association or connection with 9/11 and no connections with the people who harbored the forces who attacked us on 9/11. so, when we look at that stretching, and now we're looking at a new aumf that has a much broader definition than the 2001 a umf to prevent future presidents from stretching that authorization in a similar fashion? >> well, there are always constraints. i'm not sure i would characterize the stretching of the current one as egregious as you do. i know it's occurred across both administrations, in your view. i think you shared that with me last time, but i'm not sure i'd characterize it that way. look, there are all sorts of political restraints on political actors power, including the president of the united states. his power's not unbridled.

we have elections, all kinds of things to continue to provide constraints, so it's not unlimited. the founders clearly understood that. you can read it in the federalist papers. they understood precisely the language they were using in the constitution, and i will concede, as a former member of congress, i saw a piece of legislation that i thought had been grossly misinterpreted. i sat on the energy and commerce committee and watched the epa walk over language that was very clear about carbon and issues that i didn't like and i thought they'd used inappropriately. >> thank you -- >> so, what constrains executives from doing that? politics. >> ok. so, very clear uncertainty about what constraints exist on that, and how an administration could stretch that definition in the future. let me ask you this, if the quds force or the iranian revolutionary guard were to transport themselves into syria and be engaged in activities that are hostile to our forces currently there, would you see that as a situation where they are now potentially an associated force under the corker/kane draft of an

aumf? >> well, we don't have to imagine the quds force in syria. there's no need to transport them. they're there as we sit. i don't know. i'd have to think about the legal ramifications. >> ok. it would be completely -- >> certainly we'd have the right -- our forces would have the right to defend themselves. i'd have to help someone help me through the legal framework. >> ok. because the point i would make here is that it's very easy to imagine that this could be -- a president could say that this does meet the definition of associated forces in the legislation we're considering, which means we would have given clear authorization for unlimited action in syria, which is a challenge. it's a challenge on where we raw these lines.

>> time's up. senator murphy. and i know he's late for a meeting, and you said you wanted to talk just a little bit. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just one question. i know you've heard some concern from this committee, not unsurprising, about some of the extraordinary means by which foreign governments may be trying to gain influence in this administration. i just wanted to raise one report with you and get your response to it. there's a report from the bbc that the ukrainian government paid $400,000 to michael cohen as a means of securing a meeting with the president. my question is simply, have you looked into that report? i know the ukrainians have denied it. and what would be your message to governments that were considering trying to pay non-registered lobbyists, friends of the president to gain access to you or the president?

i imagine you would not look on that kindly, but i think given that the report is out there and maybe others are thinking that's the way business is done, might be important to have you comment on that. >> that's not how business is done. i have not seen that be the way business is done, certainly with me, but i haven't seen it in this administration either. i saw the report. i'm going to try and -- i think there's an investigation related. i'm going to try not to talk about it. but yes, i would tell the world that this is not how one engages with america. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. you have some closing comments? we thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> meeting is adjourned. the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] national cable satellite corp. 2018]

>> this weekend on "afterwards" former national intelligence director james clapper with his book "facts and fierce, hard truths from a life in intelligence." he's interviewed by house intelligence committee member jim himes. >> what are the weaknesses the i.c. has today, what are the changes guys like you and me need to think about for the next 10, 20 years of

intelligence? >> well, i think a weakness that at least the 9/11 commission came out with was the fact that the community wasn't as integrated collaborative as it needed to be and so it was they who recommended the creation of a leadership position whose full time job would be to foster and promote integration across the multiple components of the intelligence community. at one point in the run-up to the law that came out a that was passed after the 9/11 commission, which stahl warts the position of d.n.i. and there was talk why don't we create a department of intelligence, a cabinet department, which i think would be a real mistake for this country because there's lots of other reasons but not the least of which is the issue of privacy, concerns and fears

that a intelligence committee would create. so for the united states models and the arrangement we have maybe as ago ward as it may be is a good one as long as you have a champion for keeping it integrated. >> watch "afterwards" sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book tv. >> coming up live on friday, president trump will be the commencement speaker at the u.s. naval academy in annapolis, maryland. our coverage begins 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span 2, a couple events on venezuela recent presidential elections and we hear from juan cruz who serves on the national security council on the trump administration and later in the morning a conversation with the form ever president of the venezuelan national assembly at coming up in about an