place that aren't reversible. he will be looking for something more than a piece of paper. he will look for a set of conditions put in place to undertake a task. denuclearizing his country. >> turning to africa, zimbabwe is going through a transition. they have a new leader. elections are scheduled for july and august and we don't have an ambassador there. will you commit to ensure that we have an ambassador on the ground and a lot of that depends on us but we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committee but ambassador on the ground in zimbabwe when that transition occurs. the elections are held? >> yeah, senator, it will actually in the first instance depend on me and the president to get a nomination to you and i commit to doing if i'm confirmed. >> thank you. i'll take off line and submit additional questions on cuba.

we've had some private discussions this. i'm concerned similar vain, that we have just a skeletal staff there in the embassy given the issues that occurred there but i think that it's an important time there. we're going to have a non-castro head of state for the first time later this month. >> yes. >> and so anyway, if we could beef that staff up, it would be great as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for your service, director pompeo and we really appreciate having your family here look forward to you answering our questions. i want to follow up. i've worked with senator flake quite a bit on cuba and follow up on the cuba issue. cuba is about to choose its first leader which is not a castro. yet, the u.s. presence in the country has been reduced significantly and as a result, other countries are filling this vacuum.

will you work to help improve ties with cuba, relationship that benefits many states hoping to increase trade with the island? as you know, when i visited with you in my office, i talked about how many governors have gone to cuba and said with their agricultural folks and said, we -- cuba has 11 million people and we want to sell agricultural products to them. so will you work to improve ties with cuba? >> senator, i recall joking with you about kansas wheat. answer to your question is yes. senator flake had asked about the diplomatic presence there. i think everyone is aware of some of the concerns. but i assure you and i'll assure senator flake as well, we will consistent with making sure we can keep these folks safe, we will build out a team there that will deliver american diplomacy

to cuba in a way that represents the finest of america. >> now, as you know, u.s. internet companies. cuba has very little internet capacity. i think this is one of the things that can open cuba up to the world. do you believe the united states companies should lead the effort to help bring the internet to cuba? >> senator, it sounds like there may be something buried there that i'm not aware of. >> there is. >> if i might. >> now, come on. at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, i'd prefer you talk to my friends at the state department and work your way through it. >> there's nothing really trick there. i've worked with a number of members of this committee and others outside of the committee to try to push the effort to

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

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

recently and do you view this position in light of apparent support for u.s. policy for regime change in iran, really the contrast there upsets me. in 2014, you said you would have preferred military strikes to the jcpoa. i quote here. this is your quote. it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iranian nuclear capacity. this is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces. is this your current position? and are you for a first military strike? >> i'm not, senator. i'm absolutely not. i don't think that's what i said that day. i'll have to go back and review. with respect to the quote that you provided, i know a little bit more about what it would take today. but in terms of how to describe the capacity of what i speak to today, i think i'm still pretty close but there is no doubt that this administration and my view

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

sense that chancellor merkel and macron's visit here, that subject matter will be discussed. they will be here before may 12th. >> senator, i've not seen the agenda but i'd be shocked if it didn't come up. >> so there's still the possibility of the three that matter coming together on a framework and as we get closer to that time, maybe people will be a little more focused on that occurring. >> having had some interactions with my european counterparts, i'm confident that issue will be discussed at some length. it's important to them and i know they'll raise their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the united states in the coming days. >> senator gardner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. director pompeo, congratulations. thank you for your commitment to service. this is no easy task that you are about to take -- take part of and i appreciate your willingness to serve our country once again. thank you. director pompeo and i had an incredible opportunity to serve together in the house of energy and commerce committee for a

number of years. >> we were senator with marky. several on this committee and we had the opportunity to sit next to each other, to work together and i can tell my colleagues on the committee that there is no one who came better prepared to more understanding of the issues and always looking for a creative answer and the diligence that he pursued that work to find that creative solution, i think, is something that i admired about his work in the house. and i know that continued as director of the c.i.a. and will continue upon his confirmation at the state department. i have one request, director pompeo, that is very important to me. as secretary of state, kansas will have no greater authority over water than they do right now. so we won't get into water fights between colorado and kansas right now. i would like to submit to the record for a letter written by former senior government officials with national security experience and administrations of different parties or on capitol hill, people including general alexander, michael allen, jeremy bash, general mccasey, ask the director to be submitted.

>> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director pompeo, you and i have had a number of opportunities to talk about asia. and if you look at asia, it was written once that this is the most consequential region for america's future. the largest armies in the world will camp in asia. the most powerful navies in the world will gather. over 1/2 of the world's commerce will take place. 2/3 of the world will travel. five of america's seven defense treaties located in asia. it's the region where two superpowers will compete to determine which world order will prevail. director pompeo, several of us on the committee, senator markey and rubio and i are working on legislation that would help speak with one voice, the administration, congress, whether it comes to asia. creating a reassurance initiative that will allow us to focus on three areas. economic matters, security matters, rule of law democracy matters. over the last congress, we held a number of hearings focusing on those three areas in addition a fourth hearing that focused on this reassurance initiative and

our effort to understand the future of a u.s.-china relationship. something that, at times, has been described as a trap by the president shee when was here. do you think it's important that congress and the administration speaks with one voice as it relates to asia and asia policy? >> i do. you shared the outlines of that legislation with me. i'm looking forward to working with you to do right by joining together to accomplish that. >> can you share with me some of the policies that should be in a comprehensive policy? >> goodness. step one is obviously diplomacy and making sure there aren't mistakes that we don't talk past each other and don't end up,ed talked about the trap and the ability to avoid that depends on the capacity for the two nations to speak to the things that they have as their central interest, their core interest and those things that are of second order importance where cooperation will be the mark of the day.

diplomacy leads that effort. as i think we would all agree absent a strong america, the rest of the things pale in comparison. we have to make sure we have robust economic growth. the underpinnings of our ability to have good economic outcomes depend on that. so we need to be sure that america does the thing it needs to do so we have not just 2018, 2019, and 2020 but a long term horizon of economic prosperity. >> i think you would agree with me as well the creation of a long term policy, generational policy so to speak on asia, indopacific strategy is what we need. not just a four year, eight year presidential term strategy. >> that's why what you described is important because when questions get asked about china, we can never forget they live in a complicated region with lots of countries with widely varied interest and a chinese government intent on expanding their capacity to have not only economic influence in those countries but using that

economic tool to achieve political influence in those countries is why we need a thoughtful long term strategy that prevents that from taking place. >> we'll get into china a little bit more. even today, china has announced live fire exercises in taiwan straits. we've seen the clear militarization of the south china sea. these are a few of the challenges that we have that have been lingering for a number of years but certainly increasing in their importance today. i want to shift right now, though, to north korea. do you agree with secretary mattis that north korea is the most urgent security threat the united states faces? >> i do. >> this committee has led the efforts over the past several years to increase maximum pressure on north korea and the kim jong un regime with working together to assure maximum pressure is applied. senator markey and i have introduced legislation known as the lead act, the leverage to enhance effective diplomacy that would impose a trade embargo on

its enableers. will the united states maximum pressure and engagement policy mean a continued pursuit of third party entities and financial institutions who engage in significant trade with pyongyang? >> yes. >> will you commit to advance this lead act and others like that that include sanctions against these entity? >> i'm not familiar with the details. >> it's a great bill. >> the president has made clear that the continuation of the pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome in north korea. >> briefly, we have about a minute left here. can you share with me the exact goals of the presidential summit between the united states and north korea? >> yes. i believe i can. it is to develop an agreement with the north korean leadership such that the north korean leadership will step away from its efforts to hold america at

risk with nuclear weapons. completely and verifiably. >> to be clear again, the only goal the united states has as it relates to north korea is the complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization of north korea. >> i want to be careful about complete. north korea has a significant military arsenal. one of the largest armies in the world. we need to ensure that we continue to provide a strategic deferance for our allies in the region. but the purpose of the meeting is to address this nuclear threat to the united states. >> and our goal remains, the complete verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. >> that's correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman? >> thank you. senator cane? >> thank you, mr. chair, director pompeo, congratulations for this nomination. during the negotiation over the iran nuclear deal in 2014, you opposed the deal and you stated "it's under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iranian nuclear capacity. this is not an insurmountable

task for the coalition forces." a number of people opposed the deal but you were somewhat unique in publicly venturing the thought that military action might be preferable to a deal or easy to -- easier than some folks were suggesting. where did you get the notion that destroying iran's nuclear capacity could be accomplished with 2,000 air sorties? >> it was based on the things that i had learned as a member of congress. >> your military career and as a member of the house intel committee? >> senator, yes, i think that's right. i'm trying to remember the timing of the statement. i think i would have been serving on the intelligence committee at that point of time. >> at the time, did you have any reluctance to share that assessment publicly? that seems like a pretty specific sort of an assessment to say i'm confident in our capacity is one thing. to publicly discuss that it would be 2,000 sorties to wipe out the iranian nuclear capacity struck me as odd. did you have any reluctance to share that at the time? >> senator, that wasn't --

there's no classified information was contained in that simple statement. >> wouldn't that sort of specificity probably rely on an awful lot of classified information? >> senator, i was -- 2,000 is a pretty big round number. this wasn't -- there was no effort here to make any specificity. might have been 1,000. might have been 3,000, right? there was no aim here to communicate it. but i actually, to your point -->> weren't trying to be inaccurate in your statement. >> no, absolutely not. i never try to do that. but if i might, and we may disagree about this, senator. i do think it's important to provide diplomats with the opportunity to be successful. they don't often succeed in our desires absent the rational for doing so. diplomats without any strength, diplomats without any capacity are just sitting there talking. >> well, and i agree. i think stating we have a lot of capacity is one thing. i was just struck by the

specificity. would it be your norm to share that kind of information publicly in such specific detail? >> senator, i'm confident if i had done it multiple times, you'd raise them here with me today. >> your assessment, i wonder whether your assessment, did you assume that iran might respond to an attack by the united states or were you just assume that go they would do nothing? >> senator, i don't know that i was -- i don't know in the context of that statement that i was thinking about. >> you would agree the extent of force that the u.s. would need to destroy the nuclear capacity would depend significantly on whether iran would fight to protect against attack on its own soil. >> absolutely. >> you ventured the attack would not an insurmountable attack for our coalition forces. most of our forces were sitting around the table trying to do a peaceful negotiation to end iran's nuclear capacity. it sounds as if you had confidence that the u.s. could not do a deal and convince partners to join us in bombing

iran. i'm curious what coalition partners you were thinking of. >> i wasn't thinking of any particular coalition partners when i made that statement. >> those comments when i heard them about the relative ease of a war against iran reminded me of the run-up to the iraq war. vice president cheney said we'd be greeted as liberators. the president said there were definitely weapons of mass destruction. secretary rumsfeld said the invasion would be self-financed and last five weeks or five months. it certainly not going to last any longer. of course, we know that the cost to the united states was 4400 soldiers dead. 500,000 iraqis dead. price tag topping $3 trillion and unprecedented turmoil in the region. and most of those facts were known at the time that you made that statement. in 2014. let me say this. i'm one of two senators that serve on both the foreign relations and the armed services committee. i represent a state that's deeply committed to the nation's

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

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

without first coming to congress to seek approval whether it was kosovo, the list from democrats and republicans is -- is long. and alike. just to close, i share your view. in each case, where we can, america and our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines are better off if we have the entirety of the united states government working together and having authorized the activity. >> for the past year, i've been trying to secure the administration's detailed legal justification for last april's strikes on the military base in syria. the administration has not fully provides it. and there is reportedly a memo that is laying out a description of what the president or the administration feels are the appropriate executive powers. would you support the release of the nonclassified portion of that memo to congress? so that we can see what the president thinks his powers are and engage in a productive dialogue about that?

>> senator, i learned about this memo. i think you shared it with me. i was unaware of that. i promise i'll work alongside you to get you that information. if it's a classified version of it, you have a right as a member of the legislative branch. i'll work to get you that. if it's an unclassified version, we'll work to achieve that as well. >> excellent. thank you. >> before i turn to senator young, so then specifically, a surgical strike against, let's use the last one that occurred with 59 tomahawk missiles. do you believe that does require an authorization from congress? >> senator, multiple administrations have taken those kinds of activities under the president's authority. >> so, i was ranking member when our chairman and i in the committee wrote an authorization for the use of force against syria that, unfortunately, was not used and changed the course of history, unfortunately and displaced millions of people and

hundreds of thousands of people are dead. and not to say that would have necessarily prevented all of that. certainly would have changed the trajectory significantly. i agree with you. and i've shared that with the president just in the last very short period of time that i do not believe that should he choose to take a surgical strike against syria that an authorization from us is necessary just based on a body of evidence that we have and the things that have occurred in the past. and i, like you, oppose strongly what we did in libya. and i think that's complicating our efforts in north korea. because of obvious reasons. so with that, senator young? >> welcome, mr. director. congratulations on your nomination. my point of emphasis as i start here, i won't be on trying to identify some areas of principal disagreement. i suspect if we worked hard enough we might be able to find some of those. but i want to emphasize the

importance of having a smart, experienced individual as our next secretary of state. baseed on my time serving with you in the house of representatives, you've checked those boxs and we need a leader that's credible not just with our own president but with leaders around the world. and you've also checked that box. so i want to encourage you and anticipate supporting you. in our march visit in our office, we spent much of our time talking about crises around the world. you'll certainly be immersed in these should you be confirmed. but we also spent a lot of time talking about communication. the level of responsiveness of the state department and i was quite candid with you about my unhappiness from time to time with the department of state and the level of responsiveness i'd seen over the last year or so though it has significantly improved, there's been an uptick in dialogue between the

department and my office and i think this committee more generally in recent months. we have an article one responsibility which you understand very well. this is the committee of jurisdiction that oversees the state department. and i just want to get you on record here, you indicated in your prepared statement that you're prepared to pick up our calls on the first ring. i think that's exactly the sort of message that you ought to be sending. to be clear, do you commit to ensure that the department of state provides timely and responsive answers to me and my office? >> senator, as a c.i.a. director, i adopted the leon panetta model which was more time, more cups of coffee, have real interactions. whether you agree or disagree with a particular member to do that and provide the committee to the documents that they're duly entitled. promise to do that for you. >> that's refreshing. thank you. mr. director, do you agree that

the u.s. national security -- our national security depends in large measure on a vibrant and growing economy. >> i do. >> in your prepared testimony, you mentioned china's systemic policies of stealing our intellectual property and forced technology transfer and associated activities. you also mentioned just moments ago that china is using mostly economic tools against us to achieve broader geopolitical, geostrategic ends. do you believe these policies by beijing have already undermined and if they continue unabated will continue to undermine our ability as a country to realize our potential for economic growth, to incentivize investment in key technologies in key sectors of our economy and to sustain the financial wherewith all that is required to defend our country and advance our values worldwide? >> yes, senator, i do. i think those risks are real. i think they're honest today. that is i think we're in the

midst of that, this is not some future risk that's presented to the country. i think we have to confront it today most directly on point is the enormous amount of intellectual property that has left the hands, sometimes taken, sometimes coerced on of the hands of u.s. companies the imagination and creativity of the american work force has delivered it and the chinese have taken it away from us. we have to develop a robust set of tools. a bunch of tools that we need and to do that well such that we can prevent that from continuing to happen in the future. >> well, relatedly, earlier, you spoke of the need for my words, a china strategy. so my sense is you believe we need a whole of government well coordinated, informed, strategic response to china's coercive, illicit and deceptive economic and trade practices. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator young. >> i do, too.

and that's why i intend to introduce this month some legislation on this very topic. i'm going to require through this legislation working with my colleagues and the administration the periodic production of a national economic security strategy. i'd welcome the opportunity to work with the administration, you in particular and any colleague who shares these goals, i think we'll get this across the line. it's needed now more than ever. do you believe that the u.s. response, mr. director, to china will be more effective if we assemble a multilateral coalition of allies and key trade partners who also have suffered due to beijing's economic policies and trade practices to create a unified international front to apply maximum pressure on beijing to achieve our objectives as opposed to a merely bilateral dynamic which i perceive we have now? >> i agree with that.

i mean, conceptually, if we can get the countries of southeast asia more broadly in asia and others to jointly set up a framework that achieves what it is that you've described as our objective, we are far more likely to achieve most or all of it. >> mr. director, given the challenges that we confront with russia, iran, north korea, china, and beyond, do you believe our nation's need for effective diplomacy will decrease in the coming year or two? >> it seems unimaginable but if i'm good enough, right? i'm hopeful that we can begin to take some of these challenges away. i was mindful and had all the former c.i.a. directors, nearly all of them attended and to a person, they had been there sometimes 20 to 25 years ago, the stack has gotten longer. we need to do that. we need to start to solve some

of these. >> your response, though humorous, actually is something i'd like to shine a light on because the previous occupant of this secretary of state position once indicated that part of the rational behind his funding request for the department of state was that there would be less of a need on account of highly effective near term diplomacy for as much funding. now, any large organization here in washington or beyond can be made more efficient and we can identify funding decreases that might be made. but i would regard it as a risky strategy to assume that your highly effective diplomacy is going to be a strong rational for funding cuts. are you operating under the

premise that highly effective diplomacy will lead to lower funding requests in the international account moving forward? >> no. no. when i said that, i am optimistic and hopeful. this is the task to which we're engaged but i can't see anything in the six or 12 or 24 month time horizon that would permit us to have any less demand for diplomatic resources. >> strikes me as responsible. thank you, sir. >> thank you, former house energy committee co-hort to the witness senator markey. >> thank you. along with senator carter and many others. you know, many, many members. so welcome, sir. >> thank you. >> i want to talk about threat of nuclear war. in north korea, i'm glad to hear that you believe that we should exhaust all options before resorting to military conflict. i agree with you. but i do not believe that we have yet exhausted all options. you've spoken about setting

conditions for success in advance of president trump's meeting with kim jong un and i am right now very concerned that the lack of a coherent policy in north korea could lead to a very poor meeting and if that meeting goes poorly, some might reach the conclusion that both economic pressure and diplomatic engagement have failed. national security advisor john bolton has recently outlined case for preventative military strikes on north korea. are there any conditions under which you would support preventative military strikes against north korea as secretary of state? >> senator, thanks for the question. that phrase "preventative military strikes" have a long history. lots of folks have different views. there's a legal view. i want to stay away from the legal. let me give you my judgment. my diplomatic and national security judgment on that.

i want to start with the predicate of your question. while i don't want to speculate or hypothesize on how that meeting might go, there's a lot of work remaining. i think there's an awfully long way to go. the president has made clear and i agree with him that there may come that day, there may come the day when we see an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of striking the united states of america. the president has made clear his intention to prevent that from happening and to the extent that diplomatic tools and other tools that america has as its foreign policy power are unsuccessful, i know that secretary mattis has been directed to present to the president a set of options that will achieve the president's objective. >> right. secretary mattis has said we're never out of diplomatic options. and let me get your response to

this because there are going to be some that make that we've tried the diplomatic efforts and kim was unresponsive with this meeting with the president. pentagon has stated "the only way to locate and destroy with complete certainty all components of north korea's nuclear weapons programs would be through a ground invasion." as you know, projections for a conventional war on the peninsula estimate that between 30,000 and 300,000 u.s. personnel could die in the first days of a conflict. you're a military man. you understand this. is there any circumstance under which you would concur with john bolton that with the exhaustion of economic sanctions from his perspective that a ground invasion of north korea would be

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

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

to such a standard. >> so you support the gold standard? >> i do! and while i've not been part of the negotiations, senator, i know that the state department and the department of energy are working towards achieving that. >> would you oppose any agreement that is less than the gold standard that allowed for uranium enrichment on the soil of saudi arabia? >> i can't answer that for you. i can imagine that we got close but not quite to the full definition of the gold standard. i don't want to hypothesize so the answer is, yes, i can imagine such a scenario. >> how do you think iran would respond if we pulled out of the agreement with iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where saudi arabia could receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment? how do you think they would

respond? >> this is precisely my concern with the iran agreement. >> right. so that's the question i'm asking you. what would be the response? we were providing nuclear weapons material to the saudi arabians. >> i think they would take it into account. when we were talking about you nuclear weapons, we're talking about multiple components. we're talking about the capacity to weaponize and a delivery mechanism often through missile systems. today, iran has the capacity to do. >> right. i'm speaking to the challenge that the iranians also seek from failure to negotiate a sound agreement with iran. >> this is going to be a very dangerous concoction if we pull out of the iran deal, give nuclear weapons materials to or permit them to obtain nuclear weapons making materials in their country. the juxtaposition of abandoning

the iran deal while simultaneously giving their arch rival, saudi arabia a sweetheart deal is going to lead to a highly combustible condition in the middle east that is avoid able if we reinforce the iran deal while maintaining a gold standard. otherwise, what the saudi arabians are going to want is be on third base with the lead with nuclear weapons construction materials and i think this administration will be making a terrible mistake if it negotiates a deal that allows the saudi arabians to do that. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. before turning to senator isaacson, we have talked with secretary perry and i couldn't agree more that we need to stress a gold standard. i will at the same time understand when we have given iran the right to enrich, everybody in the region is going to want the right to enrich.

so you have your work cut out for you in the next period of time and it's quite a very difficult to tell an arab nation that they cannot when we said that the shia can. senator isaacson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your nomination. best of luck to you and we'll be here to support you in any way that we can. i certainly will. let me start off by saying thank you to the state department and this administration on the open skies agreements which you may or may not be familiar with. if you aren't, they're essential for the aviation industry and for our country. and this administration and the bureau of economic development and state department have done a great job seeing to the open skies is enforced. i hope you'll commit when you get to the state department, you'll continue that help and enforcement. >> i will, senator isaacson, yes, sir. >> thank you very much. secondly, i think ambassador haley is gone. but let me say this anyway. i'm a big fan of africa and i've developed an affinity for africa

since i've been on this committee of foreign relations. i've traveled there extensively and i think it's the 21st century in many respects for our country and for everybody else. china is demonstrating they think it's important because they're spending a lot of money and building a lot of buildings and things of that nature. strategically, many of the locations they had and what's been going on in the persian gulf is where africa is tremendously helpful. there are a million and a half people there. 50 million -- 150 million alone in nigeria. lots of opportunity. economically. but it's important that we focus and help them build and develop and grow. are you familiar with the millennium challenge corporation? >> yes, senator, i'm familiar with it as some level. >> well, i'm a big fan. i think president bush did a phenomenal job by establishing that program, sort of a partnership economically to help build infrastructure in those countries and have developed

governing boards that have better worker laws in their country and being a partner with the united states to academically develop their countries. i hope as secretary of state when you have the chance, you'll focus on the millennium challenge account and challenge corporation and what they're doing. it's great -- it's part of that soft power that we have the capability to use to win a lot of friends and influence a lot of enemies. reason i use ambassador haley as an example, we from time to time need a lot of money and votes in the u.n. more friends we can make in countries like africa and continents like africa, more votes that we can influence to help us on big issues that we need in the united nations. i hope you'll focus on africa when you have the chance and realize what the state department has done. lastly, i want to -- this is kind of an editorial statement. my experience in the state department has been that it's been in a blue funk for about a

year and a half. and one of the things that i told you this when you came to my office. i thought there was a real need for a perk, for an adjustment and an attitude improvement with the state department. i think you afford that opportunity to be the catalyst of the department. to your credit, your critics and your complimenters or whatever that term should be, at the c.i.a. give you high marks for bringing that agency back in enthusiasm and motivation and in mission. i think your meetings with mike, that you refer to in your opening statement and your printed statement were exactly the seed for them because they all of a sudden had a chance to speak out to you, tell you what they thought needed to be done and you had the chance in that environment to tell them what they could be as a partner with you to help that happen. and as i understand it, and i'm not shilling for anyone. as i understand it, the attitudes of the statement to our department are the best that they probably ever have been. the unity there is strong. and the understanding of the

mission of the rank and file employees is great. so i want to challenge you to replicate, where possible, in the state department that same energy and fire that you have at the c.i.a. because the state department needs it desperately and the state department is our hope for peaceful settlements of difficult problems and putting our best foot forward early so we don't have to put our foot forward late. if you did what you did at the state department, you'll be a great secretary. would you commit to trying to replicate what you've done there already? and please feel free to brag about yourself. >> senator, i will. i'll actually do just the opposite of that. what you described took place because of the talents of officers, the professionals at the central intelligence agency that i had enormous human capital with which to build a team and i know the state department is the same way. i know that the local employees,

the civil service officers have that same desire for mission and to be relevant and to be important and to do the -- if you sign up to be a foreign service officer, if you decide to devote your life to that, you have a special commitment. and my task, if i'm confirmed, will be to free them up to go do the great work that they signed up to do when they came aboard at the state department. i'll work at that every day. >> well, you just demonstrated by giving the credit to the employees of the c.i.a. exactly why you were such a popular director there. and i'm sure will continue at the state department. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator booker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. pompeo. i do want to just say again i appreciate you coming by and showing me the respect and deference to give me some time yesterday so we can talk in private. >> you're most welcome. >> i want to pick up on one of the themes that we talked at length about. and that involves many of your past statements concerning muslim-americans and perhaps, i want to start with some of your language. in a speech, you talked about

folks who worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism. you warned that we live in a country where that happens. do you have any views that the muslim faith or people who believe in worshipping "other gods" is that just something negative in our country? >> no, senator. i -- you can look at my record. don't have to take my word for it today. my record is exquisite with respect to treating people of each and every faith with the dignity that they deserve to protect their right to practice their religion or no religion for that matter in the way that they want to. i did that when i ran aerospace. >> my time is limited. >> it's important. because i've heard these critiques and you raised it yesterday. i work closely with muslim leaders. with muslim countries. the c.i.a. has saved countless, thousands of muslim lives during

my 15 months. this is at the core of who i am, senator booker. and i promise you that i will treat persons of each faith or no faith with the dignity and respect that they deserve. >> your words right now are really encouraging, words do matter. it's not just actions. in a nation of bigotry where you see too much bigotry and hatred, you and i both know words matter. so i do understand your actions and i will stipulate to the actions that you just said. but i really want to get to the bottom of people who are going to be reading your past statements and give you a chance to further explain them. and i would like to go back to what we talked about, you and i, about this idea and i'm quoting you this "special obligation" falls on muslims in regards to terrorist attacks in our country. and you said something very dramatic and i know you know this. you said that people who are silent are complicit in those

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

congregate, there's a special place, right? it's more than a duty and more than a requirement. it's an opportunity, right, to be treated. when someone from another faith says it can get characterized. >> if i can go on. i have some more questions. so you think that muslims in america who are in positions of leadership have a different category of obligation because of their religion. that's what i'm hearing you saying. >> it's not an obligation. it's an opportunity, senator. >> i would agree with you that silence in the face of injustice, we've seen this in the holocaust, we've seen this in the civil rights movement, i do agree with you that silence in the face of injustice lends strength to that injustice. i do have a problem, though, when you start creating dicing up american people and saying certain americans, i don't care if it's karim abdul-jabbar or muslims that serve on my staff that they're in positions of leadership that suddenly have a special obligation. i do believe, though, all of us when it comes to violent actions or even violent words have an

obligation and so i'm wondering, sir, do you know frank gaffney? >> yes, i do. >> you've been on his show dozens of times. >> i was on his show some, yes, senator. >> i have here over 20 times and he has talked about muslims should be -- who abide by their faith should be tried for acts of sedition and should be prosecuted. did you remain silent when you were on his show and did you ever question? i have a lot of his statements here. did you remain silent on -- and my notes at least, you're a friend of his, were you silent in your position of authority against these words that are violative, were you silent with him? >> my recollection is unambiguo unambiguous. >> that's your response, you did not say anything to call out his remarks. what about bridgette gabriel? do you know her? >> i do.

>> someone who runs an organization that has been considered a hate group by the anti-defamation league and the southern poverty law center. were you silent? did you call her out on her remarks that are hateful or bigoted? >> i've spoken to a number of my groups and i believe my record with respect to tolerance and treatment of people -- >> but you never -- yes or no? did you call her out? >> senator, i couldn't tell you. i don't recall each statement i've made over 54 years. >> i believe the special obligation thaw talk about for americans that condemn things are attacking our constitution or ideals would obligate you in your own definition to speak out. >> senator, if i might, i have called out. we had a terrible fella in kansas named fred phelps and i called him out. >> i have a minute left. i want you a chance to speak about your comments on gays and lesbians. you said in a speech that warning an america that endorses perversion and calls it an alternative lifestyle is your words is being gay a perversion?

>> senator, when i was a politician, i had a very clear view on whether it was appropriate for two same sex persons to marry. i stand by that. >> so you do not believe it's appropriate for two gay people to marry? >> i continue to hold that view. it's the same view for the record -- >> people in the state department, i met some in africa that are married under your leadership, you do not believe that that should be allowed? >> i believe it's the case, we have married gay couples at the c.i.a., you should know, i treated them with the exact same set of rights. >> do you believe gay sex is a perversion? yes or no? >> if i can -- >> yes or no? do you believe that gay sex is a perversion? that's what you said here in one of your speeches. yes or no, do you believe gay sex is a perversion? >> i'll give you the same answer that i gave you previously. my respect for every individual regardless of the sexual orientation is the same. >> so i will conclude by saying -- >> if i'm confirmed. >> i'll conclude by saying

you'll be secretary of the united states in a time when we have an increase of hate speech against muslim americans, jewish americans, hate acts on the increase in our nation. you'll be representing this country and their values abroad in nations where gay individuals are under untold persecution, untold violence. your views do matter. you'll be dealing with muslim states and on muslim issues. and i do not necessarily concur that you are performing the values of our nation when you can't even -- when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse and when you think that you create different categories of americans and their obligations when it comes to condemning of violence. so i'll have another round. thank you. >> senator portman? >> senator paul, thank you, sir. >> thank you. thanks for your testimony and thanks for going through this gruelling enterprise and your willingness to serve the country.

you discussed with senator cane a little bit about whether or not the president has the authority to bomb assad's forces and syria. you mentioned historically we've doon done it in the past. i don't think that's a complete enough answer. does the president have the constitutional authority to bomb assad's forces and have the authority absent congressional action to bomb assad's forces or installation? >> senator, as i think i said to senator cane, i'm happy to repeat my view on this. those decisions are weighty. every place we can, we should work alongside congress to get that. but yes, i believe the president has the domestic authority to do that. i don't think that has been disputed by republicans or democrats throughout an extended period of time. >> actually, it's disputed mostly by our founding fathers who believe they gave that authority to congress and actually, they're uniformly opposed to the executive branch having that power. in fact, madison wrote very specifically and said the executive branch is the branch most prone to war. therefore, we have with studied care, vested that authority into

the legislature. so the fact that we have in the past done this doesn't make it constitutional. and i would say that i take objection to the idea that the president can go to war when he wants where he wants. with regard to afghanistan, some have argued that it's time to get out of afghanistan. what do you think? >> senator, i think the course of action that president trump has taken there is the right one. it is humble in its mission. it understands that we've been there an awfully long time. it has an objective of leaving. but is not prepared to leave until such time as we can put america in a position where we can great lly diminish the thre to our homeland from terrorism that may emanate that. with the effort that may be required to achieve that first objective to create -- i want to be humble, more stability in afghanistan. >> actually, the president has been very specific at times on this and he said it is time to get out of afghanistan.

we are building roads and bridges and schools for people that hate us. it is not in our national interest. that's a direct quote. so the president said it was time to get out. it sounds like you say it's time to stay. is that a difference in opinion? some worry that you will be in too much agreement with the president. one of the things i've liked about the president is he says it is time to come home. let's declare victory and come home. but it sounds to me like you're saying we need to stay? >> senator, sounds like of a goldilocks problem, too close, too far, different porridge for each. senator, the president also said in the summer after ft. myer that he was committed to the mission that i outlined there. that's consistent with what secretary of state has been trying to do diplomatically, consistent with what secretary mattis has been trying to do by supporting afghan forces in the country. i believe and i share the president's view that we have a continued role there. and while i want to get out in

the same way you do, i have friends who are serving there. i've had friends as i know you have, would have been injured. we're not at a place yet where it's appropriate. >> here the problem is are we ever going to be at that place? you've got people and your administration yourself saying and your written questions back to me there's not a military solution. we're sending our g.i.s out there to risk life and limb when there's no military solution. sounds like vietnam, hoping we get to a little position. let's bomb the crap out of them to get them to negotiate and we'll get to a little better negotiation. in the end, it was no better than vietnam and a lot of people wasted their lives in the end for that. i think there is no military mission and when you admit there's no military mission, it is hard for me to square with your desire to stay. we need to leave. when? we've been there 18 years. i think we should declare victory and come home. we won the victory. we literally did win.

there's nobody alive that ploted to attack us on 9/11. i've asked people repeatedly, tell me the names of those left alive in pakistan, anywhere in the world? we're sending people to war that weren't born when 9/11 was. and every administration comes. not just republican, democrat. they come and say, oh, well, it's, you know, it's just fine. we're going to keep fighting these wars. and it's like it has something to do with 9/11. no, it has nothing to do with 9/11! everybody around the world that is a radical islamist we're now at war with because we said we got the permission to go at 9/11. but when you were in congress, you had a little bit different position, you know. your position with libya was that we should get authorization. your position in 2013 was also, you wrote an op ed with tom cotton saying we should give the president the authority he needs to go into syria. not because you were like me that we shouldn't get involved in another war. you were eager to get involved and you wanted to give the president permission and say please, president trump let's go to war in syria. i think we need to think these

things through and we need to not be so carte blanche that the constitution does give us carte blanche, you know, permission for the president to do whatever he wants. do you think the iraq war was a mistake? >> i was running a machine shop in kansas at the time. i don't have a contemporaneous view that i express. >> how about opinions now? >> i may well have had an >> my opinion now, we had bad intelligence. i'm one of the few cia directors to say well, we get it wrong. we did have bad intelligence. >> waited, geopolitically geopolitically, the wrong thing. we made it worse. we brought chaos to the middle east. we are still suffering the ramifications of the iraq war but your president said it very clearly. he says the iraq war was the single worst decision ever made. i'm concerned you won't be supporting the president, you will be influencing him in