Outnumbered 04/12/18 12PM | April 12, 2018 Breaking News
Nothing more than a piece, of paper he's, gonna be looking for a set of conditions to be put in place so that he can. Undertake, a task denuclearizing. His country, that. For decades, no one believed could occur, thank. You turning to Africa for a minute senator, Coons and I just traveled to four. Countries in Africa including Zimbabwe. 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 that we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committee that ambassador. On the ground in Zimbabwe, when that transition occurs, the. Elections. Are held yes. It will, actually the first instance depend on me and the, president to get a nomination to you and I commit to doing. That posthaste don't I'm confirm thank you all take off off line and submit additional questions, on Cuba, we've had some private discussions, on this I'm concerned. Similar. Vein that we, have just a skeletal, staff there in the embassy. Given. The the, issues that occurred there but I think that it's an important, time there we're gonna have a non Castro, head of state for the first time next later this month yes and and so anyway. If we could beat that staff, up it would be great as well thank, you thank you like Thank. You senator. You though thank. You very. Much mr. chairman and and, thank, you for your service director. Pompeyo, and and. We. Really appreciate, having your family, here and, 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 the, Cuba, issue Cuba. Is about to choose its first leader who is not a Castro. Yet. The US presence, in the, country has been reduced, significantly and. As a result, other countries, are filling. This vacuum, will, you work to help improve ties with Cuba a relationship. That benefits many, states hoping. To increase trade with the island as you know when, I visited, with you in. My office I, talked. About how many, governors, of gone to Cuba and said with, their agricultural. Folks and said. We. We. Would cue, Bahasa 11 million people we want to sell, a food. Products, to them agricultural, products to them so will. Will. You work to improve ties with Cuba senator. I recall joking with you about Kansas wheat. The. Answer to your question is yes. Senator, flake could asked about the ambassador or the diplomatic. Presence there. I think. Everyone's 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 keep, these folks safe we. Will 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. US. Internet. Companies, Cuba has very, very little. Internet. Capacity. And this is one of the things I think really could open, Cuba up to the world. Do. You they believe, the United States companies, should lead the effort to help bring the Internet, to Cuba. The. Set of that question sounds like there may be something buried there that on the whole. So. If. I. Might, now. Come on. So. At, the risk of demonstrating. Ignorance I'd prefer the chance to talk to my experts, at the State Department and work my way through it okay. Wait and and it's really there's, nothing really trick there I mean I've, worked. With. Another number, of members of this committee and others outside the committee to try to push. The effort, to. Have, the. Internet be a big part of what. Our first, push in Cuba. The. The as you know very well and we talked, about this in my office to the State Department, and Defense Department. Work hand-in-glove. On. These crucial issues and the job of the State Department. Is to try to make sure we don't get into unnecessary, Wars. Your. 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 do everything you can to prevent. Future Wars yes, sir, thank. You. Direct. I'm going to follow up also on several. Members on the, Iran deal director, Pompeo the Iran deal has effectively, cut off all pathways. To. An Iranian, nuclear weapons, program. Compliance, has been certified, repeatedly. By, the International. Atomic Energy, Agency. And both Israeli. And US 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, in quote however, even. When the joint comprehensive, plan of action sunsets. Under, the current deal Iran, will still remain, a signatory.
Of The non-proliferation treaty. And a party, to, the IAEA. Sedition. Approach, is. Are. Not 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 is to the importance, of the jcpoa. Very. Recently, in. In, view. This. Position, in light of your apparent, support for US policy of regime, change, in Iran really. The, contrast. There really upsets, me in 2014. You, said you would have preferred, military. Strikes, to, the jcpoa. And I quote here this, is your quote it, is under, 2,000. Sorties to destroy, the Iranian, nuclear capacity this. Is not an insurmountable task, for, the coalition, forces in end, quote is this, your current position, and are you for a first, military strike. I'm. Not cetera I'm absolutely not I don't think that's what I said that day I'd 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 it, in. Terms, of what I described, was the capacity, to achieve what I was speaking to that day I think I think I'm still pretty close. But there. Is no doubt that this administration's, policy and my view is that the solution, to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon to finding ourselves in, the, same place we are in, North Korea in Iran, is through diplomacy, yeah. Do you have any evidence to dispute the, IAEA. Assessment. That, Iran is in full compliance with, the jcpoa. Senator. That. 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 they think your questions do you have any the, answer is no no and and. I would just hope I'm very. Near to the end of my time here I would just hope that the. 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 if we're the one that pulls back and sets. The stage for a very chaotic. Future. Thank you very much Thank You senator chairman, before turning senator cardin on that note you have any sense that.
Chancellor. Merkel and microns. Visits, here what that subject matter will be discussed, they will be here before May 12 said. I've not seen the agenda but, I'd be shocked if it didn't come up and. So, there's still the possibility of. The. Three that matter, coming. Together on framework, and as we get closer to that time maybe. People will be a little more focused on that occurring senator. IgE having. Had some interactions, with. My. European counterparts. I am confident that issue will be discussed at some length it's important to them and I know they'll raise their, hopes. And concerns when, they travel, here to the United States in the coming days, Center. Gardner and. Thank You mr. chairman director Pompeo congratulations. On the nomination to your family thank you for your commitment to service this is no easy task that, you are, about. To take. Take, a part of and I appreciate your willingness to serve our, country once again thank you. Pompeyo, and i had an incredible opportunity to serve together in the House Energy and Commerce Committee for a number of years we were with Senator Markey it said there are several eyes 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 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 always admired about, his work in the house and I know that continue that as director of the CIA and will continue upon, his confirmation at the State Department I have, one request, director, pump hair that is very important, to me as, Secretary, of State Kansas, will have no greater authority over, water than they do right now so. Anyway. We won't get into water fights between Colorado and Kansas right now I would, like to submit for the record if, I could ask consent, to submit a a letter. Written, by former, senior government officials, with national security experience in administration's, of different parties or, on Capitol, Hill of people including a general Alexander Michael Allen at Jeremy, bash general, Mukasey, asked. The record to be submitted without objection, Thank, You mr. chairman, dr.. Pompeo you and I've had a number of opportunities to talk about Asia, and. If. You look at Asia it was written once that, this. Is a 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 one half of the world's commerce will, take place two thirds 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. The, director Pompeo several. Of us on the committee senator Markieff senator Rubio and I are working on legislation, that would help, speak, with one voice the. Administration, Congress when, 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, us-china. Relationship. Something. That as the time has been described, as a, city's trap by, both Graham Allison and I believe President Xi when he was here director, Pompeo do you believe it is important, that Congress, and the administration speak, with one voice as it relates to Asia. And our Asia policy senator, I do you shared, the outlines of that legislation, to me I look, forward to working with you to see if we can. Get it right and do good for America, by joining, together to accomplish, that could you share with me some of the priorities you think should be in a comprehensive, Asia policy, oh. Goodness. So there's a step, one obviously it's diplomacy making sure that there aren't mistakes that we don't we. Don't talk past each other we don't end up you talked about the disease trap the ability to avoid that almost, certainly depends, on the, capacity for the two nations to speak to the things that they have, as their central interest the core interests, and then, those things that are second-order.
Importance, Where cooperation. Will be the mark, of the day I think diplomacy, leads that effort as. I. Think we would all agree absent. A strong, America, the. Rest of the things pale. In comparison we've got to make sure we have robust economic growth with the, underpinnings, of our capacity, to have the leverage to achieve good diplomatic, outcomes, depend. On that and. So we need to be, sure that America. Does the things that needs to do so we have just, 2018. 19 and 20 but a long-term horizon of, economic, prosperity but I think you would agree with me as well that the creation of a long term policy, a generational, policy so to speak on Asia indo-pacific. Strategy. Is what we need not just a four-year eight-year presidential, term strategy, that's, that's right that's why that's why what, you described is important because. When. The questions get asked about China we can never forget that they live in a complicated region with, lots of countries with widely varying interests and a. Chinese, government that is intent on, expanding. Their capacity, to have not only economic, influence in those countries but using that economic, tool to, achieve political influence, of those countries as well we need a thoughtful long term strategy, that, prevents that from taking place and we'll get into China a little bit more either, now or during the next round of questions but I think it's important to note that even today China. Has announced live-fire, exercises. Exercises. In the Taiwan Straits we've. Seen the clear militarization, of the South China Sea and these, are just a few of the challenges we have that have been, you know the lingering for a number of years but certainly, increasing, in their importance. Today what a shift right now though to North, Korea do you agree with secretary, mattis that. North Korea is the most urgent to security throughout the United States spaces, I do. This. Committee has led the efforts over the past several years to increase some maximum pressure on North. Korea in the Kim jong-un regime with passage of legislation the North Korea sanctions policy, enhanced. Enhancement, act and, also 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 which would impose a trade embargo on Pyongyang, and its enablers. Will. The. Administration's, maximum, pressure and engagement, policy mean, a continued pursuit of third, party, entities, and financial institutions institutions. Who engage in significant, trade with, Pyongyang yes. Will. You commit to advance, this. Lead act and others like it that include mandatory sanctions, against these entities well. I'm not familiar with the details it's a great bill that. The. President. Has, made clear the. Continuation, of the pressure campaign, is the tool that enables the opportunity, to, achieve a successful diplomatic, outcome in North Korea and 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. To. Develop, a an, agreement with the North Korean leadership such, that the North Korean leadership will, step. Away from its efforts, to hold America, 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. The North Korean I want. To be careful about complete new North Korea also has a significant. Military arsenal, one of the largest armies, in the world we, need to ensure, that we continue to provide a strategic deference, framework for our allies in the region that South Koreans the.
Japanese And others as well 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 what right that's correct, thank you mister Thank You senator. King Thank. You mr. chair director, commitment I'm Paola congratulations. For this nomination. During. The negotiation, over the Iran nuclear deal in 2014. You. Opposed the deal and you stated. Quote. 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 are somewhat, unique in publicly, venturing. The thought that military. Action might be preferable to a deal or easy to a deal 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 senator was based on the things that I've learned as a member of Congress you, or 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 time would you have did, 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, 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 Germany reluctance, to share that at the time said, I wasn't, there no classified, information was. Contained, in that that, simple, statement wouldn't. It that that sort of specificity, probably. Rely on an awful lot of classified information or Oakland said I was 2,000, pretty big round number if. It was this was this was there was no effort here to to. Make any specific might have been a thousand, might have been 3,000, right I wasn't there, was no aim here to communicate, it but I actually. To your point you weren't trying to be inaccurate e no no, senator absolutely not never I never try to do that but. If I might and we may disagree about this senator I do. Think it's important, I, absolutely. Think it's important to provide, diplomats, with the opportunity, to be successful, countries. That are adverse to us don't often accede, to our desires, absent, a rationale, for doing so right, so. Diplomats. Without without any strength dim athletic, capacity, are. Just sitting there talking well, and I 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, I said I'm confident I'd done it multiple times you'd raise them with me here 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 assuming, that they would do nothing senator, I don't know that I was I don't know in the context of that stable thinking, about but, but you would agree with me that the extent, of force, that the US would need to use to destroy Iran's, nuclear capacity, would. Depend pretty significantly, on whether Iran would fight to, protect against, attack on its own soil absolutely. And then you ventured that the attack would not be an insurmountable, task, for, our Cholet four coalition, forces and I'm curious about that too most, of our coalition forces, in 2014.
Were, Sitting around the table with us 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 then, convince coalition. Partners to join us in bombing. Iran I'm curious what coalition, partners, you were thinking about as you made that comment senator I I wasn't, I wasn't thinking of any particular coalition, partnership that's it 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 be greeted as liberators, the. President, said there were definitely, weapons, of mass destruction, secretary. Rumsfeld, said the invasion, would largely be self-financing and. Would last quote five, weeks or five months it, certainly is not gonna last any longer of. Course, we know that the cost of the United States was 4400, the soldiers dead. 500,000. Iraqis dead a price tag now topping, three trillion dollars, 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 who serve on both the Foreign Relations and, the Armed Services committees. I. Represented. State that's deeply committed to the, nation's military mission, I have a son in the military I honor your military, service. Your entire public service, I. Think. My mission on these two committees is sort of two things dramatically. Reduce the risk of unnecessary, war raise. The probability, that we decisively, win any war that we need to be in I also. Firmly believe that we shouldn't be a 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, against Libya without a vote and you voted, twice to 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 committees supported, it. Now. President, Trump has fired ordered, missile strikes fired at Syria, last year he, didn't seek congressional approval, the. U.s. conducted airstrikes against, the Syrian military in, February, without congressional approval, the. President, is tweeting that he might do. Additional military strikes, in Syria now and. He's also aiming, words directly, at Russia as. Far as I know Syria has not declared war against, the United States has Congress given the president, specific, authority, to, wage war against Syria. Senator. I think, you and I actually do, share. Similar. Similar. Bias for. The, executive, and legislative branches both to, be involved when such momentous, decisions, about war. Are undertaken. I now. That I'm in the executive branch of my views on that have not changed and. You would agree with me that waging, war requires both a domestic and an international, legal justification. Yes yes yes senator I would. With. Respect you asked about it I don't want to dodge your very specific question you, asked about Syria.
For. A long time, multiple. Administration's 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, there the list from Democrats. And Republicans is. As. Long and like. Just. A close I share your view in each, case where it is where, where we can with 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. Share. At military, base in Syria the, administration, is not fully provided, in and. There is reportedly. A memo that, is laying. Out a description, of what the President, or the administration feels. Or the appropriate executive, powers would, you support, the release of the non classified. 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 so, I learned about this member I think you should I think you shared it with me I was unaware of that I promise, I'll work alongside you to do the best I can to get you that information and if it's a classified, version of it that, you you have a right as a member of the legislative branch to see I'll work to get you that and if it's an unclassified version we'll, work to achieve that as well excellent thank you Thank You mr. chair thank you before turning to senator young so. Then, specifically. A. Surgical. Strike. Against. Let's just use the last one that occurred with 59 Tomahawk missiles. Do, you do you believe that does require an, authorization. From Congress. Senator. Multiple. Administration's have taken those kinds of activities under the president's authority yeah, so, I. Was. Ranking member when our Chairman and I on the committee. Wrote. An authorization, for the use of force against Syria that unfortunately. Was. Not used, and has changed the course of history unfortunately. And, displaced. Millions, of people and hundreds, of thousands, of people are dead. And. Not to say that that would have necessarily prevented. All of that but certainly would have changed the trajectory, significantly. I. Agree. With you and I've shared that with the president, just in the last very. Short period of time that I do not believe that should, he choose to take a surgical, strike against, Syria that. An authorization. From us is necessary, just based on a. Body, of evidence that we, and then, the things that have occurred in the past and I like, you, opposed. 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, I'm. My point of emphasis as I start here won't be on trying to identify some areas of principle, 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 based, on my time serving with you in the House of Representatives, you certainly, check those boxes, and we. Also, need a leader who's credible. Not. Just was with our own president, but with leaders, around the world and. You've, also checked that box so I. Want, to encourage you and I. 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 spend 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, in 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, so be, to be clear do you commit to ensure. That the Department of State provides, timely and responsive, answers to me in my office.
Senator. I as a CI Director adopted, the Leon Panetta. Which. Was more time more cups of coffee have-have, real. Interactions. Where. They agree or disagree with a particular member to do that and to provide the committee the documents, to which they're duly entitled as elected officials I promise to do that for it's refreshing, Thank You. Mr.. Director do you agree that the u.s. national security, or, our national security depends, in large measure on a vibrant, and growing economy I do, in, your prepared testimony you mentioned China systemic. Policies, of. Stealing. Our intellectual, property of, force 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. And key sectors, of our economy and, to. Sustain, the financial, wherewithal that. Is required, to. Defend our country and advance our values worldwide. Yes. Center I do I think those risks are real I think they're honest today and 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, when. Most. Directly, most directly on point is the the. Enormous. Amount of intellectual property that has left the hands sometimes taken, sometimes. Coerced, out of the hands of US companies the imagination. And creativity of the American workforce has delivered it and the, Chinese have have. Taken it away from us we have to develop a robust. Set of tools Sophia's, here domestic 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. Inform, strategic. Response to China's. Coercive. Illicit. And. Deceptive. Economic. And trade, practices. Is that correct that is correct senator, young why. 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 in 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 a 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 brought 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, we confront in. With. Russia Iran, North. Korea China, and, beyond. Do, you believe our nations need for effective. Diplomacy, will, decrease, in the, coming year to. Center. Seems unimaginable but, if I'm good enough. Right. If we I'm. Hopeful. That we can begin to take some. Of these challenges, away I was. Mindful I had all the former CIA directors in Herat nearly, all of them attended, and to. A person they'd been there some of them 20 and 25 years ago they said Mike the stack has only gotten longer we, haven't pulled one of these problems that's from the pile and we need to we need to do that we need to start to to solve some of these so. Your response so humorous actually, is. Something I'd like to shine, a light on because. The, previous, occupant, of the Secretary, of State position, once. Indicated, that part, of the rationale, behind. His. His. Funding, requests. 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, which. I would regard it as a risky, strategy to, assume that, you're highly effective, diplomacy, is. Is going to be a strong rationale, for funding, cuts, are, you, operating, under the premise that highly. Effective, diplomacy will, lead to. Lower. Funding, requests. In, the International, account without.
No. When, I said that I am optimistic I'm hopeful this is the path to which we're engaged but. I can't see anything in the 6 or 12 or 24, month time horizon, that would permit. Us to have any less demand for diplomatic, resource strikes me as responsible, thank you sir thank. You former, House Energy. Committee. Cohort. To the witness senator Markey okay thank you along. With. Senator. Gardner and many others, 50. Many. Many members so. Welcome, sir thank you I want to talk about the 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, the case for preventative. Military. Strikes. On North. Korea, are. There any conditions. Under. Which you would support preventive. Military. Strikes, against, North Korea as, Secretary. Of State. Senator. They thank. Thanks for question that that phrase, preventive, military strikes has, a long history lots. Of folks have have different views I want to be careful there's a there's a legal view there's a print there's preemption I want to stay away from the legal let me give you my 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 the negotiation. Might go. It's my full anticipation, that however that meeting goes there will be enormous diplomatic, work yet, remaining to your point we, have not yet exhausted our capacity, there I think there'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 the. 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. Matters who said that, we're never out of diplomatic, options. And. Let. Me get, your response to this because there. Are going to be some, who make, that recommendation that, we've tried, our diplomatic, and economic sanctions. And Kim, was absolutely, unresponsive, in. This meeting with the president let. Me remind, you that the Pentagon, has stated that quote 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, and as, you know projections. For a conventional, war on the peninsula, estimate. That between 30,000. And 300,000. US 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 I, suppose. I could hypothesize such, situation, so I'll answer your, question is could I imagine one yes yes senator I could, I I mean, I suppose it's possible that, we would get to the condition, where and I. Think I think there would be wide consensus, on this panel where, Kim. Jong-un was directly threatening and we had we had information about, his activities yes. I can I can imagine times when America would need to take a response to moved. Past diplomacy, yep well now. I would say to. You that. The consequences, of the, United States initiating. An attack against, North, Korea would be catastrophic, I agree. With if we had not been attacked if, we had not been attacked and that's what concerns. Me about John, Bolton and. And. I, think, the American people will want reassurances, you, know from you that. You. Would, not consider, such. Inaction. Because ultimately. He, already has nuclear, weapons and it, would be catastrophic almost. Immediately if, we decided to make a first strike against, him so, I I, don't feel comfortable with you not. Taking that off the table but. I'd like to move on to a 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 on, one two three agreements between the US and other countries must, include the gold standard, a commitment. To forego any uranium enrichment, or spent. Fuel reprocessing, to. Technologies. Critical, to the development of nuclear weapons. Do. You believe that any, agreement, that we negotiate, with Saudi Rabia should, in fact have. A, gold, standard. Senator. Yes one. Of my critiques, of the arrangement. We reached with Iran was. That was insulin, sufficiently, close to such. A standard. So. You support, the gold standard I do and, admit, and I and I well, I've not been part of the negotiation, senator I know that the State, Department and the Department of Energy are working towards achieving that right so you, would you oppose any, agreement. That was less than the gold standard, that is that that. Ultimately. Permitted, for uranium, enrichment of plutonium, reprocessing, technology. On the soil of, Saudi. Arabia senator, I can't I can't answer that for I can imagine that we got close but not quite to the, full definition of the gold I don't want to hypothesize yet but so the answer I guess is yes I can imagine such a scenario, well. 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. Of. Reprocessing. And uranium, enrichment equipment, how do you think they would respond senator this is precisely my concern with the Iran agreement. Right. So. That's, that's, the question I'm asking you what would be the response that we. Were providing, nuclear. Weapons, of. Material. To the. Saudi. Arabians yes senator I think they would take it into account and. Remember when we're talking about nuclear weapons we are most often talking about multiple components, we're talking about fissile material the, capacity, to weaponize and a delivery mechanism often, through missile systems today. Iran, has, the capacity to do right, pelant just, I'm just speaking to the the challenge that the Saudi Arabians, also, Cyprien, from our 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 permit. Them to obtain nuclear weapons making. Materials. In. Their, country, of the. The, juxtaposition. Of abandoning. Iran, deal while simultaneously giving. Their. Archrival Saudi Arabia a sweetheart, deal is. Going to lead, to a highly combustible. Condition. In the, Middle East that, is avoidable, if, we. Reinforce. The Iran deal ensure, that it's being complied with while, also maintaining a gold standard otherwise. What, the Saudi Arabia's are going to want is to be put on third base with a lead with. Nuclear, weapons construction. Materials and I think this administration will. Be making a terrible mistake if it negates, a deal that allows the Saudi Arabians, to do that. Thank. You mr. chairman Thank You senator Markey thank, you for turning senator isakson, night we have talked with secretary, Perry and I couldn't agree more that we need to stress a gold, standard at, the same time understand, that I mean when you have given Iran.
The. Right to enrich. Everybody. In the region is gonna want the right to enrich so, you've got your work cut out for you over the next in the next period of time and and it, is quite a. It's. Very difficult, to tell a an Arab nation, that they. Cannot when we said. That. The Shia can so, Senator, Isaac's. Thank. You mr. chairman, graduations. 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 department, to the State Department into. This administration, on the open skies agreements which. You may or may not be familiar with but if you aren't they're, essential, for the aviation industry and for our country in this administration and. The Bureau of Economic Development of the State Department have done a great job seeing. To the open skies is enforced, I hope you'll commit when you get the State Department you'll continue that help and enforcement. I will. Satur Isakson yes sir thank you very much, secondly. I think ambassador Haley is gone 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 have. Traveled there extensively, and, I think it's the continent of the 21st, century in many respects, for our country and for everybody, else China's, demonstrating, they think it's important, because they're dying they're spending a lot of in building a lot of buildings and things of that nature. Strategically. But the straits, of hormuz and me the locations, they haven't what's been going on in the Persian Gulf it's, a true Africa's, tremendously, powerful helpful. There, are a million and a half people there, 50, million 150. Million alone and, not in Nigeria. Lots. Of opportunity, economically, but it's important that we focus and help them build and develop and grow, are. You for me a Millennium, Challenge corporation. Yes. Senator I'm familiar with it it's at some level well, I'm a big fan, thing President Bush did a phenomenal job by establishing, that program is sort of a partnership. Economically. To help build infrastructure, in those countries in that develop. Board, governing. Boards of the Malayan challenge accounts, that held the African countries who received the investment. Responsible. For ending corruption having. Better worker laws in their, country and being, a partner with the United States to academically develop in their countries so I hope it has Secretary, of State when you have the chance you'll. Focus on Millennium Challenge account. Challenge. Corporation and, what they're doing because it's a great it's part of that soft power that. We have a capability to use to wind a lot of friends and influence a lot of enemies and the reason I use Ambassador. Haley is an example. We've, from time to time need a lot of money boats. In the UN. More. Friends we can make in countries like having. Kindness like Africa, the more votes we can influence to help us on big issues that we need in the United Nations so I I hope, you'll focus on Africa when you have the chance and realize, what the state of garment has done. Lastly. I want to this. Is kind of editorial statement. My. Experience. Of the State Department has been that it has 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 or an. Adjustment, and for, an attitude improvement, of pay department I think you afford the opportunity, to. Be that catalyst, of the department, to your, credit your. Critics. And your complimentary, or whatever that term should be at.
The State at the CIA give you high marks for bringing that agency back. In enthusiasm and, motivation and, admission and, I think your meetings with Mike that you referred to in your opening statement and your apprentice statement we're, exactly the seed for. Them because they all of a sudden employers 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 well 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 but as I understand, it the. Attitudes, of the statement are.