You, and i confirm to doing that posthaste. Ill go off line and have additional questions on cuba. Im concerned in a similar vein that we have just a skeletal staff there. The embassy, given the issues that occurred there. I think its an important time there. Were going to have a noncastro head of state for the first time later this month. If we could beef that staff up, it would be great as well. Thank you. Thank you. Senator udall. Thank you, senator, for your service and thank you, general pompeo. We appreciate having your family here and look forward to asking you questions. I want to follow up. Ive worked with senator flake quite a bit on cuba and follow up on the cuba issue. Cuba is about to choose its first leader who is not a castro, yet the u. S. Presence in the country has been reduced significantly. And as a result, other countries are filling this vacuum. Will you work to help improve ties with cuba, a relationship that benefits many states hoping to increase trade with the island . As you know, when i visited with you in my office, i talked about how many governors have gone to cuba and said, with their agricultural folks, and said, cuba has 11 million people. We want to sell Food Products to them, Agricultural Products to them. So will you work to improve ties with cuba . Senator, i recall joking with you about kansas wheat. The answer to your question is yes. Senator flake had asked about the amambassador, the diplomati presence there. I think everyone is aware of some of the concerns, and i assure you and ill assure senator flake as well. We will be consistent in ensuring we can keep these folks safe. We will build out a team there that will deliver american diplomacy to cuba in a way that represents the finest of america. Now, as you know, u. S. Internet companies, cuba has very, very little internet capacity. And this is one of the things, i think, really could open cuba up to the world. Do you believe the United States company should lead the effort to help bring the internet to cuba . Sir, that question sounds like there may be something buried there that im not aware of. There is. If i might now, come on. So at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, i would prefer to have the chance to talk to my experts at the state department and work my way through it. Okay. And there is nothing really tricked there. Ive worked with a number of the members of this committee and others outside the committee to try to push the effort to have the internet be a big part of what our first push in cuba. As you know very well, and we talked about this in my office, too, the state department and defense Department Work hand in glove on these crucial issues, and the job of the state department is to try to make sure we dont 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 dont get into another war. Are you committed to robust diplomacy as our Ranking Member senator menendez talked about and commit to doing everything you can to prevent future wars . Yes, sir. Thank you. Im 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 AtomicEnergy Agency and both israeli and u. S. Intelligence agencies, one of which you oversee. Yet you have said that, and i quote here, iran will have the freedom to build an arsenal of Nuclear Weapons at the end of the commitment, end quote. However, even when the joint comprehensive plan of action sunsets under the current deal, iran will still remain a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty and a party to the iaeas additional protocol. Iaea inspectors are not going anywhere, and if they did, the United States and the Global Community would have ample time to react to any breakout. In fact, the International Community, through the secretary general, spoke out as to the importance of the jcpoa very recently. In view of this position in light of your apparent support of u. S. Policy of regime change in iran, really the contrast there really upsets me. In 2014, you said you would have preferred military strikes to the jcpoa. And i quote here, this is your quote, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian Nuclear capacity. This is not an easy task, end quote. Are you for a strike . I dont think thats what i said. With respect to the quote you provided, i know a little bit more about what it would take today, but in terms of what i described as the capacity to achieve what i was speaking to that day, i think im still pretty close. But there is no doubt that this administrations policy and my view is that the solution to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, to finding ourselves in the same place we are in north korea in iran is through diplomacy. Do you have any evidence to dispute the iaea assessment that iran is in full compliance with the jcpoa . Senator, with the information ive been provided, i have no ive seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today. I think your question is, do you have any . The answer is no. I would just hope im very near to the end of my time here, but i would just hope that you understand that the International Community and the United States working together is what got us to the point where we are, and so i think it would be very unfortunate if were the one that pulls back and sets the stage for a very chaotic future. Thank you very much. On that note, do you have any sense that chancellor merkel and macrons visit here, that subject will be discussed . They will be here before may 12. I have not seen the agenda, but i would be shocked if it did not come up. So there is still the possibility of the three that matter coming together on a framework, and as we get closer to that time, maybe people will be a little more focused on that occurring. Senator, having had some interactions with my european counterparts, i am confident that issue will be discussed at some length. Its important to them, and i know theyll raise their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the United States in the coming days. Senator gardner. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director pompeo, congratulations to the nomination to your family and thank you for your services. This is a major task youre about to take part of and i appreciate your willingness to serve our country again. Thank you. Director pompeo and i had the opportunity to Work Together for a number of years. For senator markey. Were going to take another very, very quick break. Well resume our special coverage of this confirmation hearing in two minutes. Internet providers promise Business Owners a lot. Lets see who delivers more. Comcast business offers fast gigspeeds across our network. At t doesnt. We offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g Wireless Network backup. At t, no way. We offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. At t, not so much. We give you 75 mbps for 59. 95. Thats more speed than at ts comparable bundle, for less. Call today. Almost 800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. With liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. Hey oh, thats my robe. Is it . When you switch to liberty mutual, you could save 782 on auto and home insurance. And still get great coverage for you and your family. Call for a free quote today. You could save 782 when liberty stands with you. Liberty mutual insurance. Were continuing our special coverage on the secretary of state nominee mike pompeo answering questions from Corey Gardner on asia. Would you share with me some of the priorities you think should be in a comprehensive aid policy . So step one obviously is diplomacy, making sure there arent mistakes. We dont talk past each other. You talked about the trap. It depends on the two countries being able to talk on importance. I think diplomacy leads that effort. As i think we all would agree, absent a strong america, the rest of the things pale in comparison. We have to make sure we have robust growth. The capacity of the leverage to achieve diplomatic outcomes depend on that. We need to make sure america does the things it needs to do, so we have not just 2018, 19 and 20 but a longterm horizon of economic prosperity. I think you would agree as well a generational policy, so to speak, on asia in the pacific strategy is what we need, not just a fouryear professional term policy . Thats why what you describe is important, because when questions get asked about china, we can never forget they live in a complicated region with a widely bearing interest and a country that is intent to expand their capacity to have not only economic influence in those countries but using their pull in those economic countries. Well get into china more later or in the next round of questions, but its important to note even today china has announced military exercises in the taiwan straits. These are just a few challenges we have that have been lingering in the last couple years, but increasing in their importance today. Do you agree with secretary mattis that north korea is the most urgent Security Threat the United States faces . I do. This committee has led the efforts the past several years to increase maximum pressure on north korea and the kim jongun regime with passage of legislation policy, enhancement act and also working together to ensure maximum pressure is applied. Senator markey and i have introduced legislature known as the lead act to enhance diplomacy, which puts a trade embargo on pyongyang and its neighbors. Would an engagement policy mean a continued pursuit of third Party Entities and institutions who engage in significant trade with pyongyang . Yes. Will you commit to advance this lead act and others like it that make sanctions against these entities . Im not up on the details. The president has made clear the continuation of the Pressure Campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to ensure a successful diplomatic outcome in north korea. We have about a minute left here. Can you share with me the exact goals of the president ial senate between the United States and north korea . Yes, i believe i can. It is to develop an agreement with the north korean leadership such that the north korean leadership will step away from its efforts to hold america at risk with Nuclear Weapons. Completely and verifiably. To be clear, again, the only goal the United States has as it relates to north korea is the complete, verifiable, irreversible, denuclearization of north korea . I want to be careful about the word complete. North korea has one of the Largest MilitaryWeapon System of the world. We want to make sure we secure for the japanese as well. The goal remains, the complete, verifiable denuclearization . Thats correct. Senator kane. Thank you, mr. Chair. General pompeo, congratulations on this nomination. In the nuclear deal of 2014, you opposed the deal and you stated, quote, its up to 2,000 sorties to destroy the nuclear capacity. This is not an incomprehensible fact for the co lialition force. A number of people opposed the deal, but you thought proliferation might be easier than some folks were suggesting. Where did you get the notion that destroying Irans Nuclear capacity could be accomplished with 2,000 air sorties . It was based upon a number of things i had learned as a member of congress. Your military career and as a member of the House Intel Committee . Senator, yes, i think thats right. Im trying to remember the timing of the statement. I think i would have been serving on the Intelligence Committee at that point in time. At that time did you have any reluctance to share that assessment publicly . That seems like a pretty specific sort of an assessment, to say im confident of our capacity is one thing. To publicly discuss it would be 2,000 sorties to knock out the capacity is another thing. Did you have any other information at that time . No classified information was contained in that simple statement. Wouldnt that sort of specificity probably rely on a lot of classified information . Senator, 2,000 is a pretty big, round number. There was no effort here to make any specifics. It might have been a thousand, it might have been 3,000. There was no aim here to communicate it. You werent trying to be inaccurate in your statement . Absolutely not. I never try to do that. But if i might, and we may disagree about this, senator. I do think its important i absolutely think its important to provide diplomats with the opportunity to be successful. Countries that are adverse to us dont often exceed to our desires without a rationale to do so. Diplomats without any strength or capacity are just sitting there talking. I believe, i think we have a lot of capacity. I was just struck by this specificity. Would it be your norm to share that kind of information publicly and in such specific details . Im confident if i had done it multiple times, you would raise it with me here today. Did you assume iran might respond to an attack by the United States, or were you just assuming they would do nothing . Senator, i dont know in the context of that statement i was thinking about but you would agree with me the extent of force that the u. S. Would need to use to destroy Irans Nuclear capacity would depend pretty significantly on whether iran would fight to protect against its own soil . Absolutely. And you dont think it would be an inseizuurmountable task f our forces. Most of our forces in 2014 were sitting around a table trying to come up with a peaceful negotiation to end nuclear capacity. It sounds like you said the u. S. Would not propose a deal and the Coalition Partners would make a deal. Im curious what Coalition Partners youre thinking about in that statement. I wasnt thinking of any certain Coalition Partners in that statement. Vice president cheney said we would be liberators of an invasion. It would last, quote, five weeks or five months. It certainly wouldnt last any longer. We know the cost to the United States was 4400 soldiers dead, 500,000 iraqis dead, a price tag now topping 3 million, unprecedented turmoil in the region, and most of those specs were known at the time you made that statement in 2014. Let me say this. Im one of two senators who served on Foreign RelationsArmed Services committees. I represent a state thats deeply committed. I have a son in the military. I honor your military service, your entire public service. I think my mission on these two committees is sort of two things. Dramatically reduce the risk of unnecessary war, raise the probability that we decisively win any war we need to be in. I also firmly believe we shouldnt be in war without a vote of congress. Your actions as a house member suggested we probably see this somewhat as the same way. In 2011, i criticized president obama for putting us into military action with libya without a vote. You voted twice to oppose military action unless it was authorized by congress. In 2014, president obama came to this committee to ask for the military authority to strike syria. You supported that in the house. I supported it here in the senate. The committee supported it. Now, President Trump has ordered missile strikes fired at syria last year. He didnt 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 hes also aiming words directly at russia. As far as i know, syria has not declared war against the United States. Has Congress Given the president specific authority to wage war against syria . Senator, i think you and i actually do share similar bias for the executive and legislative branches both to be involved when such momentous decisions about war are undertaken. Now that im in the executive branch, my views on that have not changed. And you would agree with me that waging war requires both an objective and International Legal proposal . Yes, i would. I dont want to dodge your very specific question. You asked about syria. For a long time, multiple administrations have found that the president has authority to act and take certain actions without first coming to congress to seek approval. Whether it was kosovo the list from democrats and republicans is long. Just to close, i share your view. In each case where we can, america and our soldiers and sailors, airmen, marines are better off if we have the entirety of the government working together and have activity. For months ive been trying to make legal justification for last aprils strikes on the military base in syria. The administration has not fully provided it. And there is reportedly a memo that is laying out a description of what the president or the administration feels are the appropriate executive powers. Would you support the release of the nonclassified portion of that memo to congress so that we can see what the president thinks his powers are and engage in a productive dialogue about that . I learned about this memo. I think you shared it with me. I was unaware of that. I promise ill work alongside you to get that information. If its a classified versi