tv U.S. Senate Sens. Murphy Markey Grassley on Mike Pomeo Nomination CSPAN April 26, 2018 3:39am-4:30am EDT
including the current minority leader. this would make the framework permanent allowed to expedite the process for the presidents well-qualified nominees. it would allow the senate to get to the other work the american people expect the senate to do. today and tomorrow we continue this process of waiting for the votes on the nominee to be secretary of state. prior to recent times it would've been right after the report was out. >> i come to the floor to speak on the pending nomination of mike pompeo to be secretary of state. i had a pose that nomination committee and i will oppose on the floor.
i said publicly that this is not an open and shut case for me. i probably voted for more of the president's nominees that come before the senate the many of my democratic colleagues. i believe in a substantial amount of deference and who he chooses to serve him and his administration. there's been a number of applicants for cabinet posts i supported even though had misgivings about the policies they're going to be articulati articulating. i also believe director pompeo when he talks about the morale crisis in his sincere desire to address that. there is a morale crisis after secretary tillerson waged an assault on diplomats trying to
push out as many as he could for over a year. making it harder for people to live in difficult places around the world. continuing a hiring freeze there's a lot of people in this country and abroad who need to be told their work is valuable. i think there are checkmarks that would argue for mike pompeo's confirmation. i will vote no. i think there's more checkmarks on the other side of the ledger. want to talk about qualifications. our choices as the senate when it comes to those pick for
cabinet should be about policy differences. sometimes though be so serious that members of the opposing party may have to cast a noble. by and large we should be evaluating candidates on their qualifications. and at least if there within reason. i want to talk about my belief that director pompeo is not qualified to be our next secretary of state. i want to talk about that through the prism of three qualifications that i arguably secretary of state has to meet. one is that if they're going to
advise the president on matters of war and peace to question some military operations overseas they has to believe in his heart, and her heart in the constitution the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch. second they have to believe in the value of diplomacy. here in the national security cabinet in order to represent difficult pathways around the world. they need to truly believe that diplomacy can be a viable path out. and you need to secretary of state was free of prejudice or
substantial association. sir nation's chief diplomat who will be representing the united states all over the world to build bridges between our countries and those with different cultures and different faiths and different ways of viewing the world. on these three tests i don't believe director pompeo measures up. first, the belief in the separation of powers. if we aren't standing up for article one powers no one else will. the founding fathers were clear that when it came to military engagement is the congress and only the congress that has the ability to declare war. admittedly or is so much fuzzier concept today than it was when
armies were marching against each other and tidy peace treaties. so i understand declarations of were harder today when enemies never go away. but i ask a series of questions of director pompeo at the hearing wish to leave me with confidence that he understood there still must be some places in which only the congress can declare hostility. i don't believe the president has the ability to take action against the syrian regime without the confirmation of congress. there's members of his own cabinet that believe the same thing. secretary mattis counseled him to come to congress for us. so i queried about it and i asked if there is any attack launched against the united states and he said no.
i asked if there is a threat of imminent attack and he said no. i then asked what was the authorization that allow the president to take action. his art his answer was article to authority. it's a blanket answer for anyone who doesn't have an answer. i will cement the obama administration occasionally relied on this as well. i tried to give him a way out. i said can you identify one limiting factor on this broad claim of article to authority. he could not. he couldn't articulate one definable restraint on article to military authority.
it speaks to what i believe is in the administration being booed that the president has unlimited authority to begin military operations overseas. why couldn't the president launch an attack against north korea without coming to congress in the way that john has recommended in some of his writings. if the secretary of state is not prepared to argue that it requires that that even a single restraint on a limitless power in article two and who is making that argument?
i think the secretary of state has to have limits. i don't think director pompeo has that belief otherwise he would answer the questions he was given differently. i believe a baseline qualification for us to believe the fundamental power of diplomacy. director pompeo showed us and he doesn't think much of american diplomatic power. he opposed the jcpoa but he did so because he thought military asked what involved a few thousand authorities i think
that's a naïve and uneducated view on how a war with iran would go down. demonstrates enthusiasm for military options ahead of diplomatic options. the kind that might be better suited for the department of defense is cheered on this president as he pulled out of the paris climate accord that the united states has been a part of. canada who has a long history of critiquing and criticizing diplomatic paths to complicated problems.
i wanted cheerleader for diplomacy. we've been missing that for the past year and half. i don't think were going to remedy that. i think you have to be a cheerleader for diplomacy and that has not been the reputation record of mike pompeo. i think you need to be free of present prejudice. the reason is self-evident. they're going to be meeting with leaders that come from backgrounds that believe different things than americans to practice different religions have different traditions. you have to have a respect and
love for other people who come from different faiths and traditions. here might be the black and smart. does the vast network across this country that engages in his llama phobia the hatred and bigotry towards the muslim faith that's on american if we really want to make this country so we have to be building constant bridges to muslim communities in the united states and our partners around the world. when you trade in fear of muslims you're adding bulletin board material to terrorist recruiters who want to read the story of how america is at war
with the east. for much of his congressional career mike pompeo was deeply intertwined with the network of anti- muslim organizations. there's a study i hope you take a look at the details us. names like the american islamic form the investigative projects and terrorism the center for security policy, society of americans for excellence. if you take a look at what they do they preach intolerance. they try to tell americans that all muslims are out to get them.
that makes us less safe. it's not coincidental that these groups sprang up or began to receive substantial funding after barack obama became president. it wasn't coincidental that is donald trump is going to cable news casting doubt whether he is really an american citizen to seek incidents implanted in the united states that these organizations took root. they are able to were members of congress like mike pompeo into their web. mike pompeo went on these radio shows that allow for his name
and office to be associated with their causes. at one point he accepted an award from a group which is the largest anti- muslim group in america. they gave him own reward saying he has been a steadfast ally of ours since the day he was elected to congress. this is the group they classify as a hate group. the founder said practicing muslims cannot be loyal citizens of the united states. the founder of the group they gave mike pompeo an award said practicing muslims cannot be loyal to the united states. they became stronger deeply intertwined because they had
allies it wasn't coincidence when it stood up and said i want to ban everyone from the debate stage. this conspiracy have penetrated the mainstream that's disqualifying to me. it's not about mike pompeo's views or policies that speaks to his qualifications. this is one of the most important debates we will have in their exceptional times for all of us.
when it comes down to it i don't think they casted and no photo violating the traditions of the body which have given deference to the president my pompeo really understands the importance of the separation of powers when it comes to warmaking. i don't think it's a secretary of state who argued the diplomacy portfolio. by virtue of his long-standing virtues that argued values i don't think he passes the test when it comes to a secretary of state that doesn't have it --
for those reasons i will vote no on mike pompeo's nomination. at the same time acknowledge there's arguments for's nomination. i will hope if he gets confirmation which it looks like he will that it's never kit for diplomacy and he understands the proper role of congress and he represents all americans when he serves us overseas. i hope i'm wrong about my reservations i yield the floor.
>> mr. president as with many of my colleagues here today i stand before you to voice my deep concern over the nomination of mike pompeo to be our next secretary of state. president trump tweeted about senate democrats that it's hard to believe obstructionist may vote against mike pompeo for secretary of state. other accuse them of playing politics. that if they lost -- but this influence that we simply should rubberstamp secretary of state nominees is misplaced.
like all my colleagues i take my article to responsibility seriously. i like to tell you why a oppose the nomination. my opposition is not about politics. it's not about policy either. while i disagree with many positions on issues such as human rights and climate change in the iran nuclear deal these are not enough to disqualify him any nominee. my opposition is that if he can credibly fulfill his duties as our nation's chief diplomat. and he effectively advocate for
these at home and abroad what a nice colleagues asked your background does matter. here's what it is in his past that concerns me. he was okay characterizing in indian american political opponent is just another turbine topper. we don't need that christianity in the united states of america. with a viewpoint like the how can he represent the millions of indian americans in the united states? how can the united states be viewed credibly by india's
1.3 billion people? the words largest democracy critical partner in promoting american values in asia in the face of never more aggressive china. that display was not his only past defense. he suggested homosexuality is perversion and he ever so cleverly did not address when questioned by my colleague senator booker. he also canceled a pride month even which featured a discussion on diversity and an appearance by the parents of matthew shepard who is beaten and left to die on account of his sexual orientation. how can we stand with the lgbtq people in chechnya were the
victims of violence simply because of who they love. if our top diplomat has disparaged to they are. differences continue. following the horrific bombing mr. pompeo falsely alleged that american muslim leaders are potentially complicit in violent acts for failure to speak out. he refused to apologize for these comments. why was i concerned? it happened in boston because the muslim leaders in boston had spoken out against that attack on our nation. on patriots' day. on marathon day in boston. mr. pompeo said he disagrees
with the characterization of his comments. there's nothing to characterize, he made these comments on the for the house of representatives. it's a part of the public record. how can he effectively represent america to muslim leaders around the world who are just as interested as we in preventing religious motivated violence. he claimed the statements were meant to demonstrate extremism requires the most credible voices to take them in stand against violence. he would be considered the most credible diplomatic voice from the world. how could muslim nations ever feel respected when his voice such tape. he cowrote an article on
migrants that blame sweden's radical immigration policy on political correctness. mayor, spill leader in finding pathways to protect syrians, iraqis fleeing the death and destruction of war. sheltering seeking shelter from oppression and burma in addressing the other refugee crisis will stop political correctness or moral responsibility. america is a nation built by immigrants and refugees. many companies founded by immigrants. giving these past statements
could he truly represent the interest of a nation made up of window by immigrants? i don't believe he can. in the fight against violent extremism there's no more divisive issue to effectively cooperate with other governments in the use of torture. are not torturers their patriots. they will not be able credibly to convey to governments with human rights abuses are reprehensible. today french president address congress.
there is no planet b. we need to tackle global challenge that could be a nexus a threat to every person on the planet. will also need american enterprise in america must lead the world in solutions to this challenge. how can we expect mr. pompeo to bring greater peace and security to the american people to national encasement if he doesn't believe in u.s. leadership? he doesn't believe the united states is necessary for solving global problems especially
global warming. he has too much to apologize for. too many statements to retract and of most concern are the past statements suggesting he values military force he argued that military strikes on iran were preferable to diplomacy. it's only to destroy the iranian nuclear -- just a few weeks ago he did not rule out a military solution in north korea.
there is no military solution to the north korean nuclear threat. only through sustained diplomacy and economic pressure will we be willing to negotiate the nuclear is asian and north korea. america's top diplomat should value -- not attack people's race promote division ignore human rights propose military force is a solution to our problems around the world or reject solutions to the climate change which is threatening our planet. the president can choose his own cabinet but the senate must advise and consent. no one wants to see the united states without a top diplomat. especially at newport in time.
having the secretary of state was disqualified himself is no better. i see in respect -- who graduated first in his class. see more recent comments that are more conveniently choosing to be disregarded. but we cannot do that. i advise president trump to choose a secretary of state who embodies the best of american values and communicates them to the rest of the world. i do not consent to the nomination of mr. pompeo who is not the person for this important task. thank you.
>> thank you mr. president. in a time when were facing serious international challenges from russian meddling or north korean saber rattling to an assertive china seems to be very essential that the president have a qualified secretary of state who he trusts to be on the job. like pompeo understands the international challenges we face is more than capable of being an effective secretary of state. when i talked to our allies are anxious to see him on the job. unfortunately some are claiming
he's not suited for the poster secretary of state because the positions he took as a member of congress or holding to christian teachings. just as if a person's religion not to have something to say about them being in public office. others have spoken about it. i don't have much more tab on that point. i note the irony that many senators most likely to vote against cabinet nominees will have ambitions. if they want to live with the president there -- you don't have to like the president personally support the
president's policies. it has an american with an over interest to have a fully functioning executive branch especially in foreign policy. if it's deemed unacceptable because of his beliefs how should mainstream republicans but with future nominees. should republicans just willy-nilly vote against a future nominees it doesn't share political or religious views? that said i would like to focus on other attributes of director pompeo and some have criticized for which i see as an asset.
by all accounts this nominees tenure at the cia has been a success. some senators who supported us in argued he should not be secretary of state because he's not diplomatic enough. the theory is that president trump is liable to start a war at any moment and somebody to force him to have cabinet officials surrounding him to counteract his impulses. we could have a hypothetical debate.
suffice it to say i don't think that label applies to mike pompeo or donald trump. i.e. such accusations persist cheap talking points. on the other hand it's fair to say that mike pompeo doesn't always catches words and diplomatic niceties. in his time at the cia has surely in hand strategic thinking. that's good. that's what we need at the state department. less diplomatic doubletalk and more clear strategic thinking about our international threats. real diplomacy is a noise about sweet talk.
sometimes it requires a firm stand to be effective should be part of a strategic vision that incorporates the elements. for instance, hope we have finally discarded once and for all all the diplomatic impulse to make unilateral concessions to president putin in hopes that president putin will be reciprocated. has exemplified. if you want political culture kgb and pedigree type.
not a sign of weakness to be exploited. diplomatic overtures were simply inviting further aggression and misbehavior. i think we're finally arriving at a bipartisan consensus that russia is a very major geopolitical foe. mike pompeo has made clear that he has no doubt about this threat from russia. . . sow discord in the west. a threat from russia will need a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of statecraft, including government-to-government
diplomacy alongside military deterrence, intelligence, and counterintelligence, cybersecurity, public diplomacy, just to maim a few. and -- just to name >> and there's a lot of others. another area were strategic area is more crucial is our approach people's republic of china. so i consider china a t bigger threat i just returned from a trip to china beginning of this month we hear china is bracing capitalist to become more and more like us.
we just don't believe it. the chinese communist party with economic policy to allow for economic growth but still serves the interests of the state clearly they had with economic socialism or economic system is what they would call authoritative capitalism. or mercantilism. and american diplomats. the chinese officials and chinese businesses and with that impression that i took away is the chinese government
to do anything legal or illegal moral or immoral or ethical or unethical to get ahead of the united states and when they do they stay there. into coin the term peaceful right in the great power which is designed to sound benign. and with the slogan peaceful ride that sounds threatening. so i'm not threatened by chinese economic growth with a peaceful free-market democracy
because democracies generally do not threaten each other. and they have been lifted out of poverty and for humanity is good news, story. it is also good for the united states. and the john deere tractors the better for iowa in the national economy. unfortunately china is not interested in the level playing field.
and confucius said heaven does not have two sons in the people do not have to king. and by the same token the chinese leadership does not think there is time for two great powers on this earth. you see the advantage of trade with united states but not mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the wto. despite having a middle class that is bigger than ours still claim to have special preferences extended to these countries. the second largest economy in ldthe world still once special preferences like we would do
for country that would be ranked 100 the standing. and with the nontariff barriers and to have wto compliance in violation of the spirit with the level playing field that it has seek to create. it is 60% larger -- larger. and in violation of international law by creating artificial islands reveals the expansion of impulse. you can't hide those islands and you know what it implies.. dominant.
that ancient chinese military strategists and then to subdue the enemy without fighting and now get this. the problem we face to be treated like an enemy to be subdued and none of people in the government realizing what the chinese are up to. i say this not to be enormous to seat himself with a long-term strategic struggle
but we do need to be aware with strategic thinking of her own. and in that respect mike pompeo unique background perfectly aligned with the task ahead to have a strategic foreign policy to incorporate all the elements because i've mentioned aspects of chinese culture that strategic in the part of the people's republic of china i don't want to give the impression that this is a clash of civilizations, quite to the contrary. it's not traditional chinese culture that is the problem it
is the young reconstructed nature of the system that the problem the political system. to sometimes claim the chinese culture is not compatible with democracy. improved to the contrary that all the chinese people that live in the republic of china or taiwan with a fully functioning prosperous democracy with the same chinese culture and what mainland china could have also if they could share the one-party dictatorship and i hope that it will someday but in the meantime those who see