vibrantly and as aggressively as we can around the world in these dangerous times. with that, mr. president, i would urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and confirm mike pompeo as our next secretary of state. >> mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak on the pending nomination of mike pompeo to be secretary of state. as member of the foreign relations committee i proposed that nomination in committee and i will oppose it on the floor. i have said publicly that this wasn't an open and shut case for me. i frankly would submit i probably voted for more of the presidents nominees that come before the united states senate that many of my democratic colleagues. i do believe in substantial amount of deference the president of the choices that he makes to serve him and his administration and their been a

number of f applicants for cabit posts that i i supported, even though i have great misgivings about the policies that they were going to be articulating and that there were going to be carrying out. i also believe director pompeo when he talks about the morale crisis at the department of state and hiso sincere desire to try to remedy that and address it. there is a morale crisis at the department of state, after secretary tillerson waged an assault on diplomats tried to push out as many as he could for over a a year, changing work requirements to make it harder for people to live in very difficult places around the world, continuing a hiring freeze well past the point at which it was justified. there are ash lot of people serving this country in washington and abroad who need to be told that the work is valuable again. and i believe mike pompeo when

he talks about the need to try to engage in that morale building project. so i think our checkmarks on the side of the ledger that would argue for mike pompeo is confirmation, but i'm going to vote no because, , unfortunatel, i think there arete far more checkmarks on the other t side f the ledger and want to talk today about the issue of qualifications. because i don't argue with the fact that our choices as the united states senate when it comes to those that are picked for the cabin shouldn't reallyre be about policy differences. sometimes the policy differences will be so serious that members of the opposing party of the president may have to cast a no vote, but by and large i do think that we should be evaluating candidates based on qualifications. based on whether the views are at least between the 20-yard lines, within the mainstream

conversation about the portfolio of issues that they're going to undertake to oversee. and so i want to talk today about m my belief that director pompeo is not qualified to be our next secretary secretary o. i think that's the appropriate conversation for us to be having. i want to talk about that through the prism of three qualifications that i would argue any secretary of state has to meet. one is that secretary of state is going to be advising the president on matters of war and peace, on questions of military operations overseas. secretary of state has to behave in his heart, in her heart, in the constitution, in the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branch when it comes to warmaking. second, secretary of state has

to believe in the valley of diplomacy. the secretary of state is in the national security cabinet in order to represent diplomatic pathways out a very complicated vexing and dangerous problems around the globe. you need a secretary of state who truly believes that diplomacy can be a viable path out of very complicated problems. problems. and third, you need a secretaryy of state who was free of prejudice, or who is free of substantialit association with prejudice.ho this is our nation's chief diplomat who will be representing the united states all over the world cup is going to try to build bridges between our country and those countries with different cultures, different faiths, different backgrounds, different ways of viewing the world. and on these three test i just don't believe that director u pompeo measures up. let me talk about each one of them very briefly.

first, his belief in the separation of powers. if we are not standing up for article one powers, no one else will. the founding fathers were very clear that when they came to military engagement, outside of the united states, it would be the congress that has the ability to declare war. now admittedly, war is a much fuzzier concept today than it was when armies were marching against each other in open fields and neat commie heidi peace treaty? i will grant a distant declaration of war are harder today and it's different than it used to be. but i asked a series of questions of director pompeo at the hearing which did not leave me with any confidence that he understood that there stillre mt be some places in which only the

congress can declare hostilities. i don't believe the president has the abilityta to take mility action against the steering regime with an authorization of congress. and apparently there are members of the president's cabinet who believe the same thing, media reports suggest secretary mattis council the president to come to congress first before attacking the syrian regime. and so i queried director pompeo about this topic. i asked him whether there was any attack that a been launched against the united states from the regime -- kim regime and his answer is no. i then asked him what was the authorization that allowed the president to take this action. his answer was article to authority. which is kind of a blanket answer for anybody in an administration that doesn't have an answer. and i will submit that the obama

administration occasionally relied on article to authority as well. but i tried to give director pompeo a way out of that overly broad and to.ai i said could identify for me one limiting factor, oner limiting factor on this broad claim of article ii authority? he could not. he couldn't articulate one definable articulate restraint on article ii military authority before the foreign relations committee. and it speaks to what i think is a believe inside this administration that is now being buoyed by people like director pompeo and b john bolton that te president has virtual unlimited authority to begin military operations overseas. if you can attack the syrian regime without any authorization

from congress, then why couldn't the president launched a military attack against north korea without come to congress? and a way that john bolton has recommended in some of his writings before joining the administration.re and if the secretary of state is not prepared to argue that the constitution requires that authority, can't even articulate a single restraint on a seemingly limitless power under mr. control to launch attacks of these comp that he was making that? i think secretary of state has an understanding of the limits of executive power overseas. i don't think director pompeo has that belief, otherwise he wouldn't answer the questions that he was given in his confirmation hearing very carefully. second, i believe that a baseline qualificationon to be a secretary of state, to bema the nation's chief diplomat, is to believe in the fundamental power

of diplomacy. over and over again, primarily when he was a congressman emma director pompeoho showed us that he doesn't think much of american diplomatic power. he opposed the jcpoa which of course is a mainstream opinion within the republican party but he did so because he thought thatn military action would involve just a few thousand sorties, american planes flying over iran, bombing the country into submission. i think that's a a pretty naïv, uneducated viewed of how a war with iran would go down. but it demonstrates an enthusiasm for military options ahead of diplomatic options, the kind that may be better suited for the department of defense

than for the the department of state. he has further cheered on this president as he pulled out of the paris climate accords, as he is attacked other multilateral alliances that the united states has long been a part of. this is a candidate for secretary of state who has a long history of critiquing and criticizing diplomatic paths to very collocatedic problems. to solve complicated problems around the world. i want a cheerleader for diplomacy at the department of state. thee been missing that for last year and half with secretary tillerson. it doesn't seem where going to remedy that. i think a qualification to be secretary of state is to be a cheerleader for diplomacy. that has not been the reputation or the record of mike pompeo. lastly, i think you need to be free of prejudice ornt free of substantial association with prejudice.

and the reason for this qualification is self-evident. this is a member of the administration is going to be most often overseas meeting with leaders that come from very differentun backgrounds, that believe different things than americans do, that practice different religion than the majority of americans do. but have different traditions than a majority of americans do. and so you have to have a respect, right? you have to have a love for other people who come from different faiths and different traditions if you're going to take this job. and here maybe the blackest mark on director pompeo's record. because there is a vast network all across this country that engages in a kind of bigotry towards the muslim faith that is

completely un-american but is also deeply antithetical to american national security interests. because we really want to make this country safe, we have to be building constant, active bridges to muslim communities in the united states at your most of partners around the world. because when you trade in islamophobia, a fear of muslims, youre are adding bulletin board material to terrorist recruiters who want to write a story about how america is at war with the east, how america is at war with the islamic state. for much of his congressional career, mike pompeo was deeply intertwined with this network of anti-muslim organizations. there's a really interesting study that help some of you will take a look at that details this network of organizations.

they have fairly innocuous sounding names, like the american islamic forum for democracy, the middle east forum, the investigative project on terrorism, jihad watch, act for america, the center for security policy, the society of americans for national excellence. those sound like things that i might before, but if you really take a look at what they do, they preachea intolerance. they try to kill americans that all muslims are out to get them and that we are better off if we just shelter ourselves from people of the muslim faith. that makes us less safe. it morally weakens us as a and it's not? a bill that all are groups sprang up or begin to receive substantial funding after barack .obama became president of the united states. it wasn't coincidental that as donald trump was going on cable news casting doubt as to whether

the president of the train was really an american citizen or whether he was a secret kenyan citizen planted in the united states, that all of these organizations started to take root. and they gained legitimacy because american political leaders associate themselves with their cause. because they were able to lower members of congress like mike pompeo into their web. mike pompeo went on these radio shows that traded these conspiracy theories a about muslims turkey allowed for his name and his office to be associated with their causes. at one pointed he actually accepted an award from a group called act! for america which is arguably the largest anti-muslim group in america. they gave him an award saying that representative mike pompeo has been a steadfast ally of ours since the day he was

elected to congress. this is an organization that the anti-defamation league and the southern poverty law group classify as a hate group. their founder said quote, practicing muslims cannot be loyal citizens of the united states. let me say that again. the fount of the group they gave mike pompeo and award for being a steadfast ally of their cause said that practicing muslims cannot be loyal to the citizens and united states. these anti-muslim muslim groupsb became stronger, became our deeply intertwined into the mainstream because they had allies. like mike pompeo. and so it wasn't a coincidence when a presidential candidate stood up and said if you elect me i will ban on muslim some entering the united states, he wasn't laughed off the debate stage. he was left off the debate stage because this conspiracy of islamophobia had penetrated the mainstream because of its access

to people like the nominee to be the secretary of state. that is disqualifying to me. that is not about mike pompeo's views. it's not about my differences with the policies he is going to espouse as secretary ofs state. that speaks to his qualifications. and so this is one of the most important debates that we're going to have. and these are exceptional times for both of us, republicans and democrats, dede with an initiation that conducts its self very differently than others. but when it comes down to it i don't think that by casting a no vote i'm violating the traditions of this body, which have admittedly given deference to the president in some of these choices. for cabinet positions. i don't think that mike pompeo really understands the importance of the separation of powers between the congress and the executive when it comes to

warmaking. i don't think that this is a secretary of state who's going to walk in to a room when big decision been made on foreign-policy and argue the diplomacy portfolio. and by virtue of his long-standing association with groups that argued values antithetical to a diverse america, arguing that muslims have no place in this country, i don't think that he passes the test when it comes to a secretary of state who doesn't have an association with president that would disqualify him from being an effective advocate for us in parts of the world that practice face different than ours. so for those reason i'm going to be voting no on mike pompeo's nomination. while at the same time as i said at the outset i acknowledge that there are arguments for his nomination, and at the same time i will hope that my fears are --

i hope if he gets confirmation which it looks like he will from this body, is an advocate for diplomacy, that he understands the proper role of congress and that he represents all americans when he serves as overseas. i certainly hope that to be the case here i i hope that i am wg about my reservations but i will so cast a no vote when his nomination comes before the congress. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senate for massachusetts. >> mr. president, i stand before you to voice my deep concern over the nomination of mike pompeo to be our next secretary

of state. president trump has tweeted tsabout senate democrats, that t is quote come hard to believe obstructionists they vote against mike pompeo for state. others have accused democrats playing politics, pointing to pass secretary of state confirmation votes that have l faced less opposition in the foreign relations committee and on the senate floor. .. state nominees is misplaced. like all of my colleagues, i take my article 2 advise and consent responsibilities very seriously. so i would like to tell you why i oppose mr. pompeo's nomination to be secretary of state. my opposition my opposition is not about politics. it isn't really about policy either. while i disagree vehemently

with many of mr. pompeo's positions on issues such as human rights and climate change and the iran nuclear deal, these differences alone are not enough to disqualify him or any nominee for at that matter. fundamentally, my opposition to mr. pompeo's nomination is about whether he can credibly fulfill his duties as our nation's chief diplomate. can he effectively and faithfully advocate for american diplomacy at home and abroad? and in this regard, as one of my esteemed colleagues said while introducing mr. pompeo before the foreign relations committee, quote, your background does matter. so, here is what it is in mr. pompeo's past that concerns me. mr. pompeo was okay

characterizing an indian-american political opponent as quote, just another turban topper. we don't need in congress or any political office that deals with the u.s. constitution, christianity and the united states of america. with a viewpoint like that, how can he credibly represent the millions of indian-americans in the united states? equally important, how can the united states be viewed credibly by india's 1.3 billion people? the world's largest democracy, a critical american partner in promoting american values and ideals in asia in the face of a rising and ever more aggressive china. sadly, that display of intolerance wasn't mr. pompeo's only past offense.

mr. pompeo suggested homosexuality was a per version and mr. pompeo ever cleverly did not address when questioned by my colleague mr. booker and at the cia he canceled a pride month event which featured a discussion on the importance of diversity and appearance by the parents of matthew sheppard, a young man beaten, tortured and left to die in wyoming on account of his sexual orientation. how can the united states stand with the lbgtq people in chechnya who have been the victims of violence simply because of who they love if our nation's top diplomate with who they are. and it continues. following the patriots day marathon bombing mr. pompeo falsely alleged that muslim

leaders were complicit in failing to speak out. under my questioning at the confirmation hearing, he refused to apologize for these comments. why was i concerned? it happened in boston. why was i concerned? 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 has said he disagrees with the characterization of his comments, but there is nothing to characterize. he made these comments on the floor of the house of representatives. his comments disparaging muslim leaders a part of the public record. how can mr. pompeo effectively represent america to muslim leaders around the world who are just as interested as we are in preventing religiously

motivated violence? mr. pompeo now claims these statements were meant to demonstrate that tackling extremism requires those who have the most credible voices to take an unambiguous stance of violence. well, as the secretary of state, mr. pompeo would be considered our most diplomatic voice around the world. how could muslim nations ever feel respected when our top voices express inambiguous hate. mr. pompeo co-wrote an article on migrant that blames sweden's policy on political correctness. america must be a leader in finding path ways to protect syrians and afghanis and iraqis fleeing the desk of war. from seeking protection in

burma and the other countdown refugee crises roiling the globe and threatening our collective security, that is not political correctness, that is our moral responsibility. america is a nation built by immigrants and refugees, some 40% of fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants, are the children of immigrants, google, tesla, yahoo! intel, eastbound ebay all companies founded by immigrants. given the past statements could mr. pompeo represent the interests of a nation made up of and built by immigrants? i do not believe that he can. in the fight against violent extremism there is no more violent issue than arose with cooperative with other governments than the use of torture. mr. pompeo said he won't rule out bringing back the abhorrent

practice of waterboarding, a man who said that those who carried out such an action are not torturers, they are patriots, will not be able to credibly convey to governments with human rights abuses that these actions are reprehensible with any semblance of moral authority. today french president emmanuel macron addressed congress and urged us to rejoin the international community in the commitment to combatting climate change. he rightfully said there is no planet b. but mr. pompeo characterized the paris negotiations as an elitist effort to reduce the power of the u.s. economy when in fact it was almost a history effort by every country in the world to tackle a global challenge that will be an existential threat to every single person on the planet.

i believe in american ingenuity, american enterprise, american leadership. i believe america must lead the world in solutions to this generational challenge, but how can we expect mr. pompeo to lead the department of state in bringing greater peace, security and prosperity to the american people through international engagement if he does not believe in u.s. leadership? he does not bloef that the united states is necessary for solving global problems, especially global warming. mr. pompeo has too much to apologize for, too many statements to retract or explain, too many controversial positions to defend, and of most concern are mr. pompeo's past statements suggesting that he values military force over diplomacy, even when diplomacy is a real option. while negotiations with iran over its nuclear program were

underway, he argued that military strikes on iran were preferable to diplomacy and quote, it's under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iran and isn't insurmountable for coalition forces. he did not rule out a military solution in north korea, which would be disastrous for the 230,000 americans who live on the korean peninsula. there is no military solution to the north korean nuclear threat, only through sustained diplomacy and economic pressure and close coordination with our allies will we be able to negotiate peaceful denuclearization of north korea. america's top diplomate should embody the best of america's values and traditions, not

attack people's race, defend torture, promote division, ignore human rights, propose military force as the primary 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, yes, but the senate must advise and consent. no one wants to see the united states without a top diplomate, especially at such an important time in world affairs. but having a secretary of state who has so thoroughly disqualified himself from credibly doing the job is no better. yes, i see and respect the former soldier and member of congress, the strong intellect that graduated first in his west point class and edited the harvard law review, but i also see in here mr. pompeo's past comments, his more recent comments, and positions that

are more conveniently choosing to be disregarded by those who support him. but we cannot do that. so i advise president trump to choose a secretary of state who embodies the best of america's values and diplomatic traditions and communicates them to the rest of the world, and i do not consent to the nomination of mr. pompeo, who is not the person for this important task. thank you, mr. president. >> the senator from iowa. >> thank you, mr. president. in a time when we're facing serious international challenges mr. -- from meddling or north korean sabre rattling to increasingly assertive china, it seems to me

to be very essential that the president have a qualified secretary of state whom trusts to be on the job. mike pompeo unquestionably understands the international challenges that we face and is more than capable of being a very effective secretary of state. when i talked to our allies, they're anxious to see him on the job. unfortunately some on the other side of the aisle are now claiming that he's not suited for the post of secretary of state because of all things like positions he took as a member of congress or his holding to traditional christian teachings, just as if a person's religion ought to have something to say about their being in public office or public service.

others have spoke been that and i don't have a whole lot more to add on that point. i would note the irony though that many of the senators who are most likely to vote against cabinet nominees are also rumored to have presidential ambitions. they should ask then, themselves if they truly want to live with the precedent that they're setting. you don't have to like the president personally or you don't have to support the president's policies, but as an american it is in all of our interests to have a fully functioning executive branch, especially when it comes to foreign policy. if a mainstream republican former member of congress is deemed unacceptable because of his beliefs, how should

mainstream republicans vote when faced with future nominees who do not share the beliefs that republicans hold? should republicans just willy nilly vote against any future nominee who does not share our political or religious views? now, that said, i would simply like to focus on other attributes of director pompeo that some have criticized, but which i see as an asset. by all accounts, this nominee's tenure at the cia has been a success. however, some senators who supported him then are now arguing that he should not be secretary of state because he is not diplomatic enough. first, let's dismiss the more

radical talking points about his being a war monger. the theory is that president trump is liable to start a war at any moment so that we need some force, somebody to force him, as president, to have cabinet officials surrounding him that will counter act his impulses. we could have a hypothetical debate whether if the american people elect a war mongerer as president he should be allowed to appoint a war monger cabinet. but suffice it to say that i don't think that that label applies to mike pompeo or donald trump. and i view such accusations as simply cheap partisan talking points. on the other hand, it is fair to say that mike pompeo doesn't always couch his words in

diplomatic niceties. he doesn't mince words about the threats that we face and his time at the cia has surely enhanced his strategic thinking, and that's good. that's exactly what we need at the state department. we need less diplomatic double-talk and more clear-eyed strategic thinking about all of our international threats. real diplomacy isn't always about sweet talk. sometimes it takes a firm stand and it should be part after strategic vision incorporates the elements of the state craft. for instance, i think we've 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 as exemplified by the obama-clinton reset. we know it didn't reset. if you know that russians, especially a kgb pedigree type is likely to see this as a sign of weakness, to be exploited. diplomatic overtures to the russians without a corresponding demonstration of streng strength, we're simply inviting further aggression and misbehavior. i think we're finally arriving at a bipartisan concensus that

russia is a very major geopolitical foe. mike pompeo has made clear that he has no doubts about this threat from russia. he understands the need to push back and push back hard against russia's attempt to dominate its neighbors and so sew discord in the rest. the threat from russia will need a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of state craft, including government to government diplomacy alongside military deterrents, intelligence, and counter intelligence, cyber security. public diplomacy, just to name a few, and there are a lot of others. and other area where some clear-eyed strategic thinking

is even more crucial is our approach to the people's republic of china. so, i just stated consider china as a bigger threat than russia. i just returned from a trip to china with several colleagues, beginning of this month. it was an eye opener. we hear a lot how china is embracing capitalism and becoming more and more like us. just don't believe it. the chinese communist party has modified its economic policy to allow for economic growth, but it still serves the interest of the state, not the interest of the people. it is not a free market. clearly because they admit their economic socialism or

their economic system is what they would call authortative capitalism, aka merchantilism. i visited with government officials at the national and local level, chinese and american businesses, and american diplomates. the chinese officials and the chinese businesses had their talking points down almost too well. however, the impression that i took away from the visit is that the chinese government will do anything legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical to get ahead of the united states and when they get ahead, to stay ahead. china coined the term peaceful rise to describe its drive to become a great power, which is

designed to sound very benign. in fact, china later changed this slogan peaceful rise to peaceful development, out of concern that the word rise sounds threatening. just to be clear, i'm not threatened by chinese economic growth. the development of a truly peaceful, free-market democracy, no matter how large, would not be threatening because democracies generally do not threaten each other and free enterprise is mutually beneficial. the fact that so many chinese people have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class is a good story for humanity. a very good news story. it's also good for the united

states. the more chinese people that can afford to buy our pork, our soy beans, our john deere tractors and our advanced manufacturing, the better for iowa and our national economy. free trade on a level playing field enriches both participan participants. unfortunately, however, china's not interested in a level playing field. it seems dominance, economically, militarily and politically. confucius said, quote, heaven does not have two suns, and the people do not have two kings, end of quote. by the same token, the chinese leadership does not think that there is room for two great powers on this earth. china seeks the advantage of

trade with the united states, but not mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the wto. despite having a middle class that is bigger than ours in the united states in absolute numbers, china still claims to need special preferences extended to developing countries. can you believe that? the second largest economy in the world still wants special preferences like we would do for some country that would be ranked one hundred in the standing of being a prosperous nation or not prosperous. and china erects nontariff barriers in ways that just very barely skirt triggering wto compliance and violation of the spirit of the level playing

field that the wto seeks to create. the chinese military is 60% larger than the u.s. military and its efforts to claim exclusive efforts over the south china sea in violation of international law by creating artificial islands reveals an expansionist impulse. and you can't hide those islands. and you know what it implies, just like i said, dominance. however, the threat from china is not mainly military. the influential ancient chinese military strategist focused on the role of deception over combat. he famously said, quote, to subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill,

end of quote. now, get this, the problem we face is that we are being treated like an enemy to be subdued without even those of us in the united states or maybe even not enough people in our government realizing what the chinese are up to. now, i say all of this not to be an alarmist, but to point out that china sees itself in a long-term, strategic struggle with the united states. we don't need to overreact to this fact, but we do need to be aware and we do need to apply some clear-eyed strategic thinking of our own. in that respect, mike pompeo's unique background seems perfectly aligned with the task

ahead to develop a strategic foreign policy towards china, incorporating all the elements of state craft. because i've mentioned aspects of chinese culture to illuminate the strategic thinking on 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 contraircontrary. it's not classic china that's the problem. it's the state system that's the problem. the political system. sometimes claim that chinese culture is not compatible with democracy, but that's hogwash. the proof to the contrary is

all the chinese people that live in the republic of china on taiwan. taiwan is a fully functioning prosperous democracy with the same chinese culture and tradition. this same democracy is what mainland china could have also if it is able to shed its one-party dictatorship and i hope that it will shed that some day. in the meantime, we need leaders in our government who see china clearly and have the ability to think strategically. mike pompeo seems to me to be just that kind of a person, so i am happy to support his confirmation as secretary of state. i yield the floor and i-- >> the absence of the floor. >> friday morning, we're in

salt lake city, utah for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. utah governor gary herbert will be our guest on the bus during washington journal starting 9:45 eastern. saturday, our live coverage of the 16th annual and happnapolis tour, chris mathews, bobby kennedy", and april "the presidency in black and white, four presidents and race in america", tech entrepreneur with the coming age of artificial intelligence. new agenda president and co-founder amy skiskins, with "the list, a week by week reckoning of trump's first year", and "raven rock", the secret plan for the u.s. government to save itself while

the rest of us die. watch the coverage of the annapolis book festival on c-span's book tv. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your satellite or cable provider. . >> the u.s. senate gavelling in, which is expected to be the last legislative day until may 7th. this'll finish up work on the nomination of mike pompeo to be secretary of state. votes at noon and take up the nomination of richard grinle to

be the u.s. ambassador for germany. nomination of ronny jackson, physician, withdrawing his nomination today and we may hear speeches of that on the floor. live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who made the light