tom cot on, but you wantwe want good with syria. we need to understand that the commission doesn't just give carte blanche to requests. do you believe the iraq war was justified? >> my opinion now is we have bad intelligence. i've been one of the few cia directors who have been willing to say we get it wrong. >> we did geopolitically the wrong thing. we got rid of an enemy of iran. we are still suffering the ramifications or.

your president says the iraq war was the single most difficult. he's plud in a way that i think his inclinations are at least. so i think he does have good instincts and my main concern is will you be one to listen to what the president actually wants instead of being sun who advocat advocates. i don't think it reflects the million or so people who voted for president trump because it would be different. so that's my main concern, and i just want to make sure that's loud and clear to everyone. that is my concern. >> thank you, senator paul. >> thank you, senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director.

good to see you. this is an extraordinary article, i believe, from late last year in "the new yorker" that speaks to china's rise coinciding with an american retreat from the globe. and i think we've all seen that as we traveled the world the presence the united states used to have simply isn't there and other countries are taking advantage. this article in part describes a regular meeting with the wto, and it quotes someone in attendance as saying, for two days of meetings there were no americans and the chinese were going into every session and chortling about how they were now the guarantors of the trading system. the article makes the case that trump is china's biggest strategic opportunity. i've seen this, we've all seen this at multilateral meetings that we used to see major u.s.

military presence. there is virtually no presence and other countries are taking advantage of that. what do you think about the scope of our presence at some of these rule-setting meetings and what are your plans for the future? >> senator, we need to be there. we need to be active. we need to come prepared to engage and work for america's interests in these multilateral discussions you describe -- i think this was for wto that was in this article. it sounds like we share that sentiment. i couldn't tell you why we don't work there. i don't know if it was the accident of people or the ak. in th in. you give the outset of this

president at the meeting march 22nd. the senator asked you about whether there was a discussion about steps you could take to try to frustrate the investigation. and you said that, i don't recall what the president asked me that day. is that your testimony, that you don't recall what he asked? >> yes, and i want to expressment i don't recaexpress. i don't recall if he asked anything that particular date. i know the meeting to which you're referring. i don't recall the specifics, and i have answered every question about that meeting and others. >> i ask the question because you answered two different ways. you said, i don't recall what he asked me that day, but then you also said, he has never asked me to do anything that i consider inappropriate or not consistent. >> because those are entirely consistent, senator. if he asked me.

>> senator coons asked you in an earlier round whether you agreed with the president's characterization of the mueller investigation as an attack on america, an attack for all we stand for. i don't understand why your precipitation of some of the elements of that investigation would render you unable to tell us you don't believe the investigation is an attack on america or an attack on all we stand for. i don't think it compromises any of the work the cia did or does in that veflgs. i think it's really -- i think it would be really troubling if you couldn't say here today that the mueller investigation is an attack on america. >> these are complex legal

issues that special counsel is involved in. i have done my best as cia director to separate each and every element of that. it is ail mine. >> i want to be on the far side of the line to make sure i -- with all due respect, this is about -- anyway -- >> by refusing to condemn attacks on the special counsel, really over-the-line attacks that aren't shared by republicans in congress, you e are. >> nor, i have worked diligently myself, and i have put demands on the team that works for me to go out of our way to make sure we were delivering for each of those three investigations.

we have and we've done so with aim to ensure that the special counsel and the house intelligence committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations. you should know we'll do that today, tomorrow, and if i'm confirmed with the state department, there as well. >> i want to come back to the authorization question in syria. you said you believe that the president has the authority to strike syrian forz. what statutory authorization. >> he certainly sdplz. >> senator, there are rings of law review articles written in response to that very question. it's a highly fact-based

analysis. there are scores of paternities throughout the cia, the fbi -- >> give me one learning factor. >> if you make a commitment that would be viewed as a classic commitment of war, then the classic agreement expires. you know my views. i think it was senator kaine who said that coming from the place that you do on the congressional side, i have deep respect for what it is you all are looking for. >> so normally an imminent factor would be a threat or attack on the united states? >> there is a definite definiti definition. >> the war power refers to an attack on the united states. there's been no attack on the united states from the syria

regime, correct? >> senator, that's correct. >> and there's no imminent threat of attack on the united states from the syria regime? >> i'm just trying to be very careful. yes, i think that's correct. >> i'm at the end of my time but i might want to follow up on this. i don't think we're to the bottom of this question yet. >> senator, i'm trying to -- you're asking me today to conduct complex legal analysis with legal conclusions, and so i know it's important, so i'm trying to do my vest. at the same time, i want to make sure i don't have some statement i made -- >> was there not an identifiable power, then we are in the all-out business of declaring war. >> if i could, i'll use another 30 seconds of my time. i think that even on this committee there is wide agreement over that. senator shaheen and myself, i saw public statements over the

last few days. both of us agree that the president has the ability to make certain strikes. president obama carried on for months activities against libya that i disagreed with on a policy basis, but he had that authority to do so. at least, he claimed he did. so look, i think this is a subject of debate, and i think it's creative of our wrns to not try to an loois the very details of this. i thank you for your conversation. thank you for your service to the nation. thanks for coming by and visiting with me, taking the time to discuss the critical issues of national security. >> we're going to take another very, very two-minute break. we'll be right back with our

special coverage. it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

natural gas pipe lines create risk to our allies and friends around the world, we will have reduced the risk to the united states of america and to those countries greatly, and so i look forward to being part of the discussion about nordstrom 2 in particular to make sure that there are alternatives there that are in the west's best interests and not in vladimir putin's best interests. >> turning to iran, they continue to be a threat to the united states, to israel, to the international community. iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. they're financing terrorist groups around the world and a lot of it has to do with the influx of cash iran received from the iran nuclear deal. they're continuing to support destabilizing groups in the

region. there are incredible amounts of evidence for that. i think the united states has to impose sanctions on iran for what they're doing, terrorism, creation of ballistics missiles. can you tell us what you plan to respond to iran's activities and missile development? >> senator, the president has laid out a strategy to fight back to those elements that you've described. maybe focus just on sanctions for a moment. there are still more arrows in the quiver. there is still more work to do there. the director is part of writing the intelligence so we can target it the right way. we know who it is and who is moving weapons around the world and who is engaged in maligning activity. we had a big teamworki iworking. we will continue to, and if i'm confirmed ilbe pa will be part .

the other element is also a diplomatic task. it is important when america places sanctions, it is really powerful when we get our partners to do it as well. americans can't trade in those places, and when we can share in that burden and clearly create global prohibitions on the entities we designate, we have the greatest likelihood of achieving the outcome we're looking for. >> can i turn briefly to north korea and the nuclear program there. last month president trump agreed to meet with the north korean leader, kim jong-un. the united states, i believe, should be engaged in talks if they're not just for the purpose of talking. i think we should only be engaged in credible opportunities to discuss the denuclearization of north korea. it's also important that you guys continue to pressure this regime, imposing sanctions, conducting joint military exercises, keeping the regime fully aware of the consequences of their actions. can you talk about if you

believe there is a scenario in which north korea would actually remove their nuclearization program? >> it is not optimistic. there is almost a talisman, not enough capacity for kim jong-un to make the decision to give up his nuclear weapons arsenal. i hope that talisman is wrong, and that's the effort we have been engaged in. your report about the sanctions, i think, is relevant, a chance to talk to a handful of the people involved in the framework, the leap day deal, the six-party talks. in each case, america and the world released their sanctions too quickly. that is, we didn't have the verifiable, irreversible deal that we hoped we had had, and in each case the north koreans walked away from that deal. it is the intention of the president and the administration to not do that this time, to make sure that before it's the

case, as we did with the jcpoa, that before we get the rewards, we get the outcome we hope to achieve. it is a tall order, but i'm hopeful president trump can achieve that through sound diplomacy both personally and through the offices of the united states state department. >> i appreciate your opening statement and your comments about your commitment to human rights around the world, because if we don't, who will. secretary of state, again, your commitment to promoting these important principles around the globe, i think, are key, so i appreciate your comments. >> thank you, sir. >> senator markley. >> thank you very much. earlier it was noted that the office was involved and you've taken the oath of office several times to defend the

constitution. recently president trump has talked about a domestic enemy, saying that the execution of a search warrant by the u.s. law enforcement authorities on michael cohen's office constitutes an attack, and i quote, an attack on our country in a true sense. do you agree with the president's evaluation that that is an attack on our country? >> senator, i have always believed that the rule of law matters. i continue to believe that. multiple times individuals have asked me to comment on statements that others have made, friends of mine have made, adversaries of mine have is made, those that are coming after me. today i want to talk about things that i believe deeply in the rule of law and will continue to do so. >> do you think that the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants to be executed in an orderly fashion to this? >> absolutely. >> thank you. turning to north korea, john bolton says it's perfectly

legitimate for the u.s. to respond to the current necessity posed by north korea's nuclear weapons by striking first. secretary of defense mattis had a different view saying war with north korea would be catastrophic. do you lean more toward john bolton's view or secretary of defense mattis' view? >> can i lean more closely to the president's view, which is to continue to pressure the campaign, to build a diplomatic coalition around the world to put pressure on kim jong-un such that we can achieve the united states' goals without ever having to put one of our young men or women in harm's way. >> does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct a first strike on north korea without authorization from congress? >> senator, again, i'm not going to comment on hypothetical situations or complex legal matters. >> well, you've done so before bark a while when the question was in regard to committing

resources in libya. you put out a statement regarding a letter to barack obama informing him the administration would be in violation of the war powers resolution unless either the authorization for congress is obtained or the military withdraws operations from libya by sunday, june 19. then you commented and you said specifically, the country -- that country -- libya, does not pose a threat to the united states nor do we have vital interests there. did you believe, as you said then, that there is a constitutional limitation on the ability of the president to conduct war without an authorization from congress? >> yes. >> thank you. in that context. not so long ago, there was a lot

of discussion that in regard to syria, if president obama put troops on the ground in syria without congressional authorization, it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. we had members of the senate, including members of our armed service committee, members of the house, and i just quote one of them representing walter jones said no president or democratic republican should have the authority to bypass the constitution or the will of the american people. and he said, if one of our troops goes to syria and is killed, i will introduce articles of impeachment. so at the time of that discussion, did you share the view that for president obama to put troops on the ground in syria would be a violation of the constitution? >> senator, i don't recall if i did or if i made a statement with respect to that at that time. i simply don't recall. >> but just to clarify, in the case of libya, you did see there was a line being crossed? >> yes, senator, i believed

that. >> the argument at that point was that under our nato mutual defense and the nato action, but you still thought that didn't give the foundation further action in libya? >> yes, senator, i believe what i think you described as a letter, not a statement. i believe what i said in that statement. >> it is an issue of great concern here on the boundaries, and certainly i think some of your earlier caution about presidents exceeding their constitutional authority is caution that we'd like to hear in your role as secretary of state. it's often the case when people make the journey down pennsylvania avenue, the war powers in the constitution granted to congress seem to be forgotten. will you not forget those constitutional dlelynn yagdelin

responsibilities? >> i promise you i will take consideration the same way i did that day in 2011, and if i am confirmed as secretary of state, i will continue to do that. >> john bolton noted that it is legitimate for the u.s. to respond to the current necessity of the u.s. program to strike first. do you agree with that? >> i'm sorry, might you repeat it? >> john bolton argued that it's legitimate for the u.s. to respond to north korea's nuclear weapons program by striking first. do you agree with that? >> again, i don't want to weigh into a hypothetical about what conditions it might be appropriate or not appropriate. we're a long ways from that. we're working diplomatically to get the right outcome in north korea. >> john bolton argued that cuba was developing biological weapons and it was appropriate for the united states to go to war against cuba. did you agree with him on that? >> senator, i'm not going to -- his words speak for themselves. >> they speak for him but he's not here.

i want to understand your opinion. >> i'm deeply aware of that. i'm sorry, might you ask -- is there a factual predicate there about cubans and weapons? >> did you agree with bolton's viewpoint that we should go to war with cuba? >> no, senator. i haven't at any time said i believe we should go to war with cuba. >> how about with regard his belief that hussain had hidden weapons of mass destruction and we should go to war with iraq? >> senator, i think i may not have expounded sufficiently. i've read the history. the intelligence community had that assessment and was incorrect about its assessment at that time. >> i'll just note the reason i'm asking you these questions is there is a lot of concern in america and a lot of people were paying attention to syria, and they're asking the fundamental question of are we making a war cabinet of mike pompeo and john

bolton in regards to military force and perhaps engaging in another poorly-thought-through mistake like our war on iraq that has resulted in a huge loss of american lives, a huge loss of american resources, enormous instability including iran developing an enormous track of influence from iran, through iraq, through syria, to lebanon and yemen. and people want to know whether or not your views are close enough to bolton's in his advocacy of force in virtually every situation that we are going to have a very dangerous arrangement on the key two advisers to the president of the united states. if the chair will indulge -- >> you've gone over your time. >> with all due respect, many people have gone significantly over their time and i'm just asking for one minute. >> since you're begging --

>> not begging. >> may i have you ask the question again. i apologize. >> you heard the question. just answer it. are you forming a war cabinet? >> senator, i've been part of this cabinet. i've watched it thoughtfully, deliberated about a lot of these things, and i can tell you every day at the forefront of our mind is how can we find solutions that avoid us -- that achieve the american objective but avoid us putting a single american in harm's way. you have my word that as secretary of state or if i continue as director that i have that in the forefront of my mind. >> director pompeo, thank you for your willingness to step up and serve again. i imagine it's hard to leave the cia after only 15 months gifrve your tenure there which was successful and you've developed a lot of close relationships. but you're taking on a new task,

and it's a different task. >> we have to take another two-minute break. we'll resume our coverage right after this.

senator rob portman of ohio questioning secretadirector mik pompeo. >> i think he was confirmed and that was one of the problems, but for whatever reason, tlhere is a moral problem. i'm not going to ask you to repeat what you said to me in private, but i'm encouraged. i've been listening as well today, but you did, in our meeting, talk about the respect you have for the foreign service and your belief that you can not just improve that morale but keep people motivated, make them feel important. there is a lot of talk about libya today and your views,

there is talk about syria today and what's going on in terms of the decision making. let me broaden this a little bit and ask about something our committee is struggling with now, which is this notion that we have the authorization for the use of military force that dates back to 2001 and 2002. it has not been updated. how do you feel about that? do you think we should update the amf? >> i do, senator. if i may elaborate, i actually was part of a team on the house side some years ago that worked with that on the white house. we were able to be somewhat successful. i do believe it is important that we achieve that, that we have a new set of leaders in the united states congress who also provide that authorization. i think the one that we have works, i think it provides the authorities that the president needs today, but i would welcome working alongside you to achieve -- i think you used the term a refreshed amf. >> i think it's very important. honestly, i don't think it's

inappropriate to say people have not been forthcoming to come to a decision here, because a number of us believe it ought to be flexible as to region, as to groups. we do believe the president has inherent authorities within the constitution as commander in chief that need to be respected, but that it's just not tenable to say we're relying on an amf that goes back to 2001. that was 17 years ago. so we would like to work with you on that. in our meeting we talked about how russia and other countries, china included, have pursued extensive distribution and propaganda campaigns. i think we're kind of missing out on that, both on the diplomatic front with the state department and on the military front. people call it the new hybrid threat. it's connecticut's military but also disinformation. other countries have is figurfi that out, and most of them like iran and russia and china and others are using north korea, using disinformation in a very

sophisticated way. it wasn't just about our election, which i believe the russians did meddle in our election, and i think it's well beyond that. by the way, it happened before, it's going to happen after unless we do something about it. these operations use a range of tools, cyber attacks, hacking, troll farms, going on social media. they fund useful think tanks, political organizations. senator murphy and i have done a lot of work on this and we have legislation that set up this global engagement center to really give the personnel the funding it needs to be able to push back. i'd like to know your views on that, and specifically do you agree with me on the severity of the threat that's posed by foreign government propaganda disinformation to u.s. interests and to our allies? >> yes, i do. i think it's a pure threat, one that's been underappreciated for years now. it has become cheaper, faster, less attributable to its power

has increased. the capacity for non-actors to use these tools in ways they just didn't have available to them 20 or 40 years ago. it also makes stopping it more difficult and require a more comprehensive effort. we've had a small role at the central intelligence agency of pushing back against it, and i know that there's been lots of talk about the global engagement center. in the event i am confirmed, i promise you i will put excellent foreign service officers, excellent civil service officers on the task of developing that capability and using it in a robust way. >> i'm encouraged to hear that, and as you know, we made some progress recently getting some funds there starting it up. will you commit to helping implement this in an aggressive way, including ensuring we have the right staff there to be able to pursue this critical mission? >> i will, senator portman. >> i just got back from ukraine and i see i have a minute and a laugh left based on what

everyone else had, so i'll take it. i just came back from ukraine, and as you and i talked about, ukraine, unfortunately, is ground zero for what's going on in regard to disinformation. but it's beyond that. i saw the military activities as well. do you support the continuation of providing defensive lethal weapons to othe ukranians so thy can defend themselves? >> yes, sir, i do. >> while your secretary of state would never recognize the decriminalization of crimea? >> yes, i will fight to make sure that doesn't happen. obviously it would be the president's decision, but yes, i think it would be completely inappropriate to do that. >> do you believe sanctions on russia imposed because of its aggression, ukraine should remain until russia implements the terms of the cease-fire agreement, halts its aggression? >> i do. >> thank you for your indulgence. >> we're beginning the second round now.

that will be five minutes. >> may we take five minutes? >> yes, sir, we'll reconvene at 1:40. >> thank you. >> three hours plus into this hearing. the first recess so far. they've got a lot more questions. all members of this committee, the senate foreign relations committee, so far 11 republicans, 10 democrats. they've asked their questions and now they're going into a second round following this brief, brief recess. lots to assess. lots of news coming from the secretary of state nominee mike pompeo on the robert mueller investigation, a possible syria attack, u.s. russian relations, the iran nuclear deal, north korea. let's start with what he had to say on robert mueller. jim sciutto, let me get your thoughts. he did confirm that he did appear before robert mueller's special counsel team and answer questions presumably on that meeting he had with the president? >> that's right. and then asked, though, in that meeting he had with the president in the oval office very early in the president's term, when it's been reported

the president asked if james comey can lay off, in effect, michael cohen, the investigation. his answer on that was -- he said, i don't recall, he said, and he said this a number of times, whether any request was made. but he also said the president never asked me to do anything remotely improper, i believe. now, those two sentences by definition are inconsistent. he doesn't recall, but he can assure us he was not asked to do anything improper. he was pressed by that on senator chris murphy just a short time ago, and he said, well, listen, if he had asked me to do something inappropriate, i would have remembered it. now, we know that senator dan coats, also a trump appointee, he has told colleagues that the president did ask him if comey would lay off michael flynn. this presents for pompeo two possibilities. either he does not remember the president asking the director of the fbi to lay off a national securities adviser who was under

federal investigation, he doesn't recall that, which you would have to say whether that passed the smell test, or he does not believe that was an inappropriate request to make. that's still a troubling answer to that question. >> and several of the democratic senators tried to get at him in various ways. you mentioned chris murphy. chris coons of delaware tried to get at it with his world view. he was doing things by the book as the fbi did was not american. he danced around that but he did say something interesting as part of his answer there, which was if the president ends up firing robert mueller, would he resign? and effectively his answer was no. >> he wouldn't resign because he's got a very important

mission as secretary of state to continue to achieve those goals. john, what did you think? >> to the point where he wouldn't even say it was an attack on america was an interesting answer. he did try to help himself, if you will, by saying, but the agency, the cia which he runs now, are getting constant requests to help with these investigations by the intelligence and to be as quick as you can and as cooperative as you can. people will look at this and the democrats will not be happy with those answers. republicans, some of whom -- i think most republicans would like him to come out and say robert mueller's investigation is not an attack on america. most republicans in the senate -- some, not all -- is looking for him to push back against the president's instincts to fire people or keep attacking the people or the institutions they work for. is it enough to change any of the votes up there? i suspect not. >> it's interesting that the secretary of state nominee confirmed that, yes, he was asked to appear before mueller's

investigators and he went and he answered their questions. >> yeah, and in some ways he was trying to use that conversation to essentially say, this is why i can't go into any details. he talked to mueller, he talked to people on the hill, too, but kept dancing around it essentially at every point. he said this is not something i can talk about, there's reinvestigations going on. obviously the mueller investigation, several investigations going on in congress, but you did see people try to press almost every democrat. menendez at first trying to tie it to, if you can't comment on how the president is framing this and framing russia, then how can you really be secretary of state and have a sort of global view on what the relationship with russia should be? that's what jean trahin tried to do. >> the idea, again, if you believe james comey, the president had asked him, can you back off michael flynn?

comey says no. then the president slooki ins l for help. can you go to jim comey, can you go to jim comey, how do i make this go away? is that the president trying to actively obstruct a federal investigation not only into michael flynn's conduct but the president's conduct. with the comey book coming out, all of these questions will be -- >> he chose the words "i don't recall" before he chose prepping for information in the handbook. >> if he had asked me something improper, then i would have remembered that. is it really so hard to say one word, "no," in response to words as extreme as "an attack on our country." is that really such a stretch if you're then going to go back and say, i am helping with that investigation. >> it's a stretch when it puts you at lager heads with the

president. there was a point where he was willing to compromise with the president. >> the president was united states was at least in part blaming the russia probe for the deterioration in u.s.-russia relations, and mike pompeo said flatly it was the russians' bad behavior that was responsible for that deterioration in the relationship. this committee has finished up its recess. the chairman is there once again asking members to speak out. but i think bob menendez -- let's listen in. >> without objection. >> director, i want to go back to my first line of questioning, and you know, for me, all of these hearings, whether it be about a witness on the subject or a nomination and certainly for a nomination the secretary of state, which is fourth in line to ac cesc eraccess ion is.

you said from the transcript, i'm not going to talk about conversations the president and i had. >> uh-huh. >> then when i pressed you further, you said you didn't recall. i don't recall what he asked me that day precisely. now, that seemed to be going from, i had a conversation, i know what the conversation was about, but i'm not going to talk about it, to that, i don't recall it now what was asked. and then you gave a blanket conversation that you've never been asked to do anything wrong. well -- or improper. well, if you don't want to talk about it, then you can't remember it, i don't know how you jump to that conclusion. it's concerning to me because we need a secretary of state who will be forthright with us and who will be forthcoming as well. let me ask you this. let me turn this picture up for you.

on april 4th, this picture was taken. can you tell me what's wrong with the photo? >> senator, you'll have to help me. >> okay. >> i've seen this picture before. or a similar picture. >> i would hope you can tell me what's wrong but i'll give it to you in the interests of time. what's wrong is the united states of america isn't there. what's wrong is that iran, russia and turkey, supposedly a nato ally, who is purchasing a system from russia in controversy of the mandatory sanctions this constitution passed in 1992 as law, turkey is supposed to be fighting the same kurds we have depended upon to defeat isis. these three leaders are engaged in the question of what to do about syria and the united states isn't even present. so what's the implications, for example, for our ally of the state of israel if the

russian-turkey-iran alliance isn't challenged on syria? >> i agree with your question. we need to have a robust set of questions to what you're discussing. they were there to discuss how they were going to carve up syria -- that's a rough statement of their mission. the american people need to be represent represented at that table so we can be part of the mission. what we're trying to accomplish in syria is difficult. it's incredibly complex, and turkey's entry took an already complex situation and put another twist in the cartwheel. so if you'll bear with me, we have the primary mission we've been engaged in to defeat isis. we did so using a group of men who did great work and we took the caliphate down. we ought to be proud of it. there is still work to do.

that mission is not yet complete. >> i need you to be precise, because the chairman, even though i asked for long periods of time for this questioning, secretary tillerson will be wrapping that gap. >> to talk about syria in two minutes is an enormous challenge. the other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome, so this is a diplomatic task so we get to a place where the syrian people can ultimately govern themselves, and our goal is to make that a post-assad syria one day. >> let me move to another part nearby in the world, iran. is it in the united states' national security interests to unilaterally withdraw from the iran agreement without a strategy for what comes next? >> senator, i am confident that whatever course the administration takes, we will have a strategy. >> so you're answering yes, it is in the national security interest to withdraw because you'll have a strategy? is that your answer? >> it is in the national

security interest that no matter which course we take on, we should develop a strategy to achieve the objectives that i think we all share to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons. >> if iran unilaterally withdraws from the jcpao in may, what would you be recommending in terms of the jcpao on iran? >> there is a policy discussion around all of these issues as to how this will proceed in the next 30 days and the days thereafter. the objective is very clear. the objective is to fix the shortcomings of the iran deal. that will be true on may 11, may 12, may 13 -- >> does that mean smacking back sanctions? >> i don't want to speculate on b what to do. you want me to put my faith in you, but i can't do that blindly. i want to have some sense of what you'll be advocating even if it's not what the president

decides. is it to put back sanctions? do the sanctions depend on whether the europeans will be in sync with us? if not and we put back sanctions, are they going to go along with us and say, we're going to tell our companies not to do it? if we don't put sanctions back, are we nothing but a toothless tiger? these are the critical questions that i'm looking to understand what you will advocate for. and it's not that you come as a candidate here who hasn't had dealings with this issue, because in a different context as the cia director, you have had dealings with this issue. that's what i'm trying to glean here and i'm not getting it. >> i have had dealings with it, senator, and i have, at the deep urging of the sissy have avoided answering those questions too much. it's hard to hypothesize what the conditions will be in may

and how close we may be in achieving the president's objective of diplomacy and speculating on how we might respond. it's difficult. i know that's what you're asking me to do and it's a hypothetical situation about which we still have a number of facts that are unavailable. >> well, i was asking you for a strategy, not goals, and i don't think that a strategy is one that invades the space that you presently occupy with the space you hope to occupy. and so it's just -- it would make it a lot easier when i have to vote on you to understand what you'll be advocating for. >> senator gardner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. joan pompeo, thank you for your testimony today. i think you've done a great job at challenging us and being very forward with your answers and i appreciate that today, and it will serve you well as secretary of state and i look forward to supporting you. there's been some news that was

made in the testimony earlier today by president trump. i think he has directed, according to news reports, ambassador heuser along with larry kudlow in re-engaging the national partnership. leading to this question on china, the national security strategy released in 2017 says china's influence in attempting to rope american security and prosperity, it has expanded its reaches of the state model, china suis using inducements an threats to get the states to uphold its agenda. we talked about the fact they are conducting or at least planning to conduct fire exercises in the straits of taiwan. can you talk about this, perhaps even including ttp,

>> can you talk about how that we can make sure we have a policy toward china? >> that news was news to me. i watched the administration. i supported tpp when i was a member of congress. there is an economic -- there is an economic component to what china is trying to do. we need to be engaged. it is a diplomatic component to the economic activity as well. we need to be deeply engaged there. and i'm confident this administration will do that. >> thank you, director pompeo. how many fighters right now from southeast area do you think are in syria today? >> how many -- >> how many islamic fighters from southeast asia are in syria? >> i don't recall the number. there are many. >> reporter: do we see them return to southeast asia as well? >> we have. >> how is our coordination in

terms of addressing, monitoring and combatting as they move back? >> without giving too much detail, it is better in some places than in others but much as we do with our european partners and partners in the middle east, we do our best to track these terrorists as they move around the world so we can together identify ways to prevent them from conducting their terror. >> do we know if any of them were involved in the incidents in mawrawi? >> do you agree with the policy provisions? at what level would you authorize the state department to visit taiwan? >> i'm familiar with the act and america's one china policy. i know american policy, i know

what's there. with respect to the level of appropriate authorities -- >> we're going to quickly break away from this confirmation hearing to go to the rose garden at the white house. the president is speaking out. >> they were unable to do it, not as soon as ronald reagan and we topped that one. but they called it tax reform. we discussed that, right? we discussed it. i said we have to call it not tax reform, nobody know what is that means. we can call it tax increase. we call it tax cuts and jobs. and guess what, we got it passed. >> i also want to recognize a great friend of mine and a man doing a fantastic job, vice president pence. mike, stand up. thank you. and members of my cabinet. they are working tirelessly. we have secretary mnuchin,

secretary costa. please, stand up. and all of the members of congress and senators, thank you and congressmen and women, thank you very much. most especially i want to thank all of the american workers in the audience, we have a lot of them who have traveled here from all over the country. they wanted to be with us. this event is dedicated to, the hard working americans who make our nation run. you love your country, you provide for your family, you're proud of everything you've done, you've got that great extra strength that other people don't have and you cherish a wonderful thing called our great american flag. >> and now because of our tax cuts, you can keep more of your

hard-earned money. larry kudlow's very happy about that sitting in the front row. right, larry? >> sure. >> good. he says yes. married couples won't pay a dime of income tax on their first $24,000 of income. a typical family of four earning $75,000 a year will see their tax bill slashed in half. nobody thought they'd ever see that. you lot more money to spend. and we didn't get one democratic vote. i have to say they want to increase your taxes. if they ever got into power, they said they want to increase your taxes and spend your money on things you don't want to know about. we doubled, more importantly, the child tax credit. they want so many other things

and people have wanted other things and frankly we fought very hard. we've taken care of our military for the first time in many, many years, $700 billion. we're going to have the strongest military that we've ever had. and can you think of a better time to have it, right? this is when we need it. we're going to have it. $700 billion and next year $716 billion. also in that bill, $6 billion for opioid and helping us out with that horrible, horrible problem. >> the fact is we don't care about the donors and special interests. we only care about you and your family and really making america great again. that's what we care about. that's why we're here. from the day i took the oath of

office, i've been fighting to drain the swamp and sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swam many ap and there are a lo unhappy people. every day, all you have to do is turn on the news. every time you see me hit, you know that i'm draining the swamp. and people don't like it. but we're also defending the american worker. we're making incredible trade deals, we're taking nafta, one of the worst deals ever made in the history of trade and we are redoing it and it will be a fair deal for the americans. we lost thousands of factories and millions of jobs because of nafta. thousands. think of it. thousands of factories. millions of jobs. we're turning it around. already chrysler's coming back with auto plants, many companies are now in michigan, ohio, different places, pennsylvania. they're building beautiful brand new auto plants. nobody thought they'd ever see

that happen. unemployment claims are at their lowest levels in nearly 50 years. think of that. 50 years. something i'm very proud about, unemployment rates for mihispans and african-americans have reached the lowest levels ever recorded. ever recorded. think of that. very proud. remember i used to say at rallies what do you have to lose? get what, what do you have to lose? you have the lowest levels ever recorded for african-americans, hispanics. i'm very, very happy about that. by the way, for women, the lowest levels in 19 years so we have really good numbers.

and something a lot of people didn't think was going to happen, wages are rising at the fastest pace in over a decade. we're cutting record numbers of regulations. we cut more regulations in a year and a quarter than any administrati administration, whether it's four years, eight years or in one case 16 years. should we go back to 16 years? congressman, can we have that extended? you know the last time i jokingly said that, the papers started saying he's got despotic tendencies. no, i'm not looking to do it. unless you want to do it, that's okay. we're also unleashing american energy and american energy independen independence. we're now an exporter of energy. we're doing -- think of this -- 10 million barrels a day.

nobody thought they'd see this. 10 million. in fact, it's going to now been 10 million. we're cracking down on unfair trade deals, securing our border, stop illegal immigration and restore the rule of law and we've passed the biggest tax cut and reform in american history. more than 5 million workers have already received a tax cut bonus, a pay raise or a new job thanks to these really massive tax cuts. millions more -- millions more are getting higher take-home pay. no one has been more energized by our tax cuts than american manufacturers. with us today is the president of the national association of

manufacturers, jay timmons. where's jay? stand up, jay. thank you, jay. for 20 years their organization has surveyed american manufacturers all over the country they survey. and it's a great organization. and they have never before seen the levels of optimism that our tax cuts have delivered. is that a correct statement, jay? it's dangerous to ask you that because if you say no, i have a problem. thank you, jay. it's true. so true. in fact, today there is even more good news and i wanted all of you to be the first to hear it. according to the latest survey by the national association of manufacturers, projected job growth for american manufacturing has just reached a new